blogsiren's Blog

So here we are again; being asked by the good old folks at the casinos to give them a little help on a problem their having.

All they want to do is raise the betting limits, right? That's not so bad is it? Aren't we going to get some more money, just like the first time, when they promised us every dime would go to schools and education?

Let me see, why can't I recall any of that money being given to the schools? As a matter of fact, I don't have any idea where the Billion or so profits have been spent. I know schools still need funding, at least that is what I hear, all of the time. Wouldn't that Billion dollars have helped them somehow? Where is that school money from gambling profits?

What about the money spent on those poor fools who get addicted to gambling and loose everything? I guess it is their fault after all. They knew they had a problem, and why should it matter if they get to have a no limit gambling session, if there going to loose it all anyway? I suppose they would spend less in gas, you know, they won't have to drive to the boats as often to loose everything they own. That sure is a plus.

Oh, and then the rich guys at the casino could get richer, right? Yeah, that's a good idea, even though they probably don't live here or spend any of their money here, shouldn't we help them out?

Yep, this Proposition A sounds just like what we need, especially in the current recession, where people are loosing their homes and jobs. How could we be so selfish to deny people the chance to win big from a casino that has a huge profit margin?

I can't wait to see all that new money pouring into schools. WOW, these guys sure are thinking about us...Thanks Boys.

Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States of America.

He will legitimately take office, because he will have the support of more people than any previous President in the history of this country.

Our previous President, and all he is associated with have helped this man gain the support needed to achieve this goal. Our previous President has put this country into the worst financial collapse most of us have ever seen and it will take many years to fix.

The blaming and name calling need to stop. It is counter productive and useless. I am curious though, how the loudest among those using these tactics are supposed to be the most "christian". Again, so much hypocrisy.

The Republican party has run this country for 20 of the past 28 years. Do the math...this isn't the results of "Democrats" in congress for the past 2 years. This is mismanagement on a much larger scale and many greedy self serving politicians should be held responsible, right? Well they will be. It is election season, and even those in states that haven't voted for a Democrat in over 40 years are changing colors.

The Republican party has out stayed it's welcome, and it is time to clean house and start fresh. So those of you who can't take it, leave...isn't that what many of you have said to others who complain about our country? Take your own advise...

This country needs a chance to move forward into a new and healthy place within the global community, and I for one, believe we have that chance. I only wish we didn't have to listen to the constant whine of people who reject the obvious and will likely continue their hatred for anyone they deem unworthy. Isn't that Palins description of "Elite"...

I just recieved this:

This is in response to your Email message registering your views on  the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This legislation provides $700 billion in financial assistance to help stabilize the economy.

I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important issue.  Although Congressional leaders worked in a bipartisan effort to improve the terms of the economic rescue plan that Treasury Secretary Paulson proposed, I do not believe that the final product was in the best interests of the American taxpayer.

I voted NO today for the same reason that I voted against this bill on Monday. The financial recovering legislation does not address the needs of those Americans who have lost their homes to foreclosures.  Last month, over 300,000 households lost their homes. They didn't get a bailout. This bill is not a cure for the real problem. We should be helping to ensure that hard working Americans do not lose their homes to risky credit schemes by an under regulated industry.  The unscrupulous behavior of some companies has created the financial crisis that plagues the credit liquidity market and it is time that those responsible were held accountable.

Thank you for your correspondence. I hope you will continue to keep me apprised of your views on the vital issues facing our nation.

Sincerely,

Wm. Lacy Clay
Member of Congress

• I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".
•        When I invite a woman to dinner I expect her to look at my face. That's the price she has to pay!
• I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception     
• Here's to our wives and girlfriends... may they never meet!
• I find television very educational. Every time someone switches it on I go into another room and read a good book.
• Believe me, you've got to get up pretty early in the morning if you want to get out of bed.
• There's one thing I always wanted to do before I quit...retire!
• I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.
• I married your mother because I wanted children. Imagine my disappointment when you arrived.

This is a letter I received in response to my letter asking Mr. Clay to NOT vote for this bailout:

This will acknowledge your Email message registering your views on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (HR 3997). This legislation would provide $700 billion in financial assistance to address the credit liquidity crisis.

I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important issue.  Although Congressional leaders worked in a bipartisan effort to improve the terms of the economic rescue plan that Treasury Secretary Paulson proposed; however, this legislation failed passage. I was among the majority who voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. 

