Let's Talk About...Things.

Hello again readers, I hope everyone is in good health.
The odd title of today's post refers to the fact that this post isn't on one specific topic. Since there isn't much going on in the news that is worthy of a rant, I have decided to take this opportunity to pontificate on a few topics that have been on the backburner. I will also address a few current topics. So without further ado...

• Here in Pennsylvania it is primary election season. The spring primary is scheduled for May 16th. The most interesting race in my local area has to be the Brightbill-Folmer race. Chip Brightbill is the current incumbent state senator. Mike Folmer is a former Lebanon (PA) city council member. As an incumbent, Brightbill is/was responsible for helping to pass the unconstitutional legislator pay raise. According to reports, as a councilman, Folmer didn't show up for meetings a great deal of the time. Both are running for the Republican nomination. What a sorry state of affairs it is when your two choices for the Republican nomination for a state senate seat are between a politician that willfully violates the state constitution and a supposed deadbeat. I guess we should expect nothing less than this from one of the entrenched political parties be it the Republicans or the Democrats. (BTW, I am an Independent, they don't let us vote in primaries. I guess we are a bit too free thinking for the established parties.)
• I read a story a few weeks ago about a San Diego school district banning t-shirts with "hurtful" slogans. The school district was sued in Federal Court by a student who wore a shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful". It would seem that the school district banned the shirt and the student sued stating that the district's dress code violated his freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and right to due process. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the district could ban shirts that contained "hurtful slogans". The judges gave various longwinded decisions, but what the majority opinion boiled down to is that the First Amendment (in their opinion) apparently no longer protects unpopular speech. I guess idiocy isn't limited to politicians. Apparently the judges who were in the majority in this case must have skipped the class in Constitutional Law while in law school. If they had attended that class, they might have learned that the First Amendment does, indeed, protect unpopular speech. In fact, the First Amendment was specifically designed to do just that. It was also designed to give an unpopular minority protection against majority repression. I guess since the Executive branch of the government has decided that the Constitution is no longer a valid document, the Judicial branch has decided to join them. If I were the student in question, I would definitely appeal this decision.
• I see that Zacarias Moussaoui is now trying to change his plea. According to various news reports, Moussaoui has instructed his lawyers to submit a motion to change his plea from guilty to not guilty. He says that his story about being involved in the 9/11 plot was a complete fabrication. He is also saying that since the jury gave him life in prison instead of the death penalty, he is now convinced that he could get a fair trial here in the US. Well, Zac, I will let you in on a little secret, you can't change your plea after you have been sentenced. Does the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" mean anything to you? And, gee whiz, what happened to the "I won and you lost" rhetoric? Did you finally figure out exactly what it is that you "won"? I thought you were a big, bad, macho terrorist hellbent on destruction. I guess the thought of spending the rest of your life in a small cell is showing you for exactly what you and your kind are, sniveling little cowards who make up for their inadequacies by inflicting pain on others. Now shut up and get back in your cell little girl!
• I read an article on CNET News (a few weeks ago) that reported that the US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is calling for US ISPs to start retaining user data. The plan he is proposing is similar to the data retention provisions recently passed by the EU. The supposed reason for proposing this retention is to aid law enforcement in catching sexual predators on the Internet. While the idea of making it easier to catch sexual predators is laudable, I don't for a minute believe that this is the real reason for this proposal. Given that Gonzales has helped the Bush administration justify torture and warrantless wiretapping, I believe that his stated goal of protecting children from perverts is pure bull. This is nothing more than an attempt to allow the government to conduct more domestic spying, and all without a warrant. However, despite the fact that this kind of spying is illegal, this proposal will be codified by Congress because anything that "protects the children" gets passed without question and without any kind of verification that it will, indeed, protect kids. Seeing as anything that supposedly "protects the children" gets passed, I am proposing that sugared bubblegum and candy be banned because, as we all know, it rots your teeth and ruins your supper. We must protect the children against the evil forces of tooth decay and bad nutrition. All the data retention proposal will succeed in doing is generate more dead-end leads that waste precious FBI resources, and it will violate your right to privacy in your communication. But then protecting your rights doesn't seem to be a priority of the current administration.
• Thinking of the current administration...Now that the Moussaoui trial is over, I am wondering when the administration is planning to bring the other 9/11 conspirators to trial. What I mean is that we hold 5 or 6 of the 9/11 co-conspirators in Gitmo, yet there are currently no plans to try these people for their crimes. What is the administration waiting for? Trying these guys for their crimes would be the best thing the administration could do insofar as showing the American people that they (the admin.) is actually doing something to win the war on terrorism. I can't fathom why they wouldn't bring these people to justice unless they are afraid of something. Could all the crazy conspiracy theorists be right?
• On the subject of 9/11, I read a news story that one Representative is blocking a monument to Flight 93. The story goes that a group, consisting of family members of the passengers and crew, has proposed that the Federal government help to construct a monument to the victims of Flight 93. The money for the proposed monument has to be approved by the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee as they are the subcommittee responsible for approving Federal property acquisitions. Normally, proposals such as this one fly through the committee and are passed to the full House in due course. However, this time the chairman of the subcommittee has seen fit to block the proposal. The Federal government has been asked for $10 million dollars to help in purchasing the land needed. The chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-NC), has decided that this is too expensive and is blocking the proposal from coming to a vote before the subcommittee. Apparently, Rep. Taylor has unilaterally decided that these people do not deserve a monument. I guess that he feels that since these were common, everyday people who rose to the defense of their country and not the scions of the rich and powerful, they deserve no recognition. I hate to tell Rep. Taylor this, but there are more common people in this country than rich and powerful people. I hope that these common people show up in November to voice their opinion of your decision (Taylor is up for reelection this year). Of course, I would have expect nothing less from a Republican than to reject anything that benefits the average person.

Well, I think that is about it for now. So until next time, remember...
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.