A presidential "signing statement" is a written proclamation accompanying the signing of a law passed by Congress. The statement might be something as simple as a press release, or a flag of constitutional concerns to later get courts to pay attention to the president's take on a law's "legislative intent." Political scientist Christopher Kelley groups them into three categories:


Congress and many lawyers are becoming upset over the number of these signing statments, saying that President Bush intends to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Bush's signing statements now number over 750, and many if not most are constitutional challenges.



John Dean, former White House council to Nixon writing for FindLaw calls it misuse:


I don't think he is "nullifying" any laws by these statements. Now if Bush then issues these same signings as an edict to certain branches of government in which case they become an executive order I might be more inclined to agree. But even an executive order doesn't carry the force of law unless made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress. I would say that rather than misuse he intends to add muscle to his position if his actions are challenged later.

As I am not even close to a legal scolar in any sense of the word and I am way over my head with this post already, but if Bush asserts that he can bypass laws, or intends to expand his power at the expense of Congress, then that isn't that up to the courts to decide, not congress? Yet Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has this to say [emphasis added]:


Now as non-legal authority my understanding is that "judicial review" is pretty much similar to how Wiki explains it: Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice.

So I have just one question. Why doesn't Congress and many lawyers stop wetting themselves over this and use the courts as the Constitution indended? For some time we have had the courts deciding the legality of actions bypassing the legislative branch. Now we have the legislative brance wanting to bypass the courts in deciding judicial review.

Saturday July 22 thousands marched in London from Whitehall to Hyde Park, while others protested across the United Kingdom.


This is hard to hear but the YouTube video below is George Galloway speaking at the London rally where he said: "I am here to glorify the resistance, Hezbollah. I am here to glorify the leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah." (about 30 sec in)




Harry's Place has more and is right on with his title: London's pro-fascist rally.

Lennin has a sickening rant at Lenin's Tomb. Most people's heart goes out to the innocent civilians on both side of this war, but Lennin's leftist pro-fascist stance doesn't allow him to concider the Israeli innocent that Hezbollah and Hamas intentionally targets.

You know, I am beginning to think that much of this anti-war crowd isn't really anti-war at all, only anti-good guys winning. Hard to believe anyone can hate Israel and the US that much.

H/T Dean's World.

Snow performs a blues number, "Stormy Monday," with Leslie West. Although he's no BB King he puts out a respectabe showing with the flute and saxophone.




Update: My sitemeter is buzzing today thanks for the link Bill, and welcome to INDCJournal readers.

Tony Snow to Helen Thomas: "Thank you for the hezbollah view." (Video)

Via The Queen.

I've seen a few really good quick change routines (once in person) but nothing as impressive as this, even though a couple are sort of easy to figure out. I just can't stop watching it!




H/T Gay Orbit - via Dean.

Not yet, you still get to decide where you want to surf, what to read, post to a blog or share media. Not to mention when. But there are lobbyists who are spending tens of millions to convince congress that their clients should decide. The bill is the telecommunications bill (S. 2686).

These are lobbyists for the internet providers. Those who had nothing to do with inventing or building the internet. These internet provider services want to tier the internet so that what is available to you is determined by what sites you may wish to visit will put in their pockets. Of course the bill says that they cannot deny service to any site, but if the provider doesn't make big bucks from your surfing they can give you a slower access tier regarless of your connection speed, and slow enough to make it little different from no access at all.

But rather than explaining it further watch the videos below. The first one is a documentary.




This second video clip is a graphic that lays out in simple laymans terms just what lies ahead if the internet providers get the control of the internet that they want.



This is about choice, our choices to choose our internet content. Let us not turn the internet over to people like AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre says "The internet can't be free."

You can click on a map here and find out how your Senators stand on Net Neutrality.

Or go here and find out more about how to save the internet.

Hmm prelude to another book deal?


Washington gets more crazy day by day.

H/T The Queen

This should have little chance of getting off the ground.


Research updated by politicans no doubt. Strange that the same people who balk at keeping porn out of the reach of children have no qualms telling a private business what adult activity they may or may not allow in their establishments.

Here are two versions of an illsions that are rather funny, but the reaction of the crowd (at least in the first one) is what will get you laughing. When I found this first illusion on YouTube I assumed that maybe a fake head was used.




However after viewing the same, or at least a similar illsion below on stage, it is apparent that the head isn't fake. Props of some kind are being used instead.



Anyone care to speculate in the comments on how this is done? I think the performer must be ducking down (while looking forward) with props to keep the cape or jacket rigid.

Here is a great educational game based on Constitution & the Civil War. At the end will be a conclusion as to how well your decisions agree with Abraham Lincoln.

Because I don't consider myself well versed in Civil War history I was surprised to find that I agreed with Abe on 12 of his 13 crossroads decisions. More surprising as well as humorous was the resurrected Abe's conclusion:

"Congratulations! You and I see eye to eye on the issues. Perhaps you should think about a career in politics."

H/T Dean

Journalists Rank amateurs playing the intel game.


Read the rest here.

A new developement from Segate using nanotechnology may increase hard drive capacity by a factor of 10, or about 7.5 terabytes for a 3.5-in drive.


No date yet for this new technology to show up in retail products.

Update: Cape Canaveral, FL had some nice Independence Day fireworks at 2:38 p.m eastern as the Discovery and its crew lifted off.

Today I could tell you what Independence Day means to me but many of you know me well enough to suspect, or have a fair idea what I might post.

Instead I am going to excerpt a paragraph from an Iraqi in Baghdad who wrote about what our Independence Day means to him.


Ali didn't know what "independence" meant growing up. Before we entered Iraq, to him independence was what paved the way to power for the Ba'athists. It wasn't until the day the Iraqis went by the millions to vote for their future that Ali started to think about independence in a new way. The right way.

If you love freedome and independence you should read Ali's entire post.

From the "hate America first" crowd we have this unsavory tribute by Howard Zinn for the 4th via The Progressive Magazine.


Yes our citizenry has been brought up different—at least most of them—to love most what Howard Zinn hates about America. Nor do I think most Americans believe it is wrong to bring civilization, liberty, democracy to other lands.

However as much as it angers me to see this kind of hate within our country, I will refrain from retorts over his use of our wonderful First Amendment freedom of speech. And if you find reading his article a bit depressing, watch the video in a post above this one.

Well Volkswagen has turned fiction into reality by developing the Golf GTi 53. The '53' because it was the number Herbie carried when racing in The Love Bug. It can also handle and avoid obsticles better than a human, and do so up to its top speed of 150 mph.


This all sounds pretty good in the article, but how well can it do off the test track. Can it avoid pedestrians as well as it does cones? Won't the GPS probably goes WHOOPS! in a long tunnel.

But on the other hand, I know a few people that are not safe to be on the road either... at any speed.

How does lab-grown meat with the aroma, texture and taste of the real thing strike you? It looks like it may be on our plates in a few years. Really the technology already exists now, and scientists have been growing small quantities of muscle cells to do experiments for some time. The trick now is to mass-produce meat in this manner grown from stem cells.


Much waste would be also cut out of the process of producing meat. Most of what we feed animals raised for meat is wasted. Not only passed through and not adding meat mass, but adding non-edible stuff like hair/fur, bones, skin, organs etc.

While in vitro meat would presently be way too expensive, finding the right nutrients could eventually make the production price competitive or below conventional meat.


I must admit my mouth doesn't water over the prospect of meat grown from a swirling mass of goo in a bioreactor. But then a only a few years ago hothouse tomatoes were pretty tastless too, but now have been improved to be about as good as home grown. Is this really any different?