I share the concerns voiced by an overwhelming number of American citizens who believe that any bailout of the financial services industry should address the needs of home owners and taxpayers.  I do not believe that Congress should bailout Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.  Some of the problems with the House bill are:


- Foreclosure Mitigation is Voluntary: The taxpayers are being saddled with all the risk, but the lender is “encouraged” to minimize foreclosures (Sec. 109(a)) [Page 24]

- Taxpayers Can be Saddled with Assets of Any Type: The bailout has been expanded to include car loans, auto loans and any other financial instrument as determined by the Secretary. (Sec 3 (9)(B) [Page 5]

- Severely Limited Judicial Review: Courts are prohibited from issuing any injunctions or relief on the basic premise of the legislation and the conflict of interest rules. (Sec. 119(a)2(A)) [Page 58] 

- Executive Compensation Loopholes: Multiple loopholes for corporations to escape the limitations on golden parachutes, incentives, bonuses, and corporate deductions for executive salaries. (Sec. 111 and Sec. 302) [Page  29-32 and 98-109]

- $700 Billion Cap Loophole: The Secretary can sell assets and continue to buy more assets as long as the total purchase value remains under $700 billion. Any losses during the sale of assets are not considered. (Sec 115(b)) [Page 40] 

- Foreign Company Loophole: The bailout has been opened up to foreign companies with “significant operations in the United States”(Sec. 3 (5)) [Page 4]
 
- Foreign Central Bank Loophole: The bailout has been opened up to foreign central banks that hold bad assets from failed or defaulted financial institutions. (Sec. 112) [Page 32]

- No Fix of the Underlying Regulatory Failures: The next administration is required to send numerous reports to Congress. Unfortunately, Wall Street will have already received its bailout and have no incentive to support new reforms. (Sec. 105 [Page 17]

  - Full Authority to Spend $700 Billion: Congress has a mere 15 calendar days to object to the Secretary spending the second half of the $700 billion bailout. The President can veto the measure requiring the customary 2/3 to override. Besides this bailout, when is the last time we passed anything that fast? (Sec. 115(a)) [Page 39-40]
 
- Insurance Rates are Not Required to Follow Risk: The Secretary “may” (as opposed to the mandatory “shall”) set insurance premiums based on risk. Not setting premiums based on risk could leave the insurance trust fund seriously underfunded and leave taxpayers liable. (Sec. 102 (c)2) [Page 10]

- Money-Making Mergers: A loophole allows corporations to use a merger or acquisition to buy up troubled debt at below market rates and sell to the taxpayer at the higher government rate. (Sec. 101(c)) [Page 9]

Thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Wm. Lacy Clay
Member of Congress

