Answer: Both states have officials who disobey higher authority.
You're wondering who I'm talking about now, right?
If you guessed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, you're right.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that the reason Moore is the former chief justice is because he disobeyed a federal court order to remove the 10 Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. And like I've said before, It's not because of the 10 Commandments, it's because of his disobedience.
Well, in San Francisco, Mayor Newsom has been issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
According to the Montgomery Advertiser, "More than 2,000 gay couples have been married despite a California law that unambiguously forbids same-sex marriages."
The Moore/Newsom comparison was first introduced in an editorial in the Dallas Morning News.
The Dallas Morning News editorial writer says, "It's a serious matter when officials whose responsibilities are to enforce the law flout it." He's right. It is a serious matter.
What people don't realize is that there is a right and wrong way to go about change. A public official deliberately disregarding a law or a higher court's authority in either situation is wrong, no matter which side you believe in.
These leaders should work with supporters to change the law rather than take it in their own hands. They don't believe in vigilante justice, and they shouldn't believe in vigilante lawmaking.
More info:
Moore, Newsom peas in a pod
Dallas Morning News
2.12.2004
Update - Alvin Holmes doesn't drink bourbon, just scotch
This is an update to yesterday's stories: "Why it pays to be a lawmaker" and "Can't we all just get along".
Here's some advice for the average citizen: If you're going to argue with the authorities that pulled you over for drunken driving, make sure they don't have you on videotape.
Yes, a fuzzy videotape has emerged in the Alvin Holmes/D.T. Marshall drunken driving situation, and Holmes says the wet spot on his "britches" (to quote the Sheriff) was due to him spilling a soft drink on himself.
Holmes also claims that the "bourbon and beer" comment was a joke. He says that he doesn't even drink bourbon - only scotch.
Read the article here.
Have comments on this or other stories? Speak your mind here.
Here's some advice for the average citizen: If you're going to argue with the authorities that pulled you over for drunken driving, make sure they don't have you on videotape.
Yes, a fuzzy videotape has emerged in the Alvin Holmes/D.T. Marshall drunken driving situation, and Holmes says the wet spot on his "britches" (to quote the Sheriff) was due to him spilling a soft drink on himself.
Holmes also claims that the "bourbon and beer" comment was a joke. He says that he doesn't even drink bourbon - only scotch.
Read the article here.
Have comments on this or other stories? Speak your mind here.
2.11.2004
"Why it pays to be a lawmaker" or "Can't we all just get along?"
One title just wasn't enough, oh no, not when a story has to do with Alabama Representative Alvin Holmes and Sheriff D.T. Marshall.
Part one: "Why it pays to be a lawmaker"
This is interesting: Alabama's state constitution provides "legislative privilege" to lawmakers, which means that they cannot be arrested for any reason except for "treason, felony, violation of their oath of office, and breach of the peace."
The Monopoly guy would be proud - There really is such a thing as a "get out of jail free card." (Monopoly is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc., a company that should not engage in lawsuits with the owner of JoshCarples.com for the mere mention of its name. Thank you.)
So what exactly can a lawmaker get away with and what happens when a lawmaker becomes a lawbreaker?
That brings us to.....
Part two: "Can't we all just get along"
Many of you might remember that quote from the the Rodney King/LAPD days when that entire police department had the reputation of Vic Mackey (a name you would recognize if you watch "The Shield" on the FX channel. FX is a registered trademark of....nevermind).
In the post 9/11 world of today, that quote would probably be more prevalent if we (as Americans) had a longer attention span than the average five-year-old. A growing issue in Bush's "Crusade", which later became known as the "War on Terror", is the subject of racial profiling.
And honestly, right after 9/11, how comfortable would you be sitting next to someone of Arabian descent on an airplane? Probably not that comfortable if you're honest with yourself. Does that make it right? No. But I am convinced that it is sometimes a human defense mechanism.
But to clarify the point, there is a difference between a defense mechanism and ignorance. If you want to see pure ignorance in action, find a member of the KKK and wait til he opens his mouth.
A story appeared in the Montgomery Advertiser today, telling the story of one lawmaker by the name of Alvin Holmes, who was pulled over recently by Deputy Gil Robinson. Holmes was pulled over because he was weaving in and out of his lane on Interstate 65. According to the article, the deputy approached Holmes, noticing that "the representative's speech was slurred and that there was the smell of alcohol on his breath."
According to Sheriff D.T. Marshall, "Mr. Holmes also had liquid on the front of his britches. It appeared that he may have urinated on himself, but he could have spilled something on himself."
Imagine this happening to a normal citizen, you know, a non-lawmaker. What would have happend to you or me in this same situation? Would we be arrested? Forced to sober up in a jail cell? Fined?
But under Alabama's constitution, Mr. Holmes did not commit treason, or a felony, or any of that other stuff that could have gotten him in trouble, so he was free to go. No ticket. Possibly a warning (if he remembered what the deputy may have said - memory gets to the level of "fuzzy" at that point.)
So what happened next you ask? Holmes said he was pulled over because of racial profiling. Holmes is a black man, and Marshall is a white man, and they have never seen eye-to-eye politically so far.
But Marshall didn't pull Holmes over. A black deputy (remember Gil Robinson from a few paragraphs above?) pulled Holmes over, not the white sheriff.
Of course, Marshall says that the racial profiling accusation is "ridiculous".
To me, it sounds rather ridiculous, but I'm not willing to make a final decision about it - I mean, let's not forget, this is Alabama we're talking about. Any state whose citizens worry more about a huge 10-Commandments rock than the budget crisis, education shortfalls, and umemployment rate, has other issues to deal with.
Bonus section: So what's the lesson we've learned?
#1. If you're going to drive drunk, you should first get elected to office (or have the last name Bush).
#2. Lawmakers really are above the law.
#3. If you live in Alabama, rocks are more important than people.
#4. The word "britches" is used far more often in Alabama than any other state (except maybe Mississippi).
#5. Hey, at least we're not in Mississippi.
For more info:
Sheriff disputes lawmaker's racism claim
Part one: "Why it pays to be a lawmaker"
This is interesting: Alabama's state constitution provides "legislative privilege" to lawmakers, which means that they cannot be arrested for any reason except for "treason, felony, violation of their oath of office, and breach of the peace."
The Monopoly guy would be proud - There really is such a thing as a "get out of jail free card." (Monopoly is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc., a company that should not engage in lawsuits with the owner of JoshCarples.com for the mere mention of its name. Thank you.)
So what exactly can a lawmaker get away with and what happens when a lawmaker becomes a lawbreaker?
That brings us to.....
Part two: "Can't we all just get along"
Many of you might remember that quote from the the Rodney King/LAPD days when that entire police department had the reputation of Vic Mackey (a name you would recognize if you watch "The Shield" on the FX channel. FX is a registered trademark of....nevermind).
In the post 9/11 world of today, that quote would probably be more prevalent if we (as Americans) had a longer attention span than the average five-year-old. A growing issue in Bush's "Crusade", which later became known as the "War on Terror", is the subject of racial profiling.
And honestly, right after 9/11, how comfortable would you be sitting next to someone of Arabian descent on an airplane? Probably not that comfortable if you're honest with yourself. Does that make it right? No. But I am convinced that it is sometimes a human defense mechanism.
But to clarify the point, there is a difference between a defense mechanism and ignorance. If you want to see pure ignorance in action, find a member of the KKK and wait til he opens his mouth.
A story appeared in the Montgomery Advertiser today, telling the story of one lawmaker by the name of Alvin Holmes, who was pulled over recently by Deputy Gil Robinson. Holmes was pulled over because he was weaving in and out of his lane on Interstate 65. According to the article, the deputy approached Holmes, noticing that "the representative's speech was slurred and that there was the smell of alcohol on his breath."
According to Sheriff D.T. Marshall, "Mr. Holmes also had liquid on the front of his britches. It appeared that he may have urinated on himself, but he could have spilled something on himself."
Imagine this happening to a normal citizen, you know, a non-lawmaker. What would have happend to you or me in this same situation? Would we be arrested? Forced to sober up in a jail cell? Fined?
