Saturday
The Frank Lasee Douchebag of the Month Club Award Goes To...
goes to *drumroll* Frank Lasee! Congratulations Frank, your prize of a pencil and some paper are in the mail. Hopefully, when you receive them, you'll think your sarcastic detractors are trying to encourage you to do work. As any rock-head, you'll perhaps do less work because that's not what your haters want. A victory for you, then, would also be a victory for Wisconsin.
Friday
Best.Motion.Ever
It's from December, 2005, but I definitely never heard about it until my co-clerk pointed me in its direction just a second ago.
The story of the motion to kiss my ass.
The story of the motion to kiss my ass.
Conservapedia Conserva-spotlight: Openmindedness
Even though the JP sits on the hallowed benches in the sanctity of the shade of the fruits in the orchards of the trees of justice, he is not totally obfuscated from introspection on the magnitude of his openmindedness. How openminded are you?
Of course, it takes someone with a couple operational synapses only a few moments to poo-poo the idea of an objective measurement of openmindedness. You can't objectively measure the subjectivity of your points of view, can you? You may not have thought so, but luckily Conservapedia is coming to your rescue.
This bastion of Americana lists several questions we can all use to test our openmindedness:
Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative is impossible?
Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?
Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
A series of ten such questions can be posed, and one's openmindedness can be scored based on how often they declare something to be impossible and thereby demonstrate a level of being "receptive" to ideas.
Did everybody pass?
SIDENOTE: If you check out the discussion page for the Openmindedness (click on the 'discussion' tab at the top of the page), you can see some of Dr. Nugz' finer work under the handle AntnyGonzo.
Of course, it takes someone with a couple operational synapses only a few moments to poo-poo the idea of an objective measurement of openmindedness. You can't objectively measure the subjectivity of your points of view, can you? You may not have thought so, but luckily Conservapedia is coming to your rescue.
This bastion of Americana lists several questions we can all use to test our openmindedness:
Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative is impossible?
Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?
Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
A series of ten such questions can be posed, and one's openmindedness can be scored based on how often they declare something to be impossible and thereby demonstrate a level of being "receptive" to ideas.
Did everybody pass?
SIDENOTE: If you check out the discussion page for the Openmindedness (click on the 'discussion' tab at the top of the page), you can see some of Dr. Nugz' finer work under the handle AntnyGonzo.
Great Moments in the Annals of Child Porn Defense
I've posted before about the lazy eye defense to peepee-spying at the urinal, one of the better affirmative defenses the JP has encountered to date. Mr. Charles Burt must have heard about the Seventh Circuit's recent foray into the intricacies of restroom reconnaissance and, in a brilliant never-say-die move, came up with some great litigation strategery:
A defense theme throughout the trial had been that not all nude photos of children are pornographic. In particular, the defense’s case went, the government was required in this case to prove that the photographs were “lascivious exhibition of the genitals.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v).
Not all nude photos of children are child porn. Hey, technicalities are the first refuge of a scoundrel. Let's watch them run with it:
In his opening statement, Burt’s counsel framed the case as being about “a small town, hardworking professional photographer who took pictures of young boys engaged in sports, sports attire, athletic equipment, for the purpose of putting them on a legitimate nonpornographic website.” Tr. at 53.
Some witnesses thought the "nonpornographic website" was pretty tits though:
[P]hotographs of young boys taken by Burt were the “holy grail” among an online community of child pornography traders and admitted pedophiles. Tr. at 198.
Ever consistent, Burt's counsel had some gems in closing:
During closing argument, the defense argued various times to the jury that photographs and videos of naked children are not necessarily pornographic. See, e.g., (“You can go to a library, you can go to a church, you can go anywhere and see a picture of a boy or a young child with his penis exposed.”); (“Not every exposure of genitalia is lascivious.”); (“Just because you see a naked body or a naked child or the genitalia doesn’t mean it is lascivious.”); (“You can go to the library and find all sort of pictures that look like Charles Burt’s pictures.”); (“If you find that that is lascivious, you have to find that every single medical picture depicting a child’s penis—you would have to find that lascivious as well.”); (“. . . you would have medical doctors, medical schools, you would have all sorts of artists, going to jail.”) (citations omitted).
