Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit is in the news. Wired magazine has named Instapundit as the number one web log in the world.

Now I have something to which I can aspire . . .

Steve


- posted by MrSpkr @ 20:46 0 comments

 
Kerry scares me. He REALLY REALLY scares me.

I’m Christian, and conservative, but I don’t think I am a part of the stereotyped “religious right” (I like drinking, in moderation, and wimmen in bikinis, for starts).

If Kerry gets elected, look for the ICC, bowing to the UN and restrictions on the second amendment.

Also, given their age, look for Kerry to be able to appoint two to three justices (and maybe up to FIVE!) in his first term. Rehnquist, O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, and possibly Ginsberg are getting close to retirement for either age or health reasons (or both).

It will be the last time to get a more conservative court in a generation – and even then, even if a future court IS conservative, it would be extremely difficult for that future court to overturn excesses of the past.

Consider, for example, how difficult it would be for a modern court to establish some teeth for the tenth amendment.

Or how difficult it is to deal with the issue of abortion – and to roll back the invented rights related to it. Whether you are pro choice or pro life, it is hard to argue with the fact that Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision that essentially invented a right to abortion. Do I think if Roe v Wade were struck down that all abortion would become illegal immediately? Nope – it would be reserved to the states (who would pass different laws according to the desires of their constituencies). But it would be a major blow to the reach of federal intrusion in people’s lives.

To me, federalism is the best type of republican democracy because it theoretically leaves the power for the most intrusive and detailed minutia of legislation to the local and state authorities. I prefer this because it is most logical, and the local officials are likely to be the most responsive.

But, this vision of federalism has been largely eradicated. Right now, there are possibilities of turning some of it back (the number of 5-4 decisions over the past fifteen years is staggering). If, however, we get another three decades of liberal court decisions, it may well be impossible to reverse the trend.

And that would be a tragedy, and, quite frankly, would mark the end of a valuable part of this political idea that is America.

- posted by MrSpkr @ 22:36 0 comments

 
Newsday.com: Teen Uses Sword to Capture Prison Escapee

A real American being raised in a real American town.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 13:24 0 comments

 
I find it interesting that people from the same countries that invented the terms “colonization” and “genocide” are now willing to side themselves with murderers, dictators and thugs so long as it hinders the United States of America. It is funny that they cannot see the hypocrisy in that.

Or perhaps they are projecting the attitudes and intentions of their ancestors back when the Europeans were serious players. I mean, IIRC, there were three basic models of Imperialism. The Spanish was conquer and pillage for the home colony. Spreading Catholicism was all fine and dandy, but in the end it was all about the bullion Spanish explorers and conquerors brought home. The Portuguese, Belgians (after Napoleon, of course – prior to that there were no Belgians as such) and Dutch emulated this model to one extent or the other.

The French model varied from place to place. In North America, after they lost the race to colonize to Great Britain, they focused on establishing trading posts and bartering for furs and other products with natives. In other parts of the world, however, such as South America and the French colonies in Africa, they were every bit as ruthless and repressive as the Spanish model.

The final model was the British model. The British wanted their colonies to benefit the mother country as much as the next guys; however, the British took the time to develop the administrative and governmental structures that would eventually form the basis for colonial self-rule. Examples of this style are the British colonies in North America, Bermuda, India, etc.

This is not to say the British were culturally sensitive to the natives, or that the British did not ruthlessly suppress dissent. The British did, however, pick up what was termed the “white man’s burden” of bringing the benefits of civilization to the savage natives. Some examples:

In India, there was a cultural tradition amongst some sects that, when the husband died, the wife should be burned alive to join him. The British put a stop to that. When a native leader informed the British governor in charge of the area that such burnings were the local tradition, the Brit coldly informed the leader that the British had traditions, too, and that one British tradition was to execute people who set other human beings on fire.

The British put a stop to death cults in their colonies (most notably the Thuggee cult in India, though other existed). The British also attempted to at least bring the gifts of literacy (though far from universal) and the rule of law to their colonies.

