The Lake...

Paul loves hanging out with his cousins and swimming in the lake.

AB, why?

Let me be clear

Pop quiz: When President Obama uses the phrase “let me be clear,” it means:

a) Pencils up: This is the takeaway.

b) What I’ve said doesn’t mean what you might fear it means – or what my opponents will tell you it means.

c) I am not going to get rolled on this one.

d) All of the above, and then some.


“Let me be clear.”


In the first six months of Obama’s presidency, this simple sentence has gone from political pet phrase to full-on rhetorical signature, appearing (along with its variants “let’s be clear” and “I want to be clear”) scores of times in the commander in chief’s pre-written and extemporaneous remarks – sometimes more than once in a given speech.


But what does he mean when he says it? And why does the president who made “transparency” a national buzzword use it so often?


It depends on whom you ask.


“All speakers have verbal tics – habits they repeat, usually without even consciousness,” says former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, who believes the president’s repeated use of the phrase is just that – a verbal twitch.


But the phrase is not simply an overbred “um” – it serves a function. At its most basic level, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “It’s a pointing phrase. It’s a phrase that says, ‘What I’m about to tell you is important.’” And not coincidentally, notes Jamieson, when the president says it, “What’s your natural response if you’re a reporter? Sound bite.”


Agrees David Kusnet, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton: “If you’re going to say something you want the audience to remember, you have to say something before it.” He notes that the bridge to FDR’s famous “fear itself” line was “So first of all, let me assert my firm belief that…” – a kind of era-appropriate version of the same idea.


The phrase “let me clear” is hardly unique to Obama, even among presidents. Ronald Reagan used it as a warning: “Let me be clear—if Congress passes legislation that endangers our arms reductions, or undermines our national defense, I will have no choice—I will veto it.” Clinton favored its use for thorny issues, although he generally preferred “make no mistake about it.” (Obama sometimes uses the short form, “make no mistake.”)


Critics on both the right and the left have flagged the phrase as a sign that Obama is being disingenuous, a la President Nixon’s favored iteration, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear.”

“‘Let me be clear,’ says Obama, and, as with George Bush's rapid eye movements when he was telling a lie, you know the forty-fourth president is on the brink of some absurdity,” opined The Nation’s Alexander Cockburn earlier this month. Or as one Salon.com commenter put it: “Whenever I hear Obama say ‘let me be clear,’ I know what he is about to say is full of s—-.”

But this is too glib of a gloss.

If Clinton peppered his speeches with the phrase, Obama salts his liberally with it – and not at random. When taken together, the statements that have followed it read like the Cliff’s Notes to the first six months of the administration, with the president carefully staking out positions both foreign and domestic with an eye toward controlling the message and bringing along the skeptics in the crowd.

In foreign affairs, he uses the phrase to assert policy, to take and assign responsibility, and to warn against mistaking diplomacy for weakness, sometimes amassing multiple “clear” statements over time to achieve a complex and highly specific result:


“Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”


but


“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."

Or


“But let me be clear: The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.”


but


“And I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders.”


At home, the president frequently uses the line not only to get his audience’s attention, but also to anticipate his opponents, and to steer the public’s interpretation of his words:


“Now I want to be very clear: While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year in this budget, this is just the beginning.


“…so let me be clear: If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.


“But let me be clear: The choice we face is not between some oppressive government-run economy or a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism.”


“Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.


(The method is not entirely foolproof; the Fox News web headline on the GM story read, “Obama Says He Has 'No Intention' of Running General Motors).


“One of the knocks on Obama during the campaign was that he kind of speaks in platitudes, these kind of feel-good principles,” notes Thomas E. Nelson, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University who studies political communication. When he says “let me be clear,” Nelson says, the president is “conveying determination, he’s combating this sort of platitude criticism, and he’s signaling that this is the take-home point and to ignore anything that appears to diverge from that.”


Although she doubts it is deliberate on the part of the president or his speechwriters, Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University and author of “The Argument Culture,” sees the phrase as potentially working on three levels:


“I’m pointing to the point I want you to listen to, I’m pointing to the interpretation that I want you to have, and maybe there’s something there on the meta level, where I’m saying something about me as a person, that I’m being clear,” she says.


That third level in Obama’s case is one that ties into his public image as a foe of smoke and murk, the enemy of Beltway business as usual.


