Low Blow from a Low Court
The absolute gall of it: Today, a Florida state court judge ruled that the state must release its list of nearly 50,000 alleged felons who will be barred from voting in November's election.

As you'll recall, the state of Florida purged about as many "felons" from the voting rolls in 2000. Of course, many of these voters weren't exactly felons, in the sense that they had never committed a felony, but most of them were almost certainly not Billionaires. And isn't that a crime in itself?

How does this arrogant judge (who probably draws an embarrassingly low salary) expect us to keep the election in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, where it belongs? Last time around, Bush's cousin called the election, his campaign manager certified the ballots, his brother ran the state, and his friends on the Supreme Court nixed the recount, and he still only beat Gore by 537 votes. If they take away our right to trim the voter rolls, where will we be?

Fortunately, if this ruling ever makes it to Scalia, we'll be fine...



- posted by Colin A. Faver

 
Stern Protests His Stern Rebuke
Potty mouth turned crybaby Howard Stern today alleged that Clear Channel Communications, owner of 1,200 radio stations nationwide, fined and fired him because he criticized President Bush's policies.

Of course, we don't dispute the substance of Stern's claim. Clear Channel executives, after all, have contributed over $42,000 to W.'s re-election as of March of this year, compared with a paltry $1,750 to Kerry. What's more, these execs, along with Clear Channel's PAC, gave 77 percent of their federal contributions to Republicans -- a bigger share for the GOP than any other entertainment company in the nation.

What's galling is Stern's naive assumption that he has the right to complain. George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of great Billionaire corporations like Clear Channel and Halliburton, and owes nothing to nouveau riche poseurs like Stern. If he's going to hijack our gigantic communications megalopoly to speak ill of our President, he shouldn't expect us to keep signing his paycheck.

Of course, he's more than welcome to exercise his right to "free" speech -- for free. Maybe in a nice city park somewhere.
- posted by Colin A. Faver

 
En Ron Hubris: Lay, down, speaks up.
In lieu of rumors that formal charges are eminent, former CEO of Enron Corporation, Ken Lay, broke his silence after a long period of strategic 5th amendment quiet in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

Rightfully so, Lay is heaping all the blame on scapegoat, er, turncoat, Andrew Fastow, Enron’s former Chief Financial Officer. What is disheartening is that Lay is speaking at all. Mr. Lay, you are rich, once a celebrated CEO and one of President Bush’s best friends. Need we remind you? Aside from an exceptional fraction of prosecutions important to uphold the "intergrity of the markets," the rich and powerful in this country go free.

You will not be indicted nor charged. All of these rumors are mere formalities to quench the commoners’ blood-lust. It is heresy to think that those same commoners will be allowed to lay judgment upon you, a rare occurrence the statistical equivalent of lighting striking a gold coin twice in the same pocket.

Let your money do the speaking for you. As CEO of Enron, we celebrated your skills in perfecting complicated layers of foolproof PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. Those well placed cards are now playing out nicely in the Justice Department. So eat a little crow for public consumption if you must, but please don’t get any on the floor, these types of stains don’t come up and set a bad precedent for the rest of us.



- posted by Monet Oliver d'Place