The Countertop Chronicles

How fitting.

Black liberals were the critical voting bloc. Jewish liberals voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8, to offer a simple contrast. Obama has always opposed marriage equality, even splitting with his own church on the issue. In California, he got his way.

Hey Andrew Sullivan!!

How does it feel to have gone and fucked yourself???

It seems there was some ta do in DC the other day

Here’s the AP Report

A Jersey City councilman has reportedly been arrested for urinating on a crowd of concertgoers from the balcony of a Washington D.C. nightclub.

The New York Daily News reports in Sunday’s editions that two-term Jersey City councilman Steve Lipski has been charged with simple assault.

The newspaper says 44-year-old Lipski was removed from a place called the 9:30 Club on Friday night.

That’s after club staffers saw him relieve himself onto the crowd from a second floor balcony during a concert by a Grateful Dead tribute band.

Messages left at Lipski’s council office, and a Jersey City listing under his name were not immediately returned.

Hmm, a politician arrested - for a lewd and crude (and most likely drug induced) crime. What other information could they tell us about Mr. Lipski???? Well, maybe they do tell us, cause if he was a Republican, I bet that would be in the opening sentence.

Smack dab in today’s NY Times

To the Editor:

My message to William Kristol: Actually, a “Wasilla Wal-Mart Mom a heartbeat away” from the presidency is horrifying to me.

Leading the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to be a game of chance. Our leader should be the most highly educated, principled, cultured, traveled and respected figure we can find.

My message to voters: For all our sakes, remember that the world is bigger than you!

Tracy Taub
Princeton, N.J., Sept. 8, 2008

This will certainly help win over blue collar union voters.

And on that point, David Brooks is right on point

If I were advising the candidates, I’d tell them to double down on weirdness. Obama needs to occasionally criticize his own side. If he can’t take on his own party hacks, he’ll never reclaim the mantle of systemic change. Specifically, he needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin’s faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.

Not to be confused with the Andrew Sullivan Award for moral equivalency, this one is given out to examples of self serving dishonest bullshit taken to levels only a member of the media could reach.

Look: I’m gifted at outrage but this current Republican crew is more gifted at provoking it. I’ve aired many defenses of Palin on this blog and made a point of reminding readers that many sources in Alaska have longstanding enmity for her. But I think her record is very underwhelming when you look at it, and the record is now clear that she has lied - even being forced to admit it - in public office. I also think it is simply insane that a person who could be president next January and is a total unknown to the world should somehow require being shielded from a press conference. I mean a capable candidate would be begging for an hour alone on Meet The Press, not running to ground in Alaska and taking no questions for three weeks in September before an election.

John McCain just told Bob Schiffer on Face the Nation that Sarah Palin would be out campaigning on her own in a couple of days and she would start with her first major media appearance on Face The Nation.

Well, I’d have to say as a one of the many carry permit holders who hasn’t committed a crime as a carry permit holder, and generally doesn’t try to hard to raise my google fu through weird google bombs utilizing terms like carry permit holders, I’m offended that their carry permit holders ranking isn’t even lower.

I don’t blog about work, but just beat the stinking hippy tree huggers in a case that the NY Times and Washington Post editorial page weighed in on (which means, by implication, I beat them too!)

I’m goona eat a steak to celebrate!

In their editorial on D.C.’s proposed new gun law (expected to be passed today), the Washington Post states

Likely to be enacted today by the council on an emergency basis, it would permit only handguns in homes for self-defense. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles would still be banned. To register handguns, residents would have to complete an application, pass a written firearms test, provide a photo and proof of good vision, and be fingerprinted — all sensible requirements that are generally seen as being able to pass court muster.

I’ll let others point out how ludicrous the machine gun ban - which defines any gun that has the potential to hold 12 bullets in a magazine as a machine gun - is (and how quickly its going to fall).

What I want to discuss are these registration requirements

Application - ok
Written test - well, seems to me some states have already tried to require African Americans to pass poll tests and were rightly struck down.
Photo - ok
proof of good vision - So the D.C. government isn’t only a bunch of racist bigots? Their also anti handicapped? Folks, this forget the smell test - this doesn’t pass either the American’s With Disabilities Act or D.C.’s Human Rights Act

§ 1-2501. Intent of Council.

It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this chapter, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, and place of residence or business.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2201; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title I, § 101, 24 DCR 6038; June 28, 1994, D.C. Law 10-129, § 2(a), 41 DCR 2583.)

PROHIBITED ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION

§ 1-2511. Equal opportunities.

Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to,

in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service, and in housing and commercial space accommodations.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2211; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title II, § 201, 24 DCR 6038.)

