Sunday, December 31, 2006
3,000th Soldier Dies
Today, we saw the 3,000th soldier die in Bush's war in terrorism. How many more will have to die before it is ended?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam joins an elite club of deposed despots
Last night, Saddam Hussein was hanged for crimes he committed in Iraq over 25 years ago. The sentence was quick and brutal. Saddam was marched to face the executioner much like deposed Romanian leader, Nicolae Ceausescu.
There are striking parallels between the fate of these men. They were arrested and tried before make-believe courts. Although, Ceausescu's fate was more intense, considering he was shot to death minutes after his death sentence was delivered. Both Saddam and Ceausescu were victims of a turbulent time soon after stark political change in their country. They were symbols of the past. Skeletons that no one could bear to look at anymore. They were kept on the wayside until it became convenient to push them completely aside. Basically, they were the last links to authentic authority, which jeopardized the rule of those in power for the day.
What does this say about these countries? It sends a very simple message. The fate of a former leader is best left to history. It is not the place of other maniacs to deliver their version of justice. Instead of justice being rendered, these leaders were punished in a vengeful, hateful way. There was so much made of Saddam getting his "red card." It was almost like a celebration of sorts. By giving Saddam his red card (a card which was given to people in Saddam's Iraq which told the person he was about to be executed), the current leaders of Iraq are the same as Saddam. They are unable to think outside the scope of vengeance and petty self-image.
Like Ceausescu, and his wife, we see Saddam approaching death in a defiant manner. Instead of being complacent, he spoke to those in the room by setting their views and version of history correct--from his point-of-view. Perhaps, he was not wrong in believing he was still the president of Iraq. He was, after all, deposed through a violent coup d'etat. We know the execution of Saddam was not truly civilized and objective. After he was executed, the executioner dances around the body like it is Mardi Gras.
Perhaps, the greatest lesson of dealing with a deposed despot came almost two hundred years ago. After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, as emperor of France, the English did not execute him. They sent him off to exile. He lived his final days on a small island, St. Helena, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He was not a martyr. He was not a point of order for the opposing side. Napoleon was simply a man who made a bad choice.
Napoleon was shown civility for his station in life. He may no longer have been the commander of the French army. He may no longer have been the sovereign of the French Empire, but he was given due respect for his past by those who defeated him. The English may not have agreed with his means, but they understood a person, who is a leader, cannot be executed for his deeds. The seat of power creates a vacuum that we cannot possibly appreciate.
Sure, what Saddam did was despicable by Western standards, but he wasn't dealing with Western sensibilities. As we can see from today's Iraq, the only thing insurgents and radical Islamists understand is violence and unspeakable cruelty. That is what Saddam gave them and that is why he ruled without daily violence in the streets and public dissent.
The bottom line: Saddam's death serves no purpose. It only served to feed the insatiable appetite of cruelty of those who opposed him. The cycle of death is renewed.
There are striking parallels between the fate of these men. They were arrested and tried before make-believe courts. Although, Ceausescu's fate was more intense, considering he was shot to death minutes after his death sentence was delivered. Both Saddam and Ceausescu were victims of a turbulent time soon after stark political change in their country. They were symbols of the past. Skeletons that no one could bear to look at anymore. They were kept on the wayside until it became convenient to push them completely aside. Basically, they were the last links to authentic authority, which jeopardized the rule of those in power for the day.
What does this say about these countries? It sends a very simple message. The fate of a former leader is best left to history. It is not the place of other maniacs to deliver their version of justice. Instead of justice being rendered, these leaders were punished in a vengeful, hateful way. There was so much made of Saddam getting his "red card." It was almost like a celebration of sorts. By giving Saddam his red card (a card which was given to people in Saddam's Iraq which told the person he was about to be executed), the current leaders of Iraq are the same as Saddam. They are unable to think outside the scope of vengeance and petty self-image.
