Sensation! Sensation! Rington Blog Search the Web Vicodin online Download Ringtones Credit Mobiles Phentermine No Prescription Free Ringtones Medical tests Cialis online Top auto-moto Free mp3 ringtones Ornaments Cars Balans Dating furniture ya.by Building materials mp3 music for mobile Phentermine online Autos Necklace Intimate goods Ear rings Credits Soma online Tunings Tramadol online auto-moto Free Ringtones Suits Ambien online Fashions Ladies handbag Sportswear Best Ringtones FDA Approved Pharmacy Chairs Cigarettes Sale Auto Cheap drugs online shop Online notebook shop Xanax online Sport Betting Trousers Loan Online Boats Underwear Top casino Rolex Replica Pills, Compare pills, Reviews pills Yachts

Sep

8

Holy Jesus what are these Goddamn animals???

September 8, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Maybe it was the long day? Eight and a half hours at WrongWay, two hours at The Volante, then another three and a half at the Library. Just before midnight I walked into my apartment just like any other night, however, as walked into the living room and turned on the table lamp, I was immediately dive-bombed by what was certainly a monster bat! It had red eyes, giant fangs, and hairy wings. As it buzzed my head I could smell it’s vampire breath. I hit the deck screeching like a little girl, half expecting a second and a third to come out from where ever this bastard had. Quickly, I turned back to the kitchen and hid on the other side of the doorway, peeking into the living room to see what the hell this flying vermin was. Sure enough, it was damn bat!

The scene in my apartment was a cross between Fear and Loathing and The Great Outdoors, minus the fishing net, poncho and John Candy, oh, and the trunk full of mescaline.

Did the bat get expelled from my home? I think so. However, I don’t think I want to turn off the lights, get into bed and find out. I suppose, if I wake up in the morning and the sun burns, then we’ll have a bit of a Lost Boys situation on our hands…

Aug

22

Friday Night Music Club: Blake Shelton

August 22, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Aug

21

Doing radio on Thursday

August 21, 2008 | Leave a Comment

For those with nothing better to do, I’ll be on the radio beginning at 9am on 1310 KNOX in Grand Forks. You can tune in through the Interwebs at www.knoxradio.com.

Aug

18

The news is in the north

August 18, 2008 | Leave a Comment

A number of law and addiction related items coming out of North Dakota today.

The corrections system of the state is looking to implement an email service for inmates and their families. No, the inmates themselves wont have access to the Internets, they will still have to put pencil to paper, but the letter will be scanned and electronically sent to approved individuals who will then be able to send their correspondence electronically, eliminating the ever burdensome envelope, drug infused paper, and coded text from the corrections officials problems to deal with. I wonder, however, in this age, shouldn’t we be able to supply prisons with stand-alone computer terminals which only have access to a single web-based email system where the inmate logs in and all the correspondence to and fro is filtered prior to being seen by the suspected target. This would completely eliminate paper (saving the trees) and most likely allow jailers to, you know, not have to deal with scanning letters for drugs and gang speak but doing correctional and rehabilitation duties.

Today, Grand Forks County began its adult drug court program. If there is one judicial reform with regards to alcohol and drug offenders which makes sense, it is the implementation of a drug court. Addicted individuals who find themselves involved with the law (non-violently) are done a tremendous disservice when placed into the normal corrections mechanism. By extension, society as a whole is not served properly. Many, if not most, addicted criminals become so in order maintain their addiction. The current behemoth that is our corrections system, does not have the time nor the resources to give the proper rehabilitative attention to these non-violent offenders. Most, if not all, of these individuals are, when off the sauce, are productive members of society. It behooves us as community members to consider what is the wiser expenditure of our tax dollars, the irreparable incarceration of addicts, or a system which provides the resources and tools to help them break out of the behavior which is leading them astray?

