Catholics divided over appearances of ailing Pope - Sify.com
Imagine if he was Peter. Would the popular opinion be, "Sorry Peter, we know you walked and talked with Jesus, we know he said you were the rock, and even though you can do just about everything but speak right now because of your recent illness, you look pretty sick and we can't display you because our regular customers want to see someone healthy in your position."
I'm not into catholicism, but the guy is an inspiration to many. He probably knew he couldn't say squat on Easter, but that didn't stop him from trying. The guy has courage and strength his own peers can't see, what a shame.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Terri Schiavo Dies
Terri Schiavo, 41, Dies in Fla. Hospice (washingtonpost.com)
Like her, if I'm in a vegatative state and a shell of what I was, let me die in peace so that I'll be remembered not as what I had become, but what I was.
Like her, if I'm in a vegatative state and a shell of what I was, let me die in peace so that I'll be remembered not as what I had become, but what I was.
Bush Social Security "Plan"
Yahoo! News - Bush Undeterred by Resistance to Plan
What plan? He's going on tour to promote an idea. The idea is privitization of social security, oxymoronish? Does anyone have any details about this supposed plan? Costs? Savings? Any unbiased study on how this would help? Come on, even Alan Greenspan only gave it a slight nod because he knows something has to be done urgently. Let me display my ignorance of the plan even more, when I hear privitization, I think of the privitization of energy companies and how that blew up in a major way. When I hear privitization, I'm thinking Enron, and know someone will be making a lot of money if it were to happen, and at the expense of those who were forced or lured into this so called plan. But I don't blame Bush, I blame his obviously inferior education at Yale.
What plan? He's going on tour to promote an idea. The idea is privitization of social security, oxymoronish? Does anyone have any details about this supposed plan? Costs? Savings? Any unbiased study on how this would help? Come on, even Alan Greenspan only gave it a slight nod because he knows something has to be done urgently. Let me display my ignorance of the plan even more, when I hear privitization, I think of the privitization of energy companies and how that blew up in a major way. When I hear privitization, I'm thinking Enron, and know someone will be making a lot of money if it were to happen, and at the expense of those who were forced or lured into this so called plan. But I don't blame Bush, I blame his obviously inferior education at Yale.
Iran Seeks to Obtain Nuclear Warheads
Yahoo! News - Exiles: Iran Seeks to Obtain Nuclear Warheads
And the USA sits back and does nothing, hoping Israel will take care of the problem, and while we expect/hope Israel takes care of business, we are sloppy in supporting them through the futile peace talks. A lot of lessons were learned in Iraq, and the military probably needed a war with a soft target to learn what adjustments are needed when fighting a country in the middle-east. Iran must think that the war has weakened us since they clearly seek nuclear weapons and know that the USA (and maybe most other civilized countries?) will not tolerate it from them because they seek to reverse our way of life. Misery loves company after all.
And the USA sits back and does nothing, hoping Israel will take care of the problem, and while we expect/hope Israel takes care of business, we are sloppy in supporting them through the futile peace talks. A lot of lessons were learned in Iraq, and the military probably needed a war with a soft target to learn what adjustments are needed when fighting a country in the middle-east. Iran must think that the war has weakened us since they clearly seek nuclear weapons and know that the USA (and maybe most other civilized countries?) will not tolerate it from them because they seek to reverse our way of life. Misery loves company after all.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Yahoo or Google who's on top?
Yahoo or Google who's on top? | geekBlue.net
I like Google, a lot. I mean, I'm even using this blog thing that they have. But as far as email goes... it's not even close, Yahoo wins hands down. Why? Because Yahoo has email, and Google does not. What about Gmail? That's a beta, as far as I know, it must have some serious flaws because Google started handing out some accounts and were seeming about to release the thing to the public... and then... fizzle. Even now it's being projected to be released in a couple/few months.
Now, if you're talking about other products in a Google vs. Yahoo competition, then it's a much closer competition and perhaps Google would come out ahead. But Yahoo is no slouch, and if anything the competitive spirit of Yahoo is being seen and appreciated as they admirably joust with Google. I like Yahoo a lot, too.
I like Google, a lot. I mean, I'm even using this blog thing that they have. But as far as email goes... it's not even close, Yahoo wins hands down. Why? Because Yahoo has email, and Google does not. What about Gmail? That's a beta, as far as I know, it must have some serious flaws because Google started handing out some accounts and were seeming about to release the thing to the public... and then... fizzle. Even now it's being projected to be released in a couple/few months.
Now, if you're talking about other products in a Google vs. Yahoo competition, then it's a much closer competition and perhaps Google would come out ahead. But Yahoo is no slouch, and if anything the competitive spirit of Yahoo is being seen and appreciated as they admirably joust with Google. I like Yahoo a lot, too.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Well, I have a digital camera and so I left Austin this past weekend because for the 7th week in a row, rain was predicted. I went to Beaumont to visit with my cousin, an aspiring DJ. I didn't leave until Saturday morning, didn't take long, and we spend a good portion of the day at Bolivar, Point Bolivar, something like that. Then afterwards, we got drunk and he DJed. Then even later, his friend Jason comes over and DJs some too, and then we go to some lame club. Well, the club probably wasn't that lame, but we didn't stay long for 2 reasons... 1. The music wasn't our type of music (I think we arrived too early 10 p.m.) and 2. There was this really young girl bothering my cousin, trying to get him to dance with her and he didn't want any part of that... he won't have anything to do with a chick unless she's pretty good-looking (he got that from me).