The new model the United States seeks to establish is different from these previous attempts. The United States will help the new nation develop the societal necessities to become a self-governing democracy, then the US will leave. We won’t loot the locals. We won’t ruthlessly execute all who oppose our presence (though those that wish to engage our military will find it is quite capable of weeding out violent enemies). We have no desire to run the country ourselves – heck, we have enough problems running our country. Why would we want to run someone else’s?

In fact, we wouldn’t even be over there had the bad guys not attacked us first – in Lebanon in 1983, in other areas throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and finally on our own soil in 2001. We will not allow that to happen again.

We could simply declare war against the entire Middle East and engage in a bloodbath the likes of which the world has never before seen. Every Islamofascist government, indeed, whole Islamic populations could be put to the sword. It would be bloody, exhausting, and ultimately demoralizing (I’ve heard many of the pilots attacking the ‘Highway of Death’ in February 1991 became sickened by the slaughter), but we would do it if we had no other choice.

We would do it because we are determined not to have another terrorist attack of the 2001 magnitude on our soil.

Our strategy is, however, to get the cultural and societal changes the Middle East needs in order to stop being a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. To do that, we must create the conditions for the local societies to become something they currently are not: successful.

Poverty is not the root cause of why they attack us. There are lots of impoverished people around the world. Most of them do not bomb Americans.

Religion is not the sole cause of why they attack us, though they use religion as a vehicle to gain recruits and to justify their attacks.

The reason they attack us is that their societies are abject failures in every measurable sense of the word. They stagnated culturally and socially around 600-700 years ago. They like our modern conveniences – but they are no more modern in their culture, society, or even their way of thinking than, say, a circa 1800 Sioux Indian would be if you gave him an M-16, ammunition, and night-vision goggles. The technology only provides them conveniences. It does not help shape the way they think about the world.

This is where their religion hurts them. To them, Islam is the ultimate, final, and perfect word of God. All previous versions are flawed. This is one reason why it is permissible for Muslims to proselytize Christians, but the reverse is not only unthinkable, but sanctionable (generally by execution).

Allah tells them that they will triumph over the unbelievers (i.e., all non-Muslims). But they are not stupid – they recognize their own impotence and global irrelevance. They know that were it not for the accident (or Allah’s gift) of mineral wealth, they would be ignored by the world at large.

This creates a problem for Muslims. If Allah says they will triumph over the unbelievers, and yet they are losing the battles, then (since Allah is perfect) the only explanation must be that they have somehow offended Allah (else he would not let them lose, right) OR that they have failed to live up to their duty as Muslims to conquer the enemy.

That is a source of personal as well as cultural and societal humiliation and frustration. They take it out on us.

Why do they engage in suicide attacks? In part because they have no other method of attacking (they know taking us on in a head to head military confrontation is suicidal) and in part because, for the individual suicide attacker, he is guaranteed entry into heaven and thus may appropriately pay penance for his individual responsibility for the failure of Islam to triumph over it’s perceived enemies.

It is an alien way of thinking, but one we must understand in order to make ourselves safe.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 00:10 0 comments

 
No kidding!

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac - (United Press International)

Geez, who would have thunk it?

Of course, given that this is in the Washington Times, it will be ignored by the mainstream media.

Nevermind the fact it is a UPI story.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 15:04 0 comments

 
Understatement of the year award:
Yahoo! News - Pitcher Seeks Forgiveness for Porn Tape

No kidding. I was damned hungry at times in college (I can remember occasionally surviving on rice with my choice of ketchup or mustard while awaiting my next paycheck), and I never even considered something as stupid as this.

Sorry -- this is not something that should just be swept under the rug and conveniently forgotten because he is a skilled pitcher. Do I think he should be banned from baseball? No, I don't think so. I do think, however, it is ludicrous to assert that his teammates (the current ones, not the ones with whom he made movies a few years ago) haven't changed their opinion of him or that after his confession, "nobody thought anything more of it."