Along that same vein, North Dakota’s Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem has proposed the 24/7 Program for his state. This program, for those unfamiliar, is the twice daily breath test of individuals convicted of DUI. South Dakota has had the program for about 4 years, a program which I was on for nearly 3 years. My former radio colleague Mike McNamara invited me on his radio show this morning to talk about the program and whether it’s a good thing for ND (Previous interview with Mac from last summer). I am an ardent advocate of the program in SD, it most likely saved my life in some respects, however, I have decided to speak out about my experience on the program because while there are tremendous benefits, there are also some pitfalls. For instance, I was sentenced to the program for 5 years — the duration of my probation. In reality, how does that help someone? For five years I have this crutch in my life keeping me sober. What happens when that is gone? This was the very question I posed to my judge in June after being on the program for 3 years, 2 and a half of which was consecutive.

Below is the second segment of this morning’s interview on the topic. I hope to get the first half and will post it here. I will be going back home to Grand Forks later this week and Mike has invited me back on Thursday where hopefully the AG Stenehjem will also be present. This would be a great discussion and if it takes place, I will post a notice as KNOX Radio does stream online.

Aug

17

Everyone will finally be equal

August 17, 2008 | Leave a Comment

When I look back on my return to college as a young 30 year old, I will consider this period of life as a personal awakening, a small renaissance, if you will. In the fall of 2006 I took Introduction to Literature, a required “core” class, which at the time seemed like a terrible chore, but as the course grew on, both with the aide of remarkable literature and one extraordinary professor, the class has become a marker in my life. I had never been introduced to the likes of James Joyce or Carl Sandburg or even Kurt Vonnegut, for that matter. Did my government schooling in high school fail me, partially. Did I fail myself as a supposed intelligent human being, mostly.

However, the one work which has stuck with me since, has been Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron. I read this short story often, for many reasons, but mostly as a reminder to what can come from the very system of constitutional government which I praise so repeatedly here on this site (a serious reanalysis which is happening as I type). The first paragraph of HB was, and is still, the most startling:

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

As we have seen, however, the Bush Administration does not need to use the Amendment process to bring tyranny to this nation via the government — he has subverted the Constitution completely without. Unlike Vonnegut’s vision in the 1960’s, where there was still a sense that dramatic shifts in government organization and policy must come through an Amendment to the Constitution, today our government runs amok with authority we carelessly give it.

Now, the harrowing tale of Harrison Bergeron is coming to the big screen in 2081. I’m guessing that many Americans are closer to my previous ignorance and have never read this story. Even if they had, they were probably led to believe that it was nothing more than science fiction and hardly a possibility. How ignorant we all are.

Aug

16

American presidency placed before the altar

August 16, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Tonight, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain went to Saddleback Church — Pastor Rick Warren’s church — to have a civil discussion, not with each other, mind you, but there to field questions from the good pastor separately. Only briefly, following Obama’s discussion with Warren and before McCain’s turn, did the two Presidential candidates appear on the altar stage together.

I watched the two hour “event” and took feverish notes, drawing out the discrepancies between each man’s remarks upon their own and against each others, and my intention was to dissect all of it. However, after digesting the last hour of McCain’s overtly nationalistic propaganda, it makes better sense to keep this as short as possible.

One major point first. What has been hotly debated since this discussion was announced, was the appropriateness of presidential candidates going to a church to have a debate, or forum. It is customary that candidates “try” not to campaign inside churches, but we’re not naive. This event took place in a mega-church. A mammoth structure where major worship takes place. Is it wrong to have our presidential candidates discuss the issues inside a church? Probably not. I don’t understand the great fear of such a happening. The larger problem surfaces when each and every issue, even those which are purely domestic and secular, are framed squarely within a religious element. Pastor Warren stated at the outset that both candidates, especially Barack Obama, were God-fearing Christians and that was what was important. Now that we have that settled, maybe we can discuss policy?

Not so fast. By overtly wrapping our politics in the Shroud of Turin, we are succumbing our government to the whims of religiosity. The fact that humans are spiritual creators is off-limits for debate. We are. It is the multiple religions which distort reality, and in effect, compromise our once, dare I say, sacred system of government.