Says Jamieson: “It’s a way of saying, I’m a candid person. This is who I am” – something she says signals back to the president’s campaign themes of open, honest government.


Whether it is conscious or not is not even necessarily important. Any time people engage in a habitual rhetorical move, notes Jamieson, “it tells you something.”


So if Clinton’s frequent use of “make no mistake about it” suggested an underlying sense on the part of the Rhodes Scholar that his audience wasn’t always smart enough for him – and Bush’s regular extemporaneous use of the phrases “I fully understand” and “I’m fully aware” were on some level rebutting the rap that he didn’t and he wasn’t -- Obama’s constant repetition of the phrase “let me be clear” is perhaps a tell that he’s greatly concerned with his own…transparency – and defending the public perception thereof.


“With Nixon, “clear” was “You can trust me,” says Kusnet. “With Obama, it’s, “I’m going to speak clearly, to cut through the political fog.”


And above all else, he wants to make sure we’re clear on that.

Art for Art's sake

Must be all that global warming.....

The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees.

Even in the years before 1942, when the National Weather Service recorded temperatures at the cooler lakefront, there are only three years that had colder Julys through the 26th.

There have also been far more days than usual with high temperatures less than 80 degrees this year. In 2009, there were 13 days where the temperature did not exceed 80 degrees. Only three Julys in the past 67 years have had more days in Chicago with highs less than 80 – there were 18 such days in 1992, and 14 in 1996 and 2000.

We have also failed to reach 90 degrees at any time this month.

Oh, sweet feathery Jeebus

I usually like girls with a little more meat on thier bones, but this one looks just fine as is.

interesting CNN story....

-- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.




Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

WTF, Honduran style.....

I just dont get it.

Im America: we have presidential term limits. They were a bipartisian response to FDR. 2 terms is all you can get, even though there are still some politicians that would seek to destroy this important 22 amendment.

So, imagine if W Bush or Obama in 2011 propose having a 'referendum' ( meaning a vote that could be easily messed with )that could mean they could run forever and possibly win. Can you imagine the outcry? Hell, even Washington and Jefferson ( those evil white slave owners )knew better :"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life."

Can we all agree that it's well and good for presidential term limits? It is a bulwark against tyranny.

Well, from what I gather after chatting with my buddy who lives down there in Uraguay, something really wierd is going on.

First, the Honduran 'el presidente' Zelaya proposes a 'referendum' asking the voters if they should change thier Constitution, even though it says right in there that any attempt to do so is a violation of thier laws, and the 'dictator in waiting' ( I.E. Hugo Chaves, anyone? )must be immediately removed from office. But, he plows ahead with tacit approval from Castro, Chavez, and the OAS: proposes the election, which starts a firestorm of debate that goes all the way to thier Supreme Court ( dangling Ocho Stinko's?). Then, the Supreme Court says, 'no way,Jose'.

Enter the villian,and the new Micheletti’s government which gets the guy in the dark of night and transports him physically on a jet chartered by Citgo ( hmmm )to Costa Rica and installs a new POH. Now, I admit, this sounds alittle harsh. They should have made him step down and impeach him, but that's just not how it works down there. At least he didn't get the usual treatment, which maybe JFK could help 'splain


Mr. Zelaya was ousted for trying to rewrite the presidential term limits clause, and even considering that option can be considered treasonous in Honduras. Zelaya has a lot in common with Chavez and his buddies: Bolivia’s Evo Morales won a referendum allowing him to overturn a ban on re-election; Ecuador’s Rafael Correa unconstitutionally changed the constitution and overrode the term limit stipulations; and Chavez, under tremendous protests from the people of Venezuela changed the country’s constitution and says he will stay in office until “2019, 2021 or 2030.” We know the story in Cuba. And in Nicaragua, the American-hating Sandinista Marxist thug Daniel Ortega told Sir David Frost in a March 2009 interview that he would like to change the constitution to allow him to run again for president.

Central and South American dictators have a long history, and since the people of any country do not want to be “ruled,” rather than governed, “dictators” are not popular. You can’t run for office as a dictator and get elected. So it’s all about deceiving the people. In the case of Manuel Zelaya, he was elected as a “centrist” four years ago, and has moved rapidly to the Left. Zelaya took an out-sized stetson hat and cowboy boots as his signature apparel, and grinned and waved his way to the Left and a fast friendship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In an attempt to appease the poor, of which Honduras has plenty, Zelaya cut a deal with Chavez for cheap oil. Unless oil is cheap around the world, oil is not cheap, and of course there had to be a pay-back to Chavez for his generosity. Zelaya joined-in with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua to participate in Chavez’ “regional trade and political pact.”

