Nothing worse than an "I told you so"

Except maybe an "I told you so" that can now be recorded, free of consequence, by the government and used against me in some sort of criminal proceedings as a result of any one of several loopholes in the new FISA bill, which passed this afternoon.

Three guesses on which way the Senators from Illinois and New York voted, respectively. I'll give you a hint: if Obama ran towards the center any faster, he'd be legally required to proclaim a hardy "meep meep." If she even thinks about taking an offer for the VP slot I will pull my hair out, we cannot afford to lose her in the Senate if she is one of only 27 to vote nay on that steaming pile of legislation. Protection from illegal search and seizure isn't even one of those debatable privacy rights, it is right there in the Constitution, but who asked me. Between this and Obama's late term abortion horseshit of late, I am all geared up to vote Green and not lose a wink of sleep.

To try and temper bad news with good, or at least with amusing, I enjoyed the federal appeals court that cited Lewis Carroll in their decision in favor of the rights of Gitmo detainees. I haven't read the poem, although with a title like "The Hunting of the Snark" you know it's on my list. The citation, "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true," is a pretty accurate description of the current media climate, wouldn't you say? I employ this logic regularly in repeatedly telling my roommates I will do the dishes, and I will say that it appeases in the short term. There's something satisfying to the implied admission that the current state of our civil liberties can only be conceptualized by a NONSENSE POEM. But when a major governing body quotes your work, that's when you know you've made it as a writer, for sure... I'd give my left arm to be referenced in anything written by Ruth Bater Ginsberg (swoon).

no, this campaign is not about gender, not even a little

So, check this shit out:
McCain Opposes Equal Pay for Women
McPain doesn't like the Senate legislation because he thinks it is designed to create all these new law suits to clog up the justice system. Let's follow this logic a moment. Statisticians are in agreement that women still earn circa 77¢ on the male dollar. McSame is not debating this. In fact, the implication is that SO MANY women perceive themselves as being paid unfairly that McNasty fears the courts will buckle under the weight of the caseload. Which obviously means the problem should not be dealt with.

This actually may be the most disjointed logic I've seen in a while. It concedes the problem of pay equity, and explicitly says it is not important enough to grace the dockets of judges who are also not busy hearing cases on domestic spying or denial of habeas corpus rights or whatever. Freedom and justice for... huh? Sorry, we got distracted by John Edwards chasing some ambulance, our country is just so full of frivolous law suits. Dear women, John McCain does not think your work is important enough to be paid for in a fair manner. Unless your work consists of cookin' and not aborting babies, in which case you should be paid the overgenerous privilege of being allowed to suck his cock (alongside the media -- wait your turn).


The text of the bill is also perfectly logical and reasonable, for the record. It's not like it opens up any huge loopholes. It just repeals the 180 day limit on claims, so that if your employer covers up their criminality effectively for a while you can still sue him/her/it. Statutes of limitations don't make a lot of sense to me in general, as I haven't heard a great argument for receiving a get out of jail free card for keeping quiet about your criminal activity for long enough. But in this case it seems pretty unreasonable to assume that employers will make their illegal pay practices obvious enough to be discovered within six months. Fuh fuh fuh, this country is going to the dogs. Well it's throwing its women to them, anyway.