I Am The Ombudsman Of The World

OK... here we go:

One, part A: It's not about spying. It's not about who is being spied upon. It's not about the ability to spy. It's about what the law says, and obeying that law. The law says you can't spy on Americans without a warrant. If that was a problem, the President should have gone about fixing the law... not breaking it.

One, part B: Breaking a law does not become NOT a problem because you are (a) the President, (b) leading a war, (c) you believe congress said it is alright. Breaking in to Democratic headquarters and breaking in to other Americans' phone records without a warrant are both against the law.

Two, part A: There is a difference between giving money to Democrats, and telling the Indian tribes whom you are ripping off and scamming to give money to Democrats. I'll call it the "buffer sucker"... when there is a middleman sucker operating between the criminal and the candidate.

Two, part B: Saying "Jack Abramoff and his clients gave money to Democrats" is not the logical equivalent of "0+2=2". It's actually the same as saying "Cheetos and the allied forces contributed to the downfall of Nazi Germany." So when you read about "Jack Abramoff and his clients" it in the newspapers, please recognize it as bullshit.

Oh... and just in support of Arnold (the motorcyclist... not the governor), who is getting flak for driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license: Puh-leeze. Every 16-year-old knows that a motorcycle license is the "high school diploma"version of drivers licenses, while a (car) license is the "college diploma" version of drivers licenses. If you have the latter, you do not need the former... as far as I know.

---

UPDATE

After a little research, apparently you do need a motorcycle license to ride one in California... but it could more accurately be described as a "2 Wheeled Vehicle license" and Arnold was riding a motorcycle with a side car... 3 wheels. Apparently he gets away with it this time.

---

UPDATE #2

Apparently nobody got my "Cheetos beating the Nazis" example, so I shall elaborate...


Abramoff's clients gave money to Democrats. Abramoff himself did not give money to Democrats. Journalists, in order to still pretend that Abramoff gave money to Democrats, are now writing "Abramoff and his clients gave money to Democrats", or, in other words, 0+2=2 as far as they are concerned. However, everyone without a clue who reads it will think that Abramoff gave money to the Democrats on his own... along with his clients. So therefore, it is like writing "Cheetos and the Allied Forces defeated the Nazis," knowing full well that it was the Allied Forces alone that defeated the Nazis... but thinking that you can throw "Cheetos" in there because 0 (cheetos) +2 (allied forces) = 2 (allied forces defeated the Nazis), but everyone who reads it gets the impression that Cheetos played a part in defeating the Nazis.

M'kay?