Mood:
sillyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
The Democrats are growing weary from trying to block initiatives from the President and the GOP controlled House and Senate. So, out of desperation, they are launching a series of PR campaigns with sad puns and gimmicky props more akin to a "Carrot Top" comedy routine than a party of political leadership. Democratic group plans quirky campaigns WASHINGTON - Rep. Bob Beauprez of Colorado will be confronted by waffles, be it breakfast, lunch or dinner. Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut will see her face plastered on an oversize milk carton. When Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois marches in a parade, he'll be tailed by someone in a duck costume. As House Republicans move ahead with plans to vote on Social Security changes this summer, a Democratic opposition group will use the July Fourth recess to pressure GOP lawmakers it believes are undecided about the legislation or susceptible to criticism from their constituents. The tactics will be far removed from the customs and decorum normally observed on the House floor. "Beauprez is planning to run for governor; he cares about people all over the state. ... Bring waffles to all events," reads a plan drafted by Americans United to Protect Social Security, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. "Johnson is missing when it comes to defending Social Security. She refuses to take a stand. ... Major tactics: milk carton - 'Where is Johnson?' 'Johnson Missing,'" it also says. The plan adds: "July 2-4, tailing Weller with duck costume (as in, stop 'ducking' the issue) at public events/parades." The congressmen targeted are all members of the House Ways and Means Committee, which will be the first panel in the House to review the legislation. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., the committee's chairman, expects a vote before Congress takes its summer recess at the end of the month. While the panel is split 24-17 in favor of the GOP, and Thomas is known to rule it with an iron fist, even some of his fellow Republicans have been slow to embrace the changes proposed by President Bush, or outlined in recent weeks by four Republican committee members, Reps. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Clay Shaw of Florida, Sam Johnson of Texas and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. "The Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee, many of whom have straddled the fence, waffled or flip-flopped on the issue of privatization, are having their arms twisted nearly off by Thomas and the House Republican leadership to support this new privatization bill," Americans United writes in its battle plan. The group proposes to fight back by picketing Shaw's congressional office with signs accusing him of forgetting about less-wealthy constituents. It also focuses on a fellow Florida Republican on the committee, Rep. Mark Foley, with unusually brusque language. "Foley is not as concerned (as Shaw) about an electoral challenge, but has many seniors," it reads. "Thin-skinned squealer." The congressman, who is undecided about any of the plans, said during an interview the campaign smacks of desperation by Democrats and their allies. Democrats have pointedly refused to offer an alternative until the president drops his accounts proposal. They argue that establishing the accounts is part of an overall effort to transform the program from one providing a guaranteed benefit check to one that provides benefits subject to the ups and downs of the stock market. "If you're describing a program that has such an impact on seniors, which Social Security is, and your rallying cry is to make such pejorative statements about members, I think you're starting off on the wrong foot," Foley said. "It's so juvenile that they're engaging in a debate without an option, an answer, but they're using a vernacular that indicates they're nothing more than a ragtag group of rebels." Jordan Stoick, spokesman for Beauprez, said he expects his boss to chuckle when he sees the waffles. "He's not politically naive and will take this for what it's worth: a ploy by liberal Washington, D.C., special-interest groups," Stoick said. ON THE NET: Americans United to Protect Social Security Columbus Ledger-Enquirer ~ Associated Press - Glen Johnson ** Democratic group plans quirky campaigns
Posted by uhyw
at 7:54 AM EDT
d'oh
special
From The Lizard Queen...
Great work ladies! 
cheeky
party time!
O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court
WASHINGTON - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a swing vote on abortion as well as other contentious issues, announced her retirement Friday. A bruising Senate confirmation struggle loomed as President Bush pledged to name a successor quickly.
"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," the 75-year-old justice wrote Bush in a one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Little more than an hour later, Bush praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity." He said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."
O'Connor's decision _ so closely held that a son did not know in advance _ marked the first retirement in 11 years on an aging court. It came as a modest surprise, particularly since Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been the subject of retirement rumors for months. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, has offered no hint as to his future plans.
O'Connor's decision capped a pioneer's career. President Reagan broke nearly 200 years of tradition when he tapped her _ a top-ranked graduate of Stanford law school _ for the high court.
Over time, she evolved into a moderate conservative, but more importantly, a majority maker.
She voted with a 5-4 majority, for example, on the case that effectively awarded the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush. She was on the winning side again when the court upheld the right of women to have an abortion if their health were in danger.
She expressed her views pungently at times. Last week, in a dissent in a 5-4 ruling that let local governments take personal property to build malls and other businesses, she wrote that the majority had unwisely handed more power to the powerful.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing ... any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Bush pledged to send a nomination to the Senate in time for a vote by the time the court begins its new term in October, but aides said it would not be before he returns from a scheduled trip to Europe on July 8. He said he and his administration would consult with lawmakers, and said "the nation deserves a dignified" confirmation debate.