Outside of the Chavez pact members:

San Salvador just elected Maurico Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)- named for Farabundo Marti, the Communist leader and social activist. His election ended nearly 50-years of conservative control that fought against the FMLN movement seeking a Communist revolution. Funes wants good relations with the U.S., he vowed to restore relations with Cuba and is opening an embassy there. Standby to see how far Left San Salvador leans.

Uruguay’s ruling coalition party proposed reforming the Uruguayan constitution to allow an immediate reelection of the president, Tabare Vazquez. It didn’t happen and sources say it is not likely to happen as the constitution forbids it. Vazquez is considered a conservative.

South of the equator, history demonstrates that it hard to hold on to the very constitutional ideals designed to keep executive branches from becoming absolutists.


So, I checked out my friends blog, which is about an Ex Pat living in Uraguay, and here's what he posted just after the 'coup' happened:


Mel Zelaya was elected 3 ½ years ago with an underwhelming 49% of
the vote. He was seen as a fairly conservative member of the liberal party.
The general feeling when he was elected was that he wasn’t the greatest
pick, but his background as a wealthy logger and rancher coupled with his
more liberal social policies would probably be OK.

· Almost from day 1, Mel started shifting Honduras policies to the
left.

o Remember when he tried to nationalize the oil industry – forcing all
fuel distributors to buy from 1 company so that Mel could control the price?
The US rightfully reminded Mel that the US oil companies had a lot invested
here and the confiscating of those assets would not be a good thing. Mel
changed his mind a couple of days later.

o Mel gave away the fishing rights to an area that Honduras has been
fishing for decades if not a hundred years. He gave those rights to
Nicaragua for nothing – or at least nothing that was ever publicly reported.
Mel forgot to mention this transaction to anyone in the country, let alone
the fisherman. Guess how the fishermen found out? The Nicaraguan Navy
confiscated several boats over a period of a few weeks. The crews on these
boats were detained from a few days to a few weeks. Some of the boats were
eventually returned to the rightful owners – after paying “fines”. Some of
the boats even had the electronics and gear still on board when they were
returned to the owners. The Honduran government did absolutely nothing to
repatriate these boats.

o Mel wanted Honduras to join ALBA – a collection of countries that was
formed by Cuba and Venezuela to counteract NAFTA/CAFTA from the US. When
this was announced, there was a lot of concern – especially from the
business community. I was in a meeting with the local congressman less than
a week before it was ratified. The message being sent was that this was just
a way to get cheap oil from Venezuela. The congress wouldn’t consider
ratifying this treaty for 6 or 8 months and by then Mel would have the oil
that he was after. Again, less than a week later Mel got the treaty was
ratified by the congress.

o Not too long ago, the minimum wage was raised from L. 3,500 per month to
L. 5,500. That’s about a 60% increase. I’m not saying that the minimum wage
didn’t need to be raised, but this huge increase was 3 times more than the
labor unions were requesting (20%) and 6 times more than the business
organizations had offered (10%). These increases caused tremendous layoffs
on the mainland. Many maquillas (garment factories) began to move to
Nicaragua because the cost of business in Honduras had gotten too high. This
was another huge drop in jobs. I’ve not seen the actual number of jobs lost
because of the 60% increase in minimum wage, but it was staggering.

o The Honduran constitution says that each year the President presents the
annual budget to congress for approval. If the approval is not obtained by a
specific date (I think it’s the end of January, but am not 100% sure) the
budget from last year will be used until the new budget is approved by
congress.

§ Mel never submitted a budget for 2009, hence the Congress can’t approve
it so Honduras is operating in 2009 on 2008’s budget.

§ Now, why would a President not submit a budget? Who knows for sure but
one of the possibilities is that 2009 is an election year. Mel would like to
stay in power past 2009. The budget in 2008 didn’t include an election, so
in essence there is NO money available for the 2009 election because we’re
operating on 2008’s budget. There are other theories about hiding graft and
corruption, but I would assume that anyone that becomes President in
Honduras wouldn’t be concerned about hiding corruption and theft in the
budget – he certainly didn’t mind doing it the previous 3 years!

