Two Babes and a Brain

So What Exactly Is Your Point Senator???

State Senator Ernie Chambers of Nebraska is trying to make a point about frivolous lawsuits by suing God.  Unfortunately, he doesn't say what that point is...except stating the obvious that anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Well...duh.  That's the way our legal system is set up.  It's open to everyone... not just a privileged few.  What the article fails to mention that there are processes within the system that are set up to weed out truly frivolous issues.  Sure, it's a pain in the ass but if we want a system that is all inclusive, we must take the bitter with the sweet....the good with the bad...and any other cliche that fits.

If the Senator is trying to prove the point that there must be legislation to prevent these type of lawsuits, then I think he is going to have problems.  Who is going to be the person to make that determination when presented with a lawsuit?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the jury system is all about?  Isn't that why we have trials in the first place?  Just because I think your case is stupid and frivolous doesn't mean it is?  So we go through a discovery process and if a judge determines that we have dotted our i's and crossed our t's, then we go before a jury of our peers for a verdict. 

It may be, again, a pain in the ass, but it ain't rocket science.

Lisa

Why not just tell the truth?

Even if we agree that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President--something I believe, can we agree that the Attorney General should not have lied about his involvement in their firings? If the President has the right to fire his political appointees, and he does, then what was the big deal in saying, "we wanted a change?" Why was this handled the way it was? What do you think?

Chris

Permission to lie...

Someone please explain to me when we stopped requiring sworn testimony in front of Congress? This has become a constant theme: we'll let them testify but not under oath. Isn't that permission to lie? I don't think this is a partisan issue. Anyone called before Congress to give testimony should be sworn in. I would demand it of these Rove and Miers and anyone else called for any other reason in this and any investigation and if they refused I would not allow them to testify and let the American people assume what they will from the lack of willingness to tell the truth.

Chris

The Firing of Prosecutors

Imagine my shock! A bunch of political appointees were fired for political reasons. I'm not saying what the administration did is right; I don't believe it is. I think it sucks that they are monkeying around with the Justice Department. I just thing that technically they have the right to do it. Now, I wish they had fired them all, as they originally intended. Mostly I wish this because they would have looked like the idiots they are. Also, why lie about it? Why not just say, "It's time for my friend Joe's nephew to have the job and I'm President and I get to appoint people so there?" If they had done that they wouldn't have impugned the reputation of the people they fired. They wouldn't have said they were incompetent when they weren't.

This administration lies when they don't have to and it makes all of what they do incredibly suspect.

You don't have to like why they fire people to recognize that they have the right to do it. Hold all the hearings you want, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President.

I would, however, like to see Senators and others who pressured these prosecutors to bring cases in time for elections have to answer a few questions.

Chris

What's Next????

Let me preface this by saying I don't use anything in my restaurant with transfats...period.  I make every effort possible to provide my customers with selections made with organic ingredients and always make sure all meat and produce is fresh as well as organic.   Hell, in the summer, I grow my own organic produce for use in my place.  Now, that's not to say that there aren't selections on my menu that aren't the smartest if you are watching your waistline.  There is the espresso rubbed ribeye steak (organic, of course) with mashed buttermilk red potatoes and seared kale... or the shrimp coriander tossed with linguine served in a ginger cream sauce.  Neither of those are what I would call totally "healthy".  But everything in moderation.  You wouldn't want to eat either of those everyday but on occasion is perfectly OK.  And I haven't even touched on the desserts I make....chocolate walnut torte with a chocolate rum icing or cinnamon bread pudding with a rich bourbon sauce...pretty yummy but not the best selections for someone watching their weight.

All that being said.... this is ridiculous.  Legislating restaurants... banning them from using products that, by the way, are approved by the FDA, is an abuse of authority. 

NEW YORK (AP) - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants - from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.

Sure, require them to disclose the fact that they use these products...make them tell the world...but don't tell them what they can and can't use.

What is happening to the freedom of choice in this country?  And, while I'm at it...what is happening to being held accountable for personal choices and behavior?  It ain't rocket science folks.  If a person chooses to eat nothing but fried foods and Big Macs, they are going to be fat.  DUH!!!  People can choose to walk into a restaurant and eat there.  People do it at my place all the time.  They walk in...look at the menu....and choose to either request a table or walk out.

Yes, transfats contribute to heart disease.  News flash... so does smoking and drinking alcohol.  Is that what's next?  Will smoking be banned all together....everywhere?  How about alcohol.  Is prohibition no longer going to be a thing of the 1920s.   I'm sure the tobacco companies will have something to say about any total ban.  Just like the insurance companies are pushing for the bans on transfats. 

Hmmmm.... Big Tobacco v. Big Insurance.  Sounds like a made for TV movie, huh.

Stay tuned folks... I'm sure this trend will spread like wildfire....especially now that "you know who" has taken over Congress.

Happy eating.

Lisa

Full Disclosure...

Yesterday, in the Washington Post, there was an article titled Medical Practices Blend Health and Faith. I read it a bunch of times over the course of the day because I found it so thought provoking.

Now, I honestly do believe that you have the right to determine what you will and will not do based on--well, based on whatever floats your boat. If religion is your thing, then I think that using that as the basis to decide what you will do in the course of your life as well as your job is fine. If it isn't religion, but rather your own personal set of ethics that determine your personal limits that is cool with me as well. I respect people who draw lines in the sand and live by principle.