Our presidents will be of faith. This country will never elect an Atheist, or even an agnostic, for that matter. Ye of weak disposition should not lose sleep over the election of a non-God fearing American. It will never, never, never happen.

Out of all the questions, moving into the substance and a quick dispelling of Pastor Warren’s attempt to have a “civil discussion” within our political civilization, two where the most abhorant, and both of which told everything any voter needed to know about these two putrid candidates.

Pastor Warren first asked, “Which three leaders would you count on to help you make decisions within your presidency?” This is a trick question, and both men failed it. Warren was fishing for someone to say Jesus, neither took the bait, and you could see the disappointment on Pastor Rick’s face. Obama, rightly so, couldn’t name just three individuals and actually, answered this question with the best politics in mind. The only single person he mentioned, “as a rock” for his judgment was his wife Michelle. Otherwise, Obama gave a nuanced list of Democrats and Republicans that he would trust for both domestic and foreign issues.

McCain, on the other hand, listed three exact people: Gen. David Petraeus, John Lews (war vet), and Meg Whitman (CEO of Ebay). WTF? Two of his three are military. McCain said of Petraeus, “he took us from defeat to victory.” And of John Lewis, he was the “meaning of courage.” Right away McCain introduced his theme, nationalism and imperialism are the hallmarks of America.

The second most significant question asked was: “Does evil exist, and if so, should we (the U.S.) fight to defeat it?” Here is where both candidates did a little pandering to the religious right, but also showed what this country’s true foreign policy is rooted in — a Christian crusade against Islam, or Islamic jihadists, to be technical, but we all know that Bush 43 is only concerned with whipping all Muslims off the map if he could.

Obama responded with a simple affirmation, saying, “evil must be confronted squarely” and that we (Americans) are “soldiers in the process” of erasing evil from the earth which is ultimately “God’s task.” Wow! Obama being Obama, nuanced his answer and hit Bush by saying, “evil, however, has been used to pass along supposed good intentions.” Spreading democracy and freedom around the world can be done at the hand of an evil man, and that is exactly what Obama should have said.

McCain on this question was a shit-pile more frightening (sorry for the language). He answered the question emphatically, saying, “Defeat it!” And then, tossing out a line which was well rehearsed and prepared just for this event, McCain said, “If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I’m going to get Osama bin Laden.” Further, McCain went on to say that the Middle East was the “battleground” where evil must be fought and that that we must “defeat it.” It was a noun he used repeatedly, and McCain was not referring back to the word evil as being it, he replaced evil with what Warren and other religious right really mean, Muslims. We must defeat Muslims. This is the war, the crusade which McCain will continue. For him, the evil in the world are those who fundamentally disagree with his Christianity. This is what must be understood. Hindsight will tell us, and historians will write about it in 50 years, the United States played off its Judeo-Christian roots to continue a multi-millennial-long fight between Christians and non-Christians.

To give a little credit to Pastor Rick Warren, he did ask later in his questioning about religious tolerance, but of course these candidates were all over the First Amendment tradition which exists, not to mention the supposed tolerance which is taught within the Christian faith.

There so many statements between these two candidates that on the surface were bad enough, but put into the context of the larger picture, are entirely antithetical to the foundation of this country — however, we all know that foundation has been razed and a new one formed following the Civil War. I’ve been wanting to do a separate post on the enigma that is Barack Obama, and after watching tonight’s discussion with Rick Warren, I think I have a better understanding of the man, so that post is forthcoming. A last comment about this “Civil Forum,” Obama was clearly the winner, if one could be made winner. McCain looked nervous, like a fish out of water. Obama provided full answers, not 10 word phrases which are only designed to get applause, which McCain banked on. If this were head-to-head, Obama was the John F. Kennedy to Richard Nixon. Also, when these two candidates meet for the first time, face-to-face, all the polls afterward will wildly swing towards Obama, if they don’t already after this little meeting.

Aug

16

Friday Saturday Night Music Club: Big & Rich

August 16, 2008 | Leave a Comment

This evening is feeling very Big & Rich-like …

Aug

9

Does the Maryland Mayor have any recourse?

