Inane Ramblings

30 January 2006

Christians under attack...More on FEMA...one for the history buffs

No, not here, not by the left, not "as reported by Bill O'Reilly. It's in Iraq. A series of car bombs went off yesterday at a handful of Christian sites... Funny, when Saddam was in power, Muslims and Christians co-existed peacefully. Saddam's #2, Tarik Aziz, was even a practicing Christian. But we're winning, right?

BAGHDAD -- Car bombs exploded in quick succession yesterday near four Christian churches and the office of the Vatican envoy, killing three people and raising new concerns about sectarian tensions. At least 17 other people were killed in other violence around the country.

No group claimed responsibility for the bombings, which occurred within a half-hour near two churches in Baghdad and two in Kirkuk, 180 miles to the north. The fifth bomb exploded about 50 yards from the Vatican mission in the capital.

Suspicion fell on Islamic extremists such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who have been responsible for massive car bombings and suicide attacks against Iraqi Shi'ite civilians.

The US military announced the death of an American soldier in a roadside bomb blast in Baghdad on Saturday. At least 2,241 US military personnel have died since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.

The attacks on Christian sites occurred amid rising sectarian tensions, including reprisal killings and raids, that threaten to complicate efforts to form a broad-based government after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections.

''This was a reaction from the al-Zarqawi people against Christians who they believe support the US military in Iraq," senior Shi'ite lawmaker Ali al-Adeeb said. ''Such acts are rejected by Shi'ites and Sunnis alike who have been living together with our Christian brothers in Iraq throughout history." (Continued...)


Turning to our own woes, there's more news about FEMA's actions after hurricane Katrina...or lack thereof. We've all heard the stories about hundreds of trucks of material sitting in such far-flung places as the South Florida fairgrounds and even Gloucester....and the hundreds of airboats from the South that converged on New Orleans to help the rescue effort. Apparently, nobody told them what to do, and the National Guard, apparently under orders, prevented people from acting privately...

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of available trucks, boats, planes, and federal officers were unused in search and rescue efforts immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the New Orleans region last August because the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not give them missions, documents have reported.

Additionally, FEMA called off its search and rescue operations in Louisiana three days after the storm on Aug. 29 because of security issues, according to an internal FEMA e-mail message that was given to Senate investigators.

The documents, released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, show lapses in FEMA's response to Katrina.

The documents also report breakdowns in carrying out the National Response Plan, issued a year ago to coordinate response to disasters.

A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, which includes FEMA, did not dispute the documents.

Katrina ''pushed our capabilities and resources to the limit -- and then some," said a spokesman, Russ Knocke.

Responding to a questionnaire from investigators, an Interior Department assistant secretary, P. Lynn Scarlett, said her agency offered to supply FEMA with 300 dump trucks and other vehicles, 300 boats, 11 aircraft, and 400 law enforcement officers to help rescue efforts.

''Although the department possesses significant resources that could have improved initial and ongoing response, many of these resources were not effectively incorporated into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina," Scarlett wrote in the response, which was dated Nov. 7.

Scarlett's letter said that FEMA had asked US Fish and Wildlife Services to help with search and rescue efforts in New Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish, and in St. Tammany Parish but that the rescuers had ''never received task assignments." (Continued....)


Lastly this morning, there's word out of San Francisco that an archeological dig has unearthed a 19th century sailing ship with New England ties...
SAN FRANCISCO -- The skeleton of a ship unearthed at a construction site belongs to an early 19th-century merchant vessel that sailed out of New London, Conn., and limped through the Golden Gate after its last voyage, maritime archeologists concluded.

The three-masted Candace was built in Boston in 1818 and sailed the South Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans before it suffered ice damage while on a two-year whaling expedition in the Arctic.

Originally bound for home in New England, the leaking ship was retired in 1855 when the captain concluded it wouldn't make it past San Francisco, according to James Allan, the archeologist who helped identify the Candace.

The ship remained buried at the onetime site of a dismantling yard until crews found its timbers in September while digging foundations for a pair of high-rise condominiums in San Francisco.

While dozens of old ships abandoned after the 1849 Gold Rush live under the streets of San Francisco, the Candace was the first to be discovered mostly intact, Allan said. The San Francisco Museum and Historical Society hopes to install the hull at a new city history museum that is scheduled to open in two years.