Sorry, but this guy will be under a microscope -- and he will be the target of particularly fierce ridicule from opposing fans. It may also be an underlying cause of some divisiveness in the team (rightly or wrongly).

It WILL have an impact on the team.

And yes -- I would be saying the same if he had been in a heterosexual porn film. Porn is porn, and it is all equally trashy.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 14:46 0 comments

 
I am reading Tom Clancy's newest book, The Teeth of the Tiger. I'm about halfway through it, and Clancy has written of something I have long feared (and something I am frankly quite surprised has not been attempted to date)>

If you haven't read the book, and don't like spoilers, stop reading this entry.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Still with me? Good.

In the book, a group of terrorists enter America (through Mexico -- imagine that) and disperse to four "middle-America" cities. At a designated time, the terrorists (in groups of four) enter a local shopping mall and begin hosing down the shoppers -- men, and especially women and children.

To the Islamic terrorists, it is merely enforcing the Koran, and slaying the infidel (a quick trip to heaven, in their eyes).

Of course, this causes all sorts of chaos, etc., etc. . . and frankly, I haven't finished the book yet.

But I have long wondered why we haven't had such an attack here.

I strongly suspected we would see something of that nature during this past Christmas holiday season. Such an attack, while grotesque and unspeakable, would go a long ways towards harming America and pointing out her vulnerabilities. Done in the Christmas shopping season, it would certainly have depressed sales, severely slowed the economy, and likely have harmed Bush's re-election chances (the economy would be weaker and he would be subjected to claims that (a) he couldn't protect American citizens; and (b) that his "amnesty-that-isn't-called-amnesty" plan left us open to such incursions in the future.

Chilling, eh?

So, how could we stop it? Well, there are several methods at home and abroad.

First, we could get serious about having borders and controlling them. This would require a massive increase in Border Patrol funding, and a goodly investment in some technology. It would also require us to get serious about deporting illegal immigrants.

The increase in funding and tech would be used to place more border patrol agents at key locations and technology in the form of monitors at places too remote for agents. It would also require harsher sentences for the co-called "coyotes" who help funnel people across the borders.

Deporting illegal immigrants would be the toughest part. Several cities in the United States have passed city ordinances prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with INS personnel. The reason these local officials pass these sorts of ordinances is twofold. First, some are ideologically opposed to current federal immigration policy (as well as to certain federal officials). Second, many have large numbers of illegal aliens or former illegal aliens as constituents -- so they pander to that voting bloc.

The proper federal response would be to cut off all federal funds to any city that passed such an ordinance, or otherwise interfered with or refused to cooperate with the INS. If cutting off city funds didn't work, then cut off federal funds to that county, and, if necessary, federal funds to that entire state. This would put severe financial pressure on the local officials to reverse the policy -- particularly if "federal funds" included federal welfare recipients, federal student financial aid recipients and federal social security and medicare/medicaid recipients. In other words, the local officials would suddenly have to worry about a whole new group of angry constituents, and hopefully the pressure would cause the officials to back down.

In addition, we would need to consider somethign like a "guest worker" program -- but we would need tight controls on the participants, and strict enforcement of time limitations. If you overstay a work/student/travel visa, you have just forfeited your privilege of legally re-entering the United States for the next, say, twenty years.

Another part of the problem is Constitutional. The Constitution was amended after the Civil War to the effect that any person born on American soil is an American citizen. Although originally drafted to make all former slaves American citizens, this provision has proved a great boon to illegal aliens, who cross the border late in pregnancy, have their child (for free) at an American hospital, and then claim a right to stay in America (and receive, among other things, federal housing and food assistance) as the guardian of this young American citizen. That provision should be changed to exclude children born of parents here illegally.

Would this completely take care of the immigration problem (and make our borders safer)? No, not completely. But it would be a good first step.

At moments like this, I wonder just how much it will take for us to decide we need to take such steps. September 11 has faded in many American's minds. I only hope we don't have to suffer through something similar before we start trying to actually protect ourselves.