Anyway, I took some pics of the Bolivar area, some sucked, ok a lot sucked, but a few are ok by me. I'd been happy even if I didn't get any shots because we had fun. But, I don't have photoshop CS, and I feel like I'm missing out on making some of my shots a lot more polished. I'm new to the digital camera, and autofocus, so it's a little daunting still, and then looking at the price for the electronic darkroom (photoshop) makes me start to gasp. But I love taking pictures, and I think once I get used to the digital camera and start taking better shots, then... nah, I think I still want it because it's practically required if you want to do what I envision, selling photos. Maybe I'll post some here if I take some time to do it.
The Postal Service, heard them on a Grey's Anatomy commercial... so that show will probably be a hit. =) Well, we'll see, but that collaboration of musicians (Gibbard and Tamborello) is really nice. I like Death Cab too, I listen to Transatlanticism or whatever it's called (in my vehicle atm) a fair bit, but there's just something about The Postal Service, positive musical energy perhaps, that's so uplifting, even though a glance at some of the lyrics could make you think they're depressing.
Anyway, I took some pics of the Bolivar area, some sucked, ok a lot sucked, but a few are ok by me. I'd been happy even if I didn't get any shots because we had fun. But, I don't have photoshop CS, and I feel like I'm missing out on making some of my shots a lot more polished. I'm new to the digital camera, and autofocus, so it's a little daunting still, and then looking at the price for the electronic darkroom (photoshop) makes me start to gasp. But I love taking pictures, and I think once I get used to the digital camera and start taking better shots, then... nah, I think I still want it because it's practically required if you want to do what I envision, selling photos. Maybe I'll post some here if I take some time to do it.
The Postal Service, heard them on a Grey's Anatomy commercial... so that show will probably be a hit. =) Well, we'll see, but that collaboration of musicians (Gibbard and Tamborello) is really nice. I like Death Cab too, I listen to Transatlanticism or whatever it's called (in my vehicle atm) a fair bit, but there's just something about The Postal Service, positive musical energy perhaps, that's so uplifting, even though a glance at some of the lyrics could make you think they're depressing.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Spying for the U.S. Doesn't Pay
Tenet et al. v. Doe et ux.
At least we American's are consistent. Continuing a track record that includes notorious negotiations/contracts with native Americans and even its own war veterans, the U.S. government once again has decided to disregard its obligations. The CIA paid money to this couple in exchange for spying. Apparently, the couple had some good stuff because the CIA/U.S. promised to pay them for the rest of their lives.
So one day the guy is running short on money because he lost his job (merger casualty), and decides to see if he can get those payments back since there was an agreement with regard to salary vs amount of CIA contribution. Oh let's not forget the CIA put restrictions on the types of employment he's allowed to hold.
The CIA apprently said in a letter that the money wasn't available anymore, and that the money already paid was sufficient for the services rendered, paraphrasing. The CIA also knows that there is no obligation to pay anymore thanks to an old, but still very good law, case following the conclusion of the Civil War. Basically, that case said that contracts the government makes with a spy are not reviewable because the essence of the contract is secret and public policy forbids hearing a trial where secret squirrel stuff would inevitably be disclosed.
I might be wrong here, but I think the plaintiffs were saying that a trial on the contractual merits would not inevitably disclose secrets, in simple form. But come on, secrets are the essence of this contract, national secrets, secrets so secret that it precluded a written contract and inticed the CIA enough to verbally agree to lifetime payments!
So of course the Court isn't going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Scalia even says "frivolous" because of the total lack of a cause of action. If this was a boxing match, the Court just KO'd the 9th Circuit and bit off their ear. I mean, it's like the Court is mad and is bonking the 9th Circuit and firmly pointing to what should be obvious.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion, that says a lot about his character considering his health issue and recouperation... or maybe it's indicative of how much fun it is to be Chief Justice.
At least we American's are consistent. Continuing a track record that includes notorious negotiations/contracts with native Americans and even its own war veterans, the U.S. government once again has decided to disregard its obligations. The CIA paid money to this couple in exchange for spying. Apparently, the couple had some good stuff because the CIA/U.S. promised to pay them for the rest of their lives.
So one day the guy is running short on money because he lost his job (merger casualty), and decides to see if he can get those payments back since there was an agreement with regard to salary vs amount of CIA contribution. Oh let's not forget the CIA put restrictions on the types of employment he's allowed to hold.
The CIA apprently said in a letter that the money wasn't available anymore, and that the money already paid was sufficient for the services rendered, paraphrasing. The CIA also knows that there is no obligation to pay anymore thanks to an old, but still very good law, case following the conclusion of the Civil War. Basically, that case said that contracts the government makes with a spy are not reviewable because the essence of the contract is secret and public policy forbids hearing a trial where secret squirrel stuff would inevitably be disclosed.