§ 1-2532. Discriminatory effects of practices.

Any practice which has the effect or consequence of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be an unlawful discriminatory practice.

(1973 Ed., § 6-2278; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title II, § 268, 24 DCR 6038.)

§ 1-2556. Private cause of action.

(a) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages and such other remedies as may be appropriate, unless such person has filed a complaint hereunder; provided, that where the Office has dismissed such complaint on the grounds of administrative convenience, or where the complainant has withdrawn a complaint, such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed. No person who maintains, in a court of competent jurisdiction, any action based upon an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter may file the same complaint with the Office. A private cause of action pursuant to this act shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within one year of the unlawful discriminatory practice, or the discovery thereof. The timely filing of a complaint with the Office shall toll the running of the one year statute of limitations while the complaint is pending before the Office.

(b) The court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including but not limited to, such relief as is provided in § 1-2553(a).

(1973 Ed., § 6-2296; Dec. 13, 1977, D.C. Law 2-38, title III, § 316, 24 DCR 6038; Oct. 23, 1997, D.C. Law 12-39, § 2(d), 44 DCR 4856.)

I’m looking for a client

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Last week, Fannie’s stock plummeted to $10.25, down 74 percent in 2008. Freddie’s shares also dived, closing at $7.75, a loss of 77 percent this year.

So, besides EVERY member of Congress for the last 40 years (throw every last one out - Republican and Democrat - and sue them and their estates to recoup the bill) who’s really to blame for this?

James A. Johnson, a longtime member of the Washington establishment who previously worked as a campaign adviser to former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, ran Fannie for most of the 1990s.

“Jim Johnson was the architect of Fannie’s lobbying strategy. He was the muscle guy, if you will. The guy who would walk the halls of Congress,” said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Arlington, Va., and longtime critic of the companies. Freddie, Mr. Ely said, soon copied Fannie’s playbook.

Hmm, Jim Johnson . . . haven’t we heard that name before???

Oh, here it is, 8 paragraphs later HIDDEN far down in the article

(Mr. Johnson was compelled to step down as the head of Senator Barack Obama’s vice-presidential search team last month after he was criticized for receiving mortgages on favorable terms from Countrywide Financial.)

Of course, Barack Don’t-mention-my-middle-name-is-Hussein-and-my-family-is-muslim-
and-I-did-more-to-finance-gun-bigots-than-any-other-America Obama didn’t fire him for single handedly creating and funding the system that looks to do more damage to America than Osama bin Laden . . . no, that was actually the reason he was hired.

Sure, gas is just hitting $4 a gallon here in Northern Virginia (actually, I filled up for $3.79 yesterday) but I’m not that worried. Even with an SUV. I suspect things will be tight this summer, as speculators run rampant (blame the press) but as with everything market related the laws of supply and demand will hold true again and you can bet that price will begin to creep down as American’s conserve less and can justify, economically, more efficient vehicles.

Me, I’m gonna keep driving my 1996 Grand Cherokee. One, its paid for. Two, it only has 110,000 miles on it. And three, I boosted its fuel efficiency 20% this week, going from a paltry 18.5 mpg to 24.5 mpg - or about $15 per fill up. Now thats real money (and will help buy me some eggs and milk)

How? Well, Glen linked to this story on Fuel Efficiency tips and I simply took the first it to heart. I set the on board display to show current mileage and knowing I got about 18.5 mpg with it generally tried to drive at a pace that stayed above that.

Here’s the top 4 tips I followed:

1. Track Your Mileage in Real Time
2. Only Brake When You Have to
3. Always Stay Alert on the Road
4. Drive Like You’re on a Bike

It wasn’t too hard. A couple of things - I never went over 60 miles per hour (that seemed to be the magic threshold where mileage really dropped off. Thats ok, 60 is plenty fast where I was driving. I suspect on the highway, if I got up to cruising speeds, it would handle it too). I also slowed down slowly, trying to conserve momentum, and when I was at a traffic light, I accelerated slowly. Thats it. I didn’t even resort to the old standby of putting the car in neutral to coast down big hills.

I’ll try that next week.

Don’t know where they got this

According to Michele Foster, InStadium’s head of marketing, people go to the john an average of 2.3 times per game (we didn’t ask about the .3 times). They’ll look at ads for at least 90 seconds, longer if there’s a line, she says.

I’ve been to 5 games at the new Nationals Ball Park, and over the last 4 years have attended an average of 25 games a season. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve taken a leak at either RFK or the new stadium

Doesn’t exist.

Case in point - went to dinner with my kids after spending the day shooting with Michael Bane.

