Firestarter

You're out again? At least until the damn Pope dies. To paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby, though, it doesn't seem like the Lord's all that keen for him to join Him.

And this has been the biggest "Well, duh" moment of my day so far.

Will you ever stop taking everything so seriously and acquire a sense of humour? Your constant holy crusades are getting pretty damn old too. Maybe it's time for you to find another folder to plague. Go find another playground where you can take shrill offense on behalf of other people at every ridiculously obvious irony. Christ, and you have the gall to call other people "witless." You're its fucking epitome.

Your knowledge of law is almost as threadbare as your compassion. Criminal charges can be, and often are, filed in cases of deliberate and malicious destruction of private property. Intent is clear, and this farmworker can be thrown into prison not only for destruction of property but also for cruelty to animals and possibly assault against the girl.

Wonderful, now go away. You're almost enough to drive me back to the Church.

Because Eagan's a moron. Seriously, though, the funniest thing in this thread was Tyler and Mike claiming that passages they haven't read in a book they'll never buy are grounds to sue the author for libel - on behalf of someone who, even if he did exist at some point, died almost 2000 years ago and has no estate and no living relatives. Unless you think you can make a case for the Catholic Church receiving damages in Jesus's stead? Guys, even if you could find some lunatic Christian version of the 9th Circuit somewhere, you'd be laughed out of court. "Ridiculous" doesn't do the idea justice. It's one of the most spectacular pinnacles of silliness I've ever seen in my life. Oddly enough, the only Christian who made any sort of sense at all was SpiderPoet. That's a rather sad commentary on you lot. And no, there's no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not one scrap. And if you are a Christian there doesn't need to be. Shut your ignorant mouths.

30

Americans Rate the U.N. Percentage saying the United Nations is doing a "poor job": Men 72% Women 55% Conservative 69% Moderate 60% Liberal 59% Republican 77% Independent 61% Democrat 53% Click here for WSJ article

Clarification: As I've said in more than one previous thread, I really don't like the idea of the recall, I think no provision for it should ever have been part of California's constitution, so the outcome of the decision doesn't bother me in the least. But I fucking HATE the 9th Circuit. BE CONSISTENT! MAKE SOME FUCKING SENSE ONCE IN A WHILE! LEARN TO FUCKING COUNT! TAKE A BASIC FUCKING LOGIC CLASS! IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FEDERAL FUCKING JUDGES, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! I'm on the verge of breaking down in tears out of pure frustration. What's wrong with them?! What?!

This part is my favourite: "The only potential justification is that the California Constitution requires that a recall election be held within sixty days of certification by the Secretary of State. However, this justification has no application to placement of the initiatives on the ballot because there is no similar time constraint applicable to them, and they were originally scheduled to be placed on the March 2004 ballot. As to the gubernatorial recall vote, this rationale is also weak. Indeed, had the recall petition been certified just a month and a half later than it was, the recall election would have been scheduled to take place not within sixty to eighty days as provided in the California Constitution, art. II, §15(a), but instead in March 2004..." Are these people high? No, really, have they been taking liberal advantage (sorry) of Prop 215? The state constitution is "only [a] potential justification?" What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck? And where's all this blather about a month and a half coming from? Someone help me out here, because I'm trying really, really, hard, but I can't even begin to see how that's relevant. Earlier in the decision: "If the Secretary of State had issued the certification a month and a half later than he did, as originally planned based on the date by which sufficient valid petition signatures needed to be filed, the recall election would have been held at the next regular election March 2, 2004. However, sufficient signatures were submitted before the deadline, motivating the Secretary of State to issue a certification earlier than originally planned." Yes... and?! What in God's name is your point, you complete raving lunatics? If the Secretary of State had issued the certification a decade and a half later than he did, Gray Davis's term would've expired and no one would've needed to vote on this at all! Hey, let's just cancel the recall instead of postponing it, it's just MANDATED BY LAW, right? WHO CARES ABOUT THE DETAILS? And THIS! "We would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation’s history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy." Well isn't that just dandy. I'm SO FUCKING HAPPY we have the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by panel of their collective head-up-the-ass HONOR Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez to engage in PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. What's that you say? That's not an appellate court's role? SILLY BOY THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALONE SHALL DETERMINE THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S ROLE! Jesus God. Is it too much to ask for a sense of shame from these cretins if nothing else.

That's a lovely image, Tom. Thanks.

Hmm, it was S346 under the 107th. No one seems to know what exactly happened to it right now. Probably got bogged down in a committee somewhere. I'll dig around a bit more later. Edit: Scanned the congressional record briefly. My best guess is that it died in the Judiciary committee.

