Rou

Addendum to my previous rant Follow the Code

Even if you maintain the rule of silence, it is unacceptable to stare at the person standing at the urinal next to you while you both do your business. I discourage looking around, but I can accept it. However, you should under no circumstances stare directly at the side of a person's head for the duration of your time there.

Beyond that... it's fucking weird. Get away from me you freak.

Man Law.

There are a lot of reasons people talk smack about the Bush administration. Some of them justified, others are just frustration.

Alberto Gonzales is one of the former. He honestly sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said that the constitution doesn't specifically grant habeas corpus to US citizens. It just forbids Congress from removing it.

Maybe it's just semantics but if you forbid Congress from taking it away from the citizens, it seems clear to me that it's something the citizens must have. You don't forbid someone from taking away something that you don't have. It's just that simple. Habeas Corpus was common law in the 13th century for fucks sake! Medieval fucking people had it. It was fucking assumed by the fucking 1700's!!!

Even if you try to do the linguistic limbo with this and act as if it's not protected, you're really not thinking about what you're implying. Becuase if that's the viewpoint you take on the constituion, you're going to lose a LOT more that just the right to question the legality of your imprisonment. Oh yeah.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

See how that's written as a limit on congressional power? It's written that way for a reason. It's better to say what Congress can't do, than to try to enumerate what it CAN do. Thus, the Bill of rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Take a look at that from that perspective. Turns out, we don't have a right to free speech. Congress doesn't have to take it away because we don't HAVE it. Sounds stupid when you hold up the Holy First Amendment to it, doesn't it?

I swear fucking Gonzales makes Ashcroft look good and I thought that cockstain was horrible. Did Alberto not get to the 9th amendment in college? Played hookie when they discussed the scope and limit of congressional power? Miss a few days in Law school where they explained about the Constitution and how THE FUCK IT WORKS???

You're a piece of shit. Die screaming, right next to Jen.

Leaving a voice mail is not complicated. I know I've said this before, and I'm saying it again. Because it's an amazingly simple thing to do.

There are three critical components to a voice mail message.

Name. Contact info. Reason for calling.

Now, you can brush that a little with friends and people you deal with often. For example, when my friend Bill calls, he doesn't need to leave his name because I know his voice and speech habits. Nor does he need a phone number, as I have the standard ones.

That's fine. For close colleagues and friends. However, I work in a company with lots and lots of people. We interact with hundreds of people in our division, a few other divisions and all of our clients. Lots of people. That means that when "Jen" leaves a message, she NEED TO BE SPECIFIC!!!! If her name was Montambo, we could make a case for uniqueness. But it's not. It's fucking JEN! There are a billion people on the planet named Jen. The name is fucking worthless as an identifier. She asks me to call her back, but she didn't leave her number either. Nor the reason she's calling. All and all her message fails on on three counts. No useful name, no useful contact and no useful reason.

In short, die screaming Jen. I won't be calling you back.

A small note to those singers attempting to sing the National Anthem: Please know the lyrics.

When watching the intro to the Colts v Patriots game yesterday, the singer said that the flag "gave proof TO the night. Clearly 'To'. No TH sound in the word, nor did the mouth move to make the correct sound. Through the night makes sense. TO the night... not so much.

I know, I know... it's a tiny mistake. She sang the rest of the song... well.. she wasn't the worst I'd ever heard. I'm just annoyed that someone could be honored to sing the song, but can't be bothered to double check the lyrics.

Minor rant. Minor pet peeve.

We have a ticketing system here. Keeps track of work recorded for various clients, and the time spent completing said work. It's all made in house. That's generally good because it allows us flexibility for the more unusual types of items we need to maintain records of.

Anyway, someone had an idea. That we needed a marker in the tickets to indicate what line of service a ticket was related to. I'm sure there is a very good reason for this additional field. However, I question the manner of it's implementation.

You see, it was done by adding the field to the database and making it a required field. And now, because of that, we manually have to go back through the system and mark each ticket appropriately. Honestly... is that the best they could do? Manual data entry?

Lucky for us that there are only a few thousand entries. 15 to 20 seconds to modify each one. Most of which my particular group is not responsible for. But that doesn't make the way this was added any less of a SNAFU.