· Somewhere along the way, Mel decided to take a lesson from his
mentor (Chavez) and arrange it so that he could remain in power for as long
as he wanted. There was a little problem with this. The Honduran
constitution, enacted in 1982, has 378 articles. 6 of these articles are
“cast in stone”, meaning that they can NOT be changed. These 6 articles deal
with defining the type of government, territory claims, and presidential
term limits. They are the basis of the Honduran democracy.

o One other tidbit from the constitution – Article 42, Section 5 says that
anyone who is found to “incite, promote, or aid in the continuation or
re-election of the President” would face loss of citizenship. Remember this
one later on in this saga.

· To further complicate things for Zelaya, ANY changes to the
constitution have to be initiated by the legislative branch. The congress
has to convene a constituent assembly. That’s basically a group of people
selected by the congress to analyze any proposed changes and form those
ideas into the new constitution. After the proposed changes are formulated,
the congress would approve them to be put to a national referendum. The
executive branch (the President) has nothing to do with that process.

· Mel didn’t think that the congress would go along with his ideas
of staying in power so he decided he’d call his own referendum. He doesn’t
have the authority to do that – remember that constitutional changes can
only be done by the legislature AND the term limits are one of the articles
cast in stone – but he goes ahead and calls one anyway.

· The Honduran Supreme Court says “Sorry Mel, you can’t do a
referendum. That’s not within your power as president”.

· Mel, or more probably one of his advisors, figures out that if a
referendum can’t be done, we could probably do a survey or a poll instead!
Great idea – nobody will figure out that the poll that we’re now going to do
is exactly the same thing as we were going to do with the referendum.

· Damn those people on the Supreme Court! They figured out the ruse!
They ruled unanimously that regardless of what you call it, if it acts like
a referendum the president can’t do it. If it looks like a duck, and walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . .

· Mel continues to talk of doing the poll on June 28 regardless of
the Supreme Court

· The Congress looks at the poll that Mel wants to do and gives an
opinion that the poll would be illegal and they will not support it.
Remember that Mel’s own political party is in control of the congress.

· The Attorney General also analyzes the poll and determines that it
is illegal. Over the course of the weeks leading to June 28, the AG
reiterates many times that the poll is illegal and anyone participating in
the poll would be committing a crime and could be arrested.

· Mel runs into another logistical snafu. He needs some ballots
printed. The entire political structure of Honduras (except him) has ruled
that the poll is illegal. It’s a pretty sure bet that he can’t get the
government to print the ballots for an illegal referendum so he asks his
buddy Hugo Chavez to print the ballots. Of course Hugo says “No Problem
Commrade!”

· The rhetoric in the 2 weeks before the “poll” gets tense. Every
legal opinion in Honduras says that the poll is illegal. The Supreme Court
reaffirms its ruling that the poll is illegal. The Attorney General keeps
saying that the poll is illegal and that anyone participating is committing
a crime. Mel’s own political party says that the poll is illegal. There
literally is not one legitimate group in the country that is siding with Mel
about the poll.

· Traditionally the military handles the distribution of the ballots
and voting materials. The head of the military, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez says
that the military will not participate in the poll because the Supreme Court
is the entity that determines what is legal and what is illegal in Honduras.
The Supreme Court has determined that the poll is illegal, so the military
will not participate.

· Mel Zelaya promptly fired Romeo Vasquez. The other heads of
military (Navy and Air Force) as well as the Minister of Defense resigned in
support of Vasquez.

· The next day the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vasquez was
fired without reason and demanded his reinstatement. Zelaya refused.

· The ballots arrive in Honduras (from Venezuela on a Venezuelan
flagged plane). The Attorney General demands that the ballots be confiscated
and held at a military installation.

· Mel decides that if the military won’t distribute the ballots,
he’ll get his own people to distribute them

· Mel gets a couple of busses and a few cars full of supporters.
They drive to the Air Force installation that was holding the ballots. They
forcibly entered the installation and took the ballots. Not only was this
“breaking and entering” it was a complete betrayal of a lawful order of the
Attorney General

· The Attorney General says that the President has committed treason
and asks for him to be removed from office. The congress created a
commission to examine Zelaya’s actions and determine if removal from office
is appropriate.

