Letterman pays special tribute to Carson

Okay, I no longer watch a great deal of television. NYPD Blue is a privately fed addiction on Tuesdays at 9 pm, but I get all my news from the internet, so now I rarely sit through the 10 pm news and get sucked into Dave or Jay.

I did watch Jay’s Carson tribute last week, and Dave’s tonight, and by far Dave’s was the more heartfelt and true. Jay’s had frickin Drew Carey on, for chrissakes.

I spent a lot of my time as a youngster wishing I could stay up late and watch Johnny Carson with my dad. Once in a while, but that was it. My dad loved Johnny Carson and watched him every night, at least that’s the way I remember it, and I remember sitting on the couch in confusion while my dad laughed his head off.

When I got a little older and could stay up past 10, I watched him, because what else was there to watch at 10:30 at night in the early eighties? When you didn’t have cable! Yikes. The man was just so funny and charming. A truly gifted comedian possesses a rare kind of charm, and makes you fall half in love with him. Still, watching all these clips, I think, what a handsome man. His laugh, and that look he would give the audience and the camera, made you feel as if the whole world were in on the joke together.

Watching all these tributes, listening to people who knew the man talk about him, reminisce about him, I have that silly sadness I get when someone who was great and affected my life even though I never met them dies. Dave’s guest, Peter Lasally, Carson’s producer for 20 odd years, spoke about Johnny retiring and resisting the great temptation to come back to a place where he knew he would receive a standing ovation. It was right after a clip was shown of Johnny visiting Dave’s set and Dave conceding the chair behind the desk. Johnny sat there, smiling, enjoying the ovation he was receiving, and just as it began to die down, as a few people had begun to re-take their seats, he looked for a moment as if he would speak, then shook his head and stood.

A true gentleman, a pure entertainer, an artist with a sense of humor. A dying breed.

CNN.com – Freedom of what? – Jan 31, 2005

Just in case you missed it the first time I posted it, a half hour ago, you multitude of people reading my blog, here is the AP story again.

This is the archives.gov site. On it, you can find The Declaration of Independence, another fine document, along with The Constitution of the United States. Just in case you need a refresher.

I’m sorry, am I getting preachy? Perhaps I should ask the fucking GOVERNMENT if it’s okay if I post transcripts of the documents that are supposed to be guiding them in their GOVERNING. And maybe I should check and see if it’s okay if I say nasty and maybe somewhat inappropriate things about people who don’t know anything about these documents. Huh? What do you think?

Damn it, I really need a vodka tonic RIGHT NOW.

www.archives.gov January 31, 2005

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

FYI, here is a transcript of the Bill of Rights, the first one in the list being the all important FIRST AMENDMENT that I am currently up in arms about.

Read it, know it, repeat if to people you both know and don’t know like some crazy person. Repeatedly yell, over and over, the First Amendment to all high school kids you see, just in case.

Yahoo! News – First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say

This is scary to me. Very very scary. So scary that I felt obliged to copy and paste the entire article into this post so that I can go back and read it over and over again, shaking my head in disgust while trembling in fear for the future leaders of my country. Let’s see, current high school juniors/seniors are what, 17 or 18 years old? Okay, so by the time they graduate college and go to law school and start running for office, they’ll be, what, like 30? So, no, unfortunately I won’t be dead and buried when these ill-informed shitheads hit the political scene.

Read on, and I’ll comment more afterwards. Right after I go vomit my dinner. And make a drink.

First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say

1 hour, 14 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National – AP

By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON – The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

Photo
AP Photo

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

“These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,” said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. “Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.”

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn’t know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It’s not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can’t.

“Schools don’t do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don’t know the rights it protects,” Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. “This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment.”

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.

Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don’t make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

“The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media,” said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. “Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms.”

___

On the Net:

Future of the First Amendment report: http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org/

Continuing my comments:

The first amendment goes “too far?” What the fuck is that? Do you think all these kids are on smack?

“Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.” Oh my good God. Government approval of stories? It’s bad enough we have the Bush administration hiring journalists to spew their crap. Government approval? What the hell is going on here?

“Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.”-Hodding Carter III, whoever he is.
That is going to become my new motto. You go, Hodding.

I have to hold my head and rock back and forth in my chair for a few minutes before continuing on this subject.

Let us all join in a moment of silence to commemorate the future death of the First Amendment. Please, somebody, say it ain’t so!

Chicago Tribune | Garment workers gain ally

Interesting. Company that makes gazillions by selling clothing cheaply made for them in third-world countries is stepping up to the plate.

Maybe they’ll make a whole 10 fucking cents an hour now.

Whoopeee! Pull out the champagne and call the realtor, honey! We’re on easy street now!

