Dolphin returns to my blog, today (I’ve recently started reading his feed), with a particularly interesting mention of that church under attack from the IRS.

Essentially, Dolphin wants to know (and for that matter, so do I), where the right-wing outrage is over this little occurence. See, during the lead-up to the election(s), especially the 2004 election, churches were outright endorsing President Bush, and quoting freedom of religion (and in some cases, of the press) against anyone who tried to tell them they could not legall remain a non-profit religious organization and support a candidate. The hubub died down. Now, when a church makes a sermon against the war, then get their charter revoked. Speaking out against war is a heck of a lot less politically charged than directly endorsing a specific candidate, and yet… yet it’s somehow worse.

…You’ve all seen the “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do) bracelets, and the “WWJDD” (What Would Jack Daniels Do) bracelets. Well, I think we need a new one.. “WWJDIHHAFOJD” (What Would Jesus Do If He Had A Fifth Of Jack Daniels). Personally, I think he’d grab the bottle, take a good long swig, and then go start beating people over the head with it until they start to realize just how idiotic all of this is.

But then again, I think Jesus was the most under-stated bad-ass-kicker of our time, but that’s just me.

According to a recent news story from the BBC, UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is urging MPs to back his plan to hold terror suspects up to 90 days without pressing charges.

Yep, it seems England just loves to strip those rights away. (Oh, wait, did I just trash another country without trashing mine?? Don’t worry… I’ll get around to laying it onto us, soon.)? In response to this action by Blair, conservative leader Michael Howard has challenged Blair to provide an example - any example - of a case where it might have taken 90 days to get the evidence to charge a suspect.

Oh, I love this line…

Yep.. don’t want another France.

Essentially, Blair wants to extend the time Britain can hold terror suspects without charges from 14 days (two weeks) to 90 days (three months).? Blair, you can already hold them for two weeks, WITHOUT PROOF… Merely on the SUSPICION that they are terror suspects.? You don’t have to prove a damned thing.? You can simply walk out, grab someone by the scruff of the neck, say “I think he’s a terror suspect,” and throw them in the block for two weeks.? Maybe you’re trying to model your country after ours?? I mean, we all know you’re Bush’s little lapdog, but c’mon..? We already extended that 14 day thing to a full month.? There’s really no need to go to three months.? You don’t have to kiss Bush’s ass every step of the way.? I mean, I’d think it would be rather covered by lip prints, by now.? Besides, how do you find a place to plant it, amongst all those other people crowding in to do the same?

I love this little paragraph:

…let’s look at that, again…

…yet.

——— UPDATE ———–
Of course this measure didn’t pass. heh.  I wrote this article several days after the fact.  Blair got his arse handed to him on the measure.  The wonderful folks in the House of Commons decided that 90 days was just too long.  They opted, instead, to extend the holding period from 14 to 28 days.

…hmm, 28 days… where have I heard THAT figure before?
Oh, right.  LAPDOG, ANYONE?!

You know, if Blair didn’t come back any say something like “well, okay, if not 90, how about 28,” then I’d wager he’s had someone do it for him.  Jesus, Blair… why don’t you move from one side to the other and suck instead of smooch, for a change?

technorati tags: terrorism, united kingdom, england, tony blair, george bush, english terror laws

(I told you it wouldn’t be long before I had something to say about our side of the pond…)

It seems that a recent memo, circulating among senior republican leaders, is suggesting that a new terror attack on U.S. soil could halt the decline in Bush’s support and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

The memo actually lays out a list of scenarios that could bring the republican party back from the brink of political demise, including a devastating terror attack that could “validate” the President’s pet project (err, I mean “war on terror”), and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

…I love this…

High risk?  …ya think?

…and people wonder why I’m frightened of this country’s leadership, as a whole.

(source: Capitol Hill Blue)

technorati tags: George W. Bush, war on terror, terrorism, terror attacks, GOP, republican party

Today was voting day, across the United States.  I went and did my part.  Amazingly, there was nothing affecting my local region other than the proposed amendments to the State constitution.  So, without further adieu, I present “How Eric Voted, 2005.”

Proposition 1:  For.  While it does allow the state to borrow money to “fund” private companies, it also opens up the ability for light and heavy passgenger/communter rail to be a forerunner in development in this state.

Proposition 2: Against.  I’ve made my opinions about this ballot very well known in several different entries (each word is a link to a seperate entry).

Proposition 3: For.  Provides for the ability to give economic development grants and loans without incurring debt.  Essentially, grants and loans given for economic development will not be considered as “debt.”  This will, hopefully, allow the economic growth of Texas.

Proposition 4: For.  Allows for judicial ability to deny bail to a person who violates a condition of their release while awaiting trial. (Essentially, if you violate bail once, a judge can deny you further bail.)

Proposition 5: Against.  This proposition would allow the state legislature to set interest rates for commercial loans.  I have an intrinsic distrust of the state legislature, and while some say that means I should have voted against some above amendments, in those cases my hopes for the future outweighed my distrust.  In this case, it’s straight distrust.

Proposition 6: For.  Adds members to the state commision on judicial conduct, therefore increased judiciary oversight.

Proposition 7: For.  Allows for the borrowing of money against reverse mortgages (line-of-credit advances), mostly beneficial for senior citizens that may need money in the short them, whereas they may not be around to see it in the long term.

Proposition 8: For.  Releases state claims to vacant land in Smith and Upshur counties.

Proposition 9: For.  Provides for a six-year term for regional mobility authority board members, bringing the term-length to the state standard of six years.  Also provides for staggering terms within the board, so the entire board is not up for re-election at the same time.  This one was a crap shoot, really.  If we get good folks on there, they’re around for longer, and can do more good.  If we get bad folks on there, well, we have to put up with them for longer.

That’s it, folks.  My opinions.  I’ll update this posting with the outcome of each proposition, once all precincts have reported in, and outcome is determined.  This will likely be tomorrow morning.

RESULTS: The following propositions passed: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. Propositions 5, and 9 did not pass.

technorati tags: texas, voting, proposition 2