Frankly, I'd vote against Bush on his spending and immigration policies if the alternatives weren't worse. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:08 0 comments

 
When it rains, it pours.

I had some problems with the new internet setup Wednesday night, so I called technical support. The first thing they had me do was check all the connections (even though I had already so done). To make a long story short, I managed to drop my computer about 4" to the floor, at which point I immediately lost power to the hard drive and CD-Rom.

It gets better.

My ego being what it is, I popped the case to see if I could fix the problem (thought it might be a loose cord. The smell of ozone pouring out of the case might have deterred lesser blockheads, but not I, dear reader. I loosened the cord to the hard drive, then wiggled it back onto the hard drive.

I forgot to disconnect the power first.

It wasn't a particularly large bolt of sparks that zapped between the power cord and the hard drive when I began to reconnect it, but it may have been large enough. The power supply seemed dead.

Undeterred by prior idiocy, I decided to plug the hard drive into my back up computer. No response. Dead. Gone. Nothing.

Sigh.

That being the case, I resigned myself to using the kid's upstairs computer for the internet for a few days.

Unfortunately, I had never quite gotten around to updating the drivers on that computer. So, no home internet connection right now.

I called my local computer guru (the one sending me a droolicious laptop), and we talked about options. I decided to get a new case (with attached power supply) -- he owed me a refund of $40.00 on the laptop (I ordered an 80GB hard drive; he bought a 60GB hard drive and told me the 80GB drives just weren't reliable enough), and offered to buy the parts for $40.00 and install for a one hour charge ($50). So, not a bad deal.

I asked about my hard drive -- if we can save it. If I fried the circuits, then I can't save the drive, but I may be able to save the data.

But it will cost me about $1500 (according to my computer guru) and involves physically transferring the platters from one hard drive to another. And it only works about 60% of the time (but you still pay the fee, even if unsuccessful).

Sigh. I have to cough up for it -- all of our digital pictures for the past several years are on that hard drive (I know, I know, I should have backed up my data, but I didn't have a CD-RW on that computer -- I am fixing that problem with the new case).

I had expected my computer guru Friday, but he was ill. No worries. I zoned on the X-Box (SpongeBob Squarepants is darned addictive) and took time out to go with the family for some ice cream.

On the way back, Joe (our youngest) was talking constantly. In a desperate attempt to gain peace and quiet for a minute, Philip (our seven year old) tried the old Mom and Dad trick of "the quiet game".

Joe: " {blah, blah, blah, blah}"
Philip: "Okay, Joe, umm, let's play the quiet game, okay. Let's see who can be quiet until we get home. Whoever talks is out, okay?"
Joe: (two seconds later) "Okay. I'm out. {blah blah blah, blah}"

A classic. Amy nearly coughed up a lung from laughing so hard and Philip (normally pretty sensitive about being laughed at) was rolling.

Life is just so beautiful, right? Had the computer come in (or been working), I probably wouldn't have brought up the idea of going out for ice cream -- Amy was exhausted, and I was tired and my back hurting -- and I would have missed this moment.

Now, I'll remember it for the rest of my life.

Steve

NOTES:

1. I'll be away from the blog for a few days, gentle reader, as we have a major deadline approaching.
2. Curiously enough, I just learned that blogger's spellcheck function does not recognize "blog" as a properly spelled word. Odd, eh?
3. The comments bar will hopefully be up and running again next week. Stay tuned
- posted by MrSpkr @ 07:58 0 comments

 
This is why the United States was right in deciding against joining the International Criminal Court.

UK cluster bombs may be war crime
Tue January 20, 2004 04:48 PM ET

By Peter Apps

LONDON (Reuters) - British use of cluster bombs in the Iraq war could count as a war crime and justifies further investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor in the Hague, a group of international lawyers say.

Really? I guess these folks would prefer that we used squirt guns and rubber bands.

Seven academics from Britain, Ireland, France and Canada interviewed eyewitnesses and examined evidence to see if there was a case for referring British conduct to the court, said the pressure group Peacerights, which organised the review.

