|
|
|
Future Prison Bitches
Baby-Faced Anarchists admit to burning American flags that were attached to homes. Just look at these young "innocent" faces. Bubba is going to be so happy.
Interesting Question
Would Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the militant communist revolutionary, mass murderer, and dictator wannabe, approve of the capitalist market exploiting his name for profit?
So it begins. The Great SCOTUS Landgrab has come to Freeport, Texas, where the city is attempting to seize three properties based on Kelo v. New London. In all honesty, though, it took them longer than I expected. Freeport moves to seize 3 properties
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina
By THAYER EVANS
Chronicle Correspondent
FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.
Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.
"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.
Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.
"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."
Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.
Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.
The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.
Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.
Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.
He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.
"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."
Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.
That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.
City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.
In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.
The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.
Check out the newest multi-authored blog. This is a collaborative effort by myself and a few other concerned conservatives aho have had it with the systematic shredding of the US Constitution by the federal government.
QotD
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004. And this wench wants to be president?
New York Times supports Kelo v. New London
In an editorial in the New York Times, the paper acknowledged support for the controversial decision to strip homeowners of their property rights. First, let us take a look at the editorial, then let's take a look at the real reason the Times supports this decision. June 24, 2005
The Limits of Property Rights
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.
The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood.
The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell.
Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, sided with the city. The court noted that in past cases it had taken a broad view on this issue, and given governments wide discretion to determine when a taking of property meets this standard. New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.
That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs. How can anyone claim to be "for the people" and support this decision? Well, it seems that they have their reasons. And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.
“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”
But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.
Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.
Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.
“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
Thud. Thud. Thud.
That sound you hear is me banging my head against my desk. I gave into temptation tonight and went to see Batman Begins. In doing so, I missed an opportunity to go to an AMD conference and possibly see a pre-screening of Serenity.
Rant
It’s time for a pissed off rant. I’m annoyed today (more so than normal) for having to put up with a higher caliber of idiots than those to whom I’m accustomed. One of the many things that annoy me about many people is their belief that, you belong to a certain demographic, then you must think and believe a certain way. This is the most commonly used logical fallacy: the “either/or” fallacy. Those who use this fallacy the most often are those who are so inured into their beliefs that they are either unwilling or unable to accept the fact there are people with whom one may disagree for whatever reason. An example that is frequently heard is “You’re either a Conservative Christian or a Liberal Atheist.” This line of thought automatically assumes that you’re one or the other, without any possibility of any differing combinations, without any consideration towards the individuality of human nature. This line of thought leads to the dark depths of collectivism. Throughout history, collectivism has reared its ugly head and it has always led to great tragedy. Collectivist thought has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, communism/socialism, Islamic terrorism, and the United Nations. All of these can be construed as great periods of darkness and tragedy in our history. Yet, with all of this in our past and present, we still have not learned the folly of collectivist thinking. Many are guilty of it, no matter where they stand on the political scale. Conservatives and liberals alike fall prey to the trap of collectivism. When collectivist thinking becomes dominant, the rights – even the beliefs – of the individual are threatened. Without the individual, the collective cannot exist. And when collectivism threatens the individual, the collectivism puts its own self in jeopardy. The irony of this paradox would be amusing, if it weren’t so serious a matter. Time and again, history has proven the inherent evils of collectivism. Isn’t it time we learned our lesson?
Once again, the liberal wing of the SCOTUS proves that liberals "love" the "little people."
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Mass. Governor: get health insurance or be penalized
I shall file this under "No shit, Sherlock!"
Cell phones distract drivers. [sarcasm] I'm glad we live in a society that can spend millions of dollars researching the blatantly obvious. [/sarcasm]
Justice served 40 years late
Ex-Klansman found guilty of manslaughter in ’64 slayings
Verdict delivered 41 years after three civil rights workers disappeared
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:56 p.m. ET June 21, 2005
PHILADELPHIA, Miss. - An 80-year-old former Ku Klux Klansman was convicted of manslaughter Tuesday in the 1964 slayings of three civil rights workers — exactly 41 years after they disappeared.
The jury of nine whites and three blacks reached the verdict on their second day of deliberations, rejecting murder charges against Edgar Ray Killen.
Prosecutors had sought murder charges, but included the manslaughter charges just before the trial began.
Killen could get up to 20 years on each of the three counts of manslaughter.
Killen showed no emotion as the verdict was read. He was comforted by his wife as he said in his wheelchair. He was breathing through an oxygen tube. Heavily armed police a barrier outside a side door to the courthouse and jurors were loaded into two waiting vans and driven away.
The verdict was delivered 41 years to the date after James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were ambushed, beaten, and shot. Their bodies were found 44 days later.