WLC/iii

By Martin Masse
In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal and on this very page, have made declarations in favour of the massive “injection of liquidities” engineered by central banks in recent months, the government takeover of giant financial institutions, as well as the still stalled US$700-billion bailout package. Some of the same voices were calling for similar interventions following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001.
“Whatever happened to the modern followers of my free-market opponents?” Marx would likely wonder.
At first glance, anyone who understands economics can see that there is something wrong with this picture. The taxes that will need to be levied to finance this package may keep some firms alive, but they will siphon off capital, kill jobs and make businesses less productive elsewhere. Increasing the money supply is no different. It is an invisible tax that redistributes resources to debtors and those who made unwise investments.
So why throw this sound free-market analysis overboard as soon as there is some downturn in the markets?
The rationale for intervening always seems to centre on the fear of reliving the Great Depression. If we let too many institutions fail because of insolvency, we are being told, there is a risk of a general collapse of financial markets, with the subsequent drying up of credit and the catastrophic effects this would have on all sectors of production. This opinion, shared by Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and most of the right-wing political and financial establishments, is based on Milton Friedman’s thesis that the Fed aggravated the Depression by not pumping enough money into the financial system following the market crash of 1929.
It sounds libertarian enough. The misguided policies of the Fed, a government creature, and bad government regulation are held responsible for the crisis. The need to respond to this emergency and keep markets running overrides concerns about taxing and inflating the money supply. This is supposed to contrast with the left-wing Keynesian approach, whose solutions are strangely very similar despite a different view of the causes.
But there is another approach that  doesn’t compromise with free-market principles and coherently explains why we constantly get into these bubble situations followed by a crash. It is centered on Marx’s Proposal Number Five: government control of capital.
For decades, Austrian School economists have warned against the dire consequences of having a central banking system based on fiat money, money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can easily be manipulated. In addition to its obvious disadvantages (price inflation, debasement of the currency, etc.), easy credit and artificially low interest rates send wrong signals to investors and exacerbate business cycles.
Not only is the central bank constantly creating money out of thin air, but the fractional reserve system allows financial institutions to increase credit many times over. When money creation is sustained, a financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more credit creation and to even higher prices.
As prices get distorted, malinvestments, or investments that should not have been made under normal market conditions, accumulate. Despite this, financial institutions have an incentive to join this frenzy of irresponsible lending, or else they will lose market shares to competitors. With “liquidities” in overabundance, more and more risky decisions are made to increase yields and leveraging reaches dangerous levels.
During that manic phase, everybody seems to believe that the boom will go on. Only the Austrians warn that it cannot last forever, as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did before the 1929 crash, and as their followers have done for the past several years.
Now, what should be done when that pyramidal scheme starts crashing to the floor, because of a series of cascading failures or concern from the central bank that inflation is getting out of control? It’s obvious that credit will shrink, because everyone will want to get out of risky businesses, to call back loans and to put their money in safe places. Malinvestments have to be liquidated; prices have to come down to realistic levels; and resources stuck in unproductive uses have to be freed and moved to sectors that have real demand. Only then will capital again become available for productive investments.
Friedmanites, who have no conception of malinvestments and never raise any issue with the boom, also cannot understand why it inevitably leads to a crash.
They only see the drying up of credit and blame the Fed for not injecting massive enough amounts of liquidities to prevent it.
But central banks and governments cannot transform unprofitable investments into profitable ones. They cannot force institutions to increase lending when they are so exposed. This is why calls for throwing more money at the problem are so totally misguided. Injections of liquidities started more than a year ago and have had no effect in preventing the situation from getting worse. Such measures can only delay the market correction and turn what should be a quick recession into a prolonged one.
Friedman — who, contrary to popular perception, was not a foe of monetary inflation, but simply wanted to keep it under better control in normal circumstances — was wrong about the Fed not intervening during the Depression. It tried repeatedly to inflate but credit still went down for various reasons. This is a key difference in interpretation between the Austrian and Chicago schools.
As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, “Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...”
The confusion of Chicago school economics on monetary issues is so profound as to lead its adherents today to support the largest government grab of private capital in world history. By adding their voices to those on the left, these confused free-marketeers are not helping to “save capitalism”, but contributing to its destruction.

Financial Post
Martin Masse is publisher of the libertarian webzine Le Québécois Libre and a former advisor to Industry minister Maxime Bernier.

Photo: Karl Marx

 From CNN's Emily Sherman

WASHINGTON (CNN)— Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists

Saturday night, while on a stop for cheesesteaks in South Philadelphia, Palin was questioned by a Temple graduate student about whether the U.S. should cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

By ALEXANDER BURNS & DAVID PAUL KUHN  (politico.com)

A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven — and sometimes downright awkward — performances in her limited media appearances. 

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.” 

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” 

“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.” 

There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers. 

Asked about Palin's performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: "She did fine. She's a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate."

Sure she is, don't ya know...heck, she knows a "bad guy" from a "good guy", and that alone gives her the ability to be  Vice President, right?

Oh, and she can sling a mean gun, so I know she has Cheney in her court...

I keep listening to stories relating to all the time our Congress and House are putting into the near collapse of our financial institutions and stability of our country as a whole. WOW!!!!!! They are actually spending some time at their jobs and not campaigning?

John McCain and Barack Obama have spent the past two years working on their campaigns, while maintaining their position in Congress. Who gets two years off with pay, to attend to personal agenda? Many more of the men and women who we elect are eager to leave Washington, because they too have campaigns waiting for them. Thanks, for nothing!

We are all responsible for this absolute disregard for our financial safety. Not only have we allowed these idiots to make fortunes far beyond what most of us will ever see; we stand by and watch as the future of our stability as a country is put at risk by their greed and self engrandizement.

I personally am sickened to think these MORONS are now going to form MORE oversight committees. How good could they possibly be at watching themselves, when they stood by watching, and probably profiting from this insane situation?