The dig on churches having lots of pictures of young naked boys was a little over the top. The pathos of 'Catholic priests can diddle little boys and so, uh, me too!' is a little strained. And... I don't think the jury bought it:
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts. The court sentenced Burt to one hundred years in prison, “a whopper of a sentence.” United States v. Bullock, 454 F.3d 637, 637 (7th Cir. 2006) (“One hundred years is a long time—one year longer, in fact, than the standard lyrical shorthand for an unimaginably long sentence.”).
A defense theme throughout the trial had been that not all nude photos of children are pornographic. In particular, the defense’s case went, the government was required in this case to prove that the photographs were “lascivious exhibition of the genitals.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v).
Not all nude photos of children are child porn. Hey, technicalities are the first refuge of a scoundrel. Let's watch them run with it:
In his opening statement, Burt’s counsel framed the case as being about “a small town, hardworking professional photographer who took pictures of young boys engaged in sports, sports attire, athletic equipment, for the purpose of putting them on a legitimate nonpornographic website.” Tr. at 53.
Some witnesses thought the "nonpornographic website" was pretty tits though:
[P]hotographs of young boys taken by Burt were the “holy grail” among an online community of child pornography traders and admitted pedophiles. Tr. at 198.
Ever consistent, Burt's counsel had some gems in closing:
During closing argument, the defense argued various times to the jury that photographs and videos of naked children are not necessarily pornographic. See, e.g., (“You can go to a library, you can go to a church, you can go anywhere and see a picture of a boy or a young child with his penis exposed.”); (“Not every exposure of genitalia is lascivious.”); (“Just because you see a naked body or a naked child or the genitalia doesn’t mean it is lascivious.”); (“You can go to the library and find all sort of pictures that look like Charles Burt’s pictures.”); (“If you find that that is lascivious, you have to find that every single medical picture depicting a child’s penis—you would have to find that lascivious as well.”); (“. . . you would have medical doctors, medical schools, you would have all sorts of artists, going to jail.”) (citations omitted).
The dig on churches having lots of pictures of young naked boys was a little over the top. The pathos of 'Catholic priests can diddle little boys and so, uh, me too!' is a little strained. And... I don't think the jury bought it:
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts. The court sentenced Burt to one hundred years in prison, “a whopper of a sentence.” United States v. Bullock, 454 F.3d 637, 637 (7th Cir. 2006) (“One hundred years is a long time—one year longer, in fact, than the standard lyrical shorthand for an unimaginably long sentence.”).
A Pretty Good Reason to Reopen a Case
O'Brien v. Indiana Department of Correction came down yesterday here in the fine Seventh Circuit. The appeal was about whether or not the plaintiff could add some parties as defendants (*yawn*). The facts, however, are awesome.
O'Brien was a correctional officer and then went to prison for an undisclosed offense. While he was there, he got his ass kicked really bad and lost an eye. He obtained counsel, Indianapolis attorney C. Bruce Davidson, a respectable name. I thought things were about to look up for our one-eyed hero. But then:
On April 8, 2003, attorney Davidson filed a motion seeking an extra two days to respond to the court’s order. For the purposes of this case Davidson was never heard from again... Having heard nothing from Davidson, the district court eventually dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Huh, a curious JP thinks while perusing the opinion: What the hell happened to dude's lawyer? Here comes Judge Kanne to satiate the pangs:
In November 2003, another Indianapolis attorney, who happened to also be Davidson’s landlord, noticed that Davidson was not diligently contacting his clients and was not paying his rent in a timely manner. He left a note for Davidson to contact him. Davidson did not immediately reply. We now know that Davidson was busy robbing a bank in Cincinnati that November—the first of roughly twenty-five bank robberies that attorney Davidson would commit over the next two years.