Actually, there was a plan to split it up and create a new 12th Circuit at one point. I wonder what happened to that? <makes calls>

Bound to be. And since the recall is perfectly legal under California's constitution, stupid and degenerative though I think it is, the appellate court's decision is bound to be overturned. Just like 78-96% of its previous reviewed rulings have been. In fact, I'll call it now. The Supreme Court will reverse this within the week-long stay.

I'm not a field agent, but this is common sense. Following Torricelli's ludicrous hissyfit, Deutch's advisory and the Clinton administration's new rules were absolutely crippling to daily operations. Ambassador Paul Bremer, now in Iraq but then serving on a commission on terrorism, put it best: "Efforts to gather information about terrorist plots and get it into the hands of analysts and decision makers in the federal government are stymied by bureaucratic and cultural obstacles. For example, who better to tell you about the plans of a terrorist organization than a member of that organization? Yet, a CIA officer in the field hoping to recruit such a source faces a daunting series of reviews by committees back at headquarters operating under guidelines that start from the presumption that recruiting a terrorist is a bad thing. This presumption can be overcome, but only after an extensive process designed to reduce the risk from such a recruitment to as near zero as possible. Even if a young case officer makes it through this gauntlet, will the potential terrorist recruit still be around? Will the attack have already occurred?"

Okay, that was scary. We both posted the same story at exactly the same time. Get a life, you pathetic political junkie! Edit: Historical note - the two topics were consolidated into one. My title and subtitle were kept, even though JotW got top billing. I demanded, and received, a higher cut of the gate.

CNN story And the only court in the country with a reversal rate of 78-96% of reviewed cases goes up to bat one more time.

It's a moronic thing to do. Ethics don't even begin to come into it.

One reason is that Saudi Arabia, as a country, is far more radicalised (in terms of both religion and politics) than Iraq, Iran, or even Syria. You don't want a democracy there. Believe it or not, the House of Saud is probably our best option, not only right now but for the foreseeable future. That said, we could bring a lot of pressure to bear on them in a hurry to make them clean up their act some more, and I wish we would.

I agree absolutely that there's no legal justification for violating copyright law, and the correct course of action is not "civil disobedience" (which is a horrible misnomer, because the point of real civil disobedience is to demonstrate strength in numbers, willpower, and conviction, not to hide in anonymity. Dr King would not have been a file-swapper) but boycotts. If someone considers cheap new music so essential to his life that he's willing to risk jail time to break (admittedly unfair) laws, but can't be bothered to work within the system to change those very same laws, it demonstrates his shallowness more than his principles.

Moslem incompetence, fantasy, and hypocrisy - Discarding War's Rules, an article by Dr Daniel Pipes A fascinating read, with indisputable premises and inevitable conclusions. I've been saying for some time now that Moslem ambitions, aggressions, and successes are founded primarily on the self-serving and deceitful philosophy of the power of victimhood. This excellent article not only makes that fact clear and explicit, it explains why the President has taken the steps he has to counter it, and delineates what we must do in the future to render it a nonviable strategy.

Here's what I'm listening to: "Let's snap our fingers, clap our hands Down by the riverside, down by the riverside, down by the riverside Let's give 'em what the song demands Down by the riverside, down by the riverside We'll hear them playing, keep that beat Down by the riverside, down by the riverside, down by the riverside Let's get together, what a treat Down by the riverside, down by the riverside Strike up the band, start the parade Don't let that grand old rhythm fade Just play that drum, play that number When the saints come marchin' in. Shake tambourines, play that cornet Crank up that horn you won't forget Your heart will hum to that number When the saints come marchin' in. The cymbals clang, just pound that beat Sounds like a hundred marching feet It's fun to join in that number When the saints come marchin' in. See banners wave, oh hear that ring We all feel prouder than a king 'Cause everyone, everyone loves that number When the saints come marchin' in." - Elvis Presley, Down by the Riverside/When the Saints Come Marchin' In

Wherever this... person came from, will someone please send him back.

My sister-in-law (freckled redhead whom, when her tan fades, you need sunglasses to look at, she's so damn white) had it on almost every time I got into her car. The first time I heard it, it was just background noise. The second time, I was mildly irritated. The third time I changed the CD, but she changed it back and stuck her tongue out at me. The fourth time I handcuffed her to the steering wheel and THEN changed the CD. The fifth time I pointed a gun at her head and made her change it herself. It's true. Rap really does cause violence.

^Hates this song with a passion. Hey, it's better than that sorry "Magic Clit" garbage.