I might be wrong here, but I think the plaintiffs were saying that a trial on the contractual merits would not inevitably disclose secrets, in simple form. But come on, secrets are the essence of this contract, national secrets, secrets so secret that it precluded a written contract and inticed the CIA enough to verbally agree to lifetime payments!
So of course the Court isn't going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Scalia even says "frivolous" because of the total lack of a cause of action. If this was a boxing match, the Court just KO'd the 9th Circuit and bit off their ear. I mean, it's like the Court is mad and is bonking the 9th Circuit and firmly pointing to what should be obvious.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion, that says a lot about his character considering his health issue and recouperation... or maybe it's indicative of how much fun it is to be Chief Justice.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Juvenile Death Penalty Axed
US News Article | Reuters.com
I believe the death penalty, in general, is an option that may be exercised when it matches the crime. Indeed, sometimes there are criminals who probably deserve a lot worse than mere death by lethal injection. And if someone happens to be less than 18 years old, the judge or jury should still be able to have the option of having a deserving person permanently removed. In this particular case, linked below, I believe the jury probably did have sufficient basis for imposing the death on the guy because it was deliberate, depraved, and one would be hard pressed to find a redeeming value in someone who expresses a desire to commit a homocide, go through with it, and then brag about it.
But that doesn't matter. What does matter to the Court, however, is America's evolving standard of decency as demonstrated by a plurality of the death penalty states exempting juveniles from the death penalty, diminished culpability since people with fewer than 18 years of life probably haven't done a cost-benefit analysis of a crime to its consequences, and a juvenile's susceptibility to surrounding influences/peer pressure/bad home.
I'll go along with the evolving decency argument, but keep the "bad home" excuse away. There are plenty of people who come from a bad home environment that don't kill people for the fun of it. You might as well say that juveniles are mentally retarded/incapacitated and therefore there's precedent/law to not sentence such people to death. Yeah, I think I'd rather go with that than the bad home environment excuse.
The prior case regarding juvenile death penalty that went before this case was Stanford. The Court said in that particular case that Stanford (the juvenile) could go ahead and be executed even though he was a juvenile at the time. Interestingly, Stanford was not put to death, but instead the governor of the state, Ketucky I think, commuted the death sentence and gave him life without parole. In fact, only 3 states in the last ten years have put a juvenile to death.
So, it looks like this isn't really so shocking after all. If anything, this is simply putting the ink on the paper that juveniles aren't to receive the death penalty and showing that America has become more decent since 1989, at least on this issue.
Background of the case.
And here's the opinion.
I believe the death penalty, in general, is an option that may be exercised when it matches the crime. Indeed, sometimes there are criminals who probably deserve a lot worse than mere death by lethal injection. And if someone happens to be less than 18 years old, the judge or jury should still be able to have the option of having a deserving person permanently removed. In this particular case, linked below, I believe the jury probably did have sufficient basis for imposing the death on the guy because it was deliberate, depraved, and one would be hard pressed to find a redeeming value in someone who expresses a desire to commit a homocide, go through with it, and then brag about it.
But that doesn't matter. What does matter to the Court, however, is America's evolving standard of decency as demonstrated by a plurality of the death penalty states exempting juveniles from the death penalty, diminished culpability since people with fewer than 18 years of life probably haven't done a cost-benefit analysis of a crime to its consequences, and a juvenile's susceptibility to surrounding influences/peer pressure/bad home.
I'll go along with the evolving decency argument, but keep the "bad home" excuse away. There are plenty of people who come from a bad home environment that don't kill people for the fun of it. You might as well say that juveniles are mentally retarded/incapacitated and therefore there's precedent/law to not sentence such people to death. Yeah, I think I'd rather go with that than the bad home environment excuse.
The prior case regarding juvenile death penalty that went before this case was Stanford. The Court said in that particular case that Stanford (the juvenile) could go ahead and be executed even though he was a juvenile at the time. Interestingly, Stanford was not put to death, but instead the governor of the state, Ketucky I think, commuted the death sentence and gave him life without parole. In fact, only 3 states in the last ten years have put a juvenile to death.
So, it looks like this isn't really so shocking after all. If anything, this is simply putting the ink on the paper that juveniles aren't to receive the death penalty and showing that America has become more decent since 1989, at least on this issue.
Background of the case.
And here's the opinion.
Herald Sun: Michael Jackson branded a predator [02mar05]
Herald Sun: Michael Jackson branded a predator [02mar05]
Wow, new revelation for me... he has a middle name, and it's "Joe." Well that, and now I'm reading that he apparently wanted a 3-way with the two brothers. I'm surprised the defense doesn't claim that estrogen made him do it, referring of course to reports he took that to keep his voice high. Should be an amusing trial, especially since Jackson often claims weird behavior as being pure or natural.
Wow, new revelation for me... he has a middle name, and it's "Joe." Well that, and now I'm reading that he apparently wanted a 3-way with the two brothers. I'm surprised the defense doesn't claim that estrogen made him do it, referring of course to reports he took that to keep his voice high. Should be an amusing trial, especially since Jackson often claims weird behavior as being pure or natural.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