I mean to write this last week, but I was busy. Sue me.

I'm pissed. I know I know... you're shocked.

A senior Pentagon official, Charles D. Stimson, in charge of detainees made an interesting comment last week. He said that he was dismayed that lawyers from many top law firms in the country were representing clients in Gitmo. He elaborated by saying that he hoped that corporations and businesses would cut all ties with the legal firms until they chose not to represent terrorists. He went further and actually published a lit of the firms involved to support his position.

Then he went further. He suggested that the pro bono representation being offered by these firms could very well be paid coverage from "who knows where". That's pretty low. Trying to imply that these lawyers are being paid by terrorism or something. Fucking low.

Frankly, it's an abhorrent position to me. To honestly indicate that the people down there don't deserve representation is amazing. Murders, rapists, fucking Timothy Mcveigh, and the Unabomber all got the right to representation. Why the fuck should we punish the people representing the people held down in Gitmo. And beyond that, why should a government hack take pot shots at American legal firms. He's attempting to damage their business because he doesn't like the fact they're representing people he's in charge of?

Fuck him. The only good thing about this little dillhole's comments is that the legal world smacked him down. The American Bar Association made a statement that said in no uncertain terms that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, no one more deserving of representation than anyone else.

Frankly Charles, I think it would be more amusing if you lost your job and no one hired you because you're a fucking moron.

Let me take you back. The year is 1989. The place is Prince William Sound Alaska.

The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground and spilled around 10 million gallons of crude oil all over the place. The immediate effect of it was the death of thousands of animals and the destruction of an entire area of an ecosystem. The long term effects are still being cataloged today as populations have not returned to pre-spill levels and a large number of birth defects have been reported.

Of course, they were taken to court. Originally, they were ordered to pay up 4.5 BILLION dollars as a penalty for the spill. However, early last year, it was reduced down to 2.5 billion. Less, but still not exactly a slap on the wrist.

Here's the good part... they're still refusing to pay. It's been 18 fucking years. They say that since they've already spent 3 billion dollars. Some of it on actual cleanup costs and some of it defending itself from federal and state fines and lawsuits. Because they've already spent so much, they don't think they should be fined additional money.

This is made worse because they took the oil loss and cleanup costs as a tax deduction. And their insurance reimbursed them for the cleanup costs. And for a kicker, they set aside 5 billion dollars in 1989 to pay for their fines. Good idea. But it's been earning interest since then. Estimates say that money has nearly doubled since it was set aside.

So here's my little fuck you to Exxon. You see, you're supposed to pay for cleanup. That's part of the gig. You're also supposed to pay for your own court costs (unless you're innocent which clearly you're not). A fine is a penalty. Punitive means exactly that. It's the cost on TOP of all those other costs. It's the government telling you that you were a bad boy and here's your punishment. The fact that you haven't really suffered for your negligence makes it worse.

You did the deed.

Now pay the man.

Condi Rice was up on Capital Hill yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the most part, she was presenting and defending El Presidente's plan for Iraq. Part of the Shrub's plan is to send twenty thousand more troops into Iraq to try to gain control of the situation. This thread isn't about the plan. It doesn't matter if it's the worst idea ever or the salvation of the world.

What drives me up the wall is the presentation of the plan.

You see, after giving her opening remarks, Rice had to field questions from the committee. One question in particular from Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) really struck a nerve. He asked if the additional troops would be seen as a further escalation of the conflict.

Rice tried to tap dance away from the question and call it an 'augmentation'. Let's call a spade a spade here. Increasing the troop commitment by over 10% is not tweaking the force. It's not a small change. Twenty thousand troops isn't a boy scout troop. It's a significant increase in force, required due to mounting casualties and violence in the region. You see, the other side stepped up it's game, and now we're trying to counter it. That is almost the very definition of an escalating conflict.

Don't cover it up, Madam Secretary. Don't distort the truth. Don't spin this shit. It's an escalation. Good or bad, that is what it is. Dancing around the semantics and trying to pass it off as an augmentation is disingenuous. Quite frankly, that is exactly why the voters (and the rest of the world) don't believe this administration when it talks anymore. Too much tap dancing. I'm sorry if the word conjures images of Vietnam to the American public, but escalation is a proper term for what the plan calls for.

