Jeber Jabber

Not "as seen on TV"

2009-01-27T21:19:59-08:00

I know this is nothing but an example of overt anthropomorphism, but I don't apologize for the fact that this baby ad cracks me up. These out-takes are great.

Sunday Sermonette

2009-01-04T12:50:39-08:00

Just a thought to ponder. Ponder it hard, ponder it aloud, ponder it until your eyes cross. Your brain will thank you for it.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. – Philip K. Dick

Bush administration - Above the law

2008-10-26T07:32:11-07:00

Once again the Bush administration is contending it's not subject to oversight laws.

The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security.

The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.

But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not “apply this provision strictly” because it infringed on the president’s powers.

Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administration’s claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move “unconstitutional.” He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.

“This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements,” Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, “To put it differently, I don’t like it worth a damn.”

The Bush administration defended the decision not to obey the statute. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said its legal view was consistent with what presidents of both parties had long maintained.

In an apparent coincidence, the Homeland Security Department’s privacy officer, Hugo Teufel III, issued his annual privacy report on Friday. It said there were 4,184 privacy complaints over a recent six-month period, but gave few details about them.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to make Mr. Teufel available for an interview or to say whether administration officials had edited his report.

“We are not able to comment on this specific report,” said Laura C. Keehner, the department press secretary. She added that the department’s activities to date had complied with the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and the Constitution.

A spokeswoman for Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he would write a letter Monday to the department questioning the process by which the report was made.

Several law professors said the administration’s legal theory went too far.

Neil Kinkopf, a law professor at Georgia State University who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, called the opinion an example of the administration’s expansive theories of executive power “run amok.”

Peter Strauss, a Columbia University law professor, said the 2007 law was valid because the president is not the “exclusive” source of communication with Congress.

In the Justice Department memorandum, however, Steven G. Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, argued that presidents of both parties had long objected to bills that would infringe on their ability to control executive branch officials or to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of information to Congress.

“Such interference is impermissible regardless of its purported oversight or other justifications,” Mr. Bradbury wrote.

The Office of Legal Counsel interprets the law for the executive branch, often ruling on issues that are difficult to get before a court. Its opinions are often secret. Under Mr. Bush, the office has come under criticism as using aggressive legal arguments to provide legal cover for bypassing statutes that inhibited White House policies, including harsh interrogations and sending taxpayer dollars to religious groups. (New York Times)

This administration has shown nothing but contempt for transparency in government. It has consistently put itself above the law, unanswerable to both Congress and the public. They have the gall to talk about "the unauthorized disclosure of information to Congress" in apparent ignorance of the concept of checks and balances. The primary reason we have three branches of government is to assure no one branch oversteps its authority or abuses its power.

The Bush White House has no respect for the Constitution or our democratic republic. They seem to have forgotten they are employees of the American people.

Ode to...Joy?

2008-07-26T10:18:48-07:00

Jeber

Feline geneticist traces origin of the cat

2008-06-09T19:35:16-07:00

They're fierce hunters and purring companions, subject of ancient paintings and modern-day cartoons, barnyard necessities and companions of single women everywhere. Both aloof and affectionate, cats have been revered — and sometimes reviled — for centuries.
And now, feline experts say they've surpassed the dog and become the most popular pet on earth. But how did the cat evolve from a wild animal to a pampered pet? In the upcoming National Geographic Channel documentary Explorer: Science of Cats, anthropologists and feline geneticists trace the evolution of the cat. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Science of Cats'

AP: Feline geneticists say cats "domesticated themselves." What does that mean?

Lyons: We say cats adapted themselves to us rather than the other way around. As humans became farmers, we started a civilization. And civilization has grain stores and refuse piles, two things that draw rodents. Cats started coming closer to households to eat the rodents, filling the niche that humans developed. Cats were the first to come close to humans. We tolerated them because they ate the rodents, and cats tolerated humans because we provided food.

