Anyone Contact You Lately To Discuss Your Prescription Buying Habits?

I once got a telephone call from a "survey" company that concerned my "prescription" drug purchases. Now, I really only have two prescriptions, one for my blood pressure, and one for relief of stress. But, I was rather surprised that this company knew my information, what drugs I took and where I purchased them from. I was aghast that my personal medical history was out there for others to pick at.

Seems I am not alone (subscription required for full reading):

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Vermont law that barred the sale of doctors' prescription data to drug companies, ruling the law interfered with the pharmaceutical industry's First Amendment right to market its products.

Data companies such as IMS Health Inc. gather information from pharmacies about which medicines doctors are prescribing and ...

SCOTUS "Holder" Case Could Be Problematic For Some Lawmakers

Courtesy of Think Progress:

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that “the First Amendment does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of dispute”:

In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as “expert advice or assistance” or “training” intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations.

Nice going SCOTUS. Now what kind of cover is that going to provide those rich Republican Americans that continue to do business with, oh, say, the Iranians? Or those that even associate with certain groups?

The Washington Post reports that four prominent Republicans — former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, former Bush administration homeland security adviser Fran Townsend, former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey — spoke before “a forum of cheering Iranian exiles” in Paris to demand that President Obama “take the controversial Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran.”

Watch Your Back, And Your Bank Account, If Your Organization Is Peace Oriented, But Busts A Gut In The Middle East

The government can prosecute private citizens for giving advice to a foreign organization - on how to negotiate peace or take its case to the United Nations, for example - if the group is on the U.S. terrorist list, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

[snip]

Any tangible support - money, legal aid or political advice - "frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Chief Justice John Roberts said in the majority opinion.

[snip]

Under Monday's decision, "human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said David Cole, lawyer for organizations and individuals who challenged the law.

I know this happened back in June, and I have been meaning to comment on it, but I just have not had time. It's just one more step toward the dictatorship that is becoming America. I realize certain restrictions should apply, in principal. But "counseling" or "giving legal advice to solve disputes" falling into the category of having your bank accounts frozen is ridiculous.

I'd rather see this country freeze BP's bank accounts here. In fact, there are many more corporate criminals in the United States that should have their bank accounts frozen or seized, based on their abuse, neglect and damage done to the planet, the people and our environment.

Instead, our government, and more specifically, the Roberts-lead SCOTUS, sees "terror" everywhere (except American terrorists who happen to be white) and are "freeze and seize" happy.

Oh well. Just another notch on our way down that slippery pole leading to hell on earth.

Happy Days Are Hear Again For The GLBT Community

Cheers for the rainbow coalition! The news was agog yesterday over the ruling by Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case. I still have my "No on 8" sticker attached to my book case at work (which I am sure irritates a few people)!

While watching and listening and reading all the different responses to the ruling, the most important thing I've learned is the way in which the ruling was set out, with approximately 25 different sets of "statements of facts." See, in our legal world (of which most people have no clue since they don't work in the system - and let me stress for those that do not work as lawyers, judges, clerks and whatnot, that the law is not based on common sense -- the law is the "law" and law is set by rulings that become precedents for future rulings) the process of appeals is not about "hey, I don't like how this proceeding ended, I want to appeal and get a different ruling." Once a decision in a court of law is rendered, the appeal process is a very narrow process, and procedurally bound by certain rules. One of these rules is that an appeal does not allow "new" ideas or arguments -- in essence, a re-hearing. An appeal requests the next court above to review the manner in which a court or judge made a decision, and absent a clear "abuse" by the court or judge, the higher court is bound by that ruling if it appears, by the "statement of facts" that no other ruling could have come out in the case.

Judge Walker's statement of facts, a longer list than is typically normal, sets the stage for complete "refutation" (laughs) of Prop 8. The proponents for this proposition (the defendants in this case) did not present a credible argument to the court, nor did they put on any credible witnesses (Judge Walker ripped a new asshole into each of the defendants' witnesses, finding them to be whack jobs at best), and stuck to the legal framework of existing law that prohibits discrimination in this State, and that by singling out one identifiable group of people and stripping them of rights, is not based on any legal authority as is statutorily written in our laws.