Isn't this kind of like letting the prisoners run the prison?

"Don't you think we've had enough boobs in the White House"?

Entertainer Dolly Parton, answering her fans on whether she should run for President...

So what if Palin has only been in office for 20 months? How many women would even be allowed to INTERVIEW for a position of this magnitude with that type of experience?

So what if Palin promotes abstinence in schools? Perhaps, when her young daughter needed some personal attention and guidance, her Mom was too busy doing what she does (and what is that exactly?).

So what if the Republican party has spoken volumes against women as feminist? Isn't Sarah Palin a perfect example of a feminist? She has her children, yet they are put on a back burner to her career. As a mother and a working woman, I have had to make choices that concern my  ability to perform both "jobs". I have made the "choice" to be a mother to my daughter, and I am not sorry. I feel you cannot have it both ways. Because powerful men do not raise their own children, this is a precedence. I doubt her capability to perform the job.

Is Sarah Palin a pawn? Most certainly so, and any one who believes she has the credentials to perform in office if something were to happen to McCain, is a hypocrite. Haven't the Republicans accused Obama of the same inexperience?

The Republicans needed to get attention. They have it for now, but let's see what happens when the going gets tough, and Sarah has to call in to work, because her baby is sick...

Please....................

I am adding this blog:

It is my understanding that many who where not sure of McCain, will now vote for McCain because of Sarah Palan. So, who has, or will be running the White House? It is true then, when we have questioned Cheney and his radical influences on Bush, as to who held the strings. Could Palan have that much influence on McCain?

I have never been in the position to wish death on anyone. Yet in saying this, I do not find death to be the worst punishment you can impose.

When I think about how I would feel if given the circumstances, and I were facing charges resulting in the penalty of life in prison, without parole, or the death penalty...I would take the needle.

Repeatedly though, it has been proven the wrong person has been prosecuted. In several cases, through DNA, many unfortunate  people, have been wrongly accused and prosecuted. Say what you will, but, solving the case is more the priority than working the case, perhaps without honest results or any results. Innocence has gone to jail. When did we become no longer innocent until proven guilty? Any one of us, whether trying to help a victim, or just being in the wrong place, could be accused. This is not CSI people. They are not going to bring in the forensic specialist. We live in a small minded, unprepared, get the job done, and who cares, town. Kangaroo anyone?

 You cannot kill an innocent man. I believe if DNA exists, all cases should be re-examined to clarify and solidify the verdict. Who allows Prosecutors ca rte blanch in this decision process? Are they not employees of the State? If there is ANY question regarding new evidence, the law of innocent until proven guilty should apply. Within my understanding of the death penalty, the majority never make it to execution. They exist in limbo indefinitely. The system is flawed. Or, better yet, CORRUPT! 

So, let's say you have IT ALL. The smoking gun, DNA, witnesses. WHY does it  cost over $1 million plus, to support death row inmates? Execution is minimal. When the proof is positive, why do they get 25 or more years to appeal?

Jeffrey Dahmer. Somehow, the Prosecution found a doctor to state that Jeffrey, a cannibalistic, trophy keeping, serial killer, was sane. OK? He  was put into general population. His "buds" didn't let  him suffer, or perhaps they did. But he was a serial killer, right?

I have so many questions regarding the methods used to "house" and "protect" the true sadistic criminals. Why give them more power? Isn't that what they crave?

I have to believe life in a prison is worse than death. Living in confinement, within a violent community of sociopaths, rapist, killers, child molesters and all levels of vile human beings, seems to me, so much more of a "death" sentence.

Do we have blind faith in those chosen to uphold justice? We have this very problem in the City of St. Louis. Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce has repeatedly refused to look at new evidence when presented. Why? I have my doubts anyone in her family would suffer the same disrespect or lack of attention.

The "object" of being a prosecutor appears designed, as a building block for aggressive individuals to move forward in a career goal. When those chosen to protect and uphold the law can be trusted, we won't have uncertainty within the prosecution of  people. Unfortunately, if even one innocent human being is denied their constitutional rights, our laws and human rights are being violated. Isn't it truly unfortunate, the violators are those we trust to uphold and honor our rights and freedom? What I find more dishonorable, is they walk their way to the top, off the backs of the people who have put trust in them and the system they represent.