Like Ceausescu, and his wife, we see Saddam approaching death in a defiant manner. Instead of being complacent, he spoke to those in the room by setting their views and version of history correct--from his point-of-view. Perhaps, he was not wrong in believing he was still the president of Iraq. He was, after all, deposed through a violent coup d'etat. We know the execution of Saddam was not truly civilized and objective. After he was executed, the executioner dances around the body like it is Mardi Gras.
Perhaps, the greatest lesson of dealing with a deposed despot came almost two hundred years ago. After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, as emperor of France, the English did not execute him. They sent him off to exile. He lived his final days on a small island, St. Helena, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He was not a martyr. He was not a point of order for the opposing side. Napoleon was simply a man who made a bad choice.
Napoleon was shown civility for his station in life. He may no longer have been the commander of the French army. He may no longer have been the sovereign of the French Empire, but he was given due respect for his past by those who defeated him. The English may not have agreed with his means, but they understood a person, who is a leader, cannot be executed for his deeds. The seat of power creates a vacuum that we cannot possibly appreciate.
Sure, what Saddam did was despicable by Western standards, but he wasn't dealing with Western sensibilities. As we can see from today's Iraq, the only thing insurgents and radical Islamists understand is violence and unspeakable cruelty. That is what Saddam gave them and that is why he ruled without daily violence in the streets and public dissent.
The bottom line: Saddam's death serves no purpose. It only served to feed the insatiable appetite of cruelty of those who opposed him. The cycle of death is renewed.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Dodge Nitro
I bought a new vehicle today. My first one since 2001! How sad, I know. I went to some of the dealers and found the one I like. It is a Dodge Nitro. I saw it and immediately fell in love with it. It is an SUV, and it is very "handsome." What I am trying to say is that it looks very modern and not something a seventy year old would be interested in purchasing.
Saddam Execution
When will it happen? I have a feeling it has already come and pass. They say he is still in custody of the US military, but I say that he hasn't been there in a while. Of course, they will lie about it and say they have no knowledge, but I'm sure it has come and gone. They already told his lawyers to come pick up this personal belongings! You usually reserve that until the person they belong to no longer needs them!
Common sense!
Common sense!
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
John Donne
(Published as written by John Donne)
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of they friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of they friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
President Ford's Legacy
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
/s/GERALD R. FORD
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
/s/GERALD R. FORD
Another State Funeral
After Gerald R. Ford's passing yesterday, it will be time for another state funeral in the US. Right?
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Saddam to Hang
The Iraqi appeals court upheld the original verdict and sentence of Saddam Hussein. The court ordered the sentence of death to be carried out within the next thirty days.
I guess there's not much there for Saddam.
I guess there's not much there for Saddam.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Iran Pickle
On this holiday weekend, the United Nations Security Council found it necessary to install sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, they were quick to say the sanctions and stipulations against Iran stop short at military enforcement by the membership of the Security Council.
Essentially, in the twenty-first century, diplomacy is dead. There was a time when statesmen (and women) met on key issues and hammered out methods of amicably solving their differences. The issue with Iran, and its nuclear ambitions, is the same as say Berlin in post-WWII Europe. Instead of creating the United Nations, and ostracizing the Soviet Union, the United States, and I dare say the West, made certain concessions on the exercise of their "spheres of influence" in Europe. Of course, the Soviet Union got eastern Europe to manipulate, while the nations of the West were left with western Europe. Crisis solved. There were no sanctions; only concessions; pragmatic diplomacy was alive and well then, or we might not be today. Was it a perfect solution? No way! But it kept the status quo alive and well, which made all parties involved winners.
Today, we have bully politics. It's all about "my way or I'll bust your nose." Who cares what you want or what your concerns are? I'm the United States, the United Nations Security Council, we say "fuck you, have a nice day!" Now, we have Iran saying the members of the UN Security Council are going to be sorry. How? I don't know. We hear about Zionists vendettas against the Muslim world, led by none other than the US and its kid brother, Israel. That's not how I see this issue; it's how Iran sees it--or at least how they portray it.