August 9, 2008 | Leave a Comment

The police force of a small Maryland town turned their military tactics upon their own mayor, Cheye Calvo, killing his two dogs. What can Mayor Calvo do about this? I don’t know the governmental structure of Berwyn Heights, but I’m willing to be it’s like any other town and the police force is simply a single department among many within the town. That being the case, the the buck with each department must stop at the Mayor desk. However, the way the police acted appears to be at odds with any authority the mayor might have.

So, what recourse can the mayor follow? The police chief has cleared the mayor and his wife of any wrong-doing, calling the incident a matter where the Calvo’s were victims (although he did not use that word) of a drug smuggler’s scheme. Yet, this simply isn’t enough. Also, there is the issue regarding how local police forces carry out warrants and subpoenas. Their tactics are comparable to the U.S. military and there isn’t a police force in the country who hasn’t receive Homeland Security funds following September 11. These funds were made available to help shore up the U.S. defenses against terrorist activities. However, as it clearly appears, these tactics are being used against law-abiding American citizens — even American mayors.

Local law enforcement has been federalized. This should be cause of concern for every American.

Aug

9

Johnson plays possum, won’t debate Dykstra

August 9, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Let’s dip into the local political scene, shall we … Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) says he will not debate his Republican challenger Joel Dykstra.

Johnson campaign manager, Steve Jarding said the Senator made this decision on his own and it’s final, not really offering a conclusive reason why [cough] health [/cough]. Jarding went on to say:

Another aspect that went into Johnson’s calculation whether to debate this year was the degree to which Dykstra provided credible opposition, according to Jarding.

In light of the fact he did not post an overwhelming primary victory and has not yet raised a notable amount of money, “a lot of people in South Dakota are saying Dykstra hasn’t earned it,” Jarding says of debates.

Hasn’t earned what? As if just because you are the incumbent YOU AUTOMATICALLY EARN YOUR SEAT BACK. I call bull shit. Especially after Senator Johnson, a fucking democrat, voted for the FISA Amendment Act, which blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment. Sorry for the colorful language here, but if ever a representative needed to defend his seat, it is this man, and this seat.

Honestly, Dykstra isn’t much better than Johnson. Dykstra appears to be a populist conservative and that is what it is. Neither of these candidates are good for this State or this Country.

Forget about the health implications for Johnson. The media and the pundits love to use that issue because it makes for great political theatre, but we know better here in South Dakota. We will all — regardless of our political stripes — give Johnson the time he needs to respond to a question or accusation in a debate. We are good peoples, and from what I have heard about Joel Dykstra, he’s a decent man and would fully respect Johnson’s needs during a debate.

Unfortunately for Johnson his health does calculate. If he cannot stand up to a candidate who apparently “hasn’t earned it,” how is he supposed to stand up to those other 45 or so Republican senators who have?

Aug

8

Friday Night Music Club: Radiohead

August 8, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Believe it or not, I’m new to the genius that is Radiohead. What have I been listening to all these years?

Aug

8

Alabama sued for excessive disenfranchisement

August 8, 2008 | Leave a Comment

The state of Alabama put into place an expanded list of crimes involving “moral turpitude” which further disenfranchise (remove voting rights) from convicted felons. The problem with this expansion is it takes voting rights away from many non-violent offenders.

Alabama does not bar all felons from voting, only those convicted of crimes involving “moral turpitude.” In 2003, the civil liberties group says, the State Legislature clearly defined what those crimes are: murder, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, incest, sexual torture and nine other crimes mainly involving pornography and abuses against children.

At issue in the lawsuit is not the list enacted in law but an expanded “moral turpitude” list developed by the state’s attorney general, Troy King, in 2005. That list includes about a dozen additional offenses, most of them nonviolent, and several including the sale of marijuana.