Prosecutors had asked the jury to send a message to the rest of the world that Mississippi has changed and is committed to bringing to justice those who killed to preserve segregation in the 1960s.
They said the evidence was clear that Killen organized the attack on the three victims in the case that was dramatized in the movie "Mississippi Burning."
"Because the guilt of Edgar Ray Killen is so clear, there is only one question left," prosecutor Mark Duncan said in closing arguments. "Is a Neshoba County jury going to tell the rest of the world that we are not going to let Edgar Ray Killen get away with murder any more? Not one day more."
The 12 jurors deliberated Killen's fate for about two and a half hours Monday before going home without a verdict. At the end of the day, the judge polled jurors to determine how they were progressing, and the panel reported being deadlocked 6-6.
Defense: Reasonable doubt
In his closing argument, defense attorney James McIntyre said that while events that occurred in 1964 were horrible and he had sympathy for the families of the victims, "the burden of proof does not reflect any guilt whatsoever" on the part of Killen, who could get life in prison.
McIntyre acknowledged that Killen was once a Klan member, but added: "He's not charged with being a member of the Klan, he's charged with murder." He then pointed out that no witnesses could put Killen at the scene of the crime. Killen did not take the stand.
"If you vote your conscience you are voting not guilty," he said. "There is a reasonable doubt."
The prosecutor said that while there was no testimony putting the murder weapon in Killen's hands, the evidence showed he was a Klan organizer and had played a personal role in preparations the day of the murders.
"He was in the Klan and he was a leader," Attorney General Jim Hood said.
The trial has reopened one of the most notorious chapters of the civil rights era.
The victims were helping register black voters when they were ambushed by a gang of Klansmen. They were beaten and shot, and their bodies were found buried in an earthen dam.
Killen is only person ever brought up on murder charges in the case by the state of Mississippi.
Killen was tried in 1967 along with several others on federal charges of violating the victims' civil rights. The all-white jury deadlocked in Killen's case, but seven others were convicted. None served more than six years.
Records indicate Killen was organizer
FBI records and witnesses indicated Killen organized carloads of men who followed Chaney, a black man from Mississippi, and Schwerner and Goodman, white men from New York.
Their disappearance focused the nation's attention on the Jim Crow code of segregation in the South and helped spur passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hood noted that the men disappeared on June 21, 1964. He said families of the three men "have waited 41 years — tomorrow it'll be 41 years — to see this case put before a jury on murder charges."
"Those three boys and their families were robbed of all the things that Edgar Ray Killen has been able to enjoy for these last 40 years," Duncan said.
Perspectives on KKK
The defense rested earlier Monday after a former mayor testified that the Klan was a "peaceful organization."
Harlan Majure, who was mayor of this rural Mississippi town in the 1990s, said Killen was a good man and that the part-time preacher's Klan membership would not change his opinion.
Majure said the Klan "did a lot of good up here" and said he was not personally aware of the organization's bloody past.
"As far as I know it's a peaceful organization," Majure said. His comment was met with murmurs in the packed courtroom.
Why am I not surprised by this?
Rampant incompetence
Back in April, I experienced an outage of my internet service at home for a period of approximately three weeks. Time Warner claimed that I would be creditted for the time that I was down. Here we are, two billing periods later, and that credit has yet to appear on my account. I called TWC, and they claimed to have NO RECORD of me calling to report any outage. They did, however, have records of several technicians - on three separate ocassions - being dispatched to check out the lines in and around my apartment to fix the problem. When I asked the clueless person on the other end of the phone, since they have no record of me calling, if they routinely send out techs to the residences of random customers, all she could say was "uhhh....I don't know." Naturally, I asked to speak to her supervisor, and the supervisor was even more clueless than the person to whom I was originally speaking. It took some dancing around the issue, but I pursuaded the supervisor to see things my way. Of course, it took a threat to have the Texas PUC crawling up their asses with a microscope to do it....
Terri Schiavo autopsy
The autopsy results are here.
"Supporting" the troops
Michelle Malkin has the latest update on my favorite religious zealot.
Kansas Preacher Announces Plans To Protest Idaho Soldier's Funeral
(BOISE - AP) - The Kansas preacher who tried to erect an anti-gay monument in a Boise city park says he's coming to Idaho this week to picket the funeral of a fallen soldier.
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, says God killed Idaho National Guard Corporal Carrie French with an improvised explosive device. Phelps says God is retaliating against America for a bombing of his church six years ago.
French was a 19-year-old Caldwell High School graduate and varsity cheerleader. She was killed June 5 in Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk by an improvised explosive device.
French served as an ammunition specialist with the 116th Brigade Combat Team's 145th Support Battalion.