Here's how it would unfold if I were president of the United States. I would have sent my ambassador to the United Nations fanning the fires of discord and retaliation against Iran. Then, just as the Security Council was voting on the resolution to impose sanctions against Iran, the US ambassador would have cast the lone veto; thereby, killing the resolution and opening the doors of diplomacy wide. It's like an eleventh hour change of heart. It shows reason and reasonability on the part of America. Then, I'd have immediately invited the Iranian ambassador to the UN to the White House for some "face time." Then sitting in the Oval Office, on those couches in front of my desk, very casual, through the interpreter, I'd ask, "How can we make Iran's burden in the world easier?" Taken aback for a moment, I'm sure the ambassador could give me a list of unrealistic things his country needs in order to promote their position in the world. Maybe even nuclear energy. Why not? It's their list, not ours. Then with his country's list in hand, I'd give him what the United States needs. Not demands, more like concerns and desires; things that will surely change over the course of a few weeks. Standing, I'd extend my hand to the ambassador, and say, "Let's have our countries work out a framework for a high-level meeting in the next month to discuss the important issues we have outlined here today."
In a month or so, the US and Iran would hold a realistic meeting based on mutual respect in a non-threatening Muslim country such as Qatar, Bahrain, or United Arab Emirates. The whole process can be moderated by the United Nations to improve our odds of success and maintain an air of impartiality.
Both parties will not get what they want completely, but they will understand each other in a more constructive manner. The whole idea is to show both sides are pliable and open to realistic and open dialogue, as opposed to threats and bouts of paranoia. The bottom line is the whole process will take time.
That my friends is called diplomacy. Something that is quickly dying today! I think great presidents, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, would be proud of me. It's surely a lesson the next president of the United States, who will not be a Republican, can take under advisement.
Essentially, in the twenty-first century, diplomacy is dead. There was a time when statesmen (and women) met on key issues and hammered out methods of amicably solving their differences. The issue with Iran, and its nuclear ambitions, is the same as say Berlin in post-WWII Europe. Instead of creating the United Nations, and ostracizing the Soviet Union, the United States, and I dare say the West, made certain concessions on the exercise of their "spheres of influence" in Europe. Of course, the Soviet Union got eastern Europe to manipulate, while the nations of the West were left with western Europe. Crisis solved. There were no sanctions; only concessions; pragmatic diplomacy was alive and well then, or we might not be today. Was it a perfect solution? No way! But it kept the status quo alive and well, which made all parties involved winners.
Today, we have bully politics. It's all about "my way or I'll bust your nose." Who cares what you want or what your concerns are? I'm the United States, the United Nations Security Council, we say "fuck you, have a nice day!" Now, we have Iran saying the members of the UN Security Council are going to be sorry. How? I don't know. We hear about Zionists vendettas against the Muslim world, led by none other than the US and its kid brother, Israel. That's not how I see this issue; it's how Iran sees it--or at least how they portray it.
Here's how it would unfold if I were president of the United States. I would have sent my ambassador to the United Nations fanning the fires of discord and retaliation against Iran. Then, just as the Security Council was voting on the resolution to impose sanctions against Iran, the US ambassador would have cast the lone veto; thereby, killing the resolution and opening the doors of diplomacy wide. It's like an eleventh hour change of heart. It shows reason and reasonability on the part of America. Then, I'd have immediately invited the Iranian ambassador to the UN to the White House for some "face time." Then sitting in the Oval Office, on those couches in front of my desk, very casual, through the interpreter, I'd ask, "How can we make Iran's burden in the world easier?" Taken aback for a moment, I'm sure the ambassador could give me a list of unrealistic things his country needs in order to promote their position in the world. Maybe even nuclear energy. Why not? It's their list, not ours. Then with his country's list in hand, I'd give him what the United States needs. Not demands, more like concerns and desires; things that will surely change over the course of a few weeks. Standing, I'd extend my hand to the ambassador, and say, "Let's have our countries work out a framework for a high-level meeting in the next month to discuss the important issues we have outlined here today."
