The Gays!

Heh.

Cheney on Iraq, 1994

I know this has gone around and around teh internets merry-go-round, but it's such a classic.

But the view, man, the view!!!

I know it appears to demonstrate a shocking lack of compassion, and believe me when I say I do have a lot of personal, individual, compassion for the people who are losing their homes in California right now, but part of me is welling up with a steely sense of "them's the breaks." When I was growing up here in Michigan it was a regular occurrence to hear about families moving out of state for work, most often, to my memory, to Texas and California. As I got a bit older, you heard Arizona come up quite a bit, or the northwestern states. Given that our state economy is now deep in the crapper, I am expecting a new wave of people fleeing the ship.

But economic woes aside, I have never understood why many of those families and businesses that bailed on Michigan for more temperate climes have not come back. Especially from California. Here in Michigan we have all the water one will ever need, we have no power blackouts of any kind, we have no forest or brush fires (the UP notwithstanding), housing is cheap and the cost of living is very reasonable. As far as I can tell the exact opposite is true for all of these factors in California. But it is sunny and warm there, I am told. I find it maddening that this trumps all those other factors.

I also find it maddening that people build multi-million-dollar homes in areas that have been historically subject to landslides and brush fires, then are stupefied when there home slides down a hill and bursts into flames. And then stupefied when it all happens again a few years later. And now the are stupefied that insurance companies are refusing to offer homeowners insurance out there.

While I understand that we all like to feel that we are special, I believe it is an inescapable fact that there are some places you just can't live. If your house slides down a hill and bursts into flames, you should consider moving, not rebuilding. If it happens to you once, you deserve sympathy. If it happens to you again, you deserve scorn. If it happens to you every few years, you deserve what you get.

I understand that the poorer among us don't have the luxury of packing up and moving. But the businesses do, the people will find a way to go where the jobs are. And as far as I can tell, it appears that its the high-end development in places where nature appears unable to support that development that is exacerbating many of these natural problems. So I'm running short on sympathy.

The "John Doe" amendment

Here is an object lesson in why so many people are utterly turned off by politics. The politically active tend to think of this silent majority as sheep - in reality they are just sick of drowning in all the bullshit.

You may have heard of the "John Doe" amendment to the Patriot Act renewal legislation currently pending in Congress. In short, some time ago a number of Muslim scholars flying out of an airport in Minnesota were tossed off a plane after several passengers became freaked out by their praying en masse immediately before boarding the plane. Supposedly one eyewitness who spoke Arabic claimed to have heard they making references to 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. Afterwards many on the left saw it as racism run amok, many on the right as a perfect example of how the system is supposed to work.

What brings us to today is a lawsuit currently underway. These Muslim scholars, who were since found not to be terrorists, as I understand it, have not only sued the airline for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a variety of other claims, but are attempting to sue each and every individual passenger who expressed his or her concerns to the airline about their behavior, under the same legal theories. Now, odds are those lawsuits won't go anywhere, but any individual so named will have to hire and pay a lawyer to make it go away.

This all led to a bit of proposed legislation intended to protect witnesses who raise such concerns from such lawsuits. Here's a Washington Times article about the current status of that legislation. And here's where it starts to get to me.

There is a hell of a lot of rhetoric about how evil and stupid some of the Democrats are being in trying to procedurally kill the amendment. I say some, because many of the Democrats are in support of the bill. Based on what I read (up to this point in my story) it seemed counter-intuitive to fight the amendment: many states have Whistleblower protection to encourage people to report suspect misdeeds. Its a good idea to encourage people to call the police when they think they see or hear a crime, or to call the fire department when they think they see or smell a fire, or to call an ambulance when they think they see someone injured. It is a bad idea to tell everyone that - if they are wrong - they'd best get a lawyer.

So why where these Democrats - including both senators from Michigan, my fair state - against it?