"There is a considerable amount of evidence of disproportionate use of force causing civilian casualties," one of the lawyers, Professor Bill Bowring of London Metropolitan University, told a news conference on Tuesday.

Compared to what?

"The U.S. cannot be tried before the court because it refuses to sign up to it. The UK did."

Which goes to prove that George Bush and the Republicans are not NEARLY as stupid as the Left makes them out to be. This type of political prosecution is PRECISELY the reason the United States did not sign up to be screwed over governed by the ICC.

Cluster munitions are small bomblets scattered on a target area by larger bombs, rockets or artillery shells, designed to destroy infantry or soft skinned vehicles.

Use of bunker-busting munitions had also killed civilians, Peacerights said.

Gee, I guess since Saddam had the poor taste to deploy bunkers under populated areas, we should just refrain from attacking, right? Or maybe we should just send in troops and take a lot more casualties (and risk higher civilian casualties due to the extended firefights that would undoubtedly ensue)?

"THIS ONE GOES TO TOP"

ICC officials were unavailable to comment, but Bowring said senior politicians, possibly including Prime Minister Tony Blair, could have something to worry about.

Mr. Blair, this is exactly the sort of thing you and all other Britons can expect if you fully join the EU. You have been warned.

"Heads of state are not immune in principle," the law professor said. "This one goes right to the top."

Because, of course, like bureaucrats around the world, nobody wants to make a decision on this. Weasels.

U.S.-based Human Rights Watch said last month more than 1,000 civilians were killed or wounded by some 13,000 U.S. and British cluster bombs in the Iraq war last year.

And they STILL haven't killed nearly as many civilians as Saddam and Family, Inc., managed to haul in on a good Saturday night.

Bowring said British aircraft had dropped 70 cluster bombs and British artillery fired 2,000 cluster shells.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said cluster munitions were lawful weapons that had been used in line with international law during the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

British forces had "of course" not been involved in war crimes, he added.

Save your breath. The loons that support this prosecution despise you and all you stand for simply because you supported America in Iraq. You are, in their eyes, the embodiment of the Devil's Handmaiden.

Bowring said the report would be sent to both the British attorney general Lord Goldsmith and the ICC.

Experts were dubious the case would proceed.

"Instinctively, it seems probable that political pressure will be bought to bear to prevent this going to the ICC," barrister Hugo Charlton told Reuters.

In other words, even though this case is fully justified on the merits (at least, in the minds of the loony Left), evil politics will allow the Brits to get away with murder.

The British military was also the subject of complaints to the ICC last July when Greek lawyers sent the court a dossier of human rights allegations in Iraq.

The court has received hundreds of complaints from dozens of countries since it came into force in July 2002, but only one formal investigation has been launched, into reported crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Again, George W. Bush looks brighter every day.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 13:40 0 comments

 
Today my boss approached me and asked whether I had heard of the "gentleman's agreement" between the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns. Essentially, the deal was that at each caucus meeting, Edwards and Kucinich supporters would guage the support for their respective candidates, then throw all of their votes behind whichever one had stronger support at that particular caucus.

If this is true, it might explain how Edwards moved into a strong second place. I would be surprised if Kucinich was ahead of Edwards in more than one or two precincts (if that many).

The real question is whether that will translate to more Edwards support down the road.

Howard Dean, by finishing an anemic third place with 18% of the vote is on the ropes. He must win or at least come in a very close second to survive and be a legitimate candidate when the primaries swing south. Kerry must do likewise to sustain the momentum he got from his surprising Iowa showing.

This is beginning to get interesting. If anyone else has heard of the "agreement" between Edwards and Kucinich, drop me an email with a link.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 10:45 0 comments

 
For any idiotarians who can't seem to get the message, THIS is why we fight.

I can't watch this video without tearing up.

This will NEVER happen again. Ever. Period.

I hope we can prevent it through introducing democracy into the Middle East.