But under Alabama's constitution, Mr. Holmes did not commit treason, or a felony, or any of that other stuff that could have gotten him in trouble, so he was free to go. No ticket. Possibly a warning (if he remembered what the deputy may have said - memory gets to the level of "fuzzy" at that point.)
So what happened next you ask? Holmes said he was pulled over because of racial profiling. Holmes is a black man, and Marshall is a white man, and they have never seen eye-to-eye politically so far.
But Marshall didn't pull Holmes over. A black deputy (remember Gil Robinson from a few paragraphs above?) pulled Holmes over, not the white sheriff.
Of course, Marshall says that the racial profiling accusation is "ridiculous".
To me, it sounds rather ridiculous, but I'm not willing to make a final decision about it - I mean, let's not forget, this is Alabama we're talking about. Any state whose citizens worry more about a huge 10-Commandments rock than the budget crisis, education shortfalls, and umemployment rate, has other issues to deal with.
Bonus section: So what's the lesson we've learned?
#1. If you're going to drive drunk, you should first get elected to office (or have the last name Bush).
#2. Lawmakers really are above the law.
#3. If you live in Alabama, rocks are more important than people.
#4. The word "britches" is used far more often in Alabama than any other state (except maybe Mississippi).
#5. Hey, at least we're not in Mississippi.
For more info:
Sheriff disputes lawmaker's racism claim
1.23.2004
The General vs. The Deserter: The Spin Starts Here
On tonight's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly resorted to name-calling.
Here's what happened:
O'Reilly was commenting on Thursday's Democratic Presidential Debate, specifically the part where ABC News' Peter Jennings questioned Wesley Clark about the support given to him from "controversial filmmaker" Michael Moore. Moore has officially endorsed Clark for President in '04, and is the best-selling author of Downsize This!, Stupid White Men, and Dude, Where's My Country, as well as the filmmaker behind the award-winning Bowling For Columbine.
Moore said that he would love to see a debate between Clark and Bush, and he said the debate would be "The General versus The Deserter", referring to many articles in major newspapers about Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Texas Air National Guard. According to the articles, there is a year where Bush is....well....AWOL. He's just unaccounted for.....for a year.
On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill called Michael Moore (and Stuart Smalley) a "smear merchant". Yes, O'Reilly fans, it's true - your "humble correspondent" resorted to name-calling, proving that the Spin actually STARTS here. O'Reilly also made the statement that "people who hate America love Michael Moore". That seems rather libelous.
The underlying problem with this situation is what is known as "lazy journalism". Mr. Jennings is a respected journalist who has been in the news business for many years, and he knows better (or really should know better) than to just say things without checking facts. He was implying that there is no evidence that Bush is a "deserter", when in fact there are many news articles that speak of his suspicious missing year of service.
What's the lesson we've learned here, kids? You can go AWOL without being prosecuted...IF your last name is Bush.
Wow, it seems that last name gets you a lot. It lets "C" students get into Ivy League Schools. It gives drug users a chance to make it in politics. And it also gets you the title of "President" even if you didn't get the most votes. Thank you, members of the Supreme Court, for helping America make up its mind. How in the world did we ever choose presidents in the past without them stepping in to save us?
In all fairness, Bill O'Reilly is not always wrong, just as Michael Moore is not always right. That statement comes from me reading Dude, Where's My Countryand Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You? Both authors bring up valid points in many areas.
It just seems shameful to me that O'Reilly only considers certain liberals "smear merchants", while he considers conservatives who act the same way on the other side of the political spectrum friends (i.e. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity).
Here is a letter I emailed to O'Reilly, and I encourage anyone reading this who cares about ethical journalism and this country to email Bill and ask him to actually be "fair and balanced" like his network claims to be:
TO: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: The Smear Merchant Spin
Mr. O,
The spin actually started when you referred to Michael
Moore as a "Smear Merchant". People who like America
can also like Michael Moore. It seems on the Factor
that liberals get the "Smear Merchant" tag while your
"friends" such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity don't.
Is this fair and balanced?
Josh Carples
Montgomery, AL
For More Information:
Michael Moore has links to the "deserter" news articles
Bill O'Reilly's site at Fox News
Wesley Clark for President
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Fair)
Here's what happened:
O'Reilly was commenting on Thursday's Democratic Presidential Debate, specifically the part where ABC News' Peter Jennings questioned Wesley Clark about the support given to him from "controversial filmmaker" Michael Moore. Moore has officially endorsed Clark for President in '04, and is the best-selling author of Downsize This!, Stupid White Men, and Dude, Where's My Country, as well as the filmmaker behind the award-winning Bowling For Columbine.
Moore said that he would love to see a debate between Clark and Bush, and he said the debate would be "The General versus The Deserter", referring to many articles in major newspapers about Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Texas Air National Guard. According to the articles, there is a year where Bush is....well....AWOL. He's just unaccounted for.....for a year.
On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill called Michael Moore (and Stuart Smalley) a "smear merchant". Yes, O'Reilly fans, it's true - your "humble correspondent" resorted to name-calling, proving that the Spin actually STARTS here. O'Reilly also made the statement that "people who hate America love Michael Moore". That seems rather libelous.
The underlying problem with this situation is what is known as "lazy journalism". Mr. Jennings is a respected journalist who has been in the news business for many years, and he knows better (or really should know better) than to just say things without checking facts. He was implying that there is no evidence that Bush is a "deserter", when in fact there are many news articles that speak of his suspicious missing year of service.
What's the lesson we've learned here, kids? You can go AWOL without being prosecuted...IF your last name is Bush.
Wow, it seems that last name gets you a lot. It lets "C" students get into Ivy League Schools. It gives drug users a chance to make it in politics. And it also gets you the title of "President" even if you didn't get the most votes. Thank you, members of the Supreme Court, for helping America make up its mind. How in the world did we ever choose presidents in the past without them stepping in to save us?
In all fairness, Bill O'Reilly is not always wrong, just as Michael Moore is not always right. That statement comes from me reading Dude, Where's My Countryand Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You? Both authors bring up valid points in many areas.
It just seems shameful to me that O'Reilly only considers certain liberals "smear merchants", while he considers conservatives who act the same way on the other side of the political spectrum friends (i.e. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity).
Here is a letter I emailed to O'Reilly, and I encourage anyone reading this who cares about ethical journalism and this country to email Bill and ask him to actually be "fair and balanced" like his network claims to be:
TO: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: The Smear Merchant Spin
Mr. O,
The spin actually started when you referred to Michael
Moore as a "Smear Merchant". People who like America
can also like Michael Moore. It seems on the Factor
that liberals get the "Smear Merchant" tag while your
"friends" such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity don't.
Is this fair and balanced?
Josh Carples
Montgomery, AL
For More Information:
Michael Moore has links to the "deserter" news articles
Bill O'Reilly's site at Fox News
Wesley Clark for President
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Fair)
1.11.2004
Once, Twice, Three Times a Loser...........
Wow!
I just read an editorial in the Montgomery Advertiser that sums up all the stuff I've been saying about Roy Moore this whole time!
The link is below and it's well worth reading.
Here are some excerpts:
"In his personal life, Moore is free, and always has been, to practice his religion as he feels led to practice it. He, like any other American, can worship as he chooses in his home or in any house of worship or in any private forum. Government has in no way impinged upon his rights."
Wow, that sounds familiar.......here's more:
"But Moore again like any other citizen is not free to impose his personal religion or any other kind on anyone else. He is not free to use his public position to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone else.
"Nor is he free to ignore with impunity the orders of a higher court. That blatant violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, not his practice of his faith, is what cost him his job. And it should have."
See, I'm not the only person who says that Moore did not lose his job because of his faith. He lost it because he disobeyed a federal court order. It actually has nothing to do with his faith - it has to do with his actions.
According to the article, Moore lost his case at every step of the legal process: He lost the first time in the US District Court, the second time at the 11th District US Court of Appeals, and the third time when the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
Unlike Moore and many of his followers, however, I don't need a government (or newspaper) to affirm my personal beliefs for me to feel whole......