So they reopened the case... and then dismissed his motion to add parties while granting defendant's motion to dismiss and affirmed both on appeal. Sorry dude!
O'Brien was a correctional officer and then went to prison for an undisclosed offense. While he was there, he got his ass kicked really bad and lost an eye. He obtained counsel, Indianapolis attorney C. Bruce Davidson, a respectable name. I thought things were about to look up for our one-eyed hero. But then:
On April 8, 2003, attorney Davidson filed a motion seeking an extra two days to respond to the court’s order. For the purposes of this case Davidson was never heard from again... Having heard nothing from Davidson, the district court eventually dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Huh, a curious JP thinks while perusing the opinion: What the hell happened to dude's lawyer? Here comes Judge Kanne to satiate the pangs:
In November 2003, another Indianapolis attorney, who happened to also be Davidson’s landlord, noticed that Davidson was not diligently contacting his clients and was not paying his rent in a timely manner. He left a note for Davidson to contact him. Davidson did not immediately reply. We now know that Davidson was busy robbing a bank in Cincinnati that November—the first of roughly twenty-five bank robberies that attorney Davidson would commit over the next two years.
So they reopened the case... and then dismissed his motion to add parties while granting defendant's motion to dismiss and affirmed both on appeal. Sorry dude!
Someone Call the Scientologists a
whambulance. JP tries to follow a social laissez-faire policy; however, there is something about people who seriously believe in Scientology that freaks me out a little bit. Apparently the Germans really hate them. I'm ok with that. From Wikipedia:
Who wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going to wholly subscribe to a religion where the three major holidays celebrate a dude, dude writing the book I have to read, and Auditors"? Auditors?
[In Scientology], [t]here are many holidays, commemorations and observances in the Church, notably L. Ron Hubbard's birthday in March; the Anniversary of the first publication of Dianetics in May; and a holiday honoring all auditors, called Auditor's Day, in September.
Who wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going to wholly subscribe to a religion where the three major holidays celebrate a dude, dude writing the book I have to read, and Auditors"? Auditors?
Not A Sober Astronaut
The NYTimes reports that on at least two occasions astronauts have "flown while drunk". I put that in quotes because under what circumstances these flights took place (shuttle launch? training flight in the air? training on one of those sweet astronaut arcade games?) so the total coolness of the incidents is largely up in the air:
"[T]he panel investigators reported "‘heavy use of alcohol’ by astronauts” within 12 hours of flying."
12 hours? Could they have just had a big night on the eve of a trip? If this is about some astronaut staying at the bar until midnight with his buddies before taking off at noon the next day, the JP is going to be sorely disappointed. I want to hear about Alan Sheppard taking pulls of Jack in the cockpit of a space shuttle in cadence with the countdown from 10.
"[T]he panel investigators reported "‘heavy use of alcohol’ by astronauts” within 12 hours of flying."
12 hours? Could they have just had a big night on the eve of a trip? If this is about some astronaut staying at the bar until midnight with his buddies before taking off at noon the next day, the JP is going to be sorely disappointed. I want to hear about Alan Sheppard taking pulls of Jack in the cockpit of a space shuttle in cadence with the countdown from 10.
I guess that just leaves Death...
Stop the presses people, there is an attorney in the great state of Looooosiana who is a man after Clarince T's own heart. A true patriot and Constitutional originalist, Tom Cryer has taken on the IRS and won (at least the first round).
"The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said. "
Mr. Cryer's argument is simple. He basically argues that our federal income tax scheme rests on very shaky Constitutional ground, and that the current definition of "income" is fundamentally flawed.
Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income. If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.
"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
As you are all aware, I have long been a champion of originalism, strict constructionistics, and the 1789 Rule. As my own job is solidly nestled within the nurturing womb of Article III, I have no problem supporting a slash-and-burn campaign against those "government" programs that have no Constitutional foundation for their existence.
Agriculture, Education, Labor, "Social Services", phooey!