Stand up and say what you fucking mean. Hagel was right to call you out on it. He was right when he mocked you on C-SPAN. You deserved it. It's reprehensible when leaders try to hide the truth of their actions with pretty words.

You know, I enjoy the internet. I can read it anytime of day and find out about just about anything at anytime. I enjoy getting my news on CNN or MSNBC all day long. In general I support doing just about anything 24 hours a day. All night diners, 24 hours supermarkets, the works.

However, I have a pet peeve. It's when the rush to provide something causes it to be done poorly or improperly.

Tonight's target? The Associated Press. A news story on an explosion.

Headline: 'Blast heard at U.S. Embassy in Athens'

Report:

ATHENS, Greece - Police cordoned off streets around the U.S. Embassy in Athens early Friday and state-run television, quoting witnesses, said there was an explosion inside.

That's it. Nothing else. Not even credit to an author that I can go bludgeon about the head with a baseball bat.

You see... that is not news. It's sentence. It's not even a very well written one. It's a tag line or an appetizer to actual news. Something to prepare you to hear more about the news. But in the rush to scoop a story, people put things like this up on the wire just so they can claim that they were the first on the scene.

I suppose there is some value to knowing that there was an explosion. But really, it's nothing more than a tease. Without expansion, it's not newsworthy IMO. Take 20 minutes, get some details, put together a 6 or 7 sentence story, and post that. Location, relative size, injury reports, police comment (even the expected 'no comment'). Give me something. Don't just type in the first thing you hear and press 'send'.

It's the difference between a news reporter and a glory hound.

Happy New Year.

And welcome to another year of screaming into the ether.

I went to a friends house for new years eve. A nice little party with some close friends. Have a few drinks, tell a few stories, and toast the new year. A wonderful plan.

Something went wrong. One of the guys decided to greet the new year and some not-so-holiday cheer. Let's call him Bob for purposes of anonymity.

The basic gist of the story is that the host's girlfriend made a joke and the results of that joke went awry. You see, they have a water spritzer in the house to spray the cat when it's doing something bad. Someone commented on it, and she picked it up and explained it's use. Then she laughed and said "Hey, maybe it's good for all sorts of naughty people". And she sprayed Bob with it. He got a little light mist of water on him. He laughed, we laughed and a good time was had by all.

But Bob is not so easily slighted apparently. An hour later or so, he gets a glass of water, waits for an opportunity and suddenly, out of nowhere, he throws it in her face. We're all basically stunned. Someone tells Bob that was uncalled for. He responds by throwing a beer bottle across the room (just missing the girlfriend's head by about a foot) and shoving the person.

At that point, all the guy tackle him and hold him down (he's a really big strong dude). We hold him down for a long time while he continues to struggle and take swings at us whenever we lose our grip on him. He twists his knee pretty bad and earns a few cuts and scrapes in the process. Finally, he calms down, and after a lot of coaxing, he finally gets his shit together, and leaves (with his designated driver).

This sort of thing happens from time to time with him. He doesn't control his anger very well when he gets really really trashed. He's done similar things before, and has always been mortified and ashamed the day after. After a few weeks of repeated apologies, things go back to normal. In the 10 years I've known him, this is the 3rd time this has happened. I say this to clarify that they are rare incidents and he's normally an OK kind of guy.

So a few days pass, and today he emails me asking me if I'm alright and if he hurt me or anything. I reply that I'm fine. Just twisted my elbow a little bit, but no big deal. I asked how his knee was doing.

Then he replies. How I wish that he's just stayed silent.

He told me that his knee was still hurting pretty bad. Then he says that he still hasn't heard any apology from the host or his girlfriend.

I'm just stunned at this point. I have no idea what to say. But he continues.

He goes on to say that she's a bitch and he doesn't like the host when he's around her because "he's a different person".

I mean seriously. She spritzed you with a mister. You threw water on her and then a beer bottle in her direction. Then attacked us when we tried to restrain you. You're waiting for THEM to apologize? Going to be a long time waiting pal.

I have precious few friends in my life and it'll be a damn shame if your name is crossed off that list, but quite frankly, your behavior here was unacceptable.