james nunn | blog » WTF?

poor twitter…

James — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:18:47 +0000

No related posts.

When is a cake topper, not a cake topper?

James — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:49:19 +0000

“Huh?” you may be thinking to yourself. Well for those of you who live in the great State of Texas, you may have thought it amusing that when one purchased a sex toy that kind of looked phallic, that your receipt may have said “cake topper.” It’s been a joke for the longest time, but it appears this is quite true.

Anyway, it is being reported that the “5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by up to two years in jail, violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.” Let’s shout out a big hurrah!

So the question to ask now is what do I put on the top of my cakes from now on?

No related posts.

“Mail Call!” Another Signing Statement

James — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:22:43 +0000

I just don’t understand who in the Bush Administration thinks this was a good idea, given the happenings today in Congress.

WASHINGTON – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.

Source: W pushes envelope on U.S. spying (NY Daily News)

I’m still amazed that someone hasn’t challenged the legality of these presidential signing statements. What is ironic (to me) is that the president attached his signing statement to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act which “explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court’s approval.”

It just makes you wonder.

No related posts.

House Protections

James — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:52:28 +0000

Thanks to danah over at apophenia, I discovered that the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA pass the US House today by a vote of 410-15.

According to a ZDNet article, the bill was

apparently meant to restrict access to MySpace, the definition of off-limits Web sites is so broad the bill would probably sweep in thousands of commercial Web sites that allow people to post profiles, include personal information and allow “communication among users.”

The details will be left up to the Federal Communications Commission, and authority was provided that “gives more leeway to the FCC in devising a category of verboten Web sites.”

I find it interesting that this is “one” of those pieces of legislation that aims to help legislators with their election efforts in November.

No related posts.

Yates & Insanity

James — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:49:30 +0000

I was listening to NPR the other day, and they were discussing the insanity defense being used by Andrea Yates attornies (a defense that appears to have worked). After listening to this, I was left wondering – what is the apparent connection of “doing God’s work” and insanity. Yates, by her own admission, said that she needed to protect her children “from damnation” as she apparently had a vision that indicated that at least two of her children were on a pathway towards sin. In November 2004, a mother who cut off her baby’s arms in God’s name, as she wanted to give her children to God (she was later found not guilty by reason of insanity), and earlier that year, another woman from East Texas was found not guilty (by insanity) by bashing in the heads of two of her children with rocks (again, by carrying out God’s will). The women’s attempted to murder her third child, but according to the mother, he just “wouldn’t die.”

No related posts.