In a month or so, the US and Iran would hold a realistic meeting based on mutual respect in a non-threatening Muslim country such as Qatar, Bahrain, or United Arab Emirates. The whole process can be moderated by the United Nations to improve our odds of success and maintain an air of impartiality.
Both parties will not get what they want completely, but they will understand each other in a more constructive manner. The whole idea is to show both sides are pliable and open to realistic and open dialogue, as opposed to threats and bouts of paranoia. The bottom line is the whole process will take time.
That my friends is called diplomacy. Something that is quickly dying today! I think great presidents, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, would be proud of me. It's surely a lesson the next president of the United States, who will not be a Republican, can take under advisement.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Trump v. O'Donnell
Last night, I was watching CNN's Larry King Live, which is the normal for me to check out at 9pm; however, I was greatly amused, and then disgusted, by what I heard.
Firstly, it was funny because there was a lot of name calling. We had Donald Trump, on his private plane en route from New York to Florida, talking live to Larry via phone. Yes, I was drawn in by the initial absurdity of it all. Then I thought, this sounds like a tirade my students sometimes go on at school when they can't get along with another student. Instead of this person being 12, he is probably 60!
I learned that Rosie O'Donnell is a lying, immoral, cheating, no talent, whose only redeeming quality is her girlfriend. Then from the video clip of Rosie, we find out that Donald Trump is a blood sucking elitist, bankrupt, decadent scallywag, with a really bad comb-over as a wig, who apparently has no redeeming qualities, except maybe his ex-wives.
Trump says he is going to sue O'Donnell for slander. Of course, he did her no favors by calling her a slob, fat ass, disgusting, and untalented on national television either. I suspect a case like this would be dismissed as both parties being mutually liable for slander. In addition, I'd give them a piece of advise, "Grow the hell up!"
Case dismissed!
Firstly, it was funny because there was a lot of name calling. We had Donald Trump, on his private plane en route from New York to Florida, talking live to Larry via phone. Yes, I was drawn in by the initial absurdity of it all. Then I thought, this sounds like a tirade my students sometimes go on at school when they can't get along with another student. Instead of this person being 12, he is probably 60!
I learned that Rosie O'Donnell is a lying, immoral, cheating, no talent, whose only redeeming quality is her girlfriend. Then from the video clip of Rosie, we find out that Donald Trump is a blood sucking elitist, bankrupt, decadent scallywag, with a really bad comb-over as a wig, who apparently has no redeeming qualities, except maybe his ex-wives.
Trump says he is going to sue O'Donnell for slander. Of course, he did her no favors by calling her a slob, fat ass, disgusting, and untalented on national television either. I suspect a case like this would be dismissed as both parties being mutually liable for slander. In addition, I'd give them a piece of advise, "Grow the hell up!"
Case dismissed!
Black President?
Bush Bulldog Condi Rice seems to think the U.S. is ready for a black president. Perhaps, but that president is not going to be her. Sorry!
America is looking for anything that isn't connected to the Bush catastrophe of the past six years. Being Bush's top diplomatic lackey disqualifies her handily.
Maybe in your next life, Condi.
America is looking for anything that isn't connected to the Bush catastrophe of the past six years. Being Bush's top diplomatic lackey disqualifies her handily.
Maybe in your next life, Condi.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Miss USA Flack
Who cares about Miss USA? I certainly don't. It is a pageant of brainless twits, who are then expected to be "moral" beacons for the rest of us. I find it apprehensive they would even consider themselves as being moral.