Officials said the president did not know until around 9 a.m. Friday that O'Connor was stepping down, although his top lawyer, Harriet Miers, was alerted on Thursday to expect news of some sort from the court.
O'Connor's retirement leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only woman among eight remaining justices. One official said Bush's "short list" had included only men, and suggested a quick move to expand the roster of contenders.
O'Connor, in a separate one-sentence statement, cited her age and said she "needs to spend time" with family. She and her husband, John, a former classmate at Stanford, have three sons, Scott, Brian and Jay. She had breast cancer in 1988. Her resignation takes effect when a successor is confirmed.
Already, battle lines were forming in anticipation of a summer confirmation struggle in the Senate _ judicial philosophy, not gender, the key factor among outside groups as well as lawmakers.
"We'll look back on Justice O'Connor as someone who put reason ahead of ideological fervor, which stands her in stark contrast to many of the judges who might replace her if the radical right gets its way," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Progress for America, a conservative group, instantly launched a humorous Web-based advertisement meant to anticipate attacks on Bush's as-yet-unknown choice and mock them at the same time.
"The president nominated George Washington for the Supreme Court. Democrats immediately attacked Washington for his environmental record of chopping down cherry trees," it said.
Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion _ an issue that divides the court as it does the country.
She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion and also from others who argue the right is a given.
O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.
Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right. Commentators called O'Connor the nation's most powerful woman, but O'Connor poo-poohed the thought.
"I don't think it's accurate," she said in an Associated Press interview.
The enormity of the reaction to O'Connor's appointment had surprised her. She received more than 60,000 letters in her first year, more than any one member in the court's history.
"I had no idea when I was appointed how much it would mean to many people around the country," she once said. "It affected them in a very personal way. People saw it as a signal that there are virtually unlimited opportunities for women. It's important to parents for their daughters, and to daughters for themselves."
At times, the constant publicity was almost unbearable. "I had never expected or aspired to be a Supreme Court justice. My first year on the court made me long at times for obscurity," she once said.
On the court, O'Connor generally favored states in disputes with the federal government and for enhanced police powers challenged as violative of asserted individual rights.
In 1985, she wrote for the court as it ruled that the confession of a criminal suspect first warned about his rights may be used as trial evidence even if police violated a suspect's rights in obtaining an earlier confession.
O'Connor wrote the 1989 decision that struck down as an unconstitutional form of affirmative action a minority set-aside program for construction projects in Richmond, Va.
In 1991, she led the court as it ruled in its first-ever decision on rape-shield laws that states may under some circumstances bar evidence that a defendant and his alleged victim previously had consensual sex.
O'Connor once described herself and her eight fellow justices as nine fire fighters.
"When (someone) lights a fire, we invariably are asked to attend to the blaze. We may arrive at the scene a few years later," she said.
O'Connor was 51 when she joined the court to replace the retired Potter Stewart. A virtual unknown on the national scene until her appointment, she had served as an Arizona state judge, and before that as a member of her state's Legislature.
A fourth-generation Arizonan, she had grown up on a sprawling family ranch.
The woman who climbed higher in the legal profession than had any other member of her sex did not begin her career auspiciously. As a top-ranked graduate of Stanford's prestigious law school, class of 1952, O'Connor discovered that most large law firms did not hire women.
One offered her a job as a secretary. Perhaps it was that early experience that shaped O'Connor's professional tenacity. She once recalled a comment by an Arizona colleague: "With Sandra O'Connor, there ain't no Miller time."
"I think that's true," confessed the justice whose work week most often extended beyond 60 hours.
But she played tennis and golf well, danced expertly with her husband, and made frequent appearances on the Washington party circuit.
O'Connor was embarrassed in 1989 after conservative Republicans in Arizona used a letter she had sent to support their claim that the United States is a "Christian nation."
O'Connor said she regretted the letter's use in a political debate. "It was not my intention to express a personal view on the subject of the inquiry," she said.
Teacher's sex experiment went too far, says district
Sexual harassment complaint from science experiment will continue
CLAREMONT - An investigation by Claremont schools into allegations of sexual harassment by a student found a teacher acted inappropriately in how he conducted a biology lab.
Freshman Gabriela Jimenez said she was distressed by teacher Robert Hoyle's March 31 class exercise on sexually transmitted diseases.
"It made me uncomfortable; I didn't want to do it," Gabriela said.
With the song "Let's Get It On" setting the mood, she said students were instructed to approach six classmates about exchanging water from their test tubes by asking, "Would you like to have sex with me?"
Parent Elizabeth Jimenez retained a lawyer with the Pacific Justice Institute and filed a formal sexual harassment claim for creating "an intimidating, hostile and offensive educational environment."