''We consider it a coup," said Gil Castle, the society's executive director.

Allan and James Delgado, executive director of the Vancouver Maritime Museum in Canada, figured out that the buried ship was the Candace by consulting old San Francisco newspapers, ship logs, maritime museums, and the Center for Wood Anatomy Research run by the US Forest Service in Madison, Wis.

Built from three kinds of oak and two kinds of pine, the ship was relatively small, at 99 feet, 8 inches long and 26 feet wide.


So, there you have it. Do come and join us at Air America Place today....there's going to be voting on Alito later, and Kennedy and Kerry may try to filibuster. Should be an interesting day.

29 January 2006

Libertarian Sunday

Good Morning. Yesterday's blog at Air America Place was a retrospective on the Challenger Disaster....so your Libertarian Fix is here today! Let's get right into the warron terra....there's an interesting column by Paul Craig Roberts that illustrates what I've been saying for years. The vast majority of the American Electorate is dumber than a box full of hair.

Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media’s failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53 percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush’s performance as president. But a majority believe Bush’s policies have made the US more secure. (Continued...)


Ah, but there's more. After the recently broken scandal about the US kidnapping the wives and children of insurgents that they are trying to capture, and using them as lures, it's becoming increasingly difficult to support the troops.

Joel Stein is a mainstream columnist for the LA Times. He recently caused a stir when he uttered something almost unspeakable: he doesn’t support the troops. Well neither do I, and here’s why.

They’re Killers

The soldiers sent to Iraq are killers. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether those Iraqis need killing. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But I don’t want anybody killed, so I don’t support the troops. Don’t mistake me for some kind of pacifist. I’d probably be fine if our military was rounding up child molesters and shooting them, for example. But as long as the armed forces are killing women and children and so many unidentified men, I don’t want anything to do with them.

They’re Meddlesome

The soldiers were sent to Iraq to replace its government. I am no fan of any government, and Hussein’s dictatorship was an example of the worst kind. But getting rid of an Iraqi dictatorship just to replace it with a government that suits us is meddlesome. It’s the opposite of minding our own business. I suppose some folks are happy to have our soldiers dying in the streets of Baghdad so that the Iraqis can vote. But I don’t vote here in the USA, so why would I want to send my neighbors to die in the Middle East so that Arabs can vote? I wouldn’t and I don’t. (Continued...)


If you're like me, and have never put one of those ribbons on your car...there is an alternative. Carry a Big Sticker has these nice black ribbons., and one of my friends at Air America Place clued us in on these really neat "Question War" stickers. They'll look real nice right next to this sticker.

27 January 2006

King George to assert power...Dems to block Alito...Business as usual

Good Morning....well, it looks like GW is pretty pissed off at the world again, and wants to assert his powers as "president"...

WASHINGTON -- President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation in three political disputes, saying he is determined to assert presidential prerogatives on matters from domestic eavesdropping to congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina.

In a midmorning news conference, Bush told reporters he is skeptical of a proposed law imposing new oversight on his use of the National Security Agency to listen in on electronic communications. He also said that he will block White House aides from testifying about the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that he will not release official White House photos of himself with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff....

...The president was similarly adamant about not allowing top aides to testify about Hurricane Katrina. Bush, who has moved on several fronts over the past five years to strengthen the power of the presidency, said it would be damaging to him and future presidents if aides feared providing candid advice....

...On the issue of NSA eavesdropping on overseas communications to or from US citizens, Bush said he is concerned about Congress writing a new spying law because it could force the government to provide details and clues about a top-secret program used to hunt down terrorists.

''There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said. Democrats have accused Bush of breaking the law by authorizing the spying program without approval from Congress or the courts....


And so the Imperial Presidency continues to roll on and grow unchecked.

Or does it? My senators here in Massachusetts are calling for a filibuster of the vote to confirm Judge Alito. There's little hope that it will succeed though, thanks to such traitorous "democrats" as Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Ben Miller, Dianne Feinstein, etc., etc., etc.....

WASHINGTON -- Breaking ranks with Democratic leaders, Senators John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy yesterday vowed to lead a filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr., forcing their colleagues to decide whether to join a high-stakes -- but likely fruitless -- attempt to use Senate rules to block the judge's confirmation.