Here's the link:
"Moore never made to choose"
I just read an editorial in the Montgomery Advertiser that sums up all the stuff I've been saying about Roy Moore this whole time!
The link is below and it's well worth reading.
Here are some excerpts:
"In his personal life, Moore is free, and always has been, to practice his religion as he feels led to practice it. He, like any other American, can worship as he chooses in his home or in any house of worship or in any private forum. Government has in no way impinged upon his rights."
Wow, that sounds familiar.......here's more:
"But Moore again like any other citizen is not free to impose his personal religion or any other kind on anyone else. He is not free to use his public position to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone else.
"Nor is he free to ignore with impunity the orders of a higher court. That blatant violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, not his practice of his faith, is what cost him his job. And it should have."
See, I'm not the only person who says that Moore did not lose his job because of his faith. He lost it because he disobeyed a federal court order. It actually has nothing to do with his faith - it has to do with his actions.
According to the article, Moore lost his case at every step of the legal process: He lost the first time in the US District Court, the second time at the 11th District US Court of Appeals, and the third time when the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
Unlike Moore and many of his followers, however, I don't need a government (or newspaper) to affirm my personal beliefs for me to feel whole......
Here's the link:
"Moore never made to choose"
1.09.2004
Is Moore really that newsworthy?
If it wasn't for the Montgomery Advertiser's daily dose of Moore, Moore, Moore, I just don't know how the religious right who run this State could survive. How many times can you repeat the same thing over and over again without it getting old?
All this does is bring up the same old questions over and over again....
Why must the State affirm a religious belief for it to be valid?
Why does Moore still act shocked that he lost his job?
Why does Moore feel that his actions speak for the entire State?
Maybe if Mister Former Chief Justice would think on that last question, he could get some answers in his own life. I, for one, think it is a sad day when a government has to back a religion just so people will feel "safe" in their beliefs. And we know the conservative media personalities can never make their minds up. One minute, they say that this country was founded on Christianity (or "Judeo-Christian values"), the next minute, they're saying how this is a secular country, and that's why we've prospered as a nation. Make up your minds.
I'm sick of people saying that Christians are losing all their rights and symbols, and that Christians are losing control of this country because of "liberal judges" and secularists like the ACLU. Oh No, not the big bad ACLU! Wake up! Christians run this country! Look at ol' Dubya - the most powerful man in the world - he doesn't hide the fact that he's religious. Recently, the media has covered which Democrats running for Dubya's job are religious, and how their religious beliefs will affect their numbers at the polls. A poll was taken about how many Americans want a religious leader running the country.
Here's the solution - for all you people who want a religious president - there's one running this year...........
Al Sharpton!
That's right - the Reverend Al Sharpton. You want a religious person running the country? What better way to see that than to vote for a Reverend? He's the one who always comes across the best in the debates anyway. It's about time we have a Black man in the White House. Let's change history this year. He's a Democrat - and he's the most religious candidate - a Reverend.
Al Sharpton for President in '04!
more info:
More Moore in the Montgomery Advertiser (Yawn)
Al Sharpton in 2004!
All this does is bring up the same old questions over and over again....
Why must the State affirm a religious belief for it to be valid?
Why does Moore still act shocked that he lost his job?
Why does Moore feel that his actions speak for the entire State?
Maybe if Mister Former Chief Justice would think on that last question, he could get some answers in his own life. I, for one, think it is a sad day when a government has to back a religion just so people will feel "safe" in their beliefs. And we know the conservative media personalities can never make their minds up. One minute, they say that this country was founded on Christianity (or "Judeo-Christian values"), the next minute, they're saying how this is a secular country, and that's why we've prospered as a nation. Make up your minds.
I'm sick of people saying that Christians are losing all their rights and symbols, and that Christians are losing control of this country because of "liberal judges" and secularists like the ACLU. Oh No, not the big bad ACLU! Wake up! Christians run this country! Look at ol' Dubya - the most powerful man in the world - he doesn't hide the fact that he's religious. Recently, the media has covered which Democrats running for Dubya's job are religious, and how their religious beliefs will affect their numbers at the polls. A poll was taken about how many Americans want a religious leader running the country.
Here's the solution - for all you people who want a religious president - there's one running this year...........
Al Sharpton!
That's right - the Reverend Al Sharpton. You want a religious person running the country? What better way to see that than to vote for a Reverend? He's the one who always comes across the best in the debates anyway. It's about time we have a Black man in the White House. Let's change history this year. He's a Democrat - and he's the most religious candidate - a Reverend.
Al Sharpton for President in '04!
more info:
More Moore in the Montgomery Advertiser (Yawn)
Al Sharpton in 2004!
1.03.2004
A New Year, and an election year...Mr. Show says "Vote"
A new year of new events - leading up to the big election coming in November, where voters will decide to vote for change, freedom, and civil liberties, or decide to keep the mis-leader of the War on Terror around four more years. That's four more years of losing constitutional freedoms, tax cuts for the rich (yes, Mr. O'Reilly, I said it - for the rich), and Oil, Oil, Oil.
Many questions will be answered in the near future. Will the election be Bush vs. Dean? Will Wesley Clark pull ahead? Will Hillary jump in at the last minute and take over the democratic party? Will other democrats back Dean if he gets the nomination? Will Joe Lieberman ever officially wear a "Hello, my name is: Republican" name tag?
Let your voice be heard. Vote. Listen to Mr. Show.
There's an interesting interview with comedian David Cross on Alternet.org. Many people know him from his HBO series "Mr. Show". A funny guy, and also very political. Probably considered one of the "Elites" by conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham, who seems to put any TV personality who doesn't like Bush in that category. Hey Laura, why don't you "Shut Up and Sing"?
Here is a quote from Cross about voting: "It's pretty galling that I know people will wait in line for a weekend to see a f*ckin' movie that's gonna be there for three months, but won't wait in line for 12 minutes to vote. If not for yourself, then for everyone else, it's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Just the fact that you won't educate yourself on the issues. It's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Especially because so many people have suffered to obtain that right, or obtain the idea of that right."
And how right he is. We've all seen it. People get this my-vote-doesn't-count attitude and refuse to get involved or care about what goes on. Some people think "It doesn't affect me," but it does. It all affects you in one way or another. What if we got half the people who think their vote doesn't cout out to the polls this election? What kind of difference would it make when the last president only "won" (not really) by what - 537 votes?
Here's what Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly want you to just "get over": The guy with the most votes did not win in 2000. George W. Bush officially became the first Supreme-Court-appointed President in the history of this country.
If you're wondering how the person with the most votes lost, there's a book you should read - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. Palast is an investigative journalist who thoroughly examined the whole Florida situation right after the "election" (put in quotes because we use that term loosely).
Here is a list of books to read for the New Year:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast
"Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore
"Dude, Where's my Country" by Michael Moore
"The Oh Really? Factor" by Peter Hart (of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
...and to be fair, also read "Who's Looking Out for You?" by Bill O'Reilly (always get both sides)
"Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken
"When You Ride ALONE, You Ride With Bin Laden" by Bill Maher
Here are some sites for more information:
David Cross Interview
I Know What You Did Last Election
Impeach Bush
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Mis-Leader
Move On
Bush In 30 seconds
Many questions will be answered in the near future. Will the election be Bush vs. Dean? Will Wesley Clark pull ahead? Will Hillary jump in at the last minute and take over the democratic party? Will other democrats back Dean if he gets the nomination? Will Joe Lieberman ever officially wear a "Hello, my name is: Republican" name tag?
Let your voice be heard. Vote. Listen to Mr. Show.
There's an interesting interview with comedian David Cross on Alternet.org. Many people know him from his HBO series "Mr. Show". A funny guy, and also very political. Probably considered one of the "Elites" by conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham, who seems to put any TV personality who doesn't like Bush in that category. Hey Laura, why don't you "Shut Up and Sing"?