Often a non-issue with many Americans, felony disenfranchisement is one of those topics most are willing to let slide because, as they say, “if they didn’t get in trouble, they wouldn’t need to worry about losing their right to vote.” That is a marvelous, “I’m innocent, so don’t bother me sentiment,” but unfortunately, if you were, say, wrongly convicted of a crime, then it would be you without a say at the ballot box and not some slime ball criminal.

Consider that all states have different laws. If ever there was a clear demonstration of federalism at work, it is with disenfranchisement laws. Some states actually allow inmates to vote (Maine and New Hampshire), while others, such as South Dakota, require that the convicted felon no longer be serving his/her prison/jail sentence; therefore, those on parole or probation are eligible to vote. Other states, not so liberal.

But let us ask the fundamental questions that Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) poses:

When, if ever, should the state be able to take away your right to vote, and what remedy is appropriate if you don’t believe 4 million Americans should be barred from that most fundamental tool of public participation?

That first question should be simple, right? Murderers, rapists, child pornographers, etc. Should we let convicted felons (regardless of crime) currently serving time in prison vote? I say no. Welch argues that if the laws are draconian or corrupt, then we have a bigger problem on our hands. I agree, but let’s stick to reality and not get lost in a world of anarcho-delusion. If we are a society of laws, and one of us fails to live under those laws, then the system of laws dictates that our freedom be put in jeopardy. If that is the case, then while serving time, you are essentially without freedom, and therefore, without the right to vote.

However, once an individual has served their time, which theoretically, according to my example, would include parole or probation time following a prison or jail sentence, then their full voting rights are restored (this would still bar the aforementioned heinous acts for life). Again, I’m perfectly fine with this.

What I do take issue with is perpetually punishing someone long after they have paid for the crime — especially if the crime committed was non-violent — which many states are adding to the list of disenfranchising infractions; see Alabama.

In terms of how do we remedy the problem of having 4 million Americans disenfranchised? First, we have to look at our drug and alcohol laws. We are convicting many non-violent alcohol and drug offenders of felonies, when in reality, their crimes tend to be petty and hardly of vital harm to society. Sure, an argument can be made against drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders, and you will not get much debate from me on that one. But. a lot of these offenders are of better use to society outside of prison (believe it or not). So the first step would be to roll back the insane drug laws across the nation. Secondly, three strike rules need to go. States where multiple convictions, regardless of crime, equal a felony, have taken the hard-line stance on crime too far. Bring this down a notch or two and you will have more voters on the rolls.

In a political society where we rely on a representative government, we must take more seriously who we deny voting rights. If all individuals convicted of a crime were unable to vote, I would presume that the power of influence might shift into the hands of those disenfranchised, and I guarantee the resulting coup may be slightly violent.

Aug

7

You, privacy, and the Internets

August 7, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Two stories flashed through the Google Reader this morning, both dealing with individual privacy (to some extent) and your digital footprint on the Interwebs.

Want to know if your neighbor has a rap sheet? Go to CriminalSearches.com. Here you can search all available court database systems. What was once a bit of a chore, having to physically go down to the courthouse and retrieve individual records, is now at your fingertips through the magic of tubes and wires and such.

Academics have a term for the old inaccessibility of records like those for criminal convictions: “practical obscurity.”

Practical obscurity … that’s funny. True, of course. Until the Internets, a person with a criminal past could do their time and move on with their law-abiding life. Not so much anymore. Today your criminal past is perpetually present and individuals are constantly having to defend that (sometimes long, long ago) past.

Using myself as an example, I do not wish and will run from nor hide my past. It is what it is and because I have set a professional course which includes (I hope) law school and a career as an attorney, I must be an open book. Therefore, I have less of a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting my privacy when it comes to these matters. Of course, the “right to privacy” is a whole separate can of worms. Should criminal records be made available to the public? Yes, I think they should. On the Internet? Sure, but I do not think there should be a central repository like CriminalSearches.com. If you wish to find out about your neighbor, then you should have to do individual searches of that individual in each county where you are seeking records. A certain level of practical obscurity remains, but yet you do not have to take a shower (or not), get in your car, and go down to the court house.

