In the news...

Okay, so this may be a litte bit of a rant, but what else have I ever written? :)
First - I have been against the project of putting a dome on the Oklahoma Capitol building since it was started. The argument I've always run into is: "it's being done with private donations." Fine, I've got little problem with that (although, I still think that they could use that money in better ways). But, I found out on the news last night that there is still $5 million to pay, and guess who is putting up that cabbage? You and Me - that's right, the taxpayers are paying the last $5 million on a dome paid for by private donations. I'm a bit upset by this, if you couldn't tell.
Then, I was driving to work yesterday, listening to talk radio (I've really got to stop listening to it, it just makes me mad). Jerry Doyle was on and he said that the best thing that could happen for this country would be that Tom DeLay gets tried, convicted, and led to jail in handcuffs on national television. Now, if DeLay is guilty, I've got no problem with that - arrest him and throw him in the slammer (I'm not going to line up to defend him, I don't know any of the details). But, can we have a trial first? Something in my head tells me that there's something in the Constitution that covers this situation. Ahh, yes, here it is, the sneaky 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." (emphasis mine). In other words, an indictment is not carte blanche to throw someone in jail. An indictment (by a Democrat prosecutor, just to throw in the party classification, and keep in mind that the prosecutor has lots of control over a grand jury because he/she is the only one presenting evidence) is not evidence of guilt, nor is it a verdict of guilty. So, let's just hold onto our ponies for a few minutes, okay?
The other thing that bothers me about this DeLay thing is the prosecutor's apparent willingness to have the press make a movie about the investigation before DeLay has been brought to
trial, much less convicted! Okay, that was one of my huge problems with the O.J. Simpson trial - it was all on television and the judge was playing to the cameras the entire time.

In other news:
The Senate confirmed Roberts as your 17th Chief Justice this morning by a vote of 78-22. Here's my theory about the 22 nay votes. They were made for one of several reasons:
1. Barbara Boxer's reasoning: I don't know enough about his views on abortion (definition: the killing of unborn children), so obviously he is pro-life and I cannot vote for him.
2. Harry Reid's reasoning: I need, as the leader of the Democratic Party (at least in the Legislature, Howard Dean has unfortunately not disappeared yet - although, we haven't heard much from him lately - did he comment on Katrina?), to send a message to the Republican Party that we will filibuster if they allow someone more conservative to come through.
3. Hillary Clinton's reasoning: I'm running for president in a couple of years, I need the support of my party, Harry Reid is voting no, I'm having a bad hair day today (when is she not? I can't really say that - that's an ad hominem attack - I apologize), and my pantyhose has a run in it, obviously I cannot vote yea on this.
4. Mary Kay Letourneau's reasoning: he's not young enough. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself, I thought of it and had to write it).
and 5. Justice Souter's reasoning: He's competition and I may not be able to steal his house (see Kelo v. Connecticutt).

Okay, that's your fun stuff for today (although, more may follow), enjoy!