I really do.

Because if that doesn't stop it, we WILL have more forceful means of responding.

The world thinks they have seen American rage turned loose -- no. They have not.

I pray they never do.

Because if that happens, the world will see a charnel house like none it has EVER seen before.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 11:31 0 comments

 
A new home improvement concept show: While I was Drinking.

Join us as we follow the path of a very drunk truck driver who decides his neighbor's house needs a new look!

Laugh at the frivolity of breezing through stop signs.

You'll be amazed at the remodlling of the living room.

And after it's all over (roughly two seconds after it started), we find our driver (and truck, and passenger) lazing in the cool waters of the backyard pool.

Yeah, that'd sell.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 10:31 0 comments

 
I WANT a print of this!
- posted by MrSpkr @ 07:53 0 comments

 
Al Gore blunders. Today, AL Gore is set to give a speech on Global Warming. He is to appear in New York City on what forecasters are now saying will be the coldest day in nearly fifty years.

Al wants to convince folks that the cold weather is a byproduct of Global Warming.

Sigh. You couldn't make this sort of thing up, folks. Nobody would believe it.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 03:58 0 comments

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2004

Bozell Issues $1 Million Challenge to Tom Brokaw and NBC

ALEXANDRIA, Va. --- Media Research Center President Brent Bozell is issuing a $1 million challenge to NBC and NBC Nightly News Anchor Tom Brokaw, calling Brokaw on his comments made in a recent interview with Columbia Journalism Review. In the interview, Brokaw directly took on Bozell and the Media Research Center while denying the credibility of their evidence of liberal bias in the press. Among other things, Brokaw said:

"What I get tired of is Brent Bozell trying to make these fine legal points everywhere every day. A lot of it just doesn’t hold up. So much of it is that bias — like beauty — is in the eye of the beholder."

Bozell responded: "I know our evidence does 'hold up' and we'll prove it. I issue this challenge to NBC and its anchor: let's assemble a mutually agreeable third-party panel and have them review a compilation of the Media Research Center's 16 years of evidence of liberal media bias. If this panel agrees with Brokaw's contention, the Media Research Center will donate $1 million to the anchor's favorite charity. If the panel agrees with us, NBC and Brokaw will donate $1 million to the Media Research Center."

"Oh, and to sweeten the pot we'll do this: we'll limit our evidence only to Tom Brokaw and NBC. Frankly, that's all the evidence we need to prove the point."

This should be fun. No response yet from Brokaw --- then again, what can he say? Either he knows there is a liberal bias in the media, and wants to cover it up, or he does not believe there is one (in which case Bernard Goldberg's hypothesis, that the media is so overwhelmingly liberal that it accepts the liberal position by default), but is afraid a neutral panel would side with the MRC.

I look forward to this.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 11:35 0 comments

 
Yahoo! News - False Lottery Claimant Charged with Crime

And justice is done. Hopefully, this will deter other idiots from engaging in the same behavior.

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 03:49 0 comments

 
Rummy declined honor as 'Person of the Year'=The Hill.com=

I wouldn't want to be associated with the idiotarians at Time, either.

I'm glad he pitched our soldiers, though. That reminds me -- has anyone told Katie Couric how to tell a boy soldier from a girl soldier yet?

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 10:51 0 comments

 
Lottery Update!

It looks like my initial suspicions were correct. Ms. Battles, the woman who claimed she "lost" her lottery ticket, is apparently a con artist. Her real name is Elicia Dickinson. She has been involved in fraud, "aggravated menacing", assault, and criminal trespass.

In addition, it turns out her story as to her source of the winning numbers is bogus, too. She claims that two numbers (12 & 18) come from her child's birthday (December 18). So far, so good. But then the number 32 comes from reversing another child's age. Umm, okay -- odd, but vaguely plausible.

Her final number, 49, however, supposedly came from how old her estranged husband will be next year.

Unfortunately for Ms. Battles/Dickinson's story, he turns 45, not 49.