Here is a quote from Cross about voting: "It's pretty galling that I know people will wait in line for a weekend to see a f*ckin' movie that's gonna be there for three months, but won't wait in line for 12 minutes to vote. If not for yourself, then for everyone else, it's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Just the fact that you won't educate yourself on the issues. It's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Especially because so many people have suffered to obtain that right, or obtain the idea of that right."
And how right he is. We've all seen it. People get this my-vote-doesn't-count attitude and refuse to get involved or care about what goes on. Some people think "It doesn't affect me," but it does. It all affects you in one way or another. What if we got half the people who think their vote doesn't cout out to the polls this election? What kind of difference would it make when the last president only "won" (not really) by what - 537 votes?
Here's what Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly want you to just "get over": The guy with the most votes did not win in 2000. George W. Bush officially became the first Supreme-Court-appointed President in the history of this country.
If you're wondering how the person with the most votes lost, there's a book you should read - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. Palast is an investigative journalist who thoroughly examined the whole Florida situation right after the "election" (put in quotes because we use that term loosely).
Here is a list of books to read for the New Year:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast
"Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore
"Dude, Where's my Country" by Michael Moore
"The Oh Really? Factor" by Peter Hart (of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
...and to be fair, also read "Who's Looking Out for You?" by Bill O'Reilly (always get both sides)
"Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken
"When You Ride ALONE, You Ride With Bin Laden" by Bill Maher
Here are some sites for more information:
David Cross Interview
I Know What You Did Last Election
Impeach Bush
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Mis-Leader
Move On
Bush In 30 seconds
12.16.2003
The Montgomery Mindset on the War On Terror.....
In a word...Sad.
I just went to the Montgomery Advertiser's website, and they have a new online poll up.
It asks the question:
"Which is more important to the War on Terror?"
A. The capture of Saddam Hussein
or
B. Finding weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, I voted "finding weapons of mass destruction." After all, that was the main reason we went over there....or at least that's what the Bush administration would have us believe. They don't seem to like the insinuation that oil and Bush's oil buddies at Halliburton had more reasons to go to war.
Speaking of WMD's, where are they? We've found empty cannisters and cylinders and other items that possibly could be used for weapons, but still no actual proof of weapons.
As of 1:43 am CST, that poll on the Montgomery Advertiser's web site had over 60% of the votes saying that capturing Saddam Hussein was more important than finding weapons of mass destruction. Why? OK, Saddam was a horrible person. He killed so many people that we'll probably never know the exact numbers, but when it comes to the War on Terror, what exactly can he do without those WMD's that everyone was talking about.
Presidential Candidate update:
Today, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean made a bold statement about the capture of Saddam. He said that America is no safer now than before his capture. We know that our troops are not safer. The day of his capture there were two suicide bombings in Baghdad. How many American troops are going to die before we let the free Iraqi's rule their own country?
Dean has been against the war from the beginning. He said that he is glad Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi people are safer now, but the safety of Americans remains unchanged by this situation.
More info:
Montgomery Advertiser: poll and Saddam coverage
Howard Dean for America
I just went to the Montgomery Advertiser's website, and they have a new online poll up.
It asks the question:
"Which is more important to the War on Terror?"
A. The capture of Saddam Hussein
or
B. Finding weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, I voted "finding weapons of mass destruction." After all, that was the main reason we went over there....or at least that's what the Bush administration would have us believe. They don't seem to like the insinuation that oil and Bush's oil buddies at Halliburton had more reasons to go to war.
Speaking of WMD's, where are they? We've found empty cannisters and cylinders and other items that possibly could be used for weapons, but still no actual proof of weapons.
As of 1:43 am CST, that poll on the Montgomery Advertiser's web site had over 60% of the votes saying that capturing Saddam Hussein was more important than finding weapons of mass destruction. Why? OK, Saddam was a horrible person. He killed so many people that we'll probably never know the exact numbers, but when it comes to the War on Terror, what exactly can he do without those WMD's that everyone was talking about.
Presidential Candidate update:
Today, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean made a bold statement about the capture of Saddam. He said that America is no safer now than before his capture. We know that our troops are not safer. The day of his capture there were two suicide bombings in Baghdad. How many American troops are going to die before we let the free Iraqi's rule their own country?
Dean has been against the war from the beginning. He said that he is glad Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi people are safer now, but the safety of Americans remains unchanged by this situation.
More info:
Montgomery Advertiser: poll and Saddam coverage
Howard Dean for America
12.15.2003
Saddam says, "A picture is worth a thousand words"
If you do not know by now, Saddam Hussein has officially been captured by US troops. A huge victory for the Bush administration, we now have in our custody the man who did not attack America on 9/11. Now if Bush could just find that pesky Osama guy (spelled Usama if you're watching Fox News Channel).
In the weeks before the war began, as you probably recall, there were many countries against our persistence to start a war. The country that stood out the most in its opposition was France. Of couse, many members of the "liberal media" - like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, turned against France through harsh words and boycotts. (On a sidenote: I find it interesting and a bit humorous that so many people call the media "liberal" when the most famous news personalities are conservative Bush-supporting Republicans - Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto, etc.)
Many people wondered why France was so adamant in its opposition to war. Then I began seeing this picture popping up in many news sources and all over the internet:
Click Here To See Pic
It's a picture of French President Jacques Chirac standing with Saddam Hussein and two scientists...and it was taken some time in the 1970's. Hey, a picture of them together in the 70's must mean that they have very strong ties in 2003. Yeah, OK.
If that's the case, then you might find this picture interesting. The "liberal media" didn't make this picture quite as popular:
Click Here To See Pic
There, you see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Note that this picture was taken in December of 1983, close to a decade after the infamous Saddam/Chirac picture.
Here is a picture from the web site whitehouse.org that is a humorous, a better word would probably be satirical, explanation of Saddam's biological and chemical weapons:
Click Here To See Pic
Yes, Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons....and the United States has known about this for many, many years - long before this war.
How does the US know he had these biological and chemical agents?
Because we sold them to him
The United States has a long history of dealings with Saddam Hussein, and there have been many US corporations who have sold chemical and biological agents to Saddam with full US government approval. The US even continued its dealings with Saddam after he gassed his own people...although Sean Hannity thinks we went to war to free 50 million people....yeah, cause that's just what we do, huh?
Want more information?
Read here for facts and links to other sources
Here is a list of American companies who helped Saddam
US had key role in Iraq buildup
In the weeks before the war began, as you probably recall, there were many countries against our persistence to start a war. The country that stood out the most in its opposition was France. Of couse, many members of the "liberal media" - like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, turned against France through harsh words and boycotts. (On a sidenote: I find it interesting and a bit humorous that so many people call the media "liberal" when the most famous news personalities are conservative Bush-supporting Republicans - Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto, etc.)
Many people wondered why France was so adamant in its opposition to war. Then I began seeing this picture popping up in many news sources and all over the internet:
Click Here To See Pic
It's a picture of French President Jacques Chirac standing with Saddam Hussein and two scientists...and it was taken some time in the 1970's. Hey, a picture of them together in the 70's must mean that they have very strong ties in 2003. Yeah, OK.
If that's the case, then you might find this picture interesting. The "liberal media" didn't make this picture quite as popular:
Click Here To See Pic
There, you see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Note that this picture was taken in December of 1983, close to a decade after the infamous Saddam/Chirac picture.
Here is a picture from the web site whitehouse.org that is a humorous, a better word would probably be satirical, explanation of Saddam's biological and chemical weapons:
Click Here To See Pic
Yes, Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons....and the United States has known about this for many, many years - long before this war.
How does the US know he had these biological and chemical agents?
Because we sold them to him
The United States has a long history of dealings with Saddam Hussein, and there have been many US corporations who have sold chemical and biological agents to Saddam with full US government approval. The US even continued its dealings with Saddam after he gassed his own people...although Sean Hannity thinks we went to war to free 50 million people....yeah, cause that's just what we do, huh?
Want more information?
Read here for facts and links to other sources
Here is a list of American companies who helped Saddam
US had key role in Iraq buildup
12.11.2003
What Moore do you want?