The move by the two Massachusetts Democrats intensifies pressure on other Democratic senators, who have been torn between appeasing their abortion-rights supporters and risking condemnation for attempting to block a vote on a judge with impressive credentials and majority support in the Senate.

''Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said. ''We can't afford to see the court's swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, replaced with a far-right ideologue like Samuel Alito."

The Alito nomination has turned into a nightmare for Democratic leaders, who have almost uniformly opposed Alito, but resisted taking the more radical -- and hotly disputed -- step of mounting a filibuster. Under Senate rules, 41 senators can tie up debate indefinitely, blocking a nomination.


Lastly today, there's a new poll out that shows a majority of Americans believe that bribery is the common way of life in Washington DC. I'd say to that: "Well, DUH!"

WASHINGTON -- Many Americans view the bribing of lawmakers by lobbyists in Washington as business as usual, and public disapproval of Congress is at a 10-year high, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed said bribes are ''the way things work in Congress," compared with 16 percent who said corruption is isolated, the poll found. Sixty-one percent said they disapprove of the job Congress is doing, up from 39 percent a year ago.

In the past three months, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt public officials in a continuing federal investigation and former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California, pleaded guilty to taking bribes to help a defense contractor.

While 36 percent of those surveyed blamed each party equally for corruption, 28 percent said Republicans were more likely to take a bribe and 13 percent said Democrats were more likely to be corrupt. Republicans have majority control of both chambers of Congress.

The poll also found dissatisfaction with the way President Bush is doing his job. Forty-two percent said they approve of the way he is doing his job, compared with 51 percent who said they disapprove. Bush's approval rating is up from 35 percent in October.

So, there you go. Some things to think about today. And if you're reading this from outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do take the time to call your representatives in Congress and urge them to support the filibuster!

25 January 2006

Children shooting children...No Patriot Sunset?...Federal Police

Good Morning!

We've got a very disturbing story in the news this morning from Maryland....about an 8 year old sneaking a gun into daycare and shooting a classmate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Maryland prosecutors have filed charges against an 8-year-old boy who shot and wounded a 7-year-old girl after threatening to rob her at a suburban day-care center, The Washington Post said on Wednesday.
The boy's father, "a felon with a lengthy record," was arrested and charged with leaving a firearm within reach of an unsupervised minor and other offenses after the Tuesday shooting, the Post said.

The third-grader had sneaked his father's .38-caliber revolver into the facility in his backpack on Tuesday, the paper said, quoting law-enforcement officials. He had been suspended in the past for bringing a weapon to school.

Police had initially said the boy accidentally shot the girl, a second-grade student, as a group of six children were attending a before-school program at the For Kids We Care day-care center in Germantown, Maryland, a Washington suburb.

But the Post said, "The sources said the boy threatened to rob the girl and then fired the gun once, striking her in the upper right arm."

The girl was reported in stable condition in a Washington hospital on Tuesday night, the paper said.

The boy "was charged as a juvenile with numerous counts that police declined to outline," it said. He was placed in the custody of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services.


Taking a look at Washington, it's becoming more and more apparent that the Patriot Act was indeed the "American Enabling Act". According to the AG, Congress gave the 'president' much wider powers to use against Al-Qaeda, above and beyond what Patriot did. It goes further to state that these powers do not expire, and that the whole debate about the Patriot act is "superfluous". So in essence, we are a dictatorship.

WASHINGTON -- A footnote in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's 42-page legal memo defending President Bush's domestic spying program appears to argue that the administration does not need Congress to extend the USA Patriot Act in order to keep using the law's investigative powers against terror suspects.

The memo states that Congress gave Bush the power to investigate terror suspects using whatever tactics he deemed necessary when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. When Congress later passed the Patriot Act, Bush already had the power to use enhanced surveillance techniques against Al Qaeda, according to the footnote.

Thus, legal specialists say, the administration is asserting that Bush would be able to keep using the powers outlined in the Patriot Act for Al Qaeda investigations, regardless of whether Congress reauthorizes the law.

''It turns out they didn't need the Patriot Act for dealing with Al Qaeda after all," said Martin Lederman, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton administration who now teaches law at Georgetown University.

Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor, and Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, also said the administration's footnote indicates that Bush would not need Congress to renew the Patriot Act to keep using its investigative powers in the war on terrorism.