Sitting there in my shooting shirt and the Ron Paul Revolutionary next to us starts talking about who the biggest gun banner in the election is.

Hillary - no. In the Ron Paul Revolutionary Reality, Hillary has never put her name next to a piece of gun control. The assualt weapons ban - that was her dastardly husbands fault.
Barak Ronnie James Dio Obama - nope, he’s only been in the Senate 3 years and isn’t responsible for gun banning legislation.
Which leaves 2nd Amendment Champion John McCain as the biggest threat to our guns.

Yes, you read that right, in the Ron Paul Revolutionary Reality, John McCain is the one who is gonna take your guns away cause he entered into the fray over the so called gun show loophole.

seriously. This guy really believed John McCain was a bigger threat to the 2nd Amendment than Hillary “ban em if you got ‘em” Clinton or Barak Beatrice Joyce Kean Obama

Are hemorrhoids or any more 24 hour news channels.

More Here (warning, ugly graphic violence depicted)

Linked from the comments of this excellent post at Daily KOS

Clifford P. Albertson and Constantinos E. Scaros. Both in the NY Times today. Its a shame I have to run one before the other. But here goes (with my emphasis where warranted).

To the Editor:

Re “The Court Considers Gun Control” (editorial, March 18), about the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on the District of Columbia’s gun control law:

You refer to Washington’s law — which bans private ownership of handguns and permits only locked or disassembled rifles and shotguns — as reasonable, and, implicitly, you agree with judge-made law that the right to bear arms refers to service in a militia.

If, in fact, the founding fathers envisioned guaranteeing the right to bear arms to individuals only insofar as they participated in a militia, do you suppose that on their off-duty days they were required to turn in their guns, disassemble them or keep them under a trigger lock?

Your concern about the dangers that arise from too-easy access to weapons is sensible. But for the law to change in order to reflect contemporary society, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed by another constitutional amendment, not by judicial legislation.

Constantinos E. Scaros
Cliffside Park, N.J., March 18, 2008

The writer is dean of criminal justice at the Katharine Gibbs School and a professor of history, law and political science at New York University.

•

To the Editor:

Your editorial says, “For the high court to choose this moment to strike down reasonable gun rules would defy common sense.”

One wonders what “reasonable” controls you would consider on the freedoms guaranteed by the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. There are those who would consider it reasonable to restrict publication of information detrimental to national defense. What “reasonable” rules would you impose for quartering troops in your home? Or what “reasonable” rules would you place on the right to be protected in your home from unreasonable searches and seizures?

In short, none of the other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights require registration, nor can they be arbitrarily prohibited by any state or local government. If they are abused, suitable sanctions are in place. Why, then, should gun ownership be treated differently?

Clifford P. Albertson
Suffern, N.Y., March 18, 2008

Very Interesting Talk Back discussion with the Washington Post’s Supreme Court Report Robert Barnes.

Here’s some highlights.

Alexandria, Va.: If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals an unlimited right to “bear arms”, can we expect that any restrictions on the type of weapon desired will be lifted? I’m looking forward to acquiring a bazooka,

Don’t know where download mp3 music for ipod mp3 player, Do you want mp3 music download on perssonal computer

a flame-thrower and a charged-particle beam cannon in order to defend myself against, well, whatever threatens me. An arm is an arm is an arm, yes?

Robert Barnes: The point you make is one that bothered Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who represents the federal government before the court. He worried that the decision of the appeals court–which said that because a handgun fits the definition of an “arm” in the Second Amendment, DC was not permitted to ban it–would endanger federal gun control legislation, such as restrictions on machine guns. There was much back and forth on this yesterday–Alan Gura, who represented Heller, said he thought machine guns could be banned–but I think it likely that there would be further litigation on which weapons were allowed and which were not.

Springfield, Va.: How did Gura do yesterday? Prior to yesterday, he was portrayed in some quarters as being a bit of a neophyte. Did he hold his own?

Robert Barnes: He was arguing his first case before the Supreme Court and his nervousness was apparent at first–Justice Scalia told him to slow down because he was talking so fast they couldn’t understand him. But then he took a deep breath, and I think most who watched his performance thought he did well. It probably helped that he had an argument with which many of the justices agreed. I wonder if some gun rights activists were pleased with some of his statements about the way in which gun ownership could be regulated. But his job is to win the case for his client.

Dunn Loring, VA: Any idea where Justice Breyer came up with his figure of “80,000 to 100,000 handgun deaths a year”? According to the NY Times, the figure was less than 30,000 in 2004, so was Breyer intentionally exagerrating the number or was he just mistaken?

Robert Barnes: No that was unclear. I wonder if he misspoke when he said “a year” and had some other time period in mind.