Steve’s Weblog
Google Halts ‘Miserable Failure’ Link to President Bush
Google announced on Thursday on its official blog that “by improving our analysis of the link structure of the Web” such mischief would instead “typically return commentary, discussions, and articles” about the tactic itself.
I can’t imagine who would have thought that this particular Google bomb represented the opinion of Google, but…
I was channel surfing while driving home Thursday of last week, and heard a conversation between the DJs on Austin’s Mix 94.7 and a caller complaining about Rosie voicing her opinion on “The View”. I guess she was calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. The caller suggested, and it seems that the DJs agreed, that Rosie should just “shut up”.
This quote from Unclaimed Territory on Public servant v. Military Commander is timely.
While President Bush’s supporters are fond of referring to him as the “commander in chief” — typically to insinuate that he should be beyond criticism or that his authority cannot be questioned, particularly in “times of war” — the president under our system of government holds that position only with regard to those in the armed forces (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: “The president shall be Commander in Chief *of the Army and Navy of the United States*”). With regard to Americans generally, the president is not our “commander” but instead our elected public servant, subject to the mandates of the law like every other citizen and subordinate to the will of the people.
He works for us, we pay his salary! Hell yea, we can bitch about the job he’s doing!
The only thing worse than Rosie offering her opinion, would be Rosie being silenced from offering her opinion! Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not, the fact that she can voice her ideas openly lets you know where she stands on the issue, and you can certainly choose to change the channel… or not.
We took a ride over to the local BMW dealer today to see what’s up with a new BMW 335i Convertible.
They won’t have one on the lot for at least a few more months, so we took a 335i Coupe for a spin. And he didn’t have final pricing on the convertible yet, but see if you can guess which will be more; the outstanding balance on my home mortage, or the car. 
Still, that dual turbo 6 cylinder engine was awesome! but, I guess I’ll be driving the lesbian station wagon for a few months longer…
I think somebody subscribes to the Alberto Gonzales school of law… 
I mean, just because it doesn’t expressly say something in the Constitution, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply. Here’s the link today on http://www.austinbloggers.org that caught my eye: “ACLU Defends the Non-existant “Rights” of Illegal Aliens in Texas”
So, what are those non-existent rights?
There they go again: the ACLU fighting hard for the rights of illegal immigrants who — wait for it — don’t have any rights in our country. The rights that the ACLU is fighting for are for US Citizens. Not illegal aliens. It’s a subtle but important distinction that is often (often, as in “almost always”) overlooked by the ACLU.
Okayyy….
Anyway one of the comments over there from GritsForBreakfast sums it up quite nicely:
…most due process rights in the Constitution, certainly in the Bill of Rights, are attributed to all people or “persons”, not just citizens. That’s why you’re wrong that the “legal system” doesn’t recognize their “rights.”
And didn’t the Supreme Court just affirm Guantanamo detainee rights recently? Essentially debunking the same argument that non-citizens have no rights? 
Immigrants’ Rights:
The ACLU has been one of the nation’s leading advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based. Learn more about our Immigrants’ Rights Project and take action to protect the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.
In the SOTU address last night, Bush used the word “Democrat” as an adjective — “Democrat Party”. It’s fairly obvious that this usage is meant as a slur. Media Matters for America has a lengthy article on the topic as 60 Minutes journalists are guilty of this misuse as well.
A usage that, as Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly, is one that originated with Republican operatives. Republicans consistently refer to the “Democrat Party,” even though that is not what members of the Democratic Party call themselves, and use the noun “Democrat” as an adjective, which New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg identified as an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being “democratic,” or as Hertzberg wrote, “to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.”
In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word “Democrat” is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:
The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun “Democratic Party” as “One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.” (It defines “Democrat n” as “A Democratic Party member” and “Democratic adj” as “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party,” but gives no definition for — indeed, makes no mention of — “Democrat Party n” or “Democrat adj”.) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.
Hertzberg further noted:
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be — a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.”
WordPress 2.1 was released yesterday, so I applied the update here.
FMA Backers: No New Attempt To Revive Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment In New Congress
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 22, 2007 – 1:00 pm ET
(Washington) The two leading advocates of amending the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage say they have no plans to make a third try to advance the proposal.
Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, both Colorado Republicans, were the sponsors of the proposed amendment that failed to get enough votes to advance in either 2004 or 2006 when Republicans dominated both houses of Congress.
With Democrats now in Control Republicans believe there is even less probability of passage.
“If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I’m not sure we will ever have that opportunity,” Allard told the Pueblo Colorado Chieftain.
Musgrave’s spokesman, said the congresswoman would not introduce the legislation this year, the paper reported.
Imagine sitting next to that person who talks too loud on their cell phone… for the entire flight!
Airline to Offer Cellphone Service, With Others in Line
By NICOLA CLARK
Published: January 16, 2007
PARIS, Jan. 15 — After years of debate over the use of cellphones aboard airplanes in flight, the moment of truth has very nearly arrived. Emirates, the Dubai-based airline, installed satellite-based technology that allows voice calls and text messaging on one of its Boeing 777’s late last year and expects to begin offering the service to passengers on an international route yet to be announced early next month.
Senate passes Democrats’ ethics bill
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – The Senate, responding to voter frustration with corruption and special interest influence in Washington, on Thursday overwhelmingly approved far-reaching ethics and lobbying reform legislation.
Under the bill, passed 96-2, senators will give up gifts and free travel from lobbyists, pay more for travel on corporate jets and make themselves more accountable for the pet projects they insert into bills.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who made the bill his first initiative as head of the Senate, called it the “most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we’ve had in the history of this country.”
IBM profit rises 11% on strength in services, software – MarketWatch
Even if the results are good?
Bad Behavior has blocked 62 access attempts in the last 7 days.