Now that the Donald has given Miss USA a second chance, we have some flack from MADD and Rosie O'Donnell over the fact Miss USA (and Miss Teen USA) were engaged in underage drinking. I find it ambiguous that anyone remembers who is Miss America, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, or Miss USA, after the gaudy television display has come to an end. Perhaps, if Miss USA were moral, then she would have voluntarily resigned her seemingly coveted position. I am sure the runner-up is waiting in the wings waiting to be crowned!
Now that the Donald has given Miss USA a second chance, we have some flack from MADD and Rosie O'Donnell over the fact Miss USA (and Miss Teen USA) were engaged in underage drinking. I find it ambiguous that anyone remembers who is Miss America, Miss Universe, Miss Teen USA, or Miss USA, after the gaudy television display has come to an end. Perhaps, if Miss USA were moral, then she would have voluntarily resigned her seemingly coveted position. I am sure the runner-up is waiting in the wings waiting to be crowned!
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
2008
Check out this timeline
1953-1961: Richard Nixon is vice president of the United States
1960: Richard Nixon runs against Senator John F. Kennedy for president
1968: President Lyndon B. Johnson decides not to run for re-election
1968: Richard Nixon runs for the presidency again and wins
1969-1974: Richard Nixon is president of the United States
1993-2001: Al Gore is vice president of the United States
2000: Al Gore runs against Governor George W. Bush for president (and wins)
2000: United States Supreme Court declares George W. Bush president
2001-2009: George W. Bush is president of the United States
2009: Al Gore becomes president of the United States; and Hillary Clinton is vice president
Interesting!
Let's Wait until 2008
Some military pundits say George Bush is looking to expand the military presence in Iraq for one single reason, to deal with Syria. The United States cannot afford to expand the breadth of this war. America's failed policy Iraq is already sucking out billions-of-dollars from our treasury and sending thousands home in body bags. It will continue, no doubt.
The new Congress, in January, needs to let Bush no there will be no escalation of forces outside the borders of Iraq. The US military can ratchet up its presence and authority within in Iraq to quell the growing insurgency. The US must abandon its "hand holding" policy in Iraq. We aren't fighting in Europe. We are fighting against a force of fundamentalists. Albeit, these forces are being funded by outside forces, such as al-Qaeda, but that doesn't give us the right, or financial liberty, to expand the fight beyond its current parameters.
It might be prudent to rein in the blank check Congress wrote to Bush in 2003. Congress must be careful about how the future of this war unfolds. It might be advisable to wait until January 20, 2008, if the war continues, before any additional decisions are made outside the scope of Iraq's borders.
The new Congress, in January, needs to let Bush no there will be no escalation of forces outside the borders of Iraq. The US military can ratchet up its presence and authority within in Iraq to quell the growing insurgency. The US must abandon its "hand holding" policy in Iraq. We aren't fighting in Europe. We are fighting against a force of fundamentalists. Albeit, these forces are being funded by outside forces, such as al-Qaeda, but that doesn't give us the right, or financial liberty, to expand the fight beyond its current parameters.
It might be prudent to rein in the blank check Congress wrote to Bush in 2003. Congress must be careful about how the future of this war unfolds. It might be advisable to wait until January 20, 2008, if the war continues, before any additional decisions are made outside the scope of Iraq's borders.
Bush Needs More
I have said the US has been doing a half-assed job in Iraq since the beginning. First of all, George Bush should never have been given carte blanche in Iraq. The United States military had no business being there from day one. It was a personal matter for George Bush, not one made in the national interest of our country.
We have two options in this war. The US can use all of its might to over-power the terrorists and insurgency. Otherwise, we might as well pack up tomorrow and pull out. Let the Iraqis fight their own civil war without any international interference.
We have two options in this war. The US can use all of its might to over-power the terrorists and insurgency. Otherwise, we might as well pack up tomorrow and pull out. Let the Iraqis fight their own civil war without any international interference.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Personal Armies
One might ask the Iraqi government why a single person is allowed to have their own personal army. Of course, this question would best be asked to their bosses, the United States government. In a report today, we find that a private militia (army) funded and maintained by a Shi'ite Muslim cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, has become a more powerful anti-democracy force in Iraq than al-Qaeda. Sadr's army, called Mehdi, works as an organized insurgency group within Iraq. The fact that a single individual can claim control over a private military force is testimony to the fact Iraq is engaged in a civil war. A civil war is defined by different forces vying for power, and ultimate control, within a single nation.
If the United States is going to garner any resemblance of democracy and peace in this war torn nation, then they must deal harshly with groups, like Mehdi, by destroying them and cutting of their primary areas of support. It is crucial that Iraqis undergo re-education programs that deprogram their value system of hate and violence; particularly, in the area of social reform. Otherwise, there is no hope for Iraq as a stable nation.
If the United States is going to garner any resemblance of democracy and peace in this war torn nation, then they must deal harshly with groups, like Mehdi, by destroying them and cutting of their primary areas of support. It is crucial that Iraqis undergo re-education programs that deprogram their value system of hate and violence; particularly, in the area of social reform. Otherwise, there is no hope for Iraq as a stable nation.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Billy Crystal & Legal Torts
It would seem a Wisconsin man, who engaged in sexual acts with a dead deer, was arrested for immoral acts with an "animal." His lawyer goes on to reference various 20 year old versions of dictionaries to hold the fact a carcass lies outside the scope of any standard definition of what constitutes an animal, per-se.
The clincher came when his attorney referenced Billy Crystal from his 1987 movie, The Princess Bride, in which he extols the logic of things not having the ability of being only half-dead. Although, his wise words may have been apt in the confines of his dramatic portrayal, they are seemingly outside the scope of good lawyering and have no bearing in legal precedent. I am sure, however, another lawyer, in the future, may find merit in referencing this erroneous legal quotation, to the peril of their client of course.
Accordingly, the district court, as I did, found no merit to this legal argument and dismissed the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Although, I am not a legal expert on Wisconsin legal code, or precedent, if a jurist were to hold to the strict interpretation of the state's statute regarding this issue, then this individual has committed a crime by engaging in a sex act with anyone, or anything, besides his lawfully wedded wife.
In the meantime, the people of Wisconsin can take notice, considering any sex act outside the bonds of matrimony can land them before the court (i.e., consenting sexual contact between adults who are not married).
What about that deer? I guess it had a pretty mouth.
The clincher came when his attorney referenced Billy Crystal from his 1987 movie, The Princess Bride, in which he extols the logic of things not having the ability of being only half-dead. Although, his wise words may have been apt in the confines of his dramatic portrayal, they are seemingly outside the scope of good lawyering and have no bearing in legal precedent. I am sure, however, another lawyer, in the future, may find merit in referencing this erroneous legal quotation, to the peril of their client of course.
Accordingly, the district court, as I did, found no merit to this legal argument and dismissed the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Although, I am not a legal expert on Wisconsin legal code, or precedent, if a jurist were to hold to the strict interpretation of the state's statute regarding this issue, then this individual has committed a crime by engaging in a sex act with anyone, or anything, besides his lawfully wedded wife.
In the meantime, the people of Wisconsin can take notice, considering any sex act outside the bonds of matrimony can land them before the court (i.e., consenting sexual contact between adults who are not married).
What about that deer? I guess it had a pretty mouth.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Pinochet Saga Ends
Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet, the one time dictator of Chile, has died today, in Santiago. I hope this puts an end to the whirlwind of attempted prosecution of this old man. The United Kingdom began it all by arresting him almost ten years ago and holding him based on an arrest warrant issued by a Spanish judge.
The British found he could not be extradited from England and he was released from house arrest, when he then returned to Chile. He was then held on various charges ranging from murder to extortion to money laundering. Basically, the last ten years of his life have been spent under house arrest.
The lesson? Be careful what enemies you make and be sure you have enough friends to keep you out of trouble once you're no longer in office!