Another major issue I have is one mentioned in the NY Times story:

BUT now, of course, none of the old restrictions apply. The information is available from a variety of sources, and now free. Jurors can and almost certainly will be tempted to look up criminal pasts of defendants in their cases.

There are substantial reasons why a defendant’s criminal past are not allowed into trials, the greatest and most important is that you can not be tried for the same crime twice. Allow a jury to know your criminal history and now they are likely to convict you strictly on that information alone as a prior offender. This is not justice.

———-

The other story which falls under this privacy umbrella is one about Google closing the account of a user and not telling them why. What makes a free market work is the trust we place in those whom we chose to do business with. I (along with zillions of others) tend to think that Google has terrific products (both free and not) and I trust them with certain amounts of my personal information. However, that trust needs to be mutual and they should never be able to hold our information hostage. This incident with “Nick” was mostly a customer service SNAFU, but when such a large corporation has access to vast amounts of your private information, we have to make sure that that information remains private and remains YOURS.

Aug

7

Hamdan gets 66 months

August 7, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was sentenced to 66 months, including time served of just over 5 years. It is obvious that Hamdan is not a terrorist and had no direct part in the execution of terrorist activities and the jury (along with Judge Allred) recognized this with an appropriate adjudication.

This isn’t over. The Government maintains that Hamdan is an “enemy combatant” and by their determination, may detain him until the end of the United States military activities in the so-called war on terror. Hamdan could be released in less than 6 months, but it may take that long or more to find a suitable location for him to return to without immediate retribution against him.

Today’s developments are encouraging, but it is still a tremendous disappointment that our system of justice has been brought to this point.

Aug

7

Um, excuse me Mr. Keith, you forgot your hood

August 7, 2008 | Leave a Comment

The warmongering Toby Keith speaks the Southern racist stereotype.

Now, Keith has trained his sights on Barack Obama, attacking him in racially tinged language that startled even the notoriously reactionary radio jock Glenn Beck. During Keith’s appearance on the July 30 broadcast of Beck’s show, he remarked, “I think the black people would say he [Obama] don’t talk, act or carry himself as a black person.”

“What does that even mean?” the audibly shocked Beck replied.

“Well, I don’t know what that means,” Keith drawled, “but I think that that’s what they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason he is in [the general election] is because he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian.”

Aug

7

It all comes down to guilt by association

August 7, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Prosecutors admit he had no active role in planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the military panel assembled in the military commission (war crimes trial) of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, found him guilty of “material support of terrorism” (he drove Osama bin Laden around) but acquitted him on charges of conspiracy.

This was the trial the Bush Administration was (and is) hanging their tyrannical hat on. They got a terrorist conviction. Hamdan, arguably not a threat and not an enemy combatant, will be sentence on Thursday and could still receive life in prison. He could call Guantanamo Bay home for the rest of his life. Sure, this man was connected to the evil bin Laden, but not even Hitler’s driver was convicted at Nuremberg.

What the United States Government is showcasing to the world, is that we have very little respect for our own system of justice. Bush failed repeatedly, first being told that Guantanamo is within U.S. jurisdiction, therefore Gitmo detainees do have habeas corpus rights, but that decision was ignored. Then the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the very man convicted on Wednesday, that the Detainee Treatment Act, which attempted to strip habeas rights from U.S. courts and create a military commission process, was also unconstitutional. So again, Bush had Congress pass the Military Commissions Act, setting up a more “lawful” judicial system for which to deal with the detainees. This is the system used with Hamdan, but as you might very well recall, the Supreme Court took issue with this act as well, stating that habeas cases should only be heard by the U.S. civilian courts and not some system devised and ran by the Executive.

Bush has thumbed his nose at the law every step of the way. He’s going to get the terrorists … even if that means only getting the ones who just drove the terrorists around the desert.

Here’s the Center for Constitutional Rights statement on the guilty verdict against Hamdan.

The SCOTUS blog has more.

One of Hamdan’s attorney’s appeared on Countdown tonight. Video below.


What I'm Reading


What I'm Listening To