Let them all fall by the wayside, I say. People need to sink or swim on their own. Did Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin need social programs to use as a stepping stone to greatness? I think not, they were smart enough to be born into money. Anyone without the sense to do the same doesn't get any sympathy from me.
He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.
Amen, my brother in arms, Amen.
"The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said. "
Mr. Cryer's argument is simple. He basically argues that our federal income tax scheme rests on very shaky Constitutional ground, and that the current definition of "income" is fundamentally flawed.
Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income. If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.
"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
As you are all aware, I have long been a champion of originalism, strict constructionistics, and the 1789 Rule. As my own job is solidly nestled within the nurturing womb of Article III, I have no problem supporting a slash-and-burn campaign against those "government" programs that have no Constitutional foundation for their existence.
Agriculture, Education, Labor, "Social Services", phooey!
Let them all fall by the wayside, I say. People need to sink or swim on their own. Did Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin need social programs to use as a stepping stone to greatness? I think not, they were smart enough to be born into money. Anyone without the sense to do the same doesn't get any sympathy from me.
He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.
Amen, my brother in arms, Amen.
Thursday
Liberal Hypocrisy
Goddamn tree huggers. JP is as open-minded and evenly-politically-keeled as a freshly-carved gavel, so he loves to see examples of the doublespeak spouted by both left and right wing politics.
Enter Conservapedia. JP got this tip from his partner-in-crime Dr. H.J. Nugz. While JP loves to comment on the magnitude of Frank Lasee's stupidity, Dr. Nugz prefers to interact with the brilliant slew of free-market nutjobs over at Conservapedia.
Luckily, they've put together a veritable compendium of logical abuses committed by liberals. For example:
I feel like I'd be adding insult to injury by saying anything more. My only suggestion: Conservapedia is missing all of the liberally-hypocritical lawyers out there. "Attorney Tree Hugger argued for punitive damages in case X but then turned around, and, in case, Y, argued against punitive damages!"
Enter Conservapedia. JP got this tip from his partner-in-crime Dr. H.J. Nugz. While JP loves to comment on the magnitude of Frank Lasee's stupidity, Dr. Nugz prefers to interact with the brilliant slew of free-market nutjobs over at Conservapedia.
Luckily, they've put together a veritable compendium of logical abuses committed by liberals. For example:
George Clooney, actor
Hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, Charlton Heston, suffers from Alzheimer's disease, he said: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."[1]
Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.
Mark Wahlberg, actor
Upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of Planet of the Apes, [Mark Wahlberg|Wahlberg] rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: "I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."
Wahlberg's character in Planet of the Apes uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.
I feel like I'd be adding insult to injury by saying anything more. My only suggestion: Conservapedia is missing all of the liberally-hypocritical lawyers out there. "Attorney Tree Hugger argued for punitive damages in case X but then turned around, and, in case, Y, argued against punitive damages!"
Maybe I'm the only guy who hasn't heard this quote before...
"Inside every lawyer is the wreck of a poet." Clarence Darrow, lawyer.
If the JP had been a more successful undergraduate poet, he probably wouldn't be at the JPSLS.
If the JP had been a more successful undergraduate poet, he probably wouldn't be at the JPSLS.
Miserable Week for Sports
JP, an avid sports fan, is sick of hearing about all of the bad shit going on everywhere. The top four stories this week: The Tour de France is a race to see who can evade the doping authorities the longest while simultaneously biking around France, Barry Bonds is two homers away from being the man with the smallest balls ever to hit 755 homers, NBA officials are fixing games they're betting on, and Michael Vick gets off on murdering pit bulls by watery electrocution.
Granted, it is a fairly slow time of year in the sports revolution, but still. You'd hope one headline wouldn't be about cheating or sadism.
Granted, it is a fairly slow time of year in the sports revolution, but still. You'd hope one headline wouldn't be about cheating or sadism.
Francine Tate Found
Missing Madison woman Francine Tate was found yesterday afternoon in northern Wisconsin. The news report is a little skimpy on why exactly Ms. Tate was chillaxing up nort', but her plight doesn't seem as bad as some may have feared:
I bet she escaped to read Harry Potter 7 before anyone could spoil the ending.