Devon Freitas, assistant superintendent of Claremont schools, did not return telephone calls, but in a written response to the institute's lawyer, Freitas acknowledged "decisions made by the teacher in the presentation of the lab ... were inappropriate, especially for the maturity level of most ninth-graders."
According to Freitas' response, other teachers at Claremont High taught the same lesson, and a memo was sent to all science teachers regarding Education Code protocol for lessons containing sexual references.
Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the Pacific Justice Institute, said they do not consider the matter resolved.
"We're in the process of filing a formal complaint," Snider said.
Hoyle's lab assignment, titled "Pathogens and Infection: Invisible Carriers of Disease," describes an exercise not uncommon in biology coursework.
In order to simulate the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, students were instructed to exchange "body fluids" with one another to see how rapidly a virus can spread.
Each student received a test tube, filled with water, to mix with six "partners" in the class. A tube was contaminated with a chemical, and after the students had poured, dripped or mixed with several others, the class examined how many ended up infected.
Jimenez, who said her daughter refused to participate, objected more to the method of the exercise than the message.
"There was lewd music," she said. "The problem is (my daughter) was uncomfortable, upset and embarrassed. Kids are saying things like "Hey, you want to suck my tube? You want to have foreplay?'"
She said less-popular students lacking partners to complete the assignment "were told to "experiment' and to 'have sex' with somebody of the same gender."
Jimenez said she was skeptical but became concerned after her two other daughters, one of whom took the class with another instructor, said they had the same test-tube sex experience.
Hoyle did not return calls seeking comment.
Jimenez said the district should have sent a notice to parents informing them of the content of the exercise so parents could opt to exclude their children.
Freitas said the district follows state law regarding parental notification, which requires parents to be notified about "instruction in comprehensive sexual education and HIV/AIDS prevention education."
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, leaves the courthouse Wednesday, after he and four other defendants in the vote fraud trail were convicted in East St. Louis. >>>>>
Defendants guilty of vote fraud
UPDATE:
All five defendants in the vote fraud trial in East St. Louis were convicted by a jury today after five and a half hours of deliberations.
The defendants showed little response when the verdicts were displayed on an overhead projector in federal court. Defendant Sheila Thomas dabbed her eyes, but the other four stared straight ahead.
Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker had been accused of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election.
Also convicted were Democratic precinct committee members Thomas, 31, and Jesse Lewis, 56, and City Hall worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of regulatory affairs, along with Thomas, Lewis and Johnson also were convicted of one count apiece of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote -- or offering to do so. Powell was never charged with that count.
Jurors set aside defense claims that the government's case was flimsy because of unreliable witnesses whose testimony often contradicted each other and, at times, was recanted.
"I respect the jury, but I am disappointed," Ellis' attorney, John O'Gara, said after the verdicts.
O'Gara said the defense attorneys would consider asking for a new trial.
"I would say jurors looked at these tapes and listened to them, and I'm guessing they are using the interpretations these very faulty witnesses gave them to reach their conclusion," O'Gara added. "I would not have trusted the government's presentation."
Ron Tenpas, the U.S. attorney for southern Illinois, applauded the jury's conclusion that "we put together a well-founded case."
"We're not in the business of having ourselves validated," Tenpas said. "We think what the verdict represents is that -- in the judgment of 12 impartial citizens -- when all the evidence is put together we made a strong case."
A date for sentencing was not immediately set.
chatty
Fla. Teens Charged After Allegedly Burning American Flags
SARASOTA, Fla. - Two Sarasota teens accused of burning six American flags have been charged with arson and manufacturing a firebomb.
Scott A. Baber and Brian A. Richard III, both 18, told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and disagree with the war in Iraq and other U.S. government policies.
They set fire to six flags Sunday and tried to firebomb a car, the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office said.
Richard remained in jail Tuesday on $402,120 bail. Baber was released Monday on $101,120 bail.
The pair were charged with arson, manufacture of a fire bomb and criminal mischief.
Baber and Richard burned about five flags at homes in the Bent Tree subdivision, where they live with Baber's parents, then set fire to a flag at its clubhouse, said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato, a spokesman for the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office.
"Our deputies came up on them as they were returning to their car," he said.
The arrest of his son surprised Brian Richard II.
"His grandfather was a decorated military man. The whole thing really stunned me. I was really sad that they made that choice," the elder Richard said.
Residents of the golf course community were also upset.
"How stupid," Pat Davidson said, straightening the stones surrounding her blackened flagpole. "What kind of thrill would you get burning an American flag?"
This is beautiful. Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media is throwing the Supreme Court's bullshit right back at David H. Souter, the head fucktard of the dumb-ass loss of property rights ruling. And gettin' to him right where he lives.
I hope Freestar Media pulls this off. It would be so righteous to see the top shithead libtard of the Supreme Court's decision to be one of his own first victims...
Below is our letter to begin the development process.
Mr. Chip Meany