And they say that marijuana doesn't kill brain cells...
STATESBORO, Ga. (AP) - Sgt. Jason Kearney sat in his marked patrol car Thursday, waiting for his colleagues to join him for lunch when Ron Stone asked him for a ride.
The Bulloch County deputy agreed to take Stone to his car, but first he insisted on searching Stone for weapons, said Sheriff Lynn Anderson.
"Stone told Sergeant Kearney to go ahead," Anderson said.
But instead of packing a pistol, the 30-year-old Stone was packing pot - two small bags, Anderson said.
Stone told the uniformed officer he had spent the night at a friend's house and the marijuana was not his, police said.
Instead of a ride to his car, Stone got a ride to the Bulloch County Jail, where police later learned he was wanted in another county on an outstanding warrant for marijuana possession with intent to distribute.
Sometimes they just make it too easy. And i'm alright with that.
That's right, happy cows read my blog. Happy cows also come from California, and that's the way it will stay. So says the California State Supreme Court. Ending what was quite possibly the most ridiculous lawsuit ever, the State Supreme Court denied an appeal in a case brought by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that sought an injunction against those funny Happy Cows commercials.
Without so much as a moo, the justices turned down an appeal that challenged the legality of California's "happy cows" advertisements -- those bucolic television and billboard scenes of laid-back cows, grazing in the green, green grass.
The court action put to permanent pasture a suit by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the international animal-rights group that made its reputation by targeting fur dealers and circuses. The organization had requested an injunction to block the ads, contending California cows aren't all that happy.
The demise of the false-advertising case means the campaign tag line -- "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." -- can continue to air nationally. California cows can continue to brag from coast to coast, lording it over their snowbound Midwestern cousins.
The California Milk Producers Advisory Board, the dairy farmer-funded state agency that sponsors the award-winning ad campaign, credits it with boosting the state's cheese sales to record levels, with production reaching almost 2 billion pounds in 2004.
PETA's legal complaint said it wasn't really asking the courts to decide whether the cows were happy, but only that "the conditions under which most California dairy cows are kept are so materially different than those depicted in the ads as to render them unlawfully deceptive."
Well, now I’ve done some research into the issue and it seems that PETA is in fact correct. The ads don't depict the lives that most dairy cows live. But, through my research I also found another misleading premise of the commercials, something that PETA obviously missed. I was devastated to learn that unlike in the commercials, in real life cows, happy Californian cows or otherwise, can not talk. Imagine my embarrassment at having been misled by those sneaky Happy Cow commercials. Oh, the humiliation!
Ok, seriously, is there anyone who has ever seen one of the happy cow commercials that has ever thought they were meant to be a true representation of dairy cows and their living conditions? Anyone? You see, that's what was so ridiculous about this lawsuit, no reasonable person would think that they were. The lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to grab headlines and free publicity by a fringe group who, because of stunts like this, have been losing any credibility, and relevancy, they might have once had. Thankfully, their free publicity ride on this particular issue is over.
Personally, I think that if any company deserves to be sued for their misleading commercials it's Geico. I mean seriously, how many times do we need to be duped by their commercials that seem to be for cool sounding reality shows, only to have the rug pulled out from under us at the very end, before we say "enough is enough," and take action? The time is now people!
Note to self: call attorney in the morning.
Let me first start off by saying that I am no fan of Tom DeLay. The frequency with which he sticks his foot in his mouth is amazing (I wonder how he would feel about the fact that I did research for this post on the internet?). But, foot-in-the-mouth disease is not an ethics violation, and whether or not this particular disease makes him an ineffective leader is a matter for another time. Right now I’d like to deal with the ethics situation.
The more I read about DeLay's situation, the more I’m beginning to believe that the Democrats are doing nothing more than pursuing a political agenda. They suffered humiliating defeats in the 2004 elections and would like nothing more than to take out one of the most powerful Republicans on the Hill. And so far they've waged a pretty successful p.r. campaign against DeLay. As they're saying over at Daily Kos "In essence, we have already scored a victory against DeLay because now his name is associated with the word "scandal" even in the mainstream media." You see, this isn't about right or wrong, this is about scoring a "victory." This isn't about finding out the truth, this is about presenting innuendos and allegations as facts, and whether the MSM and the public at large will accept them as facts.
