I’m sure Pachalbel never meant for his Canon in D to be played like this, but this video is awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/v/A5Sl8sZuT-U
Reminds me a lot of what Trans-Siberian Orchestra has done.
Rock On Pachalbel
Reply
Monthly Archives: August 2006
Judge Has Conflict of Interest
I already said the ACLU went judge shopping before they filed their case in Michigan. Here’s the proof.
U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
I don’t think there’s any may’s or maybe’s about it. This judge should have never heard the case because she has a conflict of interest. I hope somebody files a complaint with the bar association.
The Next Weird Al?
My Cubicle
Artist: Unknown
Duration: 2:02
Created: Tue, 22 Aug 2006
Category: Music
Musician: James Blunt
I have no idea who wrote and sings this song, but the guy is going to be the next Weird Al. He must have visited my cubicle one time.
BSI (Bad Science Investigation)
Lawyers and so-called “experts” do the Tango
Did they have grounds to sue?
A liberal Carter-appointee heard the ACLU case against the NSA surveillance program. Before filing suit, I’m sure the ACLU shopped around for a sympathetic judge. The outcome was no surprise.
Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional
A federal judge decision’s to strike down President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was the first ruling over its legality, but surely not the last. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Thursday that the program violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Normally, you have to prove that you were hurt somehow before the judge rules in your favor. None of the people who filed suit claim that their own phones were actually tapped, therefore no harm was done to them. This is one of those cases were the judge is making new law and not following the law as written.
Just like the Newdow case, SCOTUS should throw this one out because the plaintiffs had no grounds to file suit.
