Fox reports that case against black panthers dropped?

This extends to an incident in Philadelphia on election day '08, the New Black Panthers party showed up as "security" on election day. One of them, a "Minister King Samir Shabazz" was holding a night stick apparently intimidating voters (saw a video, it was intimidating). Now Fox is reporting that charges have been dropped for lord knows what reasons. I just wanted to comment here that while I guess I raise an eyebrow that any charges were dropped, it's worth noting that if you bother reading the Dismissal notice which Fox was kind enough to link to the following text appears:

"3.    This dismissal does not extend to Defendant Minister King Samir Shabazz."

So apparently the guy with the night stick isn't getting off so easily, not in this dismissal anyway. Again, I personally don't think any charges should be dropped so over all this was disturbing to read... But at the very least, that one detail Fox choose not to report on, that the "guy with a night stick" isn't having charges dropped against him is some comfort. More over based on what I've found on google, Shabazz sounds like he might be a Panthers higher up, so if he's convicted this could be quite problematic for the group.

A catholic court?

Not that this suddenly makes me 100% warm and fuzzy about Sotomayor, but an interesting piece of trivia is that when Sotomayor is confirmed (it seems she will be with little real resistance) the USA will have a "Catholic Court". 6/9 judges on the highest judicial bench will be Catholics.

More just sharing the Trivia here, since we Catholics don't typically vote in a Christian block like the Evangelical faiths which dominate this nation. I guess it does give me some hope that at the very the court will be less an easy tool for pro-choice extremists to use in the promotion of a support having abortions at all costs, which is cool for me personally.

Anyway, I'm still hoping the Senate takes a real close look at her, even though I know she'll probably just be ushered through the process. There just seems to be no extraneous information which would explain how her New Haven decision is justifiable in what should now be a post-race era, you know an era in our history when it is utterly clear that by and large race is a non-issue to us Americans. One would think that the best way to advance racial equality would be to stop bringing it to the forefront by making the playing field favor minorities in this way.

On the other hand, despite being a liberal leaning judge she did side with the Bush administration policy to not provide funds to international groups providing abortion services when a pro-choice group tried sueing the federal government for "discrimination". I just want to be sure this Judge can in fact ALWAYS be fair no matter what context in which "discrimination" is being challenge. That is, always rule against discrimination in whatever form it comes. New Haven for me is just that painful thorn in your side preventing me from being just totally fine with this judge.

But hey, at the very least Catholics will rule on sector of government lol ;)

Sotomayor....?

I LOLed a bit when I read CNN's news article of Obama announcing Sotomayor as his pick for Supreme court. Why? Because Obama made a very big deal out of not choosing his pick based at the behest of special interest, along with suggestions that the pick would be purely based on who was most qualified. So who did we get? A Hispanic woman!! I had to LOL at that, in this case it's clear the choice was a compromise between various minority interest groups. As happy as I was about Obama winning, and despite the fact that I've agreed with most major policy decisions except perhaps some of the more controversial moral issues such as abortion, in the case I feel kind of like this is a joke.

It may be that Sotomayor is a very intelligent woman, but it also seems like she's very much caught up in a wave of an extraordinarily liberal understanding of the word "equality". Speaking as a minority, one issue I've disagreed with the Democratic party on for a very long time (since the 90s) is what that word means. Typically to the party it means that it's OK to discriminate against the white population in order to engineer more situations where minorities are unfairly advanced ahead of white people just because we feel like we need more minorities moving ahead with their careers. That's not equality, in fact it's not even a service to minorities it's a dis-service. It confirms in the minds of the raciest individual that minorities aren't smart enough to hack it on a level playing field, an assertion which I disagree with sharply.

Take for example (thanks Nikki) a case in which Sotomayor was recently asked to decide. Apparently the city of New Haven decided to whole sale throw out all firefighters promotion examination results because not enough, specifically, black people passed the test. In fact none passed with scores required to be promoted to Captain. It should be noted that individuals of about every other racial group (minority or not) were able to make it, including my own Hispanics. When the city realized this, they apparently decided that the test was racist, because apparently the firefighters could have been given oral exams which some how would have been more fair? Because what? Black people can't read? Some how I don't buy that particular argument, and I also find it quite offensive towards African-Americans because I KNOW THEY'RE BETTER THAN THAT! That's why I voted for one for PRESIDENT! Now she's going to be on the Supreme court to uphold what has been dubbed "reverse discrimination" (in my world all discrimination is equal, but whatever) come June? I guess this is one case where I would be sympathetic with the expected (by me anyway) Republican attempts to hold up Obama, and I hope that enough Democrats will see past party lines on this one and take a closer look at this candidate. They've managed to disagree with the President on one very important issue already much to my displeasure (Guantanamo), I hope they can manage it on this issue where it actually makes sense for them to stop the President.

On balance I still support Obama (in case there's any doubt after my little rant), but on this issue like a few others I just can't support him.

Puppy pictures

Here are the requested puppy pictures, they're not the best quality since they were taken on my VX-6800, but they're decent enough.

 

 

All of your guns are belong to us?

Well, just to point out how completely silly panicky gun owners are about the "dangerously liberal" new government are... Congress has passed and, if I read this right Obama is about to sign into law in about 2 seconds from the time that  write this, new laws which expand gun rights

Once signed into law gun owners which conceal carry permits will be in the clear to bring their concealed weapons to national parks, that way bears can't mug them.

Edit

Opps, I don't think that wasn't the law I thought was being signed now. That is still in process, but I'm pretty sure a bill designed to end credit card abuse will be vetoed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/house.guns/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gun rights advocates found an unlikely ally in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday as lawmakers passed a measure allowing concealed, loaded firearms to be carried in national parks.

The proposal passed 279-147, winning overwhelming Republican support and that of a significant number of more conservative rural and western Democrats.

The Senate voted 67-29 on Tuesday to attach an identical measure to a bill cracking down on credit card fees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was among 27 Democrats backing the measure.

Under the measure, any person with a state permit to carry a concealed weapon would be able to bring that weapon into parks and wildlife refuges unless a state law specifies otherwise.

The firearms language is now expected to be included in the final version of the credit card legislation, which lawmakers want to deliver to President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.

The language has been strongly pushed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, who saw an opportunity to grab on to a comparatively fast-moving target since Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership have made the credit card bill such a high legislative priority.

Coburn, speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, said his move "isn't a 'gotcha' amendment" but a genuine step to protect the Second Amendment. The measure would reverse a federal judge's decision in March to block a last-minute rule change by President George W. Bush to allow park visitors to carry concealed weapons.

"It was just an opportunity," Coburn spokesman Don Tatro said. The "congressional leadership has been trying to keep it from happening, and this was just the first opportunity."

Gun rights activists, however, have been cautious about declaring victory prematurely.

"Prior to the ink drying to anything that's signed, it's rare for a piece of legislation to not have ghosts haunting it," National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said last week.

"Anything can happen."

Some congressional Democrats are dismayed by what they see as the continued success of the gun lobby in the face of a new Democratic administration and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress.

"The NRA is basically taking over the House and the Senate," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York. "If the NRA wins on each and every bill, the American people are going to suffer the most."

Lawsuites galore

Seriously, why do we always have to sue? Swine Flue could have come from anywhere for any reason. But we need someone to blame, and we need some one to pay out the billions of dollars to someone that lost a loved one so they can buy back their loved one from death.... Oh wait, no amount of money can bring someone back from the dead, oh well I guess he can just use the cash to buy a private island.