The argument that the majority rules falls on deaf ears when it comes to the judiciary. Mob mentality is abated by the use of the judicial system, so that when, despite a majority held belief, a principal adopted is so egregious to another group of people, the judiciary is where such acts are generally struck down. It has been repeated over and over so the stupid people (my meme!) can understand that if the majority rules process really were the law of the land, women would still be in the house, having as many babies as the Duggars, would not be voting, blacks would still be using a separate entrance to buildings, and male blacks would still be lynched for looking at a white woman. The stupid people can yell all they want about the majority ... it's the legality of the issue the majority is touting that has to be looked at by the judicial review. And, in the case of Prop 8, finally heading its way to the Supreme Court, that will be our Roe v. Wade for the GLBT community to finally get equality in marriage. SCOTUS, regardless of any one individual judge's opinion on the issue of marriage, will have to review this case from the standpoint of rights. And as has been ruled time and time again, a law cannot be formed that enshrines personal rights to one group while at the same time prohibits those same rights to another group.

Get over it - and that includes YOU, Mr. President. This was a HUGE victory for equal rights, and it will be upheld all the way through the Ninth Circuit up to SCOTUS.

Bye Bye, Starbucks. I'm Going To Coffee Tea and Whatever the Name is

Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

Courtesy of AMERICAblog.

After 16 years of drinking Starbucks coffee (despite my opposition to their business practices over which the consistency of the coffee won out based on my universal travels) I will no longer buy coffee from Starbucks.

I'm not about to "holster up" and "carry my weapon" into my local coffee shop, nor am I going to let the nutcases and the Supreme Court tell me that those that think the 2nd amendment to the constitution allows them to carry arms into my local shopping stores.

Fuck Starbucks and fuck those that think this is even remotely a good idea.

UPDATE 3/4/10: Again, courtesy of AMERICAblog:

IWW Starbucks Workers Union Statement Regarding Open-Carry of Firearms in Starbucks Stores

A healthy and safe work environment is the highest priority of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. We also believe strongly that citizens exercising their rights under the law are entitled to respect.

Violence against fast food workers and customers is a common occurrence that cannot be overlooked, and Starbucks is no exception. We appreciate the vigorous debate taking place by principled individuals on both sides of this issue. However, to date we are not aware of any efforts by Starbucks to widely engage its workers who are directly affected by open-carry gun laws. We believe an appropriate solution cannot be reached without doing so. We remain open to all stakeholders working toward a positive resolution that respects Starbucks workers' right to a safe work environment.

It seems that the Starbucks corporate guys forgot to explain things to the Starbucks union workers! Safety vs. fucked up gun rights? I think in this instance, Starbucks is going to have to back down on it's latest policy stance of allowing people to come into their stores showing their guns. Stay tuned ...

Corporate America Running For Congress LOL

This is absolutely hillarious, and a great way to express an opinion about the SCOTUS ruling giving alleged First Amendment Rights to corporations.

The progressive PR firm Murray Hill Inc. has announced that it plans to satirically run for Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th congressional district to protest the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision. A press release on its website says that the company wants to “eliminate the middle man” and run for Congress directly, rather than influencing it with corporate dollars:

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” [...]

Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third. “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

No Live Cameras For Prop 8 Trial

Reporting from Washington - The U.S. Supreme Court, acting on an appeal from conservative defenders of California's ban on same-sex marriage, overruled a federal judge in San Francisco today and blocked video coverage of the trial on YouTube.

Well, well, well, another example of not letting the American public see how the "system" works! If we keep Americans stupid, then we can keep passing stupid legislation! God forbid we should actually get to see and hear all the vile rhetoric that will pass for arguments in favor of Proposition 8. I note, Jerry Brown, AG for California, has refused to argue the case on behalf of the Prop 8 supporters. Kudo's to him.

Ah, democracy -- just like our founders imagined it to be -- NOT!