Today three Republican congressmen on the House Ethics Committee offered to begin an official investigation into whether or not DeLay committed any ethics violations. DeLay himself has on several occasions welcomed the opportunity to put the matter to the Ethics Committee. Sadly, but not surprisingly, House Democrats said no.
Senate Democrats are balking at the three rule changes that were passed last year; only one of which has any real consequences. That rule states that an ethics complaint is automatically dismissed after forty-five days if no action is taken. It doesn't surprise me that our elected officials are actually balking at having to get something accomplished in a timely matter. Especially, when more political points can be scored against your opponent the longer an ethics investigation drags on. However, it would seem to me that this new rule change would apply to their party members as well (and from what I gather some of them might actually need this protection. More on this later.)
The Democrats have been shouting to anyone that will listen that the new rules were enacted simply to protect DeLay. To this counter this, Rep. Doc Hastings, the chairman of the ethics committee, voluntarily offered to extend the time period to ninety days, and vowed that he would require votes on all matters. Seems reasonable right? Not so to the Democrats.
This surprises me (I’m using that word a lot, I hope you all have your sarcasm detector on). It seems to me from what I’ve been hearing from the Democratic Party leaders (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) that DeLay is already guilty. Surely to be making the accusations they have been they must have all the evidence they require. I mean the incidents which are allegedly ethics violations on DeLay's part didn't occur just yesterday. Are we really supposed to believe that the Democrats, who for all intents and purposes have already convicted DeLay, can't present their case in forty-five or even ninety days? It boggles the mind.
So why won't they let this go to the Ethics Committee? Well, as I said earlier, I think they're enjoying the campaign that they're waging through the media. DeLay has undoubtedly been hurt on this issue, as has the Republican Party as a whole. The Democrats are using this issue to portray the entire party as bunch of arrogant and out of control politicians. They even have some within DeLay's own party questioning whether he should remain as the Majority Leader. They're getting exactly what they want, and they haven't even proven a single allegation against him. Why would they want the investigation to start?
An equally important question to ask is why wouldn't they want the DeLay investigation to start. The answer to that is that it would mean reconvening the ethics panel, which as I alluded to earlier would place several of their own members, including one who sits on the ethics committee, under scrutiny.
One of those Democrats is Representative Jim McDermott. Rep. McDermott was convicted in federal court of illegally passing along an illegally taped telephone conversation between former House Speaker Gingrich and other Republican leaders. This is a man who was actually convicted of a crime, and who if I'm understanding the issue correctly will lose his seat if found guilty of ethics violations (and really, how could he not be?) Yet, he continues to hold his seat because House Democrats are refusing to reconvene the Ethics Committee. I'm surprised.
Also surfacing are allegations against Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat who sits on the ethics committee. In a story that hit the press (and by press I mean one, and only one, MSM source. I guess all of the others are busy ripping DeLay to shreds) it is alleged that she, and her husband, took a trip to Puerto Rico that was paid for by a registered lobbying firm. (If this sounds familiar it's because it is, the allegations against Rep. Jones are very similar to the allegations against DeLay.) The proof against her are documents she herself signed, and filed, which listed the lobbying group as the financers of the trip to Puerto Rico.
So you see, it seems obvious (at least to me) that the Democrats have ulterior motives for not wanting to reconvene the Ethics Committee. They're doing damage to the other side through the power of the mass media, and at the same time protecting their own. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. It's politics as usual, and no one wins. If DeLay, or any other member of Congress, is guilty of ethics violations they should be punished. But, only if they've been found guilty by the Ethics Committee, not the mass media.
Last night, during the Hannity & Colmes Show, Sean Hannity gave a small demonstration of just how easy it is for illegal immigrants to cross into the United States. Hannity was on location at the Arizona/Mexico border with the organizers of the Minuteman Project, James Gilchrist and Chris Simcox. During the interview a clip was shown of Hannity and the organizers standing directly in front of the only border defense in the area; an approximately three foot tall barbed wire fence.
Stepping through a hole in one section of the barbed wire fence, Hannity clearly illustrated the ease with which illegal immigrants were crossing into the United States. During his demonstration Hannity was on the other side of the barbed wire fence for no more than a minute.
End of story right? Of course not. You see, our good friends over at the ACLU were also filming Hannity's demonstration. And boy were they upset. No, not because it was so easy to cross into our country illegally, but apparently because Sean Hannity had the nerve to demonstrate how easy it was.
Enter the Arizona Democrats...
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS • ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Kyrsten Sinema
(602) 926-5058
Border Patrol, Minutemen Have Double Standard on Immigration
PHOENIX, AZ (April 20, 2005) - Apparently the U.S. Border Patrol believes that national TV and radio stars don't have to play by the same rules as others.
Mr. Sean Hannity, a well-paid commentator for Fox News, climbed over a barbed wire fence separating the United States from Mexico yesterday at about 3:15 p.m. A few minutes later he climbed back over the fence, breaking federal law by reentering the U.S. illegally.
Mr. Hannity's border violations were videotaped by ACLU Legal Observers. The Border Patrol was contacted, but they chose not to arrest or cite Mr. Hannity for his willful violation of federal law. Likewise, Minutemen in the vicinity of the incident did not take the opportunity to turn Mr. Hannity over to federal officials, as they have allegedly done with all other illegal immigrants apprehended on the border this month.
Federal law, specifically 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(a), requires all "individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft [to] enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and immediately report the arrivals and present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection; to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point."
According to 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(e), anyone who intentionally enters the United States at a place other than a designated border crossing can be imprisoned for up to one year and fined up to $5,000. Mr. Hannity faces neither of these penalties. Individuals apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol do.
This is the very same crime that Minutemen have traveled across the country to Arizona to stop. While some may argue that Mr. Hannity's actions were not significant, he committed the same crime that all individuals who enter the country illegally commit. In fact, ACLU observers were warned that they would be arrested if they accidentally or deliberately crossed the border and tried to reenter the U.S.
Why is U.S. Border Patrol demonstrating such an obvious double standard? If the Minutemen came to Arizona to watch the border for signs of illegal immigration, why did they fail to report Mr. Hannity?
There is only possible conclusion. The Minutemen and the Border Patrol have one set of rules for television celebrities, and another for hard-working people who cross the border in search of work.
Right off the bat, what struck me as odd, is that the author of this memo would feel the need to point out that Hannity is a "well paid commentator for FOX News." What relevance does this have on the issue at hand? Nothing, but hey why should that stop them from taking a jab at Hannity and FOX News?
A second point, which makes me wonder if the tape was actually watched by the authors, is the fact that Hannity did not climb over the barbed wire fence (as stated), but rather passed through a hole in the barbed wire fence. A minor point sure...but if you're going to accuse someone of violating a federal law shouldn't you at the very least state the facts of the incident correctly?
And now to the meat of the matter, did Hannity violate federal laws with his demonstration as the ACLU and the Arizona Democrats are alleging? Well, to put it simply, no. The barbed wire fence which Hannity passed through is actually three feet inside the U.S. border, and thus on U.S. property. This point was made clear by a U.S. Border Patrol official later in the show. There is no "double standard" and there was no violation of federal immigration laws.
How embarrassing for the ACLU and the Arizona Democrats. I'd say that I feel sorry for them, but I don't. They've got egg on their faces and rightfully so. This is a clear example of them shooting (at) the messenger because they don't like message. I mean why bother discussing the fact that it's as easy for an illegal to cross into this country as it is for me to cross the street, when you can make false accusations and ignore the issue completely.
So far the month of April has been a banner month for law enforcement. Earlier this month local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies joined forces for Operation Falcon, an operation which led to the arrest of over ten thousand fugitives across the country.
More than 10,000 fugitives wanted for murder, rape, child abuse and other crimes have been arrested in the largest coordinated crackdown by federal, state and local law enforcement officials in history.
...
More than 150 of those nabbed April 4-10 were wanted for murder, 550 were sought on rape or sexual assault charges, and more than 600 had outstanding arrest warrants for armed robbery, federal officials said Thursday.
Among those captured were 150 gang members and 100 unregistered sex offenders, said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who held a news conference with U.S. Marshals Service Director Ben Reyna to announce the results of "Operation Falcon" — an acronym for Federal And Local Cops Organized Nationally.
Jose Rivera-Sanchez was among the fugitives who had been on the run for years, living in Waterbury, Conn., until his arrest last week, 11 years after tunneling out of a prison in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. He had been serving a 37-year sentence for attempted murder, assault and robbery when he and nine other inmates escaped. One remains at large, Marshals Service spokesman Manuel Varela said.
Others arrested included Eddie Kelly, 24, wanted by Dallas police for allegedly killing a man by shooting him five times after leaving a drug house on Feb. 13, and Marcel Baldwin, 21, of Atlanta, who was found beneath a trap door in his kitchen. He was wanted on charges of assault and sexual offense against a child.
Nathan T. Speights, 28, of Syracuse, N.Y., was picked up in Baltimore on Sunday an hour after a warrant was issued for him in connection with the April 3 killing of Mark Sardella, 26, outside a private motorcycle club in Syracuse.
Gonzales said more than 70 percent of those picked up had prior arrests for violent crimes.
Ok, so I know that by now this is probably old news to most of you and you must be wondering why I’m just now getting around to posting about it. Right? Well, tonight/this morning, during one of my all too frequent bouts of insomnia I decided to head over to the DemocraticUnderground and see what kind of conspiracy theories were floating around over there these days. Now I know you're asking yourself why I, a man of such temperate disposition, would deign to peruse such inflammatory muck-raking, as is more often than not posted on that particular forum, aren't you? Well, were you not paying attention? I couldn't sleep; I was bored!
Anyway, there I was browsing the discussion forums, and I came across one devoted to Operation Falcon. Now you'd think that violent fugitives, or fugitives of any kind, being brought to justice, especially in these numbers, would be a cause for celebration by all, but not so for many/most of those that participated in this particular discussion. Here are a few gems from that "discussion":
- I wonder what the "cost to taxpayers" was?
Ummm, second post in and I'm caught speechless.
- I hope all of them are actually guilty of something illegal...
Would they be "fugitives" if they weren't???
- Whoa! I'm glad we have this transparent democracy...Holy crap! Gonzales goin' Gestapo on our asses.
Wow, only six posts in and I’m afraid I’m going to have to invoke Godwin's Law.
- What bullshit,most likely a load of unpaid speeding tickets..... brought the Feds to your door. Or maybe some are deadbeat dads etc...There aren't 10,000 violent fugitives running around the US. What a joke....
Ummm...
- More Felon purges for the next election!!!!! 10,000 less Democrats!! Don't you guys get it?
Wow, who knew all felons were Democrats, or that Democrats would really embrace this particular voting block.
- What makes you think these people will get "due process? We're talking Gonzales, Negroponte, DeLay, Shrub, Cheney. Whether indeed this many people were arrested, the point IS it was meant to frighten all us "sheeple."
Scarey, scarey stuff.
I just know there's a fascism slam in there, come on man don't sugar coat it!
- practice run for the real thing. So they are training teams to conduct nationwide mass arrests, making sure they have the logistics all set. Gee I wonder why they would be doing that?
To arrest more criminals perhaps?
- If they're rounding people up that quick (an average of 200 per state)...they are NOT giving "due process," they're literally lynching people. My guess is most of these essentially minority, powerless people will not even get the benefit of a Public Defender. I also started wondering where they'd "house" all these 10,000 prisoners. Certainly NOT at local jails (not enough room or local funding). Do they plan to ship them overseas for incarceration in Cuba or wherever?
Again, just speechless.
- practice for the big liberal, er, "terra-ist" roundup next phase of the coup
It's 2005 man, let it go, Gore lost, there was no coup. Sheesh. No, never mind, keep on kicking that dead horse, it did so well for your party in 2004.
- Funny how there were tens of thousands in a protest last week and this is how the US responds. I can't believe there's no connection there.
This guy would have a point, if you know, 10,000 PROTESTORS had been arrested.
- A grand show to point out that the police can get the job done when the actually want to do so. A practice run for when Martial Law is announced.
- What makes you think Martial Law will be announced in advance?
Oh look, more veiled allusions to fascism.
- It was a practice run for future mass arrests of political dissidents... Stormtrooper Training 101.
And one more Nazi comparison to end the "discussion." Classic.
Wow, talk about a plentiful supply of kool-aid. If only you didn't have to take a loyalty oath, and sell your soul to post on that site (they "screen" their posters, no Righties allowed) I’d have plenty to do during my sleepless nights.
And with that, I think I’ll drag out the sledge-hammer and try to get some sleep.
In September of 1987 I was one of over seventy thousand people that had the privilege of attending a mass given by Pope John Paul II at Candlestick Park in San Francisco. As the events of this past week unfolded, and the passing of the Pope seemed certain, I reflected on what I remembered of that day.
I remember at first not wanting to attend.
I was raised Catholic, and truly believed in God, so my objection to attending wasn't for any religious reason. My reason was a quite simple, and stupid reason (though I didn't think so at the time), I was just a kid. I was an awkward and easily embarrassed teenager.
My father, who was (and still is) a member of the Knights of Columbus, had been given tickets to the mass and would be going with others from his Knights of Columbus chapter. I knew the men and their wives that would be attending; many of them had been a part of my life from the very beginning, including my Godfather and Godmother. I had attended functions in their homes, shared meals and prayers with them. But, they were old (relatively speaking), and I was a teenager. It was one thing to eat meals at their homes, or attend private functions with them. They were good people, I respected and looked up to them, and they in turn treated me as a part of their family. But, to be seen in public...with old people? (Again, relatively speaking). As a teenager it was only just bearable to go out into public with my parents, but to be seen in such a public place with a bunch of old people? "What if someone I know sees me?" The thought was unbearable.
(It's important for me to say that I wasn't embarrassed to be Catholic or anything of the sort, I was proud of my faith and my belief in God. At that age it was simply about being, or at least appearing to be, cool. And let's face it, how many "cool" kids hung out with their parents and old people, right?)
Looking back now, I realize what a stupid reason that was. And, I’m glad that I eventually came to my senses.
I remember leaving our house before the sun had even risen. It was a typical September Bay Area morning, cold and foggy. I remember drawing closer to Candlestick Park, and seeing the seemingly never-ending lines of cars of the faithful, eager to see the Pope, inch their way forward on Hwy. 101. Eventually we made our way off the freeway, with Candlestick Park slowly becoming visible through the fog as dawn approached.
I remember seeing the smiling faces of strangers packed into cars, vans, trucks, and buses as I sat in our car with my father, sister, and Brother Knight Ernesto, waiting to enter Candlestick Park's notoriously clogged parking area. I remember seeing the smiling faces of students from my own high school, the popular kids, as they too waited with their parents. I remember turning red, hoping against hope that they didn't see me. I remember them smiling, and waving. I remember thinking "maybe this won't be so bad after all."
We eventually found a parking space and made our way towards the stadium. We walked with strangers, and greeted them as if they were long lost friends.
I remember being glad that my father had remembered to bring the binoculars when I saw where we were sitting. Our seats weren't in the nose bleed sections, but they weren't on the fifty yard line either. I remember this remarkable energy flowing through the crowd as we anxiously awaited the Pope's arrival.
I remember the sun shining through the seemingly impenetrable fog.
I remember the entire stadium surging to their feet as the Pope entered the stadium.
I remember taking part in a mass full of such energy, faith, and love that I know that no other mass will ever compare.
I remember a Pope full of courage, dignity, and grace.
I remember not wanting to leave.
Today, sadly, Pope John Paul II passed away. His suffering is now over; he is with God.
I don't view Pope John Paul II as a great man simply because he was the leader of the Catholic Church, but rather because he was a true leader of men. His quiet conviction, his humble manner, and his faith were an inspiration to all. It did not matter whether you were Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, Jewish, or even a non-believer, the Pope's love extended to everyone.
Pope John Paul II's humanity simply inspired people to believe, to have faith. The dignity and faith with which he led his life, and with which he lived his last moments will continue to inspire all those who have come to love and respect him.
Have no fear of moving into the unknown. Simply step out fearlessly knowing that I am with you, therefore no harm can befall you; all is very, very well. Do this in complete faith and confidence. - Pope John Paul II
Are you like me? Do you enjoy watching those cheesy disaster films like 10.5 and The Day After Tomorrow? Well, if you are, and even if you aren't, if you live in the United States you'll soon be witness to the greatest "natural" disasters of all time. At least according to one Palestinian "scholar" who claims to have proof that the United States will cease to exist after devastating tsunamis hit our shores from both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. And we don't have much time left before they do...
A thorough analysis of the Koran reveals that the US will cease to exist in the year 2007, according to research published by Palestinian scholar Ziad Silwadi.
The study, which has caught the attention of millions of Muslims worldwide, is based on in-depth interpretations of various verses in the Koran. It predicts that the US will be hit by a tsunami larger than that which recently struck southeast Asia.
"The tsunami waves are a minor rehearsal in comparison with what awaits the US in 2007," the researcher concluded in his study. "The Holy Koran warns against the Omnipotent Allah's force. A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."
A minor rehearsal? Evidently, Allah’s a bit rusty with the whole vengeance thing if he needs a rehearsal. And why didn't Allah rehearse against the evil-doers he eventually plans on wiping out? You know, put the fear of Allah into us?
Silwadi said he reached the conclusion that several suras (chapters) in the Koran that talk about punishment for those who perpetrate heinous sins actually refer to the US.
As an example, he quotes in his study verse 40 of the Spider Sura, which states: "So each We [God] punished for his sin; of them was he on whom We sent down a violent storm, and of them was he whom the rumbling overtook, and of them was he whom We made to be swallowed up by the earth, and of them he whom We drowned; and it did not beseem Allah that He should be unjust to them, but they were unjust to their own souls."
Drawing parallels between Pharaoh and the US, who share the same "sin" of arrogance and excessive pride, Silwadi noted that the Koran mentions at least 12 times the fact that Pharaoh was punished by drowning for his evil deeds.
The Narrative Sura, he noted, clearly suggests that the US will drown in the sea: "And Firon [Pharaoh] said: O chiefs! I do not know of any god for you besides myself; therefore kindle a fire for me And he was unjustly proud in the land, he and his hosts, and they deemed that they would not be brought back to Us. So We caught hold of him and his hosts, then We cast them into the sea, and see how was the end of the unjust [verses 38-40]."
The “scholar” seems to be ignorant to the fact that many Arab nations participated in the slave trade as well. And, in fact, many continue to do so.
Explaining his theory about the approaching extinction of the US, the scholar went on to analyze many numbers and letters mentioned in the Koran. He said a careful reading and analysis of words appearing in the Opening and Yusuf suras show that the US will exist for only 231 years.
How did he reach that number? Silwadi said that by combing a number of suras hinting at US sins he reached the numbers 1776 (the year the US achieved independence) and 231. He added the two numbers and the result was 2007, the year when the US is expected to disappear.
In his lengthy study, which is being circulated in many Muslim countries, Silwadi noted that the US has often been compared to a tree that grows very quickly and bears fruit, but has no roots.
In an attempt to find a reference to this metaphor in the Koran, Silwadi said he counted 1776 verses from the beginning of the Koran until he reached verse 26 of the Ibrahim Sura, which states: "And the parable of an evil word is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth's surface; it has no stability."
Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’m going to go out running up my credit cards based on THIS guy’s word. Something tells me (this article of course) that there’s a reason why he is NOT a “world renowned scholar.”
