Friday, September 09, 2005

Seattle -- Day 1

The KJs arrived in Seattle this morning. After finally getting away from the rental car agency, we made it to the city. Some yummy fried fish from Ivan's I think and a trip to the grocery and it is bed time.

Also, it rained some this afternoon, which is shocking in this the dryest city in the United States.

Sadly, I have not yet seen a certified Left Coast hippy or an anarchist protester to show KJita.

My observations for the day:

Hummer's newest cousin kicks butt.

Katrina part MMCLXIV: A new excuse to bring in the shrinks to wussify and drug our children.

Luttig sides with Bush. I am not very comfortable with the way we are handling the Padilla case. Last I checked, the due process clause does apply to U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil. I would still support Luttig for Supreme Court though.

After a tip from their lawyer, they plead guilty.

Katrina may not have killed that many after all. Democrats regroup to discuss how to put a positive spin on this news.

Education is not the way to avoid crime. Education is the way to avoid getting caught.

Pain in the ass monkey.


At 11:49 AM, Blogger tee bee said...

Dry wit from rainy Seattle. I'm shocked that you haven't seen an anarchist. Oh, anarchist protester. Well, is the IMF in town? No UN conference? Are the Starbucks closed? Maybe they all went back to school.

The thing about anarchist protesters is that they don't like to carry signs, and they make for poorly organized groups when they roam the streets. And in Seattle, they look a lot like everybody else.

At 11:39 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

Last I checked, the due process clause does apply to U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil.

Hmm... yes. He was that.


And of course that explains why we must grant a man who chose to leave his country, took up arms against those who are sworn to uphold and defend her, then returned here only to murder her innocent citizens to switch sides again and use his 'citizenship' and his 'presence' on US soil as the sole reason why he should not be classed as what he (in truth) is:



1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force


one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat

But hey, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just the wife and mother of two suspicious types who the legal and political community believe should be afforded fewer Constitutional rights than upright members of the citizenry like Mr. Padilla: the military and the police.

Thank God we're being protected from the truly dangerous among us.

And no, that's not aimed at you, KJ. But law is supposed to be based on common sense and equity, not overnice technical distinctions. You choose your side, you live or die by it.

Estopp me if you've heard this one before.


Post a Comment

<< Home