At Least It's Football Season, And I Can Take My Mind Off Of How Bad This Country Sucks

The outlook is not bright for this country. On the one hand, we have a party (and people who ascribe to that party's beliefs -- whether they understand them or not) that is hell bent on saying "no" to anything the POTUS has to offer. On the other hand, we have a party, it's members and believers, and the POTUS struggling with an agenda that has been taken out of their hands and framed by lies, deceit and underhanded politics by the other side.

The mood of the country in 2008 was clear as Democrats (and progressive Independents) were elected to every branch of the government across the board. Obama stumped throughout the country with the mantra of "change we can believe in," and it was the basis upon which he was elected President. There was absolutely no interest in continuing along the path that the Bush Administration and the Republicans had forced down the American public's throat. That much was CLEAR.

I have no clue what happened between Obama being elected, and the present status of politics in Washington. It is like nothing has changed. Absolutely, nothing. The corporations are in control, as usual, and have taken over the talking points in every media that exists, be it television, radio, newspapers or the internet. The naysayers are minimal in numbers, in reality, but the corporate interest groups that do not want "change we can believe in" are mobilized and well financed enough to keep things status quo, while also making it appear that mainstream Americans, by a clear majority, don't want change!

And now, the SCOTUS may very well rule in a narrow manner on a case before it that will allow corporations unlimited abilities to contribute to campaigns. It's not enough that corporations dominate the landscape and dictate to America what they want Americans to believe, to buy, to do, etc. We've been fighting the lobby groups for a number of years now, but if the ruling goes the way of the corporations, Americans can basically kiss this country goodbye. The expansion of wealth to a minor few, at the expense of the American worker, will become so extreme, that it will not be possible for this country to move forward. It will fail, plain and simple, because of economic stress among the majority of Americans.

What disturbs me the most is the complacency of the liberals and progressives. Sure, the blogs and netroots are all over it, and it is impressive that through ActBlue the netroots raised about $400,000 in four days to distribute to the progressives in congress that are bucking the Republican minority and the President on the public option part of the health care reform bills currently pending in congress. Perhaps, despite the probability of failure, it is these progressive blogs that will work tirelessly to replace the DINO to real Democrats and real Independent and progressive congresscritters.

If after all the work done on the ground in this country to elect politicians that were supposed to change the framework of government, all we get is more of the same, there really is nothing left to do but just wait for the self-destruct button to finally be hit.

And we have no one else to blame but ourselves.

Who The Fuck Cares If You Prove You Are Innocent After Convicted?

Apprently, Scalia doesn't believe it matters. Go ahead and execute the innocent. Hell, they had a trial, right?

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to confince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the dissenting opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia of SCOTUS!

God help us all.

H/T to Think Progress.

Who Even Gives A Shit What G. Gordon Liddy Has To Say?

I've been on vacation all week, so I haven't really been posting, except for some music tracks. But I just have to comment on the most recent argument against Obama's pick for SCOTUS, this one from G. Gordon Liddy, who as we all know, comes with impeccable credentials (stifling a hard laugh):

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

I see that the right wing nutjobs now are pushing the meme that women cannot perform their jobs because, you know, they get a period!

Today's Republican Party -- the gift that keeps on giving -- stupidity.

SCOTUS Rips Another One Against Bush Policies

Our political and media elite were more than willing -- they were eager -- to relinquish that right to the President in the name of keeping us Safe from Terrorists. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most celebrated landmark rulings of this generation, re-instated that basic right, and in so doing, restored one of the most critical safeguards against the very tyranny this country was founded to prevent.

Glenn Greenwald's take. I can never say most political commentary as well as Greenwald. Read the whole article.

For the third time, the Supreme Court has not backed the Bush administration's claims with respect to how they handle supposed terrorists. Thank goodness the Constitution prevailed in this decision. Shame on you congressmen for even voting to eliminate habeas corpus in the name of security. This country could benefit from reinstating civics classes in school, and remind people what a true democracy is supposed to be like.