She was found about 3:20 p.m. Wednesday, according to the Vilas County Sheriff's Department. Warden Timothy Place of the state Department of Natural Resources located her at a Long Lake boat landing in the town of Phelps, reading a book, and she was taken into protective custody. Her car was recovered at the scene.
I bet she escaped to read Harry Potter 7 before anyone could spoil the ending.
Wednesday
Assholes of the Day: Idaho Racists
Last year's Boise State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl was one of the greatest college football games JP has ever seen. It won the ESPY for best game of the year. The last play of the game, a Statue of Liberty play where the QB pretended to pass and handed it off behind his back for the game-winning two-point conversion, was awesome. Oklahoma trailing, then taking a commanding lead, then giving it up, was also thrilling.
One of the ancillary memories about that game was Boise State's star RB Ian Johnson proposing to his cheerleader girlfriend right after it was over. I have to say, I thought it was kind of cheesy, but I'm not a player hater: He had the balls to do it right after the game, the TV crew caught him, she said yes, it was a pretty decent moment for dude.
But now that it's time to get married, Johnson's getting threats because he's black and his fiancee's white.
Congratulations dumbasses. For the first time in Idaho history, someone's actually talking about the sports going down in your state. I've seen BSU ranked as high as fifth in preseason polls. If you're a racist in Idaho, could you please just STFU for a season or two until the Broncos are off the national stage and back to mediocrity so we won't have to hear about it? People who protest things that have no effect on them need to do what their parents did: Get a job.
One of the ancillary memories about that game was Boise State's star RB Ian Johnson proposing to his cheerleader girlfriend right after it was over. I have to say, I thought it was kind of cheesy, but I'm not a player hater: He had the balls to do it right after the game, the TV crew caught him, she said yes, it was a pretty decent moment for dude.
But now that it's time to get married, Johnson's getting threats because he's black and his fiancee's white.
Johnson, who will be a junior this fall, proposed to Popadics, at the time a Broncos cheerleader, on the field after time expired in the game in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Since then, Johnson said he's received phone calls, 30 letters and, in some instances, personal threats from people who objected to his plans to marry Popadics.
Congratulations dumbasses. For the first time in Idaho history, someone's actually talking about the sports going down in your state. I've seen BSU ranked as high as fifth in preseason polls. If you're a racist in Idaho, could you please just STFU for a season or two until the Broncos are off the national stage and back to mediocrity so we won't have to hear about it? People who protest things that have no effect on them need to do what their parents did: Get a job.
Executive Privilege is a misnomer
It isn't hard to see how this one tripped up W's thought process. The idea of an executive privilege sounds like it's something the executive is "privileged", or "2. privilege - a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)" from the free online dictionary. Well shit, the executive has the privilege, how can he not use it?
He certainly thinks nobody can shake a stick at its invocation:
Of course, that's been tried before. Luckily, JP learned about the previous escapade from the timeless W.L. Church, Wisconsin's paradigmatic Constitutional scholar.
Anyone remember when the Supreme Court wrote those words? United States v. (motherfuckin') Nixon. This is still good law.
Luckily, the House Judiciary Committee today voted to indict Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for pretending they're under the scope of executive privilege when it's obvious they aren't. I really wish they'd get Gonzales' smirk out of the White House next.
He certainly thinks nobody can shake a stick at its invocation:
The White House has refused, on the grounds of executive privilege, to make Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers available for sworn testimony before Congress. To do so, the White House argues, could stifle frank, confidential advice to the president, and future presidents, by their closest advisers.
Of course, that's been tried before. Luckily, JP learned about the previous escapade from the timeless W.L. Church, Wisconsin's paradigmatic Constitutional scholar.
In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds. The first is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion.
***
In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications. He does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets. As to these areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities.... No case of the Court, however, has extended this high degree of deference to a President's generalized interest in confidentiality. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any explicit reference to a privilege of confidentiality, yet to the extent this interest relates to the effective discharge of a President's powers, it is constitutionally based.
The right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions.... It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate [the Sixth and Fifth Amendment] guarantees and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.
In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in performance of his responsibilities against inroads of such privilege on the fair administration of criminal justice. The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed and entitled to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.
Anyone remember when the Supreme Court wrote those words? United States v. (motherfuckin') Nixon. This is still good law.
Luckily, the House Judiciary Committee today voted to indict Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for pretending they're under the scope of executive privilege when it's obvious they aren't. I really wish they'd get Gonzales' smirk out of the White House next.
Gluten-haters of the world untie!
A gluten allergy seems like a nasty affliction. One of JP's good buddies, Captain Statute, suffers from glutenosis, and, most notably, it means he can't drink regular beer. He always ends up with this New Grist crap that tastes like butt and costs too much.
Luckily, the New York Times is on the case. Today's online edition has an article celebrating gluten-free food. Since Mr. Statute happens to be from the Big (non-wheat) Apple, he would probably be able to make use of this article.
Of course, this assumes that he (1) has ever read this blog before and (2) that, once starting, he hasn't to this point been convinced that reading any more is a total waste of his time and cerebral resources. Both are borderline impossible.
Luckily, the New York Times is on the case. Today's online edition has an article celebrating gluten-free food. Since Mr. Statute happens to be from the Big (non-wheat) Apple, he would probably be able to make use of this article.
Of course, this assumes that he (1) has ever read this blog before and (2) that, once starting, he hasn't to this point been convinced that reading any more is a total waste of his time and cerebral resources. Both are borderline impossible.
Another Day in Yummy
Oberlizzle, Dr. Nugz and I patronized Yummy Buffet for lunch today, and oh boy were we satisfied by both the breadth and the depth of food from Yummy.
Many people think the Yummy Buffet's adjectival reference is to the American "yummy", meaning "delicious," or "mmmmmmmmm". This is another example of our ignorance of our Asian neighbors. Actually, Yummy is a region of China northeast of Beijing, and the YB specializes in delicacies native to the people of Yummy.
The Chinese Doughnuts coming out of Yummy are particularly amazing when fresh: JP was lucky enough to snag two of them fresh out of the fryer today.
Many people think the Yummy Buffet's adjectival reference is to the American "yummy", meaning "delicious," or "mmmmmmmmm". This is another example of our ignorance of our Asian neighbors. Actually, Yummy is a region of China northeast of Beijing, and the YB specializes in delicacies native to the people of Yummy.
The Chinese Doughnuts coming out of Yummy are particularly amazing when fresh: JP was lucky enough to snag two of them fresh out of the fryer today.
Let's keep to the cheap
If it hasn't appeared in The Onion or on The Daily Show, JP doesn't consider it news.
Today, The Onion came out with a bombshell study that could revolutionize American Foreign Policy. The assumed inverse relationship between melanin and emotions is involuntarily on its way to town.
Today, The Onion came out with a bombshell study that could revolutionize American Foreign Policy. The assumed inverse relationship between melanin and emotions is involuntarily on its way to town.
The Cheap Joke
JP's normally above the cheap political joke. Making crazy comparisons like, say, the Wisconsin State Bar to a swarm of locusts, or the University of Wisconsin Administration to Chicken Little as a way of making a point is really too easy to be effective. Watch: Frank Lasee is like self-loathing constipation, because he's totally full of crap but still likes to hate on brown things; or, Frank Lasee is like recently-churned vomit, because you thought you wanted him during mastication but now you just need to get rid of him and fast. When you don't care about the proximity of your analogies, you're all powerful.
But, in the spirit of our nation's independence, the JP will now condescend to a shallow thrill:
But, in the spirit of our nation's independence, the JP will now condescend to a shallow thrill:
Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claimed that an unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and the federal government.