Bill Aims to Curb Out-of-State Abortions
Sun Jan 30, 6:49 PM
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK – The abortion bill most likely to become federal law this year would affect a relatively small number of pregnant teens, yet its impact on them could be dramatic _ sharply reducing the options for girls in many states who dread telling their parents of their plight.

Supporters and opponents each offer vivid worst-case scenarios in debating the bill, which was included this week in the Senate Republicans’ priority list. It would outlaw transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion in order to evade parental consent or notification laws in the girl’s home state.

The bill’s advocates evoke the image of a girl being impregnated by an abusive older man who then drives her to an out-of-state abortion clinic so the girl’s parents and the authorities won’t find out about a relationship that might have been illegal because of age differences.

Opponents of the bill say it would criminalize the well-meaning acts of an aunt, older sister or other confidante who assist a girl terrified of being beaten or evicted from home if her parents learned of the pregnancy.

“You’re talking about girls who really need support _ let them use whatever support they have,” said Shawn Towey of the National Network of Abortion Funds. “This bill is going to have a chilling effect on people who are just there to help.”

Titled the Child Custody Protection Act, and carrying a sentence of up to one year in prison, the bill has bounced around Congress for years, winning House approval three times but never reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Only now _ after making the Senate GOP’s Top 10 priority list _ do supporters and foes believe its passage is probable.

“We’re proceeding as if it’s going to pass,” said Lorraine Kenny of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project. ACLU lawyers already are studying possible challenges on grounds that the bill violates the right to travel from state to state and does not make an exception for cases when a girl’s health is jeopardized.

Activists on both sides expect support for the bill from majority Republicans, perhaps joined by some Democrats. Some doubt Democratic leaders will wage an all-out fight against it.

“Politically, it would be very high risk for the Senate Democrats to filibuster this bill,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. “Polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the concept of parental notification.”

Opponents agree that young women are better off telling parents about a pregnancy, and say most do so voluntarily. But abortion-rights activists argue that politicians should not impose mandates that might backfire in cases where family communication already has broken down.

“Instead of encouraging them to involve a trusted adult who may be able to offer much-needed assistance, this law will cause some young women to face interstate travel for medical care alone,” says a NARAL Pro-Choice America briefing paper. “Even worse, it may force young women to turn to self-induced or illegal abortions.”

Thirty-two states have parental-involvement laws in force, though the National Right to Life Committee considers eight of the laws ineffectual because of loopholes.

In all 32 states except Utah, a procedure called judicial bypass allows a minor to petition a judge for permission to get an abortion without telling her parents. In many courts, these waivers are granted routinely to any reasonably mature girl who asks; elsewhere the requests often are denied, prompting some girls to opt for an abortion in another state without a parental involvement law.

Abortion-rights advocates cite Alabama _ where consent of one parent is required before a minor’s abortion _ as a state with notable roadblocks for girls seeking a court waiver.

Jennifer Dalven of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project said judges in Birmingham and some other Alabama communities oppose waivers so adamantly that legal aid attorneys now advise pregnant minors not to bother requesting one. Instead, Dalven said, girls are counseled to consider getting an abortion in Georgia or Florida, where procedures are somewhat more flexible.

“Judges in Alabama call teens who seek abortion murderers, force them to sit through religious programming, and still deny their petitions,” Dalven said. “For these teens, going out of state is their only option. … It’s been a critical safety valve that would be lost if this bill is passed.”

The number of girls who might be affected by the law is difficult to calculate _ perhaps a few thousand annually.

In 2000, the latest year with national statistics, about 92,000 girls 17 and under obtained legal abortions _ 7 percent of the U.S. total. Many of those teens were from states that don’t require parental involvement, including populous California, New York and Illinois, while many of the girls in states with the laws notified their parents rather than traveling secretly out-of-state.

Additive may help chips lower cholesterol

Oh, please, say it is so!

People will eat crappy food that says “better for you” on the bag, if it actually tastes good. The only reason most snack foods that proclaim to be better for you don’t sell well is because not only are they crap, they actually taste like crap.

I want my crap to taste like potato chips.

Uh, oh, blog posting in the morning about stupid things. When will I learn my lesson?

Yeah, I just put a bunch of pictures of my kids on another blog. Now their heads will be transposed onto some sicko’s child pornography or they’ll get kidnapped or something. Brilliant idea.

But it does give me something else to do to waste time when I should be doing more important things.

I’m just goofing around to see if I can do this. Because then you know
what I can do? I can e-mail blog entries from my fricking cell phone.

If you would have told me I’d be this much of a fucking geek when I got
to be this old, I’da slapped ya.