Ah, but what's a police state without a good police force? Reading deeper into the "superfluous" Patriot act debate, it turns out that buried deep in the paperwork is the provision for a Federal Police Force. Which no doubt would be used to round up 'our enemies' in the dark of night. Funny, I have still-living relatives that went to war more than a half-century ago to put a stop to that sort of thing....
...Section 605 of the House version of the Patriot Act renewal legislation. It calls for the creation of a Federal Police Force. Your imperial presidency at work.

"A permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,'" empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence"...

..."or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."


In my current reading of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" the thing that has consistently amazed me is how uninterested and complacent the German people seemed to be during Hitler's long rise to power....and by the time he led them to war, too few people had seen the truth and it was far too late to do anything about it. There's still time, but every day we put up with this "administration" is another day closer to ruin.

23 January 2006

NeoCons to take over Canada...Pirates!...Kerry says no to Alito

Good Morning...

Well, you can cross Canada off your list of "safe" places to seek asylum after today. Looks like the Conservatives (re: Bush Allies) are about to be placed in power with a 'limited mandate'. Bush had one of those too, and look what it got us.

ST. ANDREW'S WEST, Ontario -- Among the regulars at Quinn's, an old stone tavern in this small town east of Ottawa, the decision was unanimous: Every man at the bar planned to support the Conservative Party in Canada's national election today, after years of voting for Liberals or not voting at all.

What they hoped to gain was simple: ''Change, hopefully for the better," Fern Guindon, 57, a semi-retired police dispatcher, said one afternoon last week. ''The Liberals have been in too long, and it's time to clean up the government."

An appetite for change has swept Canada this winter, bringing a surge in support for the country's Conservative Party. Heading into the final weekend of campaigning, the Conservative candidate for prime minister, Stephen Harper, was leading in some polls by 10 percentage points over the incumbent Liberal leader, Paul Martin. The Conservatives appeared poised to end 13 years of Liberal Party rule, a tenure marked by increasing economic prosperity but marred by a government kickback scandal and deteriorating relations with the United States.

Such a shift in attitudes would be striking in a country known for leaning left, where the government provides healthcare, and whose citizens applauded the decision by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien not to send troops to Iraq. The Conservatives have attracted voters with a platform that echoes priorities of Republicans in the United States: lower taxes, a beefed-up military, tougher sentences for drug crimes, and less federal government interference in local affairs. (Continued...)

Folks, I've spent an awful lot of time in the Maritimes....and they don't like the government any more than we do. (and this was under the liberals.) There was always an undercurrent of tension, and often idle talk about secession. Considering how disaffected us New Englanders are, maybe there's hope for my little fantasy nation of the "Federated States of Amerada" after all. (New England and the Maritime Provinces joining together.) Ah, one can dream!


And how about this little tidbit? Seems that two hundred years after defeating the Barbary Pirates ("To the shores of Tripoli....) the US Navy is still at it.

DUBAI -- US sailors boarded a suspected pirate ship in the Indian Ocean and detained 26 men for questioning, the Navy said yesterday. The 16 Indians and 10 Somali men were aboard a traditional dhow that was chased and seized Saturday by the US guided missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill, said Lieutenant Leslie Hull-Ryde of US Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain. The dhow stopped 54 miles off the coast of Somalia after the Churchill fired warning shots, the Navy said. US sailors boarded the ship and seized a cache of small arms. Sailors aboard the dhow told Navy investigators that pirates hijacked their vessel six days ago near Mogadishu and used it to stage attacks on merchant ships. The crew and passengers were being questioned aboard the Churchill yesterday to determine which were pirates and which were legitimate crew members, Hull-Ryde said. (AP)

I'm really glad we have that letter of Marque and Reprisal from Queen Stephanie Miller!


Lastly this morning, as we near the vote on Justice Alito, it's worth it to remember what the fight is about...who do you want making YOUR medical decisions....you, your doctor, or Congress? They're about to make that decision for millions of women in these United States.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Taking direct aim at Roe v. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion with the goal of forcing the US Supreme Court -- soon to include two new justices -- to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago yesterday.

The bill under consideration here would ban abortion except when continuing the pregnancy would put the woman's life or physical health in danger of ''substantial permanent impairment." Similar legislation is pending in Ohio, Georgia, and Tennessee.

The bills are in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's 1973 rulings establishing abortion as a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, asserted that doctors may consider ''all factors . . . relevant to the well-being of the patient," including emotional and psychological health.