· A side note here about removal from office. I’m in no way a
Honduran constitutional expert, but from what I understand, there’s not a
clear means to impeach a sitting president. In a lot of constitutions, the
impeachment of a president would be done by the legislative branch. In
Honduras, there’s no such structure. There could be criminal charges brought
against the president and the trial would be handled by the judicial branch.
Not much different than anyone else accused of a crime. I’ve not heard of
any provision to temporarily remove a president from office until the
criminal charges were adjudicated. What would you do? Let a man accused of
treason remain as the sitting president until the trial was completed? That
would be insane, but that may be the only choice.

· On Saturday, June 27, Mel got most, if not all, of the ballots
distributed around the country. The polls were set to open at 7am on Sunday.

· The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya. The Congress decided to
remove Zelaya. The Attorney General stated many times that Zelaya was
committing illegal acts and in fact committing treason. The military
determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was to
uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president.

· Early Sunday morning, about 6am, the military went to the
president’s house and removed him from the building. He was put on a plane
to Costa Rica. This was done to enforce the ruling from the Supreme Court.

· This is where Article 42 of the constitution comes into play. The
way that I read that article, Zelaya should have lost his Honduran
citizenship at this point.

· Once Mel had been removed, the President of the Congress (Roberto
Micheletti) was sworn in as the new President of Honduras. This was exactly
the person that is indicated by the constitution. It was a proper and legal
succession of the presidency. The first thing that Micheletti did was
confirm that the regularly scheduled elections would be held in November.
His post is temporary until the new President was duly elected.

· It’s been said all over the press that Mel was arrested in his
pajamas. I personally don’t believe that. In an hour he would have been at
some polling place to vote and also to motivate those that showed up. This
was the biggest day of his life. I’d be amazed if he slept at all – I know I
wouldn’t be able to. There was one report that Mel was actually in suit
pants and a crisply ironed white shirt when he was arrested and he asked to
change into other clothes. Quite frankly, I see this as more likely.

I believe that this is an accurate depiction of the events that led to
Zelaya’s expulsion on Sunday. If I’m wrong on a any points, I don’t think
I’m off by much. The salient points are certainly accurate.

I personally think that it would have been better to arrest Zelaya and hold
him somewhere in the country. He was removed from Honduras in the interest
of public safety. The feeling at the time was that if he was held within
Honduras, his supporters would take violent actions to release him from
captivity. It would be a difficult decision and I’m sure the powers that be
did what they thought was best.

I have been disgusted at the world reaction to these events. It’s like they
only looked at what happened on Sunday morning and ignored what events led
to that day. I don’t understand how the removal of Zelaya was anything less
than a small country demanding that their country remain democratic. Their
constitutional process worked exactly right to remove a rogue president with
an agenda that was detrimental to the Honduran constitution and society.
Call me crazy,quite simply if you find yourself aligned with Castro,
Chavez, and Ortega – you should REALLY look at where you’re standing!

It's good to be The King...

William Jablonski, a regular busker on the Vegas strip, claims he has been harassed by officers who have repeatedly cited him for obstructing the pavement, disorderly conduct and being a public nuisance.

Mr Jablonski, who signs autographs, poses for tourists and once performed for a televised Elvis tribute at the MGM Grand, is taking police to court to prove that impersonating "The King" is a constitutional right.

The street performer claims that he has been wrongfully hounded by officers.

He stopped performing in public after he was cited for obstructing the pavement in 2007.

A year later, having donned his velvet suit again, he was confronted as he sang in front of the Paris Hotel & Casino by a Las Vegas police officer who told him not to have his picture taken with tourists or accept tips.

His act was stopped again twice within the next fortnight, including on one occasion when Mr Jablonski claims he was approached by a group of no fewer than five officers, who said they saw him accept a dollar.

The Elvis fan has joined forces with a busking guitarist, Suzette Banasik, and the American Civil Liverties Union to fight for their right to perform.

They have filed a suit in the US District Court in Las Vegas against Clark County, along with District Attorney David Roger, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.

The performers' are challenging statutes and codes they say "violate free speech" and amount to "unconstitutional restraints on personal speech and expression.''