Here is my caveat to that--

Why the public interest?

Good morning. It's Friday and it is THE LAST DAY OF SCHOOL...yea!

So, there is not a lot being taken seriously here at TwoBabes--at least not by me--this morning. However, Bombtruck over at ABP has posed a question so I figured I'd offer an answer.

Can anyone tell me why this program is a matter of public interest?

He asks this of the revelations in the NYT this morning that we are sifting through international bank records. (ABP piece here,NYT piece here)

Here is my answer as to why this would be in the public interest:

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

and

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.

Sorry, citizens of the US have rights and no matter what the excuse, the government can't do things contrary to those rights. I don't care how many signing statements the President signs--the Constitution applies to all men (and women) of the United States.

These guys don't think so. They think the law is for everyone else. They think if they disagree with it they don't have to follow it. Well, they do.

And so that is why this program is in the public interest.

I think we should change the law. I think we should amend the Constitution. I think citizens get more rights than non-citizens but we haven't done that yet. SO, this stuff without a warrant of some type and this stuff used in Court without disclosing where it was obtained form is just wrong.

Chris

Others talking about it: Michelle Malkin, Patterico's Pontifications

Here we go again...

With all the things going on in the world and all the things that need our attention, it blows my mind that we are going to do this again. Of course, we are going to do this again because midterms are rapidly approaching and gay marriage worked nicely for the conservatives last time. Instead of the Republican controlled Congress and White House actually getting their act together and doing something else--anything else--they are going to resurrect their favorite wedge issue. Oooh, what fun--not!

The President has suggested we re-write the Constitution to limit the definition of marriage to between a man and a woman. This is supposed to re-energize his conservative base and apparently it does. Now, all you conservatives out there get your butts over here and explain to me how this fits in with your smaller government-states rights-leave us alone philosophy.

Because to me, it seems like conservatives should not like this. It seems to me that in order to be philosophically consistent they should oppose this amendment in that isn't necessary. It seems to me, that conservatives should agree with me...

Stop groaning and laughing. Hear me out first.

The state has an inherent interest in the contract aspect of a marriage. They have an interest in the property, financial and welfare of children aspects of it. It doesn't have an interest in the sexual aspect of it. It doesn't have an inherent interest in the love aspect of it.

This definition of marriage crap doesn't deal with that and admittedly stems from Judeo-Christian Values. It is a religious aspect of it. Now, liberals don't want religion in government and conservatives don't want government in religion. These two positions are actually very similar.

So, let's take the State our of the business of marriage. Let's have the state issue licenses for civil unions? Call it what you will...but the state grants permission for people to enter into the contract part of marriage. Then, license in hand...if you want to be married...off you go to find a church that will agree to do it. No one is going to make churches marry people if it is against their religious beliefs. They get to say no now. Hell, try to find a Catholic priest and a Jewish rabbi to perform a ceremony together--childbirth is easier. Nothing changes there...

If we do it my way, the government stays out of religion and the right of churches to not participate in same-sex marriage is preserved. Religion stays out of government and the liberals can be happy because the State is not participating in what they view as defacto discrimination...and everyones private life is preserved.

Take the State out of Marriage, unless it is going to cook dinner on Fridays and clean my windows.

Chris

Others on this topic: Overlawyered, Think Progress, Anklebitingpundits,

Too little, too late...

When you commit a crime and go to prison, you surrender some of your rights. When you are released and on probation, you surrender some of your rights. The state can tell you where you can go and who you can associate with. It can require you to check in periodically and submit to drug tests. It can also prevent you from voting.

My state is reconsidering allowing felons to vote.

My question is: where is the concern for the large number of African-Americans before they go to jail? Isn't this concern about their voting rights too little, too late?

Chris

Head in the sand over Haditha

Gotta say, with all due respect to BlackFive, that this is crap. Let's wait until the military finishes their investigation is the battle cry of those who take enjoyment out of ripping apart Congressman Murtha. Where were all of these no rush to judgment people when Clinton was being investigated? Where are they on the accusations of Rep. William Jefferson? or any other Democrat? Seems to me there is a lot of casting a wide net to combat the "culture of corruption" mantra...how many times have I read lists of Democrats the Republicans believe are tied to this or that scandal? Umm...plenty.

This is total crap. The investigation would not have gone forward if someone hadn't spoken up. The military was not policing itself it was covering it's ass. Officers, who were more concerned with their careers than they were with their soldiers and their country, mishandled this whole thing from the minute it happened. We know at least this because wrongful death penalty money was paid to the victims families. We know at least this because the military, when first questioned by Time Magazine, said that there was no need for an investigation--until they saw the video. The Marines didn't willingly hand over the pictures taken by the Marines who were sent in to clean up this mess.

We know enough to not play the wait until the investigation is closed game.  Hearts and minds are not won by covering up bad things. They are won by being open and transparent about them, condemning them and insuring that everything is done so that it doesn't happen again.

Michelle Malkin is also playing the "no rush to judgment tune."

Context setting...umm OK...for the alleged incident is here

Read the comments on these sites to see just how far we will go to justify this stuff

This is from today's paper