Dear Former Chief Justice Roy Moore,
You are the former chief justice for one reason: you deliberately disobeyed a federal court order. That's it. You did not lose your job because you believe in the ten commandments. You did not lose your job because you acknowledge God.
While many people see you as a great man who stands for his beliefs, there are those of us who see you as a man who loves publicity. That's all. You want to further advance your political career, so you rely on the press to get your name out to the public.
You and your followers spread your propoganda to the masses, making Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and all of Fox News repeat the same mantra about the secularization of America. America, according to the Constitution, cannot establish a religion - so therefore America is a secular country. I know you disagree because you stand firm on your belief that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Read your history books - the people who first came to this country came to have the freedom of religion. They were sick of having to follow the rules of the Church of England. So they came to America for freedom, and then many explorers and settlers came to the country in the spirit of exploration and religion. With these new settlers came diseases, and violence, and bloodshed, and death to the natives of this land. The "Indians" became slaves in many cases, and were slaughtered because they were considered "savages".
Slaughtering innocent people because you disagree with their way of life? Is this one of our Judeo-Christian values?
More Info:
Moore's fight to keep the job he chose to lose
You are the former chief justice for one reason: you deliberately disobeyed a federal court order. That's it. You did not lose your job because you believe in the ten commandments. You did not lose your job because you acknowledge God.
While many people see you as a great man who stands for his beliefs, there are those of us who see you as a man who loves publicity. That's all. You want to further advance your political career, so you rely on the press to get your name out to the public.
You and your followers spread your propoganda to the masses, making Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and all of Fox News repeat the same mantra about the secularization of America. America, according to the Constitution, cannot establish a religion - so therefore America is a secular country. I know you disagree because you stand firm on your belief that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Read your history books - the people who first came to this country came to have the freedom of religion. They were sick of having to follow the rules of the Church of England. So they came to America for freedom, and then many explorers and settlers came to the country in the spirit of exploration and religion. With these new settlers came diseases, and violence, and bloodshed, and death to the natives of this land. The "Indians" became slaves in many cases, and were slaughtered because they were considered "savages".
Slaughtering innocent people because you disagree with their way of life? Is this one of our Judeo-Christian values?
More Info:
Moore's fight to keep the job he chose to lose
11.24.2003
Hannity and Colmes...Fair and Balanced...or is just the Sean Hannity Show?
FAIR.org (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a great article about Fox News Channel's hit show "Hannity and Colmes". The article, written by Steve Rendall, debates the actual "balance" of the show.
He speaks of how the show was originally "Hannity and Liberal-to-be-determined" because Hannity was hired for the show before they ever even auditioned a liberal.
Fox news president Roger Ailes suggests that "Hannity and Colmes" is a very balanced show because it features both sides of the argument - you have the conservative (Sean Hannity) and the liberal (Alan Colmes).
Many people on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the show is not as balanced as Fox News would have you believe.
Sean Hannity is very aggressive, especially when compared to his co-host, who tends to be milder and closer to a "moderate" than a "liberal".
My views on Sean Hannity:
First of all, I disagree with Sean Hannity most of the time. He has said many things on the show that just go against what I believe this country should be about...
...and God forbid you bring up something about the 2000 election where the man in the White House did not get the most votes. Hannity will look at you, as he does any guest who brings this up, and say "Get over it." (For the record, Alan Colmes will usually agree that it is time to move on when it comes to that subject, but not all Americans can just "get over" the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of elected by the voters.)
Sean Hannity is not a bad guy. Really, he's not. I think he tries his best to be good, and maybe he's truly saying and doing what he thinks is right. He seems to be proud of his country, and very supportive of anything labeled "American".
Hannity's problem is that he has two very distinct sides to his personality. On his radio and television shows, he comes across as this aggressive, ultra-right-wing-conservative bulldog, who's ready to pounce on anyone who shows one drop of what he considers "unpatriotic" blood.
Opposite his "bulldog" side is his "lost-puppy-dog" side. There is a large part of Hannity that acts like a little, lost puppy dog, who's willing to just blindly follow our President, no matter what half-truth is told, or what war he gets us into, or which one of his CEO buddies just screwed his employees out of pensions and healthcare. In a way, you almost want to feel sorry for Mr. Hannity.
Like I said, Hannity is not a bad guy, he just seems a little lost sometimes, but luckily, he has his good friends Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham to stand up for him.
Speaking of Hannity and Colmes, tonight's episode was great! Of all the episodes I've seen, I have never seen a guest just get up and walk away like one did tonight. I don't remember the guy's name, but the entire time he was on the show (which could have been longer had he stayed), he was yelling at Colmes, and then at Hannity about Michael Jackson.
He was attempting to argue that the only reason Michael Jackson was brought up on charges was because he's black. He argued that Jackson's bail was set at $3 Million, while some murderer's bails (he mentioned Robert Blake for one) were set at only $1 Million. He said it was because of modern-day racism, and that they are targeting Jackson because he's black. He then challenged anyone who could explain the bail discrepancy.
Colmes said he would agree that maybe they went after Jackson because of his celebrity status, and maybe it would be a good mark on the prosecutor's record, but there is no basis for race.
Of course, the yelling-guy did not listen and continued to ask why the bail was different.
When Hannity started saying the same thing to him, he stood up, took his microphone off, and walked away. His mouth was moving and he was still yelling something as he left.
OK, I have a question:
When is the last time you can remember Michael Jackson being black?
more info:
FAIR.org's article about Hannity and Colmes
The Hannity and Colmes homepage
He speaks of how the show was originally "Hannity and Liberal-to-be-determined" because Hannity was hired for the show before they ever even auditioned a liberal.
Fox news president Roger Ailes suggests that "Hannity and Colmes" is a very balanced show because it features both sides of the argument - you have the conservative (Sean Hannity) and the liberal (Alan Colmes).
Many people on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the show is not as balanced as Fox News would have you believe.
Sean Hannity is very aggressive, especially when compared to his co-host, who tends to be milder and closer to a "moderate" than a "liberal".
My views on Sean Hannity:
First of all, I disagree with Sean Hannity most of the time. He has said many things on the show that just go against what I believe this country should be about...
...and God forbid you bring up something about the 2000 election where the man in the White House did not get the most votes. Hannity will look at you, as he does any guest who brings this up, and say "Get over it." (For the record, Alan Colmes will usually agree that it is time to move on when it comes to that subject, but not all Americans can just "get over" the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of elected by the voters.)
Sean Hannity is not a bad guy. Really, he's not. I think he tries his best to be good, and maybe he's truly saying and doing what he thinks is right. He seems to be proud of his country, and very supportive of anything labeled "American".
Hannity's problem is that he has two very distinct sides to his personality. On his radio and television shows, he comes across as this aggressive, ultra-right-wing-conservative bulldog, who's ready to pounce on anyone who shows one drop of what he considers "unpatriotic" blood.
Opposite his "bulldog" side is his "lost-puppy-dog" side. There is a large part of Hannity that acts like a little, lost puppy dog, who's willing to just blindly follow our President, no matter what half-truth is told, or what war he gets us into, or which one of his CEO buddies just screwed his employees out of pensions and healthcare. In a way, you almost want to feel sorry for Mr. Hannity.
Like I said, Hannity is not a bad guy, he just seems a little lost sometimes, but luckily, he has his good friends Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham to stand up for him.
Speaking of Hannity and Colmes, tonight's episode was great! Of all the episodes I've seen, I have never seen a guest just get up and walk away like one did tonight. I don't remember the guy's name, but the entire time he was on the show (which could have been longer had he stayed), he was yelling at Colmes, and then at Hannity about Michael Jackson.
He was attempting to argue that the only reason Michael Jackson was brought up on charges was because he's black. He argued that Jackson's bail was set at $3 Million, while some murderer's bails (he mentioned Robert Blake for one) were set at only $1 Million. He said it was because of modern-day racism, and that they are targeting Jackson because he's black. He then challenged anyone who could explain the bail discrepancy.
Colmes said he would agree that maybe they went after Jackson because of his celebrity status, and maybe it would be a good mark on the prosecutor's record, but there is no basis for race.
Of course, the yelling-guy did not listen and continued to ask why the bail was different.
When Hannity started saying the same thing to him, he stood up, took his microphone off, and walked away. His mouth was moving and he was still yelling something as he left.
OK, I have a question:
When is the last time you can remember Michael Jackson being black?
more info:
FAIR.org's article about Hannity and Colmes
The Hannity and Colmes homepage
11.20.2003
Did your vote count: How Florida 2000 could become US 2004 and beyond...
In the year 2000, America saw disaster. This disaster came in the form of a "hanging chad" - when our voting rights got tossed out the window like yesterday's trash.
Yes, it was a sad time in this country's history - the choice came down to two candidates - George W. Bush and Al Gore. Was this really a choice for the country? It was Dumb vs. Dumber - and from that so-called "election", America got its first Supreme-Court-Appointed President - a man we've all come to know as "Dubya".
In most elections, the person with the most votes wins, but Florida changed all that in 2000. But with the next presidential election less than a year away, can we be sure that history won't repeat itself?
The question is: Will your vote count?
October 2002: Congress passed the HAVA - the Help America Vote Act. This act was supposed to solve the problem by getting rid of the punch card ballots. This act is getting most states to implement new touch-screen voting machines, which is definitely a step up from the punch-card ballots...........or is it?
Because of the rush to pass HAVA, a key element was left out: "voter verifiable paper receipt".
With touch-screen voting machines, there is no paper trail. So what if the machine does not record your vote accurately? What if the software has a bug? What if your vote doesn't count?
New Jersey Representative Rush Holt has this to say: "Imagine, it's Election Day 2004. You enter your polling place and go to cast your vote on a brand new touch screen voting machine. The screen says your vote has been counted. As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote? The fact is, you don't."
These new machines would not be a problem if there was a "voter verifiable audit trail". With this audit trail, there would be a permanent record of the vote in which the voter could verify that the machine counted his or her vote correctly. Also, this would be a wise thing to have in the case of a recount. Without this paper trail, any "recount" would just be another print out of the wrong vote.
Contact your congressmen and tell them to support the Voter Confidence Bill HR2239.
Here are some facts from VerifiedVoting.org:
*Computer experts say today's voting machines are prone to errors and vulnerable to fraud.
*Even thorough testing can't reveal malicious programs that could subvert an election.
*Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count our votes.
*Defective hardware and bugs in software could decide who wins an election.
*Many election officials don't realize the risks inherent in using electronic voting machines.
*Manual recounts will be impossible in districts that don't allow voters to inspect a paper record of their votes.
Take action. Let's not let the Supreme Court pick our president again. Let's make our vote count.
visit these sites for more info:
Verified Voting
Stop Bush in 2004
Bush Recall
Misleader
Yes, it was a sad time in this country's history - the choice came down to two candidates - George W. Bush and Al Gore. Was this really a choice for the country? It was Dumb vs. Dumber - and from that so-called "election", America got its first Supreme-Court-Appointed President - a man we've all come to know as "Dubya".
In most elections, the person with the most votes wins, but Florida changed all that in 2000. But with the next presidential election less than a year away, can we be sure that history won't repeat itself?
The question is: Will your vote count?
October 2002: Congress passed the HAVA - the Help America Vote Act. This act was supposed to solve the problem by getting rid of the punch card ballots. This act is getting most states to implement new touch-screen voting machines, which is definitely a step up from the punch-card ballots...........or is it?
Because of the rush to pass HAVA, a key element was left out: "voter verifiable paper receipt".
With touch-screen voting machines, there is no paper trail. So what if the machine does not record your vote accurately? What if the software has a bug? What if your vote doesn't count?
New Jersey Representative Rush Holt has this to say: "Imagine, it's Election Day 2004. You enter your polling place and go to cast your vote on a brand new touch screen voting machine. The screen says your vote has been counted. As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote? The fact is, you don't."
These new machines would not be a problem if there was a "voter verifiable audit trail". With this audit trail, there would be a permanent record of the vote in which the voter could verify that the machine counted his or her vote correctly. Also, this would be a wise thing to have in the case of a recount. Without this paper trail, any "recount" would just be another print out of the wrong vote.
Contact your congressmen and tell them to support the Voter Confidence Bill HR2239.
Here are some facts from VerifiedVoting.org:
*Computer experts say today's voting machines are prone to errors and vulnerable to fraud.
*Even thorough testing can't reveal malicious programs that could subvert an election.
*Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count our votes.
*Defective hardware and bugs in software could decide who wins an election.
*Many election officials don't realize the risks inherent in using electronic voting machines.
*Manual recounts will be impossible in districts that don't allow voters to inspect a paper record of their votes.
Take action. Let's not let the Supreme Court pick our president again. Let's make our vote count.
visit these sites for more info:
Verified Voting
Stop Bush in 2004
Bush Recall
Misleader
11.17.2003
No More Moore
If you have not already heard, Alabama's Chief Justice is now Alabama's Former Chief Justice.
That's right, Roy Moore has been fired - not for his stance on the 10 Commandments, but for his failure to comply with a federal court order. It seems that a lot of people seem to get those two things confused.
Fact 1: He was not fired for putting the monument inside the building.
Fact 2: He was fired for his deliberate disobedience of a federal court order.
Those are two separate things, so let's keep the facts straight.
Now that Moore's not in office, maybe we can let this whole thing go and focus on some more pressing issues right now - like maybe keeping people employed during this "budget crisis" - which many groups still consider to be nonexistent.
Maybe if Congress would give up that high-as-hell raise that they get every year, some of their constituents could stay employed.
Fire the Liars.
That's right, Roy Moore has been fired - not for his stance on the 10 Commandments, but for his failure to comply with a federal court order. It seems that a lot of people seem to get those two things confused.
Fact 1: He was not fired for putting the monument inside the building.
Fact 2: He was fired for his deliberate disobedience of a federal court order.
Those are two separate things, so let's keep the facts straight.
Now that Moore's not in office, maybe we can let this whole thing go and focus on some more pressing issues right now - like maybe keeping people employed during this "budget crisis" - which many groups still consider to be nonexistent.
Maybe if Congress would give up that high-as-hell raise that they get every year, some of their constituents could stay employed.
Fire the Liars.
11.07.2003
All of a sudden, Roy Moore is worried about the Alabama tax payers.....Stop the Press!!!
If you haven't already heard, the US Supreme Court has said it will not hear Roy Moore's 10 Commandments case. No begging and pleading could change their minds, and Judge Myron Thompson's order will stand.
Moore has bigger issues though, as he is being brought up on an ethics violation for his deliberate disobedience to Judge Thompson's order. He is set to stand trial on November 12.
Moore's opponents (well, the opponents who sued him over the monument) are now asking for $832,000 in fees from the federal judge.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Moore expressed concerns about the state's declining revenues and high legal costs for other cases. He said, "I imagine the state would have to pay for it."
Moore is contesting the request, which he considers "outrageous", and also notes that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have raised money for their fight against the monument.
Wow, Roy Moore really cares about the taxpayers of this state....it almost brings a tear to my eye....boo (expletive) hoo. Moore didn't seem too concerned about the taxpayers when it was reported that he might have to pay a fine for every day he violated the federal court order to remove the 5,300 pound rock.
Then, he was suspended WITH pay. In other words, he got a paid vacation out of this, during which time he traveled across the US, speaking at every stop to further his cause (and maybe even his ego). So, the taxpayers have now paid for his traveling expenses and his speaking engagements by allowing him to continue to receive a paycheck while he's suspended.
If Moore cared about the state and the taxpayers, he wouldn't have violated the court order, and if he had any respect for his "cause", he wouldn't have put that monument there in the middle of the night anyway. Why the middle of the night? Did he know he was wrong? Was he ashamed? Did he forsee this happening?
How many reasons is Alabama going to give Hollywood to joke on this state? Hey Jay Leno, get out your notepad - Alabama's at it again! Howard Dean, maybe that confederate flag comment didn't shove your foot as far into your mouth as you thought!
Oh, and as far as stupidity goes, you'll love this!
Roy Moore thinks he is being "silenced" and has not had a proper forum to explain his actions. He said, "These officials don't want you to know why I didn't move it."
If multiple press conferences are not considered a "proper forum", then I really don't know what is! Wait! Maybe a proper forum would be his various TV appearances - you know - the ones where he is the guest speaker at a televised church service. Or maybe the proper forum is every stop he made during his "suspension" - well let's just call it a vacation like it really is.
Bill O'Reilly would be so proud - this would have to be the most ridiculous item of the week.
More Info:
State may pay for fight
No one is trying to muzzle Moore
Moore has bigger issues though, as he is being brought up on an ethics violation for his deliberate disobedience to Judge Thompson's order. He is set to stand trial on November 12.
Moore's opponents (well, the opponents who sued him over the monument) are now asking for $832,000 in fees from the federal judge.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Moore expressed concerns about the state's declining revenues and high legal costs for other cases. He said, "I imagine the state would have to pay for it."
Moore is contesting the request, which he considers "outrageous", and also notes that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have raised money for their fight against the monument.
Wow, Roy Moore really cares about the taxpayers of this state....it almost brings a tear to my eye....boo (expletive) hoo. Moore didn't seem too concerned about the taxpayers when it was reported that he might have to pay a fine for every day he violated the federal court order to remove the 5,300 pound rock.
Then, he was suspended WITH pay. In other words, he got a paid vacation out of this, during which time he traveled across the US, speaking at every stop to further his cause (and maybe even his ego). So, the taxpayers have now paid for his traveling expenses and his speaking engagements by allowing him to continue to receive a paycheck while he's suspended.
If Moore cared about the state and the taxpayers, he wouldn't have violated the court order, and if he had any respect for his "cause", he wouldn't have put that monument there in the middle of the night anyway. Why the middle of the night? Did he know he was wrong? Was he ashamed? Did he forsee this happening?
How many reasons is Alabama going to give Hollywood to joke on this state? Hey Jay Leno, get out your notepad - Alabama's at it again! Howard Dean, maybe that confederate flag comment didn't shove your foot as far into your mouth as you thought!
Oh, and as far as stupidity goes, you'll love this!
Roy Moore thinks he is being "silenced" and has not had a proper forum to explain his actions. He said, "These officials don't want you to know why I didn't move it."
If multiple press conferences are not considered a "proper forum", then I really don't know what is! Wait! Maybe a proper forum would be his various TV appearances - you know - the ones where he is the guest speaker at a televised church service. Or maybe the proper forum is every stop he made during his "suspension" - well let's just call it a vacation like it really is.
Bill O'Reilly would be so proud - this would have to be the most ridiculous item of the week.
More Info:
State may pay for fight
No one is trying to muzzle Moore
11.04.2003
11.02.2003
Some newspaper quotes just make you wonder....
Here's a quote from the Montgomery Advertiser in the Sunday, November 2 edition, from an article called "Water Crossing":
"'In the next decade, Montgomery will not only be a regional hub for business and entertainment, it will also serve as a central supply for water and sewer,' said Buddy Morgan, general manager of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board."
OK, I've got 2 questions:
1. Since when did Montgomery ever become a regional hub for entertainment?
2. What does Mr. Morgan consider "entertainment"?
Just wondering.....
"'In the next decade, Montgomery will not only be a regional hub for business and entertainment, it will also serve as a central supply for water and sewer,' said Buddy Morgan, general manager of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board."
OK, I've got 2 questions:
1. Since when did Montgomery ever become a regional hub for entertainment?
2. What does Mr. Morgan consider "entertainment"?
Just wondering.....
11.01.2003
A letter to Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, and Terry Everett - Alabama's Congressmen
Dear Congressmen,
I recently read in the Montgomery Advertiser that some
of Roy Moore's supporters are attempting to petition
you to impeach Judge Myron Thompson because of his
ruling against Moore's 10 Commandments display.
As a constituent, I sincerely hope that you would not
consider that option.
Alabama has many more important issues to worry about
than a 5,300 pound rock. This state is in a huge
budget crisis, schools are closing, people are losing
jobs, and it's a shame that people are putting that
kind of effort to support a piece of granite rather
than supporting the actual people of this state.
If you would like to read the article, it can be found
online at this address:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamaJUDGE01W.htm
Sincerely,
Joshua Carples
* * * * * * * * * *
Take action:
Email Senator Jeff Sessions
Email Senator Richard Shelby
Email Congressman Terry Everett
Find your state senators
Find your Congressmen
Read the Montgomery Advertiser Article
I recently read in the Montgomery Advertiser that some
of Roy Moore's supporters are attempting to petition
you to impeach Judge Myron Thompson because of his
ruling against Moore's 10 Commandments display.
As a constituent, I sincerely hope that you would not
consider that option.
Alabama has many more important issues to worry about
than a 5,300 pound rock. This state is in a huge
budget crisis, schools are closing, people are losing
jobs, and it's a shame that people are putting that
kind of effort to support a piece of granite rather
than supporting the actual people of this state.
If you would like to read the article, it can be found
online at this address:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamaJUDGE01W.htm
Sincerely,
Joshua Carples
* * * * * * * * * *
Take action:
Email Senator Jeff Sessions
Email Senator Richard Shelby
Email Congressman Terry Everett
Find your state senators
Find your Congressmen
Read the Montgomery Advertiser Article
10.31.2003
Paul Hill: How one man's ignorance taints the reputation of many...
Every argument has two sides, and the 30-year-old abortion controversy seems to be a never-ending battle of Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice.
Most people on both sides of the issue come across as rational, peace-loving people, but in any large group, there will always be that one person who lives on the other side of town from "Rationality".
Paul Hill is an example of this. If you don't recognize the name, the story goes: In 1994, Paul Hill, a radical Pro-Lifer, killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard by shooting them with a shotgun. He was recently executed by the State of Florida.
Paul Hill, a walking contradiction. How do you kill two people and still call yourself "Pro-Life"?!
Now that Paul Hill is gone, there are those who feel that the next extremist will be a man by the name of Dan Holman, who resides in the State of Iowa.
Holman was in Gainsville, Florida the night of Hill's execution, showing his support and admiration of Hill and his actions. Holman said to the New York Times, "Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much a man as he was"; and to the Orlando Sentinel, he said, "I haven't killed anyone yet, but I believe they deserve to die."
An abortion clinic in Iowa recently obtained temporary restraining orders against Holman and his wife, Donna, because of their weekly protests. Holman has been seen videotaping the employees of the clinic and harassing clients and staff.
To the Associated Press, he said that his heart "leaps for joy every time one of them gets popped." He says that he would not murder for his cause, but, at the same time, he advocates murder and hopes to "have the courage to be as much a man as [Hill] was."
Message to Dan and Donna Holman: You're not "Pro-Life" if you advocate murder.
Message to Eli Lilly and Company: Please send the Holmans a lifetime supply of Prozac.
More info:
Court restricts anti-abortion activist
Prozac
Prozac Truth - What Eli Lilly doesn't want you to know
Most people on both sides of the issue come across as rational, peace-loving people, but in any large group, there will always be that one person who lives on the other side of town from "Rationality".
Paul Hill is an example of this. If you don't recognize the name, the story goes: In 1994, Paul Hill, a radical Pro-Lifer, killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard by shooting them with a shotgun. He was recently executed by the State of Florida.
Paul Hill, a walking contradiction. How do you kill two people and still call yourself "Pro-Life"?!
Now that Paul Hill is gone, there are those who feel that the next extremist will be a man by the name of Dan Holman, who resides in the State of Iowa.
Holman was in Gainsville, Florida the night of Hill's execution, showing his support and admiration of Hill and his actions. Holman said to the New York Times, "Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much a man as he was"; and to the Orlando Sentinel, he said, "I haven't killed anyone yet, but I believe they deserve to die."
An abortion clinic in Iowa recently obtained temporary restraining orders against Holman and his wife, Donna, because of their weekly protests. Holman has been seen videotaping the employees of the clinic and harassing clients and staff.
To the Associated Press, he said that his heart "leaps for joy every time one of them gets popped." He says that he would not murder for his cause, but, at the same time, he advocates murder and hopes to "have the courage to be as much a man as [Hill] was."
Message to Dan and Donna Holman: You're not "Pro-Life" if you advocate murder.
Message to Eli Lilly and Company: Please send the Holmans a lifetime supply of Prozac.
More info:
Court restricts anti-abortion activist
Prozac
Prozac Truth - What Eli Lilly doesn't want you to know
10.29.2003
Coming Soon to a theater near Iraq: "Indiana Boykin and the Last Crusade"
Is the "War on Terror" a modern-day crusade? It depends on who you ask.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave a speech in which he announced the "War on Terror" and compared this war to a Holy Crusade. Remember the Crusades from that history class you took years ago? You know, that period of time where "Christians" attempted to force their religion on the rest of the world, killing anyone who did not convert to Christianity.
Since that speech, the Bush administration has desperately tried to get rid of the "Crusade" mentality.
Lt. General William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense, made headlines recently due to some things he said while speaking at a church about war.
There he was, dressed up in full military uniform, standing in a church talking about how this battle against Islamic militants was really a Christian battle against Satan. He also referred to a time in 1993 when we got Somali warlord Mohammed Atta, a Muslim, by saying he knew we would win because "our God is bigger than yours." He also said that the Somalian worshipped an "idol", not a "real god."
Is this Freedom of Speech?
Yes and No.
Boykin has the freedom to say whatever he wants to say. That is one of the things that makes America great - The First Amendment, but while he is in that military uniform, he acts and speaks as a General, not a civilian.
Do these statements damage the image of the US military?
Yes.
The US went into two primarily Islamic countries - Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want the people of these countries to be on the side of freedom and democracy, it's best not to insult their religion.
By phone, Boykin told NBC that he has respect for Muslims and that the extremists are "not true followers of Islam."
What's important to realize is that every religion has its share of extremists:
There are "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors. Does that mean all Christians are murderers?
There are "Muslims" who fly planes into buildings. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorists?
If people would actually educate themselves on various religions, rather than regurgitate biased propaganda, they would realize that there are many similarities among Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. All three of these religions, in their truest form, are peaceful - until an extremist perverts it into violence in order to mask some ulterior motive.
More info:
"As If the 'Crusade' Speech Wasn't Enough"
Bush's views on Boykin's speech (on page 2 of the article)
Other web pages about Boykin
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave a speech in which he announced the "War on Terror" and compared this war to a Holy Crusade. Remember the Crusades from that history class you took years ago? You know, that period of time where "Christians" attempted to force their religion on the rest of the world, killing anyone who did not convert to Christianity.
Since that speech, the Bush administration has desperately tried to get rid of the "Crusade" mentality.
Lt. General William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense, made headlines recently due to some things he said while speaking at a church about war.
There he was, dressed up in full military uniform, standing in a church talking about how this battle against Islamic militants was really a Christian battle against Satan. He also referred to a time in 1993 when we got Somali warlord Mohammed Atta, a Muslim, by saying he knew we would win because "our God is bigger than yours." He also said that the Somalian worshipped an "idol", not a "real god."
Is this Freedom of Speech?
Yes and No.
Boykin has the freedom to say whatever he wants to say. That is one of the things that makes America great - The First Amendment, but while he is in that military uniform, he acts and speaks as a General, not a civilian.
Do these statements damage the image of the US military?
Yes.
The US went into two primarily Islamic countries - Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want the people of these countries to be on the side of freedom and democracy, it's best not to insult their religion.
By phone, Boykin told NBC that he has respect for Muslims and that the extremists are "not true followers of Islam."
What's important to realize is that every religion has its share of extremists:
There are "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors. Does that mean all Christians are murderers?
There are "Muslims" who fly planes into buildings. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorists?
If people would actually educate themselves on various religions, rather than regurgitate biased propaganda, they would realize that there are many similarities among Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. All three of these religions, in their truest form, are peaceful - until an extremist perverts it into violence in order to mask some ulterior motive.
More info:
"As If the 'Crusade' Speech Wasn't Enough"
Bush's views on Boykin's speech (on page 2 of the article)
Other web pages about Boykin
10.28.2003
Tommy Chong's Not-So-Nice Dreams
If you have not already heard, Tommy Chong of "Cheech and Chong" fame is currently serving a 9-month sentence for selling drug paraphernalia over the internet.
He was arrested under the DEA's "Operation Pipe Dreams", an effort put into effect by Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA Administrator John B. Brown.
"With the advent of the Internet, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has exploded," Ashcroft said.
Tommy Chong pleaded guilty and got sentenced to 9 months in jail.
A bit ridiculous? Definitely.
Is it possible that Chong got a heavier sentence because of who he is? Most likely. After all, the DEA sees Chong as nothing more than a man who has made his living off of drug comedy, so they made him the "example".
Is this justice? No.
Here are some statistics:
According to the 2003 budget for the United States Department of Justice, it will cost taxpayers $25,327 to care for each inmate for one year. (That's $18,995.25 for 9 months.)
....And keep in mind that Tommy Chong was not arrested or convicted of drug possession or possession with intent to distribute - he was just selling glass pipes and other "paraphernalia".
What questions should we be asking?
1. How much are we paying in taxes to punish these minor offenders?
2. Could that money be better spent on other things (you know, like all that "terror" stuff we keep hearing about)?
3. What is the real reason Marijuana is considered "illegal"? (Could it be that it's a weed that can grow anywhere and cannot be regulated by the government? What?! The government gets no money?!)
4. Is selling a glass pipe equal to selling actual drugs? (DEA Administrator Brown thinks so.)
5. Will these pipes stop the use of empty coke bottles and empty honey bears? (seriously doubtful).
6. What's the point?
The US government should free Tommy Chong and issue a public apology to him.
....And for the record, I don't use marijuana. I am just an American who loves freedom, hates "Big Brother" government, and despises government waste.
More info:
Free Tommy Chong!
US Department of Justice Budget
Operation Pipe Dreams
NORML
Interesting arrest statistics
He was arrested under the DEA's "Operation Pipe Dreams", an effort put into effect by Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA Administrator John B. Brown.
"With the advent of the Internet, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has exploded," Ashcroft said.
Tommy Chong pleaded guilty and got sentenced to 9 months in jail.
A bit ridiculous? Definitely.
Is it possible that Chong got a heavier sentence because of who he is? Most likely. After all, the DEA sees Chong as nothing more than a man who has made his living off of drug comedy, so they made him the "example".
Is this justice? No.
Here are some statistics:
According to the 2003 budget for the United States Department of Justice, it will cost taxpayers $25,327 to care for each inmate for one year. (That's $18,995.25 for 9 months.)
....And keep in mind that Tommy Chong was not arrested or convicted of drug possession or possession with intent to distribute - he was just selling glass pipes and other "paraphernalia".
What questions should we be asking?
1. How much are we paying in taxes to punish these minor offenders?
2. Could that money be better spent on other things (you know, like all that "terror" stuff we keep hearing about)?
3. What is the real reason Marijuana is considered "illegal"? (Could it be that it's a weed that can grow anywhere and cannot be regulated by the government? What?! The government gets no money?!)
4. Is selling a glass pipe equal to selling actual drugs? (DEA Administrator Brown thinks so.)
5. Will these pipes stop the use of empty coke bottles and empty honey bears? (seriously doubtful).
6. What's the point?
The US government should free Tommy Chong and issue a public apology to him.
....And for the record, I don't use marijuana. I am just an American who loves freedom, hates "Big Brother" government, and despises government waste.
More info:
Free Tommy Chong!
US Department of Justice Budget
Operation Pipe Dreams
NORML
Interesting arrest statistics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)