However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March, 1948, nine months after that historic day, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Condolezza Rice, and Dan Quayle were all born.
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep.
Tuesday
Illinois and the Ban
So, the Illinois statewide smoking ban is a big deal these days, and as a former (and perhaps future) Illinoisan and the only official non-smoker here, I feel that it's my duty to bring it up.
I'm happy about the ban. Here are some comments about it I have heard, and my meandering thoughts:
"I feel like it's the Nazi regime coming in here, talking away all of our rights, said Tim Main, as he cleaned up Mike's Ten-Pin Lounge in Alton. "First they make it so you have to wear seat belts, and now they want to put a stop to smoking. What's next?"
Hmm. This took me by surprise, since I didn't realize that people were still upset about buckling up, and still wanted to recklessly endanger themselves, their children or other potential projectiles. It's also weird that this guy thinks smoking regulation is somehow akin to murdering millions of people. (I know the Nazis did other stuff, but if it weren't for the killing they probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal. Right? Right.)
"Next they're going to ban hamburgers."
This is another person who thinks that smoking bans are exclusively enacted for the health and beauty of the smokers. And shooting people should only be forbidden in suicides.
"I am an asthmatic and do not support the smoking bans. If I walk into a bar, and there are smokers and I have an attack, who's fault is that? It is mine. I know there is a reasonable expectation of there being smoke in a bar. Therefore, I avoid the potential for harm to myself."
Not anymore, Piggy. Now you can go to the bar AND stop blaming yourself for your ass-mar. (On a side note, this quote sounds like something that JP would say. Except for the tragic conclusion of bar avoidance.)
"Life is a temporary condition of unpredictable length followed predictably by death, and no amount of legislation will change that."
That's true, but IMHO it's reasonable to try and prevent people from accidentally killing other people (or giving them lung cancer). Or on purpose.
Anyhow, I like the statewide ban because I don't smell like smoke, am less likely to get a cold or lung cancer and have overcome my addiction to Visine. More broadly, I realize that smoking is bad, but is often not a life or death question, especially second hand smoke... so I should note that I'm okay with laws regulating some kinds of annoying behavior, even if it's not totally dangerous. Like littering.
I'm happy about the ban. Here are some comments about it I have heard, and my meandering thoughts:
"I feel like it's the Nazi regime coming in here, talking away all of our rights, said Tim Main, as he cleaned up Mike's Ten-Pin Lounge in Alton. "First they make it so you have to wear seat belts, and now they want to put a stop to smoking. What's next?"
Hmm. This took me by surprise, since I didn't realize that people were still upset about buckling up, and still wanted to recklessly endanger themselves, their children or other potential projectiles. It's also weird that this guy thinks smoking regulation is somehow akin to murdering millions of people. (I know the Nazis did other stuff, but if it weren't for the killing they probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal. Right? Right.)
"Next they're going to ban hamburgers."
This is another person who thinks that smoking bans are exclusively enacted for the health and beauty of the smokers. And shooting people should only be forbidden in suicides.
"I am an asthmatic and do not support the smoking bans. If I walk into a bar, and there are smokers and I have an attack, who's fault is that? It is mine. I know there is a reasonable expectation of there being smoke in a bar. Therefore, I avoid the potential for harm to myself."
Not anymore, Piggy. Now you can go to the bar AND stop blaming yourself for your ass-mar. (On a side note, this quote sounds like something that JP would say. Except for the tragic conclusion of bar avoidance.)
"Life is a temporary condition of unpredictable length followed predictably by death, and no amount of legislation will change that."
That's true, but IMHO it's reasonable to try and prevent people from accidentally killing other people (or giving them lung cancer). Or on purpose.
Anyhow, I like the statewide ban because I don't smell like smoke, am less likely to get a cold or lung cancer and have overcome my addiction to Visine. More broadly, I realize that smoking is bad, but is often not a life or death question, especially second hand smoke... so I should note that I'm okay with laws regulating some kinds of annoying behavior, even if it's not totally dangerous. Like littering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)