Phelps says there is no reason he is targeting French specifically. He says his church will protest any public funeral of soldiers killed in Iraq.
Caldwell Police Chief Bob Sobba said he can't bar Phelps from going to the public funeral. It's scheduled for Wednesday afternoon at the Albertson College of Idaho.
UpdateA poster known as Sgt B. in the comments section at Argghhh!!! seems to have the right idea: This is where the local veteran's organizations can step in and create a perimeter around the area "at the family's request", and simply be a silent wall (with the appropraite music blaring out to drown out any unwanted noise) to protect our fallen angel.
Blogroll Blegging
Once again, I'm giving a chance for my regular and semi-regular readers to recommend blogs to put on the blogroll. They can be Right, Left, or Militant Centerist, so long as they're interesting. Once again, the "sane and rational" clause is in effect. Also, any blog that gives me eyestrain from looking at it will not be considered.
The end?
The " Farce 'Trial of the Nanosecond Century" is finally over. Michael Jackson had been found "Not Guilty." Riiiiight. Just like OJ was "not guilty."
The Eternal Vigilance Society
Litmus test
People wonder why I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act. My answer to this is very simple: when examining a piece of legislation, I just ask myself the question "Do you want some collectivist authoritarian like Hillary Clinton enforcing this law?"
Paging Mr. Darwin!
I have to admit: I tried - I really tried - to be sympathetic about this, but I just couldn't do it.
Six-Year-Old Girl Killed Trying to Save Turtle
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A 6-year-old girl darted into traffic to save a turtle and was killed when she was hit by a car, officials said.
Emily Kent (search) was riding with her mother Sunday when they spotted the turtle trying to cross busy U.S. 41.
Geraldine Kent pulled over so they could help, and Emily jumped out as her mother screamed at her to wait, friends said. The first-grader was struck by a car and died of her injuries. No charges had been filed.
"I've had a lot of drivers swerve to avoid a raccoon or another animal and wreck their cars," said Sgt. Owen Keen (search) of the Florida Highway Patrol (search). "I've never had anyone go to help an animal and get run over."
Friends and family said Emily was an animal lover who would often try to catch turtles and snakes and never went far without her dog, Alexis.
Oops, part deux
Public Service Anouncement: When you write something like "Go Navy" on your uniforms, always pay attention to whom you are standing beside: 
"I'm Sorry...."
"For good and ill", the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.
I humbly offer my opinion here:
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.
I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.
I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."
I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.
I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society, like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.
I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.
I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."
I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving two jets into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!
I am sorry Michael Moore is an American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.
We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure , it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.
If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!
You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
Chuck Pitman
Lieutenant General
US Marine Corps (Retired)
Semper Fi
Oops
Someone at MSNBC goofed up. 
SCOTUS pisses on the 10th Amendment...again
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick PeopleBy GINA HOLLAND The Associated Press Monday, June 6, 2005; 10:31 AM WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California. In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities. Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
61 year ago today...
...the Allied forces invaded France and took the first steps on the road to Berlin. Let's take a moment to stop and consider the rammifications of that event, and to remember the more than 10,300 soldiers that died on D-Day.
Lord of the Pith
Check out Mister Priapus' new blog. Now. Or I'll be forced to roll my eyes at you.
Two assclowns for the price of one
Via Drudge.
Can Rev. Al be Limbaugh's air apparent?
Lowdown
Could there be any odder couple than Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton?
Not if I have anything to do with it.
Last week - after Matrix Media announced a deal for Sharpton to host a "Limbaugh of the Left"-type talk radio show - the conservative radio star said he'll think about mentoring the minister in the finer points of the medium.
Yesterday, Sharpton contacted me to say he's eager to accept the sort-of offer to (as Limbaugh put it on his own show Friday) "let [Sharpton] guest-host the program for, like, 30 minutes at a time while I am sitting here critiquing him."
Sharpton told me: "I was a little surprised, but I'm willing to take him up on his speculative offer. I think it would be interesting. It would be something that both of us can learn from. He can learn some of the thoughts of the left, and I can learn some of the techniques of the right. Let's see if he's serious."
Yesterday Limbaugh's producer, Kit Carson, assured me that he's in earnest.
"At this point, Rush is still undecided," Carson said. "He's very flattered that Rev. Sharpton is interested in doing this. Rush is still considering giving him some pointers, some tutoring.
"Rush also believes that Rev. Sharpton has the best shot of anyone to be the Limbaugh of the Left. He is also very impressed that he has the humility to admit he has something to learn. ... So we'll see."
For my part, I will do anything I can to make it happen.
|
|
Who Links Here
|