Eliminate the death penalty. Use all resources available to protect the innocent. Prosecute to the full extent the guilty. Keep dangerous and repeat offenders (especially child molesters and abusers) out of society.

It will be freeing to let the innocent go and to keep those who do cause serious harm chained to a life of hell.

It seems so simply, doesn't it?

I was born and raised in Florissant. I have family living blocks from where this last "incident" occurred.

One of the many issues I have with this City, is the absolute denial and ignorance it has toward the violent crimes that are being committed on a regular basis. Wouldn't you think some information, actual information for the residents, could help to avoid this tragedy? Certainly it would. Look into this. There are no reports of the shootings at Dunegant Park, or the gang fight (with guns) on Patterson Road, after the Valley of Flowers. They do not want or will not accept the changes and therefore, they will loose the battle.

Florissants Government, is famous for their ability to ignore the problems they face. If it isn't acknowledged, then it doesn't exist. That seems to be a motto in this community. It is historically ignorant. The City Counsel is run by insiders with personal agenda, and the Mayor is more concerned with having his name plastered on any and all objects available, than recognizing the issues facing his community and constituents.

Florissant is in the midst of an influx of "diversity". It has been the cause of the flight of many. Housing prices are lower than almost any community with the resources Florissant has. Most properties are now rental. NOT GOOD. Does this effect City Hall?

The Council recently approved and built a big fountain in the old town area of Florissant. Great. Just what they need when people are being carjacked at Crosskeys, shot at gunpoint, property is violated for copper, parks are invaded by teens with guns, Grocers have eliminated prosecution against theft for fear of retaliation, teens are terrorizing neighborhoods, guns are at schools, roads are eroding, etc., etc., etc.

Florissant has a rich and vital history to St. Louis. It holds one of the oldest residents, built by the Spanish during the occupation. The Spanish gave the land to the French to build a town and church. It is historically relevant. There are buildings and structures dating back to the 1700's. The names on the streets declare the founding Fathers of the town. It is absolutely an abomination to watch this city become a victim to the violence plaguing so many areas of our community.

Why, and Who are those allowing this to happen? DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A young girl is fighting for her life. I pray she has the strength to pull through this tragedy, and I pray her family is capable of forgiveness.

 Minutes before her attack, just blocks away, another robbery, similar to this, took place. Unfortunately, the people hired to protect this city were probably sitting in a parking lot somewhere, catching points for the numerous cameras placed to catch those "vile" offenders of "turning right on red, without coming to a complete stop". Florissant isn't alone in this travesty, yet they are guilty. If there were only justice for the people, to prosecute the lack of performance towards those who are given the job and responsibility to secure our children and community.

I can only hope and pray the City of Florissant has as much tenacity as this young girl, and finds the strength and wisdom to pull through it's own tragedy.

On this day, the day we should be celebrating our independence, many of us are questioning. What went wrong? When did we loose our freedom? Can we truly pronounce ourselves independent?

I find these to be among the most powerful words ever written.

Declaration of Independance (in part)...adopted by Congress, July 4, 1776, 232 years to date...

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer-able than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

"let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Who knew, in 2008, these words would be "self-evident"?

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot, wields all the power and authority, and everyone else is considered their slave. This form of despotism was the first known form of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical Despot

"Why do they lock gas station bathrooms?" he once mused. "Are they afraid someone will clean them?"

Whatever your feelings about George Carlin, he was a brilliant satirist.

"Carlin's jokes constantly breached the accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are taboo on broadcast TV and radio to this day.

When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.

When the words were later played on a New York radio station, they resulted in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.

"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year." (AP)

I had the pleasure of seeing Carlin in person once. I felt he was relevant, yet more than anything, I LAUGHED OUT LOUD!

I, for one, will miss the man, and his quirky sense of humor.

Rest your soul George, you have a new audience...

I am like many when it has come to drilling on protected lands. I too, would hate to see beautiful, natural environments destroyed.

Yet, after watching this, I wonder if perhaps I am thinking selfishly. Could this be done with the best intentions and the best safety standards? Could we become self sufficient from foreign oil? Have we put ourselves in a corner, when the solutions are within our reach?

The portion of this video pertaining to oil speculators is what I feel could be accomplished now. Why are we allowing them to control the futures of oil, if they are in part responsible for the rising gas prices?

Please take a minute to copy and paste into your URL and watch...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY