Gatorrrrrr

2006-05-11T21:59:00.000-04:00

Check me out as the AJC.com/Gwinnett Norcross Blogger!

Its the little things...

2006-03-24T19:03:00.000-05:00

I hate it when people point fingers and complain about things, yet they do nothing about correcting it or even offer solutions. Yet, for the most part, that’s exactly what I did in my last article. I said this is the problem, that’s a problem, but didn’t go so far as to offer any real solutions to the problems within the community.

I’ve always been impressed with the little things in life. A lot of us are, and don’t realize just how much we can and do appreciate them. Shirley Franklin, mayor of the city of Atlanta, taught us that the little things add up big. When she took over the city as mayor, she started small by promising to patch all the pot holes in the Atlanta streets, even if she had to go out and do it herself. Southwest Gwinnett would do well to follow that same rule of thumb. There are plenty of things that they can organize the community to do that would make immediate impact with little to no funding.

Gwinnett Village (aka Southwest Gwinnett Community Improvement District) has already done a great job of obtaining support of over 500 business owners in the area, essentially creating a committee of business owners in the area. The next step is to contact all of the Home Owners Associations within the area and begin the formation of a Gwinnett Village Homeowners Committee. This committee will elect one individual to serve on the Board of Directors for the Gwinnett Village. That is how they will begin to draw support from homeowners and add to their already impressive support from business owners.

Next step, communication, communication, communication. This is the easiest of probably of all the steps. Once they have identified and established a relationship with their audience, they must keep their attention. First thing they need to set up is an email newsletter, or even a blog or both. A newsletter should go out atleast once a month. A blog should be updated a minimum of once a week. Once every quarter, the Board of Directors should meet with each committee separately. On the last Saturday at the end of every quarter, there should be a town hall meeting of the entire community, citizens and business owners alike. This meeting will detail business matters, quarterly progress, and tasks yet to be completed by years end.

Now its time for more action and less talking. Its time to actually have something to show for. The trash has to go. Most of it is just pieces of paper, cups, and cigarette butts. All across the area there are groups that have adopted either a highway, or stretch of road. Churches, civic groups, boy/girl scouts have adopted roads in the past Encourage them and more to do the same. Maybe even hold a contest to see who has managed to keep their adopted area in the best of shape. Reward them. Name them in the newsletters. Maybe even a business owner in the area will step up and donate a prize for the monthly or quarterly winner. Another option would be to encourage the courts to use as penalties clean up and other projects the Gwinnett Village has targeted around the area for those convicted of minor crimes. Repaint the faded yellow and white lines on the streets. Fill pot holes. Paint street lights, and any other similar public structure. Pressure wash the medians and sidewalks.

Add greenery and color. Engage the local gardening club to spruce up some weed ridden and unsightly areas with low maintenance plants and flowers. There is a major home improvement retailer within the confines of Gwinnett Village, I am betting they would love to use this as a marketing opportunity in exchange for such greenery and supplies. If there is not such a gardening club, well this is an excellent opportunity to organize one.

These are examples of the kinds of small things that combined can make a huge immediate impact. More importantly, these are the kinds of things the community can come and do together allowing the Gwinnett Village to put more attention to the bigger issues the region is faced with. It allows the community to actively participate in making a difference. Hopefully that difference leads to the biggest needed change of all. Attitudes. All the cosmetic changes that are planned may be for nothing if we neglect and fail to change attitudes and instill a sense of pride.

SW Gwinnett: Portrait of an Identity Crisis

2006-03-05T10:19:00.000-05:00

I consider myself a freshman citizen of this community, only having lived here for a year and a half now. I went on the path to buying a home that was a little rough around the edges and would inspire my imagination, and located in a bustling but charming community. Instead, I feel as if I got just the opposite, a home that really all it needs is some basic updating, and a community that’s rough around the edges and loaded with possibility. I’ve lived in other areas of Metro Atlanta from Stone Mountain/Decatur to Midtown and Roswell to Acworth. These areas of have their own issues to deal with, but they also had some semblance of pride and a community. So far I have not seen that since moving to SW Gwinnett. I drive around town and see homes and buildings in disrepair, trash along the streets and just pure apathy and irresponsibility. When someone drives up 85 or on any of the surface streets what impression do you think people have? Is that the impression you want them to have? Are we a business community? The stereotypical small town American community? The smallest international city? Just a ‘suburb of Atlanta’?

The answer is we are all of those things and more. The problem is there is no tie that binds our community together. Operations like the Southwest Gwinnett Community Improvement District and the Gwinnett County’s Operation Broken Window are attempting to breathe a new life in our community and launch our community into the future. Those operations may have a good start, but it is not enough. They have a larger problem to deal with if they cannot rally the community together and define its identity. The SWGCID must do more to reach out to homeowners more and gain their support, and more importantly involvement, just as they have begun to do with the business community. The county made a great step with Operation Broken Window, but now it is time they put their foot down and say enough is enough. The county needs to be more proactive enforcing existing building code and occupancy violations

This community is not a lost cause. It can be revitalized and reinvented. We are the Gateway to Gwinnett. We should be the mold by which all others envy and follow. Grant Park, East Point and College Park are prime examples it can be done. But it cannot do so without a sense of pride and development of community from its citizens and businesses working together.

So now I offer this challenge to the entire community to answer and act on this next question:

What are you going to do to affect change and help our community define its personality and identity?

Lets answer this question – together. Show me that I was right to believe this community has the potential I saw when I chose it as my home. We are bound to reap the rewards when we do.

SCHMASCAR!

2006-03-02T11:50:00.000-05:00

Why are we trying to bring that stupid NASCAR museum here so badly? Dont we have enough rednecks to deal with around here? Certainly the $102 Million can be put to better use... like ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh transportation and the sewer system? I dont see that museum being THAT big of a draw or THAT much help to Atlanta.

Casinos... now thats the way to go! Im officially taking up a "Lets Bring Casino's To Atlanta / Support Rob Pitts - Fund" collection. Who's with me? They would do two wondeful things for Atlanta - boost convention business again........... and tourism. Both very high goals for ACVB.

2006-02-28T11:44:00.000-05:00

Dear Psychopath-JackAss-In the Teal Green Saturn that was behind me at Jimmy Carter Blvd and Buford Hwy,

I do not know what the fuck I did for you to cuss and scream and flick birds at me yesterday at about 3:45pm yesterday. Which you followed up with trying to get around me in the next lane and almost running into the tailend of a Black Dodge Ram Pickup thats 4 times the size of your car... the you decided to swirve around him in the turn lane.. JUST so you can continue cussing me out and flicking me off and then drive like a bat out of hell and swirving in and out of traffic down Jimmy Carter Blvd and nearly causing about 4 other wrecks in the process.

Please let me know what I did. Because, the next time I see you behind me I will have to do it on purpos this time so you actually HAVE a reason to act like an idiot. Yes, in your case.. I would actually lower myself to that level just to get at you. You actually made me laugh. You see.. normally.. Im the one honking my horn and cussing and flicking people off. But the difference between you and I... they GAVE me a reason to do so. In my case yesterday... I can only go when the person in front of me moves too. And the people in front of me can only do so when that lil set of lights (which btw.. are not there for decoration regardless of what you may think) turns green. When we made it to the light.. it had just turned red. Which means... we stop. I know... your so much more important than everyone else... but your going ot have to come to realize... that if that were that true... you woudlnt be driving yourself.. nor would you still be in the second year production of the Saturn line.

Sincerely,
The guy in the Black RAV4 who blew you a kiss, purely to piss you off even more and nothing more I assure you, as you drove by me cussing, screaming and flicking me a bird for absolutely no reason.

More Pain. Less Comfort.

2006-02-22T09:17:00.000-05:00

About a year or so ago, I wrote a very, I guess some would call, disturbing article about the Abu Ghraib scandal. I basically said that those who were involved and charged should get the same treatment that the prisoners effected did. I said that we should be above that. That we should be setting the example. That we are more - civilized- than that.

I'm going to make an exception to that rule regarding Michael Morales, a prisoner on death row for beating and stabbing a 17 year old girl to death. His execution was postponed because some anesthetists complained that it violated their oath to protect life. Their claim stated they couldn't perform the lethal injection because Michael would feel pain. They went on to say that the sodium pentathol may not be enough and that the executionee could wake up as the other two injections (one to stop from breathing, the other to stop the heart) were taking effect.

Fine. They have a point. As medical doctors, their job is to protect life.

However, comfort to this animal should not be a concern. Not considering what he did. While I believe we should be more civilized and set a better example, I also believe what comes around goes around. The 8th Amendment, as Kenneth Starr points out, does not allow for that form of capitol punishment.

I keep thinking, if that were my daughter... would I feel justice was served if I knew steps were being taken to make him comfortable while he passes on while my daughter wasn't given the same courtesy? Does thinking that make me as much of an animal as Michael Morales?

I would want vengeance.
I would want justice.
I'm not sure Terri Winchell or her family is getting either.

Point Two Fingers

2006-02-16T11:38:00.000-05:00

I, Gatorrrrrr, am about to surprise alot of people. Take a seat, and prepare yourselves.

I hate guns. I think they are the most vile contraption on the face of the earth. No. That is not the surprise. Ive thought alot about the situation with Dick Cheney and the hunting excursion turned "Honey, I shot my friend!"

While I have complete disgust for guns, I have to look at this situation involving the Vice President as objectively as I possibly can. As I understand the story, Whittington basically walked into the line of fire. VP pulls trigger, gun goes bang and a series of pellets litters the air.. and Mr Whittington.

Yesterday, Mr. Cheney went on Fox News took all the blame. Which, since I have the utmost respect for him, I found very honorable. But, the way I see it, he's not totally to blame. To point blame, youll need two fingers.

One finger to point at VP Cheney for not being more aware of his surroundings before firing. Its safe to assume since he said to Mr. Whittington that "I didnt see you there" that he was in fact.. not aware of his surroundings.

Another finger pointing to Mr Whittington for walking in to the line of fire to begin with to pick up a dead bird that obviously wasnt going anywhere anytime soon. Now.. this is a big time lawyer.. who has made millions. Yet, he didnt have the common sense to know not to walk into the line of fire? Yea, I wont be calling him if I need defending.

I will still hold my stance, that this would never have happened if guns werent involved in the first place. No one should have that much power at their command, regardless of the situation. Including it would seem, the Vice President.

Labeled: Tyrant

2006-02-10T14:31:00.000-05:00

I have been in a somewhat grumpy mood this week. I blame it on my very good friend Ellen as we seem to be psychically linked somehow and I get to share in the joys of PMS with her. Then I go to check my email this morning and see an email from someone that has labeled me a tyrant. Ive never been called a tyrant before. Should I be offended or take it as a compliment? Is it befitting? Lets see... according to Websters Dictionary:

ty•rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-rAnt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

Hmmm Im not a ruler of anything with the exception maybe of my meager little townhouse... but even then I am making payments to my mortgage company. So.. that doesnt exactly fit. I dont hold any sort of political office ... yet... not even with my HOA. I guess you could count my dog as someone I rule over.. nah... he's too happy to feel tyranized.

So what could I have possibly said or done for someone to call me a tyrant? Im baffled myself. So I read the rest of the email and the comments made. Then it hit me... Im a tyrant because I actually want to encourage responsibility. Responsibility.. is a forgotten concept I think. It would appear that "Anonymous" doesnt agree. So is it my political views "she" doesnt agree with, or my views on abortion - or the responsibility we should take for our choices we make in life.

So... instead of re-hashing over and over again my position on abortion (which seems to be what is really being argued here).. Ill just plainly play the good tyrant.. err I mean guy and just answer "her" questions and reply to comments as best I can because "Anonymous" miserably tried to use many comparisons to my views on abortion that had nothing to do with abortion. I know.. Im confused too. So here we go.

I can't help thinking what a tyrant you sound - make a woman give birth to a child she doesn't want? Come off it, will you! Why not 25 children she doesn't want? Why not invade Iraq?

Did she and her mate make a conscious decision to have sex that resulted in 25 children? I would probably say yes. And I would also probably say they are also the last people that should be replicating too. It’s about the choice the couple made (again... assuming it was consensual). Accident or not, the choice was made... they should accept responsibility EQUALLY for those actions. So is your basic argument that we should not take responsibility for our actions? That’s even scarier to hear than my view on abortion. Oh and what does Iraq have anything to do with this? Next question?

Oh, look, put it this way - Say you have an ex-partner. They qualify as a doctor. They like you, are on good terms with you, yada, yada, once a year card at Xmas.

Here's the thing. What if they had the right to bring you to the doctor for a checkup, nine months after you broke up?

Assuming its because she's pregnant and there is without a doubt his child... They both made their bed, time to lie in it - together. The concept of responsibility seems to allude you. But I would have to ask.. did she TELL him she was pregnant before then? If he did know all along.. and he desserted her for this length of time.. then he made his decision... whatever happened at that point was her decision to make. Its a shitty deal if that were the case... no doubt. But you dont seem to willing to look at this issue from both points of view. Im giving each party equal responsibility.... both with a choice to make - hopefully together. Your saying... oh well yes.. we had great sex.. and yes.. you got me pregnant.. but.. Im sorry.. its up to me to decide whether your a father or Im a mother. I know its not a perfect world we live in, I am purely saying this is how it SHOULD... and CAN be. It just takes work.. and communication between both parties.

How about a biopsy on those dark moles? A session with a therapist about your habit of chewing your nails? Drop a couple of leeches on you, to purify your blood? Yeah, right. Hopefully they wouldn't dislike you enough to be so indifferent or sadistic. And an ideal world means that life isn't a popularity contest.

These are issues that are usually related to a singular person. Not the result of two people's choice(s) and mutual actions. Therefore, because no one else is equally to blame, it’s the choice of the individual assuming no one else is being harmed in the matter.

Im going to go out on a limb and guess that you are referring to government intervention of some sort or another or forcing you or any other woman to essentially turn you into a baby making machine. Well because biologically speaking, you are. Sorry.. thats the way nature intended it. Dont blame me or the rest of the male species for that. Men=farmer; women=crop. Crude way of putting it, but none the less true. And no I dont think women exist solely to be barefoot and pregnant. Its just purely a biological metaphor so dont get your lace thong in a wad. Now as far as someone making the fem-dom do something against their will – Im not suggesting that at all….. entirely. There are only two people that have a say so in the matter at hand… that is the parents of the child (again assuming its consensual). This is where my version of pro-choice comes into play. It’s the choice of the parents… vs the choice of only the mother. Need a lesson on the birds and the bees? I would hope not. OK… so.. lets say theres a problem with the health of the mother. Well then the parents need to come to a mutual agreement.. and lets just hope that.. well.. the father isn’t so self-centered as to force her to still have the child to put her life at risk. In fact.. in that instance, I would say the mother then has a solitary decision in the matter.

Or .., what if they could have a law that made you have a circumcision, whether or not you and your current partner wanted one? Ouch! None of these things have anything to do with you - and they are all relatively minor, painless, elective procedures which "are probably for your own good". Aren't they?

Hold on a second. What has any partner got to say about another person having a circumcision? Right? Sure, right now, right. But ... What if it's for somebody's good? Or god. Should you have the right to walk out and say that you don't care to go through this? Or something that hurts a Lot worse?

Nice try on the low blow darling, but it ain’t gonna work with me. Why? Because I am circumcised. I cant miss anything I don’t ever remember having. But, you actually help me to make another one of my points. That point is this, couple does the nasty, they work together to come to a mutual conclusion on the arrangement of the “family” (ding)… said “family” has decided on whether to circumcise or not. (ding ding) WOW! You mean.. people can actually communicate.. AND can work together towards a mutual understanding? Whoever invented that concept should like win a Nobel Peace Prize or something!

Not, you say, if someone, somewhere, has a superstitious notion that it might do good. Pain equals good. So long as it is being imposed on someone else.

Hey.. some people enjoy pain, so dont knock it unless youve tried it. And for those that feel like pain is being unfairly imposed by my idea of “pro-choice”… perhaps they should have considered that before having sex if they didn’t wanna take EQUAL responsibility for whatever may happen afterwards.

Examine your reasons, please! Pluck your eyebrows. Tell me you don't mind the class bully doing it too - to you. Now, what was that about having ma baby?

Eww.. Nooooo thank you. When or IF I were to ever subject my offspring to this world – not that I ever plan on that happening- I would want to make sure the mother of MY child was well educated and had a sense of… responsibility.

2006-01-31T11:25:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Supreme Court Justice Alito.

Internally Predjudicial Hypocrits!

2006-01-24T10:26:00.000-05:00

Dear GLAAD,

Get over it.

This is calling the kettle black. How many of you refer to your fellow homo's in casual conversation as "girl"? For you to be insensed about this comment is purely hypocritical. You are basically saying that its ok for a gay man to call a gay man "girl", but it is not okay for a straight man to call a gay man "girl". You wanna fix the problem? Start internally and change the attitude within your own damn community first.

Same goes for the black community..and the latino community and every other community that feels its ok to call each other prejucicial names that if any other race were to call you that name you would be all up in arms over. Dont like it? Fix the problem internally where it probably exists most.

Bill Cosby was right on about this, but the problem goes alot farther than just the black community where he's particularly focused at.

Gatorrrrrr

"Thump Thump"

2006-01-19T13:31:00.000-05:00

Thump Thump

For years, Evangelical Christians have tried to find some way of instituting their biblical philosophies and ideals into public, or better yet, government / tax payer funded schools. They attempted mandating prayer in schools. They recently tried to masking the teaching of creationist theory into science classes as “Intelligent Design”. Both failed. And we can thank our founding fathers for not allowing that to happen.

The most recent holy roller invasion is now occurring in the Georgia State Senate thanks to some Senate Democrats. The idea they are wasting tax payer dollars on would authorize schools to offer an elective course on … the Bible and its influences on various subjects ranging from art and music to culture and politics. Sen. Tim Golden of Valdosta, Sen. Doug Stoner of Smyrna and Sen. Kasim Reed of Atlanta, all Democrats, are leading the charge for this measure. Oh.. and it just so happens to be an election year too. Can we say pandering? Naturally, the Republicans dont say that this sort of "elective" is a waste of time or a very bad idea.. and instead only mention that its an election year ploy.

Diving back into the journal of my mind, I recall a class I was required to take in High School. It taught us about societies, and cultures, even art and music and how they all came together and developed the day and age we all currently live in. That class was called.. History. I bet your thinking “Wow! What a concept! Isnt there something like that already?” We learned the very same things this class is aiming to teach in our current history curriculum. Why waste funding and effort on a duplicate class? Because its not specific to the Bible. That’s why. Why could they possibly want a class to teach the specifics of the Bible? Because that’s their sneaky little back up plan to get religion taught in public schools and pander to the Evangelical right for votes. Proselytizing or not. Elective or not. Its not needed, and as far as Im concerned - unwanted.

Georgia is currently ranked last in the nation in educational standards as it is. Why pull time, funds and other resources away to be dedicated to a class whose teachings is already included in an existing curriculum? I seem to recall a push for better math, reading and science scores. This class doesn’t help that cause. How will this class improve testing scores? The answer is it doesn’t. Plain and simple. Again, its all about someone’s agenda(s). Why not put those energies and funds to improving math, reading and science scores where its needed most. Why not create a mandatory class where high school seniors must pass a course on saving and investing. The curriculum for that sort of class already exists. That sort of class would be productive and a step in the right direction. There is little to no benefit to a course in “biblical influence”. Why not focus energies on getting parents more involved in their childs education? Hello? The parents are the key here even more so than the teacher is. If the parent really finds it that important for their child to learn about biblical influences – aside from whats already being taught already in the history curriculum – then why not go to their church and have that taught in their Sunday school, exactly where that kind of class belongs.

What happens if this measure does pass? It Senator Tim Golden states that the “elective” will not proselytize in anyway. Where is the measurement in what is considered proselytizing? How will it be monitored?

The thing that aggravates me most is I seem to be raising more questions than there are answers. Once again I have pointed out a lack of common sense with politicians and made them look even more dishonest and trustworthy. And they wonder why more people arent interested in politics. If this is our tax dollars at work, quite frankly, I want a refund.

Alito Hearings - a review

2006-01-14T16:34:00.000-05:00

Future Supreme Court Justice Alito's confirmation hearings have come to an end. What? Getting ahead of myself? I think not. The Re-pubic-hairs love him... they're in power... he's going to get the nod. Most Democrybabies hate him for one reason or another... but they're not in power. There are talks that they are going to try and delay the vote... and even filibuster (although unlikely). Plus.. the moderate Democrats like Lieberman will help to push him through.

I didnt get to listen to the entire hearings like I did with Judge Roberts. But I did get a good feel for Alito. Unlike his wife, he came across very confident, very poised, very thorough and thoughtful. He doesnt come across as a man who would ever use his personal beliefs in his rulings. Instead viewing and ruling each case with an open mind. He was attacked on his position of Roe v. Wade, and questioned thorooughly on other topics including Gay Rights and Marriage.

The Democrybabies tried to paint a picture of Alito as predjudice against using guilt by association regarding a conservative student group at Princeton who was once known to have protested the Universities racial integration policy. I find that appalling. That is like saying if I were a Democrat... and some democrats have committed murder or other such atrocities.. that all Democrats are just as evil. Or if a few Republicans have a certain belief structure... or certain opinions on politics and social issues.. that all Republicans have the very same view. Neither case is true.

Alito's performance was quite impressive considering the badgering he took during the hearings. The Democrybabies were too much on the offensive.. and included too much politics in their questioning. I believe it was Senator Biden who went 12 minutes issueing a lecture.. and ended up only asking 5 questions during one segment. The Repubichairs.. were not tough enough in my opinion. They were way to soft on him, however, much more respectful than the Democrybabies. This scenario is typical of modern day politics. Both are too focused on making the other look bad instead of focusing on the matter at hand.

Robertson Links Sharon Stroke, God's Wrath - Yahoo! News

2006-01-05T20:32:00.000-05:00

Robertson strikes again. You would have thought he learned his lesson.

Robertson Links Sharon Stroke, God's Wrath - Yahoo! News

Alito-izing Alito

2005-12-23T12:41:00.000-05:00

So.. they are doing their best to dig up any and every thing they can on Mr. Alito. They? The people who are doing their job. Lobbyists? Yep. Congressional panel? Yep.

The latest findings are regarding a letter he made on overturning Roe v Wade, and another on wire tapping. Both.. very important issues. One.. I have a definite position/opinion about.. the other.. I am still with the jury on.

Ive given a brief explanation on where I stand with abortion. Some would say its fucked up.. some find it interesting. I describe it as.. Pro Choice.. but not as its presently defined.

In the memo, Alito focused on a woman making an informed choice and states rights.

"While abortion involves essentially the same medical choice as other surgery, it involves in addition a moral choice, because the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and unreviewable authority over the future of the fetus," Alito wrote. "Should not then the woman be given relevant and objective information bearing on this choice? Roe took from the state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman. Does it not follow that the woman contemplating abortion have at her disposal at least some of the same sort of information that we would want lawmakers to consider?"

Based on this comment I have to disagree. While I am a proponent on some issues of giving more power back to the states, this wouldnt be one of those issues. If he had said "lets give more power back to the consentual responsible parties (ie: the parents) to make that choice"... I would say ok I agree. The next best thing I supposed would be to give that power of choice to the individual. The problem I have with that is.. the individual as described by Roe v Wade.. is the mother. There is no choice in the matter the father. Now in my version of Pro choice.. there is a valid arguement... How do you force a woman to have the child if its a consentual situation? I dont like that word "force". I am just of the opinion that it took two to make the baby.. why should only 1 get a say in the matter. Yes there are women that take their partners view into account. But more often than not.. they get the abortion without their partners consent. Talk it out.. work it out together.. if he wants it and she doesnt.. set up a surrogate situation.. and he reliquishes the mother of any responsibility. If he still wants it and she doesnt... I dont have the anwswer to that yet. I would hope that they could come to a mutual agreement. Ive been blasted about this opinion HEAVILY in the past, usually by feminazis. They are the ones that usually bring up that arguement.... and again.. its a valid arguement.. and I still dont have an answer to. When I find one.. Ill post it. But ... the father of the child - again.. assuming its consentual... should have some say so.

On wire tapping... FISA says they CAN do this...with a warrant... even retroactively / after the fact. Why Bush hasnt done either..and why his "counsel" said he didnt have to. Ill never know. How far are they "really" taking it? Are they really only wiretapping international calls? Should Bush be impeached because of it? I dunno.... good question. If so.. does the current Congress have the balls to do so? Current climate in national security certainly explains his reasoning for doing so, but is that enough not to follow the law even when it provides you an opportunity to get one retroactively. Ill have to do some more reading on this. However, if the law says this, then thats what he/they should be doing. They are certainly pushing the limits of their power. As for Alito's opinion is concerned, FISA went into effect in 1978.. and I am sure he supports it within the guidance of that particular act. Meaning.. get a warrant..and sure! If he is suggesting that those restrictions be loosened.. then he and I will probably be in disagreement.

Right now.. the wire tapping issue.. im not happy about.. but.. I dont have a formal opinion. National security is too much of a concern. On the flip side of that coin.. Im also concerned about how MUCH and to what extent they use that power. Whose monitoring it?

2005-12-05T10:32:00.000-05:00

Yahoo!
Monday, December 5, 2005, 7:15 AM PST
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Saddam Hussein has told the court in his trial that "I am not afraid of execution."

Learning from History

2005-11-15T10:02:00.000-05:00

Dear Residents of Atlanta.. and anywhere else where Delta has a major hub.

If Delta Execs get their way.. and they are able to nullify the contract
with the Delta Pilots... and the Pilots Strike...

We will be in for a world of hurt...

Delta.. is still the largest employer in Atlanta.

Picture for a moment if you will... all those people without jobs.

The economic damage caused by Katrina.. will be nothing in comparison to Delta going under.

Gwinnett commissioners discuss plans for coming year | ajc.com

2005-11-14T20:38:00.000-05:00

I have officially been a resident of Gwinnett County for a whoppin 418 Days. I had always heard how Gwinnett is the fastest growing county... how it has the largest school system in the state.... has the worst traffic problems in most of Metro Atlanta. So far.. I have no major complaints about the county and well for that matter its politicians. Mostly because.. I dont know much about them. That, however, will change dramatically. You see... I love politics.. especially on the local level. It turns out that my commissioners (who btw.. I didnt get to vote for as I moved here after voting took place) are going on a retreat to talk business.

So.. lets get to know the Commissioners.. and what they want to bring to the table.

Charles Bannister, Chairman

Experience: Insurance Agent; Lilburn City Council, Mayor: Lilburn; Served in the Georgia State House of Representatives and Elected again in 1992; Served in the US Marines.

Retreat Agenda #1: To charge developers a fee when they build things to cover the costs for setting up county services and anything else that may be impacted.

Me: Im not sure the developers would be happy about his. However, if it means lowering property taxes and other fees.... then so be it and those who pay taxes in this county dont have to make up for any shortfall because of it... Then so be it.

Retreat Agenda #2: Study ways to trim the$1.5 billion budget.

Me: Yes! And while your at it.. cut taxes too.

Mike Beaudreau, District 3 Commissioner

Experience: Graduate of Clemson University; youngest manager in the US for the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign team; 1996 and 1997, he was president of the Clemson College Republicans, the largest such group in South Carolina. His community involvement earned him a nomination to the prestigious Paul Coverdell Leadership Institute. National Accounts manager for Ricoh Corporation and elected to District 3 Commissioner in November, 2004.

Retreat Agenda #1: Beef up public safety.

Me:: Sure! Go for it.

Retreat Agenda #2: Doesnt want to study impact fees.. he just wants to plain impose them or tell the Gwinnecians why it cant happen.

Me: Again... if it lowers my taxes/fees/etc... Im all for it. However, I believe it will shy developers away from building in Gwinnett.. and if thats the case.. the citizens shouldnt have to pay and make up the difference.

Lorraine Green; District 1 Commissioner

Experience: Environmental engineer and president of her own engineering consulting firm. Graduate of Georgia Tech with a Bachelors in Chemical Engineering and a Masters in Environmental Engineering. Graduate of the Leadership Gwinnett Class of 2003. Elected to the Board in July 2004 and appointed to the Planning Commission as vice-chairman in 2001; Member of the Water and Sewer Authority in 2001.

Retreat Agenda #1: Institute a law Requiring property owners to hire a trash collection service. To "control the cost" to property owners... she would propose splitting up the county into regions and basically a contract handed out to those particular regions.

Me: Ok.. fine. make that requirement. However, no deciding who the property owner must use. Let the property owner decide that. Yes.. screen them.. decide who's qualified enough to do business and do it correctly. Homeowners and their associations should have a say in the matter in who they use... not the County.

Retreat Agenda #2: Save the trees! To be more specific.. take the ordinance already in place.. and take it to the next step to save more trees.. and require more trees between developments.

Me: Sure! Save on energy costs... soaks up pollutants. Go for it.

Kevin Kenerly; District 4 Commissioner

Experience: President of a Business and Management Consulting Firm. Member of the Board since 1995 and represents Buford, Sugar Hill and Lawrenceville.

Retreat Agenda #1: More impact stuff.

Me: Ditto to my last two comments on this subject.

Retreat Agenda #2: 1% raise to county employees to offset higher benefit premiums.

Me: Dont raise my taxes.. and thats fine by me.

Bert Nasuti; District 2 Commissioner

Experience: Graduate with a Bachelors of Arts in Economics (UGAly) Masters in Public Administration (GSU),Graduate of University of Georgia Law School. (coughsGO-GATORScoughs); appointed to Gwinnett County Recreation Authority in 1991, Municipal Gwinnett County Planning Commission in 1992, Gwinnett Revitalization Task Force. Elected to Vice-Chairman in 1995 and Chairman of the Planning Commission in 2001. Elected in 2002 to the County Commission and the Boards Vice-Chairman in 2003. More importantly.. he represents the area I live in.

Retreat Agenda #1: "Operation Fixing Broken Windows" to be made permanent and expand it county-wide year round for several years.

Me: Absolutely.

Retreat Agenda #2: New Precinct for Peachtree Corners. Currently operated from the precinct at JCB and I-85, he wants another precinct to be opened in a shopping center (vs developing a new building) west of Peachtree Industrial.

Me: If that increases the # of policemen as well.... go for it.

Gatorrrrrr VS Obama

2005-11-13T11:28:00.000-05:00

Television Awash in Sex, Study Says - Los Angeles Times

Obama called on television broadcasters to improve their program ratings system by making content advisories more prominent on the TV screen. He also said TV executives should make it easier for parents to locate family-friendly shows.

"If the industry fails to act — if it fails to give parents advanced controls and new choices — Congress will," Obama said.

Here is what he should have said instead:

"The industry already provides parental protection measures... the question is.. are they being utilized by the people? If anyone doesnt want to view such things... the ratings wouldnt be as high as they are. If they dont want to view such material... they should change the channel or turn on the parental settings in the first place."

Congress has plenty of other things to worry about other than how much sex is on TV.. who's watching it and who's not.

Gatorrrrrr VS Alito

2005-11-04T22:57:00.000-05:00

Experience on the Bench - Check

Background in Constitutional Law - Check

2 degrees from two of the biggest hoity toity universities in the United States (Yale and Princeton)- Very Check, althought Im not really sure why that is so important.

Conservatives got the man they want? MMMaybe. But they seem pretty happy with the choice.

Swears that he will not "legislate from the bench" - According to some quotes I have seen.. Check. Although.. I believe that has been a little blown out of proportion... I dont believe there is as much "judicial activism" as there claims to be.

Feminazi's happy? Ummm ... No Im sure not.

Faster than a speeding bullet.. able to leap tall building in a single bound...

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. There is no mistaking however that Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr, President Bushs second choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor as Supreme Court Justice, is no doubt more qualified than Miers. But is he the best man for the job? That remains to be seen.

For now what is important to me is how he has ruled on certain cases. We cannot, however, assume that his rulings reflect his personal feelings/beliefs... and instead - again based on his comments - assume he is in fact.. applying his interpretation of the law. I wanted to compare his rulings.. to my personal beliefs... as my determination.... if hes the best man for the job.

Lets start with the one topic that seems to have everyone up in arms.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The case in which the 3rd Circuit ruled against a Pennsylvania law which required women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion. Alito was the sole dissenter on this case and ruled that

""A husband has a legitimate interest in the welfare of a fetus he has conceived with his wife. The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

Basically, I take the (state your name) to honor and cherish blah blah in sickness and in health blah blah till death do us part. In other words... he had an equal part in causing the pregnancy.. so talk about it (atleast) and work it out. Personally.. I feel that the father (assuming the pregnancy occured from a consentual arrangement) doesnt have enough rights where pregnancies are concerned. Dont get me wrong.. I am pro-choice.. just not as its presently defined. Putting aside the whole arguement of insemenation by artificial means - It does take two correct?

This same case went to the Supreme Court and was also ruled in favor of Roe v Wade (and basically against Alito's ruling).

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 1

ACLU v. Schundler

One item that got me a lil hot under the collar with the Miers nomination.. was making a point of announcing her faith. That leads me to believe..well perhaps assume is a better choice of words.. that she would rely on her faith to make her judgements. To my knowledge, Bush might have learned his lesson this time about even mentioning it.. and instead.. the media is making an issue it seems out of his faith - Catholicism. Some in the media are questioning, if Alito is confirmed, 5 Catholics on the highest court in the nation. Personally.. I dont care.. so long as he is able to separate his two lives when making his rulings. Separation of Church and State is definitly one of the biggest hot button issues for me.

This case involves a city who had a Holiday display on grounds including a creche and a menorah, Frosty the Snowman. Alito wrote the majority opinion stating that because the display included secular and religious symbols.. the display was not un-Constitutional. Religious artifacts.. of any sort.. of any kind have no place on government property. The city was pretty cross-culturally inclusive, however, should have used better judgement in doing so on government property. The Constitution clearl y prevents an establishment of religion. Alito's ruling isnt in agreement.

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 0

Homar v. Gilbert

This was a case where a campus police officer was arrested on drug charges and suspended without pay. He sues stating the campus had "violated the officers due process rights by suspending him without pay immediately after he was arrested on drug charges."

Basically... he fucked up and got what was coming to him. Apparently Alito, who dissented again, agreed with the campus stating the officers rights were not violated. The Supreme Court later reversed the decision on a different arguement, but agreed with Alito's arguement.

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 1

* Guns: Voted to declare a federal ban on possessing machine guns unconstitutional, saying it exceeded the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. A majority of his court voted to uphold the law.

Guns bad mmkay? Plus.. what purpose.. does ANY civilian need with a fucking machine gun anyway. Apparently the market for gangs, stupid asses and morons is alot more lucrative than I originally believed.

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 0

* Harassment: Wrote a 2001 ruling overturning a school district's anti-harassment policy that included a ban on anti-gay slurs, saying it violated free speech.

Yea.. ummmm I agree with him here. Plus this kid needs to learn how to deal with situations like that anyway. If he doesnt... how would he ever make it 'in the real world'? He needs to know there are jackasses out there.. and how to deal with them.

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 1

* Bullying: Wrote a 2004 ruling saying a school district violated the rights of a student who was taunted by bullies with anti-gay slurs and was denied a transfer to a school that offered more protection.

I agree with this ruling... if his parents tried to move him to another school.. regardless of what their reasons for doing so are... and they were denied that option.

Alito - 1
Gatorrrrrr - 1

(* - Source: SFGate.com)

Score:

Alito - 6
Gatorrrrrr - 4

One thing I am not.. is a one issue voter. Meaning.. as you can see.. my personal beliefs are a 100% match to Alitos rulings, but if I were asked to vote for Alito... I believe he would get a Yes from me. Yes... I would.. even if we are only in agreement 66% of those issues covered. Even knowing those two issues where I disagree with him... two issues I have VERY strong opinions about.. I would give him a yes vote.

I look forward to reading more about him, his background, and his philosophies.

Not much of a surprise...

2005-10-27T09:15:00.000-04:00

CNN Breaking News

-- President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

From what I have read and hearing on the political talk shows.. this is probably best. I was concerned that her religion was (or seemed to be) such a factor in her nomination.

Excuse me?

2005-10-12T12:56:00.000-04:00

Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 9:19 AM PDT
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush says the religious beliefs of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers are part of the reason he picked her for the high court.

Yep. Gonna have to look into this a litte closer seeing as how its being reported her being "a born again Christian" and even more importantly.. an Evangelical Christian who are more likely than not to be extreme right wing.

Listen to the Founding Fathers

2005-09-18T16:13:00.000-04:00

There are many individuals that feel our freedoms, those granted by the US Constitution, are under attack. Among those freedoms includes the freedom of religion. Our constitution prevents the government from establishing a national religion. Yet, we have managed to have religious symbolism everywhere we turn in our government. Ten Commandments displayed in various courthouses (recently ruled unconstitutional), “In God We Trust” on our currency, and lastly… even “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words “under god” in its original form. In fact, in the early 1950’s, President Eisenhower signed legislation adopting the addition.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.

This move was clearly unconstitutional. This is exactly what our founding fathers, the author of the Constitution, and other Presidents following wanted and warned to prevent to prevent such legislation. One such founder, Thomas Jefferson, addressed this very matter directly with a religious organization.

"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt." James Madison - Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant, 1875

The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Newdow vs U.S. Congress that California Public Schools may not require its students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This case has been before the Supreme Court once before where the original ruling was that “under god” was unconstitutional, and (due to political, and to some extent social, pressure) the same judge that made the original ruling overturned and changed his own ruling.

Now, the Alberto Gonzalez, United States Attorney General, has vowed to overturn the latest courts ruling. (Chicago Tribune | Gonzales Says Justice to Fight for Pledge) Ironically, the oath of the Attorney General itself is un-constitutional as it states:

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How can he “support and defend the Constitution” if he is vowing to overturn a fundamental law of the very same document? It is a severe contradiction to swear by oath of office to uphold the Constitution and all that it represents while working to overturn a ruling a court decision on an issue that was obviously unconstitutional. Is he putting his faith and personal beliefs above the law? The ruling was correct. These were government funded/sponsored schools, therefore they are bound by the no establishment of a religion clause of the US Constitution. The ruling should stand.

So who exactly is doing the most damage to the freedoms provided to us by the US Constitution?

The John Roberts Saga: The Questioning Begins, Part 2`

2005-09-13T18:22:00.000-04:00

John Roberts has been thrown a multitude of questions on a variety of issues his way already today. They range from Abortion, voting rights, to the Separation of Church and State. Thus far, and my liberal friends will not like this, but Im actually impressed with Mr. Roberts. Based on his comments thus far he seems to want to know the facts before he makes a decision, he's adamant about looking at the big picture and base his decisions by keeping an open mind. As many predicted, abortion was a subject he avoided giving no clear yay or nay to the Roe v Wade decision regardless of how much Arlen Specter drilled him. Its a topic I have an certain spin on, and said opinion is not very popular. Senators Feingold and Graham dont seem to have grasped the concept that he cant comment or give his opinion on cases that either are or could face his current court or the Supreme Court. They are really grasping at straws bringing up issues when he first began his law career, specifically working with the Reagan Administration where he was specifically responsible for projecting the administrations policies assuming they were his opine. They are also bringing up some cases, where by the way he was paid to assist his clients interests, also as opines of his personal views. All the while, Roberts has maintained that he wouldnt be a very successful judge if he used his personal views in consideration of his decision. So far.. I have to grade the Senators questions a C-. I understand that they have to give some background on some of the issues.. so do it. Then get to your question. Dont beat around the bush.. Just ask the question you really want the answer to. Quit asking questions that he has repeatedly stated that ethics will not allow him to answer. Dont ask leading questions... such as "I dont believe that the burning of the flag is a freedom of speech.. how do you feel about that?" Dont tell him how you believe..... just ask the question.

Does this really have to be that difficult?

The John Roberts Saga: The Question Begins,...

2005-09-13T11:51:00.000-04:00

but will they let him answer. Within a 5 minute period... Senator Arlen Spector has asked Senator Ed Kennedy no less than 5 times within a 5 minute period to let Roberts answer. If he would shut up long enough and quit interrupting Roberts.. he may get an actual answer to his question.

The John Roberts Saga: Day 1 His Words, Some Notable Quotes

2005-09-12T18:20:00.000-04:00

"Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy and members of the committee.

Let me begin by thank Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me.

I'm humbled by his confidence and, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me.

Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for ther today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues — many of whom are here today.

Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient. He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose.

His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others.

I will miss him.

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.

Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.

I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, "I speak for my country."

But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.

Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.

That is a remarkable thing.

It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.

President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights. We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.

Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain, from the days of our youth, certain enduring images. For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana, stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land.

Growing up, I never imagined that I would be here, in this historic room, nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here, I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities, and that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment.

If I am confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I look forward to your questions."

---------------------------------

Tomorrow.. the interrogation begins.

Facing the Future: John Roberts

2005-09-12T00:06:00.000-04:00

Well the time has come, and we are before an ever changing Supreme Court as John Roberts faces the Judiciary Committee today.

Resume for John Roberts

Born:
1955 in Buffalo

Education:
BA, Harvard 1976
JD, Harvard Law School 1979

Work History:
US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit 2003
Attorney - Hogan & Hartson 1989-1993
Principal Deputy Solicitor General - President George H.W. Bush
Aide to Attorney General William French Smith (Under Ronald Reagan) 1981-1982
Aide to Fred Fielding White House Council 1982-1986
Law Clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, New York
Law Clerk for Associate Justice (at the time) William H. Rehnquist

Key Issues for Tomorrow's Hearing:

Separation of Church and State - In 1985 the Kentucy School Board sent a memo to then President Ronald Reagan requesting a statement of support for the requirement of the Kentucky Public Schools to post the National Motto "In God We Trust" and the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are grateful to the Almighty God for the civil, religious, and political liberties we enjoy". John Roberts reply.

Abortion - Roberts is on record for stating ""we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" in a brief in Rust v. Sullivan.

Some other issues to be brought up are: Torture of Prisoners of War, Civil Rights

Let the games begin.

Introducing.. me

2005-09-11T13:15:00.000-04:00

Who is Gatorrrrrr?

I dont really fit into any particular "stereotype". Im not fully college educated, nor am I some ultra successful business man. Im not a family man, but I believe in family. Im not a conservative nor a liberal, but a little of both. I am not wealthy, nor am I poor. I am a gay man, but that is not what defines me. There is, in fact, much more to me. I am an ordinary man, yet I am unique. I am very observant, yet at times I tend to read too far into things. I have friends and acquaintances from vast walks of life. I dont belong to any one clique. I love politics. I love college football, cooking, and poker. I am a home owner. I aspire to be more than what is expected of me. I want to be that 1% that broke all the rules to what makes one successful. I am very opinionated.. and very outspoken. But I am also passionate, ambitious.. and sensitive. I like to look at the big picture. But I am also very stubborn. Im very impatient.

I have a journal already where I talk about personal matters, this blog's utilization will be much more of a political nature, covering local and national politics, business and other civic matters. I will give my opinion/input on popular news events. I plan on getting involved in a political campaign, and other related and semi-related activities. I want to learn. I want to grow. I want to understand. I want to experience the things that effect us all. That is what this blog will represent. That side of me. No subject is off limits, all punches will be pulled.

What is this 'Jeckyl and Hyde' thing about?

I have a bit of.. well lets just say a temper, and it doesnt take much to alter my mood. Usually.. stupidity gets to me. Why I let things like this get to me.. Ill never know. There will be plenty of stupidity mentioned herein. In typical fashion.. Ill detail the stupidity (arguement).. throw in some facts... and end with my opinion. The more upset I get.. the.. more entertaining the read I am sure.

You must be this tall to ride this ride.