#3
Technically would it be possible for every other party to unite and form a government without the Conservatives? Or are the Conservatives a lock because of their number of votes?
Talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats have collapsed, party sources say, setting the stage for a Conservative-led coalition the day after Gordon Brown dramatically announced his resignation. What remains to be revealed: will the Tories share the poisoned chalice with the Lib Dems, or go it alone?
#5
At last we have a Govt who stands up to the unemployed and muslims!
Can you elaborate? I get the impression that Cameron is more feckless than Brown.
Posted by: ed ||
05/11/2010 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Tories gave some vague promises to cut benefits for those who refused to work, but I won't hold my breah waiting for a hard line on Muslim bullsh*t. We can be optimistic though.
Not to be a wet blanket, Bulldog, but don't you have some leftist judges that are as stupid as our leftist judges? The ones that keep telling the gummint it has to give money to terrorists and lazy-ass lay-abouts? :-(
I wish y'all luck. (Of course, I wish us luck, too, for all the good it's doing....)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/11/2010 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.
As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.'
The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.
You can read the entirety of Kagan's brief here, and additional analysis by Hudson of Kagan's record on First Amendment issues here.
Posted by: ed ||
05/11/2010 14:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The 1st Amendment only applies depending upon whether or not the government decides so? Seems to me this is dangerous legal ground to tread on. Cost benefit analysis applied to the 1st Amendment? Who decides benefits? Who decides societal costs?
#4
Sure would be nice if a Pub senator called her on this one at the confirmation hearing.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/11/2010 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The reason the SCOTUS overturned that law was because it was written in a duplicitous manner, to placate PETA-type nuts. The law was so broad it would outlaw hunting and fishing videos, and because "animal cruelty" is a flexible standard, anytime it got a new definition, videos of that new definition would be automatically outlawed.
For example, more agitators than PETA hate circuses that feature animals, and often press to have them prohibited. And they have been, in some cities. If even a single State outlawed animal circuses, an argument could be made to ban any movies made in a circus of animals.
While the PETA nuts are fine with that, it would violate the hell out of the first amendment.
It should also be noted that the SCOTUS did say they were open to the idea of a law that would *specifically* ban stomping videos. But that was not the purpose of the exercise in the first place, just the excuse.
I'm glad the SCOTUS overturned that crap. Free speech is free speech. No yelling "FIRE" in a theater, but pretty much anything else is fair game.
I don't agree with selling the videos, but the states can have laws against "excessive" abuse so the hunting and fishing ones would be ok. Either way, it isn't a First Amendment issue and the fact that someone is willing to put limits on free speech for "societal costs" leaves me wanting to pull their teeth out with pliers. <--Protected speech BTW, you fascist fuckholes
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is pulling out of the Hawaii special election for Rep. Neil Abercrombie's (D) seat, effectively handing the seat to the Republicans. In Hawaii?
"The DCCC will not be investing additional resources in the (Hawaii) special election," Jennifer Crider, a DCCC spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Local Democrats were unable to work out their differences. The DCCC will save the resources we would have invested in the Hawaii special election this month for the general election in November."
The committee concluded there's no way state Sen. Colleen Hanabusa and former Rep. Ed Case (Hawaii) can split the Democratic vote and still defeat Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou (R).
The committee spent more than $300,000 in the Hawaii race, according to a source.
The National Republican Congressional Committee said the DCCC's involvement revealed a local party "in disarray."
"The DCCC is giving up in a district as blue as this one due to their own blunders and a fed-up constituency that rejected their reckless agenda of higher taxes, negligent spending and government takeovers,"Joanna Burgos, an NRCC spokeswoman, said in a statement. President Barack Obama won the district with 70 percent in 2008.
Hanabusa has been in third place in most polls of the three-way contest. National Democrats were sending the message to step aside through Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and his staff, according to the Honolulu Advertiser.
But the Hanabusa camp seemed to hint she was staying in the race to help her chances in November.
A local strategist close to Hanabusa told the paper the campaign has heard the message to step aside for the interest of the party.
"It has not fallen on deaf ears," the strategist said. "But we understand our community better than anybody and, come November, there will be a Democrat there."
The special election is Saturday, May 22nd, and is a winner-take-all-format. Abercrombie resigned his seat to run for governor.
Democrats had been on a winning streak when it came to special elections. Now, the party can concentrate on next Tuesday's special election for former Rep. John Murtha's (D-Pa.). seat.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/11/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
STRATFOR artic said it best, YEAR 2010-2020 > US predicted to gener MAINTAIN WORLD DOMINANCE WHILE IN GEOPOL RETREAT TOWARDS CONUS-NORAM.
* E.g. WMF > ONLY CHINA IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTROL OKINAWA SOVEREIGNTY, NOT JAPAN. BEIJING SHOULD NOT AGREE TO JAPAN'S PROPOSAL TO MAKE JAPAN-STOLEN OKINAWA THE BASE FOR DRAWING A NEW LINE OF DEMARCATION AGZ CHINA IN THE EAST CHINA SEA.
ARTIC > CHINA was NOT a formal Signatory to the POST-SURRENDER/WW2 TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO by the US-JAPAN acknowledging OKINAWA = RYUKYUS ISLANDS as offic part of JAPAN???
* NEWSMAX > MEDVEDEV: WORLD WAR IS POSSIBLE, SLAMS HOLLYWOOD.
Nose, face.
The California Assembly passed a bill yesterday that would bar utilities from buying out-of-state power that fails to meet California's air quality standards.
The legislation, A.B. 2037, targets cross-border generation in Mexico and Arizona. It passed 41-22, on a party-line vote.
Bill sponsor Manuel Perez, a Democratic assemblyman from Southern California's desert region to the east of Palm Springs, said the measure would tighten rules governing energy contracts signed with companies pumping out emissions along the state's eastern and southern borders. Uhhh, they probably don't need to sell y'all power - I'm sure there are plenty of non-loons who would buy it instead.
"Air emissions produced by power generation plants on the other side of the Calif. border create negative impacts on the air quality in the adjacent air basins/air sheds," Perez said in a fact sheet on the bill. "Current law does not prohibit a domestic utility company from importing power from power plants sited in locations that do not conform to our state's strong air quality standards." Caliphornia - we're so swell we'll tell other states to emulate us! I'm sure they'll be grateful and follow your lead. (NOT)
Perez cited the high rate of particulate matter (PM) pollution in California's Imperial Valley, which is home to a number of renewable energy development sites. Do tell. Why don't you get your power from them?
He said most of the region is below sea level and susceptible to accumulation of dust and PM from the burning of fossil fuels.
The bill requires power plants outside of California to adopt BACT standards and directs state and federal regulators to develop an offset scheme to apply to companies operating in a "shared" pollution area. Y'all couldn't come up with something a little ambitious? When Caliphornia runs out of power, the first place that should be cut off is Sacramento. The second should be San Francisco.
[From a proprietary newsletter, so no link. Will probably be in the CA papers soon.]
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/11/2010 18:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny how they don't include provisions for building power plants in California to replace the power that's going to be lost as a result of this legislation. Then when the rolling blackouts start, they'll blame it on Bush.
#2
Good God! Do these legislative dolts realize that California imports a quarter of its electricity? On a hot day, it imports much more. And it's not like a gas station where you can wait a few days to fill up the tank. It's electricity used = electricity provided at all times.
Being a firm believer that practical lessons learned are the lessons that stay with one for a lifetime, I propose all out of state providers cut power to CA, preferably at 3PM on a hot August. Let's see how quaint pre-industrial life is when they have to live it.
Posted by: ed ||
05/11/2010 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The legislation, A.B. 2037, targets cross-border generation in Mexico
And does it strike anyone else as extremely sad that "hi-tech" CA can't even get its act together as well as the Mexicans and has to buy electricity from the brownout south of the border?
Posted by: ed ||
05/11/2010 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The first inclination was that this was directed at the Palo Verde Nuclear plant, but then the light dawned that it is meant to attack the *coal*-fired Navajo Generating Station.
#2
Another Constitutional protection, right there up along the 2nd Amendment, goes out the window.
Note to the bureaucrats, judges and beltway cretins, when your time comes, don't come crying about your Constitutional protections when you fiddled and muddled those of the rest of us.
#3
I think it's ridiculous they're being told they can't pray. It's also ridiculous that for each $6.00 meal served the federal government is paying $5.45 cents and the elderly person only pays 55 cents.
From this center's website: "More than 1,800 are prepared each day for folks who cannot or do not want to prepare meals for themselves." Excuse me? We're supposed to pay for their health care, their social security and their meals because they don't want to prepare them for themselves? They look quite destitute in the pictures. http://www.seniorcitizens-inc.org/port-wentworth-activity-center.html
Sorry, but we're just dealing in funny money now. It is worthless monopoly money that nobody ever has any intention of paying for.
When a public library can pay an author $45,000 to come and speak at a library, we are surely lost. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/10/neil-gaimans-awesome.html (via Althouse).
#5
Actually they weren't told they couldn't pray, just not out loud. There was some confusion and it was reported they couldn't pray at all. The confusion was cleared up and a ruling was decided in their favor. They can now say grace out loud.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/11/2010 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A lot of people might be surprised at how many seniors are "packing."
#7
Well, yeah, I know Neil Gaiman is awesome, but $45,000? Sheesh - I did a talk at a local library for a bit less than that.
Well, actually, a good bit less than that. The nice people at the library slipped a $100 check into a 'thank-you' card, and I was just thrilled to bits. A little for gas, and they bought me lunch anyway. I know I am not in NYT best-seller territory yet, but I do give good amusement/informational value. Appreciate me now, save some $$$ and avoid the rush!
Posted by: SH ||
05/11/2010 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#8
John QC as a life long resident of GA alot of old folks are packing. They also don't like too be told what they can and can't do especially about religion since we are right smack in the middle of the Bible belt
Posted by: chris ||
05/11/2010 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
So I take it yelling "Allan Snackbar!' is right out the window. Just wait until someone looses their head over it.
#10
Elderly visitors to federally funded meals at a Georgia senior citizens center arent allowed to pray
Won't be long before the government controls so much that people won't be able to pray anywhere. Does that church have a loan that the government has a hand in?
This just can't stand. People have a right to pray when and where they want to. As long as they don't get too carried away while driving or operating heavy equipment.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