Q: Cats are now found in every corner of the globe: Feline experts estimate that there are 600 million cats in households on six continents. Where did cats first come from? Who were the first people to enjoy them as pets?

A: There is archaeological and genetic evidence to show that cats first originated in the fertile crescent. We took genetic samples in Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon and Iran and they are all tied together because that was the seat of cat domestication. Most people know a little about the link between cats and ancient Egyptians; cats weren't exactly worshipped but they were very important to the society and the religion. There are many early Egyptian accounts of cats living in households, and this is seen in paintings as well. And for ancient Egyptians who worshipped Bast, the goddess of family and fertility who has the head of a cat, mummified cats became like an offering to Bast — like if you were Catholic you might go into church and light a candle, so people would buy cat mummies and offer them to the goddess.

Q: From there, where did cats go? How did they get to the United States?

A: Cats spread through Asia, where they also became important to societies there: An all-white cat is considered good luck, for example. They came here, to North America, with the Pilgrims, on the boats to help with the rodent populations. There are no domesticated cats that are indigenous to America or Australia, they all came over on boats.

Q: And at least in western societies they became associated with witches, right?

A: Right. Actually their association with witches might have had a dramatic impact on society. During the time of the bubonic plague, cats were persecuted along with witches. But the plague was carried by fleas that are on rats, and a dense cat population would kill rats. As we persecuted the cats, there were fewer cats and more rats, which meant more fleas carrying plague. The lack of cats contributed to the spread of the plague.

(Read More...)

Olbermann brings it to Bush

2008-05-15T10:38:01-07:00

Keith speaks for many of us, does he speak for you?

Please, CNN, don't legitimize Coulter

2007-10-10T13:29:03-07:00

CNN just featured Ann Coulter reviewing the presidential debating style of Fred Thompson.
What makes a supposed news outlet decide to use a pundit of her caliber to speak about politics? With hundreds of informed, educated politic-watchers to choose from, why scrape the bottom of the barrel and pick a person who recently said, "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." (Source)

The pirates have landed...

2007-05-30T08:33:10-07:00

The Pirates of Silicon Valley, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Apple’s Steve Jobs – will share the stage today in Carlsbad, California,
More...

It's a WeeMee

2007-04-14T10:51:28-07:00

Jeber

Canadians apologize

2007-04-01T10:57:54-07:00

Well, sort of...

The murder of habeus corpus

2006-10-15T18:48:33-07:00

Keith Olbermann reports, you decide. Is this not one of the most extreme challenges to the Constitution yet put forth by the White House? At what point, after which of our freedoms gets quietly deleted from the books, do we become angry and demand an accounting from these federal employees of ours? The president is not a king, he is not god. He's an official elected to be our representative to the rest of the world, to be the point man for an administration entrusted with supporting the Constitution.

SubGenius Commercial

2006-10-10T22:17:32-07:00

In 1991, film maker Douglass Smith directed this 1 minute SubGenius ad, which was originally shown on music video networks. It was written by, and stars, Rev. Ivan Stang. Stang is co-sub-founder of The Church of the SubGenius, the infamous UFO-sex-death cult from Texas, based on the Slack teachings of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs -- which some claim is merely a satire, while others warn that it is all too real. The music is by Rev. Mark Mothersbaugh of DEVO. The commercial is also part of the earliest SubGenius feature video, ARISE! Other videos, and the SubGenius weekly radio show The Hour of Slack, are available via the SubGenius.com website. Cool, a religion much more in alignment with my view of life.

Put on a happy face...

2006-09-24T19:45:48-07:00

Sad but true. It applies to this blog, and yours, and yours and...

That's me...

2006-09-24T15:10:11-07:00

"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher...an idiot"
Douglas Adams

White and Nerdy

2006-09-20T21:16:16-07:00

Thanks to Chris P. for turning me onto this video. I've been a Weird Al fan for years, and even had the opportunity to chat with him for several hours while he was appearing in-store at Sam Goody.
Enjoy. This will become a classic.