I don't know. I couldn't find that seemingly important tidbit anywhere on the internets. Neither could I find an easy link, on any single blog post written in the last week to the actual legislation itself. Not even on my Senator's own website. I had to take the time to hunt the proposed legislation down myself. Here is what it actually says (in part):

SEC. __. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR AND RESPONSE.

(a) Immunity for Reports of Suspicious Behavior.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.

(2) FALSE REPORTS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.

(b) Immunity for Response.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any authorized official who observes, or receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable action to respond to such activity shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such action.

(2) SAVINGS CLAUSE.--Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be available, and this subsection shall not be construed as affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.

(c) Attorney Fees and Costs.--Any person or authorized official found to be immune from civil liability under this section shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all reasonable costs and attorney fees.

(d) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL.--The term ``authorized official'' means--

(A) any employee or agent of a mass transportation system;

(B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Justice;

(C) any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(D) any transportation security officer.

(2) COVERED ACTIVITY.--The term ``covered activity'' means any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing to engage, in--

(A) a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be such a violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; or

(B) an act of terrorism (as that term is defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a mass transportation system or vehicle or its passengers.

After mulling it over myself, aided, in part, by the fact that I am a lawyer, I think I have been able to parse out the Democrats' problem with the amendment: the problem is not (a)(1), which protects citizens from being sued, but (b)(1), which protects the police and law enforcement from being sued. Because, as written, (b)(1) gives the police carte blanche to do anything to anyone as long as they have "received a report of covered activity," which means the breaking of any law.

Think about what this could mean: based upon a report that your 13-year-old was seen shoplifting, they arrest him or her, without any further investigation, throw the kid in jail, strip search him or her, then put him or her in the general juvenile population where he or she is assaulted. You later find out that the person identified as the shoplifter didn't even remotely resemble your child, and if the cops had taken the time to do even a little checking, they would have easily found this out.

Under this legislation, the person who reported the crime, and even the person who said "I think it was Ms./Mr. 'X'" are immune from being sued - as, arguably, they should be if they believed what they were saying. But the cops are also immune despite not doing their jobs, because they are held to the same very low standard as the civilians who report the crimes.

That is a serious problem - the cops and the government should be held to a higher standard. They have resources to prove or disprove sketchy information, and are supposed to have legal standards in place to ensure that they do so (little things like your Miranda rights and so forth).

So, I think, that is why some Democrats voted it down - it does far more than it is reported as doing.

But this is the source of my frustration. I had to dig like hell to find this, and be a lawyer to figure out what may or may not actually be going on. And I can find no evidence that the people who (may) have these concerns proposed any legislation to fix the problem I have identified.

Its frustrating. Very frustrating.

Kneel before Zod!

I have to share this delicious quote I found over at POE News, as left by commenter Stuntmonkey:

"Try picturing Dick Cheney sitting on a giant jewel-encrusted golden throne drinking out of a human skull cup.

Now try picturing him not doing that. Seriously, which is more believable?"

Fred & Jeri Thompson

My name is Fred Thompson. I like my whiskey strong and my women young. Watch Law & Order.



Fred Thompson on Yahoo! News Photos

Romney: I'm Not Intolerant Of Homosexuals

Romney: I'm Not Intolerant Of Homosexuals The Huffington Post

He further clarified, "However, I am intolerant of anything other than a man who keeps his woman both barefoot and pregnant. Make it five women, and I'll approve that message."

We're Fighting for the Rights of Islamic Women!

Four arrested in Iraq 'honor killing' - CNN.com

Story Highlights

• Four arrested in so-called honor killing in northern Iraq
• Two suspects were members of girl's family
• The 17-year-old was dragged from home and stoned to death
• Cell phone video of killing broadcast worldwide

Falwell...Dead?

CNN reports he's "unconscious".

MSNBC is reporting him "dead".

(Update: The CNN link has been updated to show he's dead.)

You may all resume your celebration of the true spirit of the Bible, complete with helping the poor and homeless, loving thy neighbor as thyself, and it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.