The British found he could not be extradited from England and he was released from house arrest, when he then returned to Chile. He was then held on various charges ranging from murder to extortion to money laundering. Basically, the last ten years of his life have been spent under house arrest.
The lesson? Be careful what enemies you make and be sure you have enough friends to keep you out of trouble once you're no longer in office!
Friday, December 08, 2006
House Leadership NOT Liable
Today, a panel of "experts" found the leadership of the United States House of Representatives was not liable in their refusal to stop former Republican Representative Mark Foley (FL) from inappropriate conduct with congressional pages.
It's not surprising the panel found this conclusion. Perhaps, the investigation should have been postponed until someone besides the wolves have control over Congress.
Just a thought!
It's not surprising the panel found this conclusion. Perhaps, the investigation should have been postponed until someone besides the wolves have control over Congress.
Just a thought!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
New Policy Shift for Bush
This week a "brain trust" will provide recommendations to George W. Bush about changing the route of the war in Iraq; specifically, changing the Administration's failed policy. Coupled with Democratic control of Congress, Bush will have little choice but to heed the recommendations of this committee.
It's about time too! It's nice to see Bush squirming like the slime he is!
It's about time too! It's nice to see Bush squirming like the slime he is!
Who killed Sasha?
Who killed Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent? It would have to be someone well connected to high government offices, in order to get a hold of such a radioactive element. There are some people who say the KGB is dead, but I say it is alive and well. Just ask poor Alexander Litvinenko...if you could, that is.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa
I love this lady. She is the president of the 61st United Nations General Assembly. She has more power suits than Hillary Clinton (but I guess I would, too, if my great-grandfather had been a king and my cousin was the current king). While addressing the General Assembly, she moves easily from English to Arabic in mid-sentence and then back again (I think just to have fun with the translators).
Who is this lady? She is the second female lawyer in her country, the tiny kingdom of Bahrain off of the coast of Saudi Arabia. She is also the first Bahraini female to become an ambassador.
Overall, she is the epitome of social change in the Middle East. Imagine twenty-five years ago, a Muslim woman would never have become an ambassador, much less, president of the UN General Assembly.
It's a big deal on many levels.
Who is this lady? She is the second female lawyer in her country, the tiny kingdom of Bahrain off of the coast of Saudi Arabia. She is also the first Bahraini female to become an ambassador.
Overall, she is the epitome of social change in the Middle East. Imagine twenty-five years ago, a Muslim woman would never have become an ambassador, much less, president of the UN General Assembly.
It's a big deal on many levels.
US v. Syria
Yesterday, in the General Assembly of the United Nations, Syria "schooled" the United States on history's lessons.
The US was explaining it's "no" vote regarding the people of Palestine, when the US representative went off on a tangent into the field of Syria, Hezbollah, and Lebanon. Basically, he said Syria did not respect the sovereignty of fellow nations by working to destabilize Lebanon's government and rearming Hezbollah.
The representative called a "point-of-order" and addressed the US representative directly. He said the US is hardly in a position to talk about respecting other nation's territory, when they have worked for years to undermine Iraq for their own gain. He also lambasted the US's use of the veto in the Security Council to defend Israel against initiatives other nations in the General Assembly have passed, such as Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Basically, I felt the old proverb, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," was apt and used appropriately by the Syrian representative.
The US was explaining it's "no" vote regarding the people of Palestine, when the US representative went off on a tangent into the field of Syria, Hezbollah, and Lebanon. Basically, he said Syria did not respect the sovereignty of fellow nations by working to destabilize Lebanon's government and rearming Hezbollah.
The representative called a "point-of-order" and addressed the US representative directly. He said the US is hardly in a position to talk about respecting other nation's territory, when they have worked for years to undermine Iraq for their own gain. He also lambasted the US's use of the veto in the Security Council to defend Israel against initiatives other nations in the General Assembly have passed, such as Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Basically, I felt the old proverb, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," was apt and used appropriately by the Syrian representative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)