In the years since, states have adopted a variety of laws designed to restrict access to abortion or require women to consider alternatives. Those efforts are expected to continue this year; many states are considering proposals to impose new licensing standards on abortion clinics or to require women seeking abortion first to view ultrasound images of their fetus and discuss with a counselor the pain a fetus might feel during the procedure.

More than 50 such bills were passed in 2005 -- twice as many as in 2004, according to the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Increasingly, lawmakers opposed to abortion are seeking bolder measures.

Republican Represenative Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing that it would conflict with Roe v. Wade. That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime. ''On an issue that's this personal, it should be decided as local as possible," Woodruff said. ''We either want these procedures, or we don't. . . . And I don't."

The debate is unfolding as the Senate prepares to vote this week on Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.

At least a dozen states have criminal laws banning abortion. They cannot be enforced as long as Roe v. Wade remains binding. In theory, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal....(Continued)



So, there you have it. Let's get busy.


22 January 2006

The war on dissent...Ron Paul on Alito..."Lost Liberty" Hotel

Good Morning....We'll start today by highlighting a crackdown on two dangerous subversives in Ohio. Their crime? Disagreeing with the president.

On New Year's Day, I decided to start 2006 out with a public protest against the war. Little did I know how public it would become.

My younger brother and I (he was only the wheelman, led astray) tagged three highway overpasses near Toledo with "TROOPS OUT NOW!" (see photo, below). Suburban cops with too much time on their hands and citizens with cell phones being what they were, we were soon pulled over by five (no kidding) patrol cars and arrested on no fewer than five felonies each. For those of you who haven't been paying attention to how state legislatures protect us from crime, in the late 90's in Ohio it became a felony to spraypaint a public building (called "getting tough on gangs") AND a felony to possess a can of spraypaint in the commission of that crime ("possession of criminal tools" says the Ohio Revised Code).

We spent that night in jail and the next day appeared, shackled together, before a judge who set bond at (this is all for real, pals) $3,000 each, no 10% business.

Earlier this week we went to one suburban court, plead to misdemeanors, and found out how much the Ohio Dept. of Transportation (ODOT) charges for the "preliminary" repair of each overpass (grey paint) – $600 – with the final repair bill due at our sentencing next month. Technically, that includes up to 90 days in jail. (Continued...)


Turning to our favorite Libertarian Congressman (Ron Paul, R-Texas), he's got a worrying point of view on our newest Supreme Court Justice.

Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial "laws" forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?

Also troubling was the apparent consensus among both the Senators and Judge Alito that Congress has no authority to limit federal court jurisdiction by forbidding it to hear certain types of cases. This is completely false: Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court.

We're being told two very troubling things:

First, Supreme Court decisions are the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.

Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle the Court later overturns itself. The people have no recourse through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.

The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.


But fortunately, some Supreme Court chickens are coming home to roost. The petition to sieze Justice Souter's property in New Hampshire via the eminent domain stature that he approved is gaining steam.

CONCORD, N.H. - Angered by a Supreme Court ruling that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the court's justices evicted from his own home.

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized to build an inn called the "Lost Liberty Hotel".

They submitted enough petition signatures — only 25 were needed — to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," Organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.

"All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."

Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known whether Souter will be home.

"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen to him."

Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's never tried to contact Souter, who voted for the decision.

"The justice doesn't have any comment about it," Kathy Arberg, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said about the protesters' cause.

The petition asks whether the town should take Souter's land for development as an inn; whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses; and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for taking his land.

The matter goes to voters on March 14.



So, come on by Air America Place and blather about it, or post me a reply here!

20 January 2006

The Front Page - something new!

Good Morning! Most of you know that I'm one of the moderators over at Air America Place. As such, I get to open the so-called 'Daily Blog' three days a week. After months of that, and subsequent neglect of my little blog here, I decided to simply replicate what I do at Air America.

This is something I call "The Front Page", a concept I have stolen from Air America's Rachel Maddow Show. Every other day, I'll try to feature two or three stories that are "lucky enough, plucky enough, and just plain good enough" to be on the front page. Could be politics, could be news, could be local interest....you never know. So, here we go!


We'll start locally....it seems our dear democratic legislature has voted to extend the nanny state.