Spokesmen for both Clark County and the police declined comment.

here's more:

- An Elvis impersonator and his guitar-playing accompanist say impersonating "The King" is a constitutional right, and the ACLU agrees. They claim the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department harassed the performers on a slew of bogus charges to prevent them from exercising that right.
Guitarist Suzette Banasik and William Jablonski are regular faces on the Strip, where tourists have themselves photographed alongside the latter-day Elvis.
Banasik and Jablonski claim Vegas cops harass them by accusing them of operating without a license, storing materials on a public sidewalk, begging, obstructing the sidewalk, disorderly conduct, and being a public nuisance.
Banasik and Jablonski want those Clark County ordinances enjoined as unconstitutional.
Jablonski, who performed for a nationally televised Elvis tribute at the MGM Grand in 2006, says he stopped impersonating Elvis in public in Las Vegas after he was cited for obstructing the sidewalk in 2007.
A year later, however, he read about the ACLU's victory in a similar case, ACLU et al. v City of Las Vegas. Emboldened by this, Jablonski says he returned to the velvet suit, and was being Elvis in front of the Paris Hotel & Casino on April 23 when a Las Vegas police officer told him he could not have his picture taken with tourists and accept tips.
Jablonski challenged that statement, and claims that the officer, who had threatened him with jail, decided not to issue him a citation.
It was a short-lived victory. Seven days, he says, the Paris casino's security guards, accompanied by the same police officer, told him he was on the resort's property and was not allowed to be there.
Undaunted, Jablonski whipped out a copy of ACLU of Nevada et al. v City of Las Vegas. After a brief discussion, the officers told Jablonski he could stay, but he had to stay 3 feet from the curb and could not accept tips.
After that, Jablonski says, he tried to get a license, but was told he was doing something illegal and could not get one.
A few weeks later, Jablonski says, he was approached by no fewer than five Metro officers, who said they saw him accept a dollar from a tourist and that he could not be there. Jablonski says a discussion ensued, in which two officers "voted" that he should not be issued a citation, but three voted in favor of it. But a sergeant said his higher rank gave his vote more weight, so Jablonski would not get the ticket.
Jablonski says that none of the officers in this legal conclave identified themselves.
Banasik was arrested on March 12 while performing on a walkway between Bally's Hotel and Casino and Bill's Gamblin' Hall & Saloon. She says that for the third time in as many months Metro officers told her to leave the area because she was obstructing the sidewalk.
As she took pictures to show that she was not obstructing anything, Banasik says, she found herself in handcuffs. She was arrested for operating a business without a license and obstructing the sidewalk.
The buskers seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. They are represented by Judy Cox with the ACLU of Nevada.
Courthouse News Service


Plaintiffs: Suzette Banasik and William Jablonski
Defendants: Clark County, David Roger, Douglas Gillespie, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Officer Contreras, Officer Goris, Officer Hanigan and Catherine Cortez Masto

Case Number: 2:2009cv01242
Filed: July 9, 2009

Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office [ Court Info ]
County: Clark
Presiding Judge: Judge Lloyd D. George
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr.

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Vick, the Sick Dick back again

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-thegameface071709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Here is my buddy Pudge's take on the reinstation of VTSD (see the title ):


I'm biased, but if I was in Goodell's shoes, then I wouldn't really trust anything Vick said, which is why I wouldn't be liable to just reinstate him this year. If I'm Goodell, then I have the "Prove It Clause" which is:

I suspend you for this season. And in that time, I'm looking to see some if not all of these things:

1) No arrests. No DUIs, no speeding tickets, not even a jayhawking citation.
2) Pass a number of drug tests.
3) Do you PSAs and some charity work
4) Do your hour long specials on Oprah and the Dog Whisperer
5) Go to gamblers anonymous

And if you can do those things between now and February, then I'll reinstate you.

At this point, my belief has got to be Vick's biggest motivator is money.

As Mr. Silver says, this has the chance to blow up in Goodell's face. After the Pacman Jones incident, I think Goodell has to be choosier now about who he lets back into the league. I know others think that his going to jail was all the proving he needs to do, but I disagree. If I'm an employer and one of my valued employees gets thrown in prison, and then gets out and comes to me looking for his old job back. I'm not going to be able to just give it back to him just because he says he's changed. I'm going to ask him to prove it. Give him 30 days or whatever, to keep his nose clean. Now, it's going to be really hard for him to do that if he's jobless for 30 days. But IMO, if he passes that test, then he proved it. It's messed up, and it's a test designed for him to fail, but that's how you can measure people's true character.