That hasn't stopped her lawsuit, however. I am guessing she hopes to tie up the lottery funds long enough to wrangle $10K or so out of the winner, Rebecca Jemison. I hope Rebecca stands strong and holds her ground. Ms. Battles/Dickinson should not be rewarded for abusing the system and outright fraud. Her ex-husband has stated that the woman has a propensity for "stretching things out of proportion".

Oh yeah -- in the long-term consequences department, Ms. Battles/Dickinson is the plaintiff in two pending negligence lawsuits. One involves allegations her daughter ingested a tainted milk shake at McDonald's. The other involves an injury claim against the local gas company. How will the lottery case impact those cases? Simple. While evidence as to character is generally not admissible (the fact someone is unsavory should not bear on their ability to recover for their injuries), evidence of a pertinent character trait (such as, oh, I don't know, honesty?) is admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness. Ms. Dickinson/Battle will have to testify in these cases to describe how she or her child were injured. When she does, opposing counsel will be able to bring up this case (showing she filed a false police report) and the earlier case involving credit card fraud.

Oops. There is a moral in here, but if I have to point it out . . .

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 10:35 0 comments

 
Newsday.com: Kucinich Shows Pie Chart on Radio Debate.

Insert your own jokes here.

At least, in his own, wacky, moonbatted sort of way, Kucinich brings a little comedy relief to the table.

Most of the rest of the dwarves are "Grumpy" clones (was there a dwarf name "Angry", "Embittered" or "Jealous"?).

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 08:46 0 comments

 
Legal Lottery? Legal Lottery.

So now we have the two great American gambles, the lottery and the legal system, duking it out. We have in one corner the lottery winner, Ms. Rebecca Jemison, who claims to have played these numbers occasionally over the past several years and who turned in the $162M winning ticket.

In the other corner, we have another woman, Elecia Battle, who announced she bought the ticket, then "lost" it outside the convenience store where she bought it (conveniently, Ms. Battle announced this AFTER the Lottery Commission released the location that issued the winning ticket). She now intends to roll the dice in the great American lottery that is the legal system.

Ms. Battle's lawyer, one Sheldon Starke, stated "this is a question of lost property, not abandoned property. If there is one type of property that is not presumed to be abandoned, it's money ... Anyone who finds it is not the owner."

While that is true, to an extent, Ms. Battle MUST be able to prove that she is the owner. As this is a lottery ticket, her handwriting is not going to be much help -- tickets are machine printed. The store's video cameras are not going to be much help -- the store owner said they are broken. Fingerprints MIGHT be of assistance, unless, of course, the claimant says she was wearing gloves at the time. And you can bet that she will.

Sigh. Might Ms. Battle have bought the ticket? Yup. Can she prove it? Unless she knows something I don't know -- nope. Is she entitled to the winnings if she can't prove she bought the ticket? Nope -- but her lawyer is going to try like heck to portray her as a victim (and will likely engage in some serious character assassination against Ms. Jemison). If he gets a friendly judge, he may even get to do a little mudwrestling in front of a jury.

Who is right? I don't know. But I'll be willing to bet this case, if it goes forward, will have more to do with character assassination, dirty tricks, lies, and mud-slinging than anything else.

That's unfortunate, as it will provide yet another negative portrayal of the legal profession.

Steve

UPDATE! Apparently, Ms. Battle has filed suit. Meanwhile, Ms. Jemison has presented the Ohio Lottery officials with another ticket she bought at the same time as the winning ticket, plus evidence that she had used these same numbers on prior occasions. The District Attorney is considering filing charges against Ms. Battle for filing a false police report.

And well they should, IMHO, if she cannot prove ownership. I suspect she has been lying all along, though, of course, I cannot prove it.
- posted by MrSpkr @ 13:17 0 comments

 
This site reminds me of other famous contradictions, like "Rock Against Drugs".

In the words of the late Sam Kinison, the whole concept is rather like "Christians Against Christ."

Steve
- posted by MrSpkr @ 12:52 0 comments