The Massachusetts House narrowly approved a controversial bill yesterday to give police officers authority to pull over drivers for not wearing seat belts, a move that supporters say would prevent needless deaths and injuries on state roads every year.

The bill, which had stalled twice in the House on tie votes in the last five years, passed 77 to 74 over objections that it would lead to racial profiling and unwarranted government intrusion into people's decisions about their own safety.

It stands a good chance of becoming law; the Senate has backed similar bills twice in recent years, and Governor Mitt Romney signaled support for the measure yesterday.

Under current law, drivers and passengers are required to wear seat belts, but police cannot pull them over solely for failing to wear a seat belt. Officers must have another reason to pull over a car, such as speeding, and then may issue a $25 citation to the driver and passengers who are not wearing seat belts.

Seat belt requirements in Massachusetts have become a flashpoint in a 20-year debate about personal liberty and one's responsibility to society. The House's endorsement yesterday of the measure, called a ''primary seat belt" bill, is the latest chapter.

Lawmakers were lobbied to pass the bill by an umbrella group called the Seatbelts Are For Everyone Coalition, which includes several dozen health and public safety organizations and advocates. The coalition also includes insurers who would benefit from facing fewer expensive claims if injuries and deaths from car accidents were reduced.

Opponents of the law believe that drivers should be able to decide whether to wear a seat belt or not and that they have a right to drive unsafely if they wish. Continued...


Turning to the fantasy world of Washington, we hear that the "president" has declared the economy 'robust'....but not for anyone that I know. I guess 'robust' only counts for the richest 1% of Americans that have benefitted from Bush's policies. The rest of us are still running paycheck to paycheck, and getting further behind every week.

STERLING, Va. -- President Bush yesterday offered a preview of his State of the Union address later this month, telling an audience of business leaders that the US economy is ''robust," but that Congress should enact his economic proposals to make it even stronger.

'I'm going to go to Congress here pretty soon and call on them to put economic policy, energy policy, health policy in place that understands that this economy is strong, but we need to do the right things to keep it going -- with the centerpiece of our economic policy being the small business in America," Bush said.

Speaking before about 500 people at a warehouse at J&K Moving and Storage, Bush said he would ask Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, cap potential damages from lawsuits, expand individual health savings accounts, fund programs to find technological alternatives to foreign oil, and do more to expand the use of community colleges.

Many of the proposals echoed policies the administration has touted for some time, and were standard features of Bush's domestic issues stump speech during his 2004 reelection campaign.

In his speech yesterday, Bush repeatedly touted the strength of the nation's economy, saying jobs, manufacturing, productivity, and home ownership were all growing. He said the economy had overcome the 2001 terrorist attacks, war, and high energy prices because of his tax cuts.

''Things are going well . . . in the economy," Bush said. ''We added 4.6 million new jobs since April of 2003. What I'm telling you is the tax plan is working. . . . Things are going fine."

But Bush's speech drew immediate fire from Democrats. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Bush was ''out of touch with average Americans." Continued...


Finally, we'll turn to Red Sox Nation. Looks like Theo is Back!

Two-and-a-half months after Theo Epstein left the Red Sox, certain that his heart and soul were no longer fully invested in the job of general manager, the Sox last night announced that the 32-year-old Brookline native will be returning to the organization as soon as next week.

Epstein's exact role and title had not been completely determined as of last night. Nor had it been decided exactly how co-GMs Jed Hoyer and Ben Cherington would be recast. The club, in a release, indicated only that Epstein would be rejoining the Sox in a ''full-time baseball operations capacity, details of which will be announced next week." However, expectations within the organization point to Epstein returning as the lead decision-maker within baseball operations, with Hoyer and Cherington working under him.

Neither Hoyer nor Cherington would directly address the job description awaiting Epstein, and how they will be affected, but both spoke of maintaining continuity in Epstein's absence, suggesting they will work for him, rather than Epstein working for them.

''We're definitely a stronger organization with Theo a part of it," Hoyer said. ''Certainly, Ben and I, our goal all along was to add continuity and keep in place the structure we all built together."

Added Cherington: ''When Jed and I accepted these positions several weeks ago, we did so in most part to maintain a sense of continuity in baseball [operations]. Theo's return will be a significant step toward maintaining that continuity." Continued...


So, there you have it. If anything here has piqued your interest, do drop by Air America Place and join in the discussion...or post me a reply here!