Suzanne @ 78

burns, prices like that are reasons why fans like me can’t attend concerts anymore :(

I know…The Stones in 1972 cost a whole $6 and I had to think about that, it seemed really high, but I paid it.

Suzanne…there are lots of concerts you can go see for around $6-10. It just won’t be bands like the Eagles…if you get involved with your local music scene you’ll find that there are lot’s of talented performers out there with a heck of a lot more going for them than the Rolling Stones (which are living off their past IMO). I live in Sacramento (largely viewed as a backwater culturally) and I can easily name 20-30 bands that simply kick my a** whenever I see them. And they are in different genres.

You simply have to take a little chance and do some research on MySpace (bands often put their music up for fans to get a taste)…and you don’t have to give up your nostalgic groups. You just allow yourself to hear groups like you did when you were young….and not fear the new.

Sorry gang – it’s in here somewhere…

I can’t find where a statement against the President (other than the Presiding member of the legislative body) is rebukable. And ASFIAK the rebuke has to occur almost immediately.

No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. Scob. 31, 33. 2 Hats. 166, 168. Hale Parl. 133.

No person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House, no prior determination of which is to be reflected on by any member, unless he means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats. 169, 170. Rushw. P. 3. v. 1. fol. 42. But while a proposition is under consideration, is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee, reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey 508.

No person in speaking, is to mention a member then present by his name; but to describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the question, &c. Mem. in Hakew. 3 Smyth’s Comw. L. 2. c. 3. nor to digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob. 31. Hale Parl. 133. 2 Hats. 166. by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a particular member. Smyth’s Comw. L. 2. c. 3. The consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who propose or advocate it, is a personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam, Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com. 1604. Apr. 19.

When a member shall be called to order, he shall sit down until the President shall have determined whether he is in order or not. Rule 16.

Clearly, this does NOT refer to the Presidenet of the United States, but rather the “Parliamentary President”.

No member shall speak to another, or otherwise interrupt the business of the Senate, or read any printed paper while the Journals or public papers are reading, or when any member is speaking in any debate. Rule 2.

No one is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6 Grey 332. Scob. 8. D’Ewes 332. col. 1. 640. col. 2. speaking or whispering to another; Scob. 6. D’Ewes. 487. col. 1. nor to stand up or interrupt him; Town. col. 205. Mem. in Hakew. 31. nor to pass between the Speaker and the speaking member, nor to go across the House; Scob. 6. or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the table, or write there. 2 Hats. 171.

Nevertheless, if a member finds that it is not the inclination of the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they endeavour to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason, or inattentive to a member who says any thing worth their hearing. 2 Hats. 77, 78.

If repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by his name any member obstinately persisting in irregularity, whereupon the House may require the member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offence committed, and the House considers the degree of punishment they will inflict. 2 Hats. 167, 7, 8, 172.

For instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons, and the proceedings thereon, see 1. Pet. Misc. 82. 3 Grey 128. 4 Grey 328. 5 Grey 382. 6 Grey 254. 10 Grey 8. Whenever warm words, or an assault, have passed between members , the House, for the protection of their members, requires them to declare in their places not to prosecute any quarrel; 3 Grey 128, 293. 5 Grey 289. or orders them to attend the Speaker, who is to accommodate their differences and report to the House: 3 Grey 419. and they are put under restraint if they refuse, or until they do. 9 Grey 234, 312.

Disorderly words are not to be noticed till the member has finished his speech. 5 Grey 356. 6 Grey 60. Then the person objecting to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the clerk at the table, must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the clerk to take them down in his minutes. But if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the clerk to take them down, as stated by the objecting member. They are then part of his minutes, and when read to the offending member, he may deny they were his words, and the House must then decide by a question whether they are his words or not. Then the member may justify them, or explain the sense in which he used them, or apologize. If the House is satisfied, no farther proceeding is necessary. But if two members still insist to take the sense of the House, the member must withdraw, before that question is stated, and then the sense of the House is to be taken. 2 Hats. 199. 4 Grey 170. 6 Grey 59. When any member has spoken, or other business intervened after offensive words spoken, they cannot be taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common security of all, and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken down immediately. Formerly they might be taken down any time the same day. 2 Hats. 196. Mem. in Hakew. 71. 3 Grey 48. 9 Grey 514.

Disorderly words spoken in a committee must be written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to the House for animadversion. 6 Grey 46.

The rule of the Senate says, if a member be called to order for words spoken, the exceptionable words shall be immediately taken down in writing, that the President may be better enabled to judge. Rule 17.

Once again that is the “Parliamentary President”.

In Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against the king is against order. Smyth’s Comw. L. 2. c. 3. 2 Hats. 170.

But we don’t have a Parliament or King…last I checked. And there is nothing further that Jefferson’s Rules speaks on about this.

Those are the rules of the House.

I cut Pete Stark as much slack anyone here. He’s a Patriot and a forceful voice for Progressive issues and values.
That is an apology I don’t want to see him have to make.

Actually the President of the House (yes there is a presiding officer, and it isn’t Nancy) rules that Stark had not violated House Rules in his statement. He hadn’t made a personal attack on a fellow House member (by name). Bush isn’t in the Congress.

At the same time he likely could actually use this to make another statement that gains high profile..a pointed “Non-Apology Apology”.

He could state that he hadn’t after all accused the President of getting amusement from watching the heads of soldiers getting blown off. He accused the President of allowing this, and the killing of innocent Citizens, to continue a WAR that is his amusement.

But then he could say he was incorrect in saying that the President did this for his “amusement”. “I should have used a different word…he allows these deaths to secure some sort of historical legacy. By passing on this “unwinnable war” to the next President he believes that he can obscure the fact that he led us into this quagmire, and evade the responsibility of ending it.”

Wiretapping Compromise Was Months in the Making
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU

During a long committee debate behind closed doors Thursday, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, proposed an amendment to strip the immunity provision from the bill. But it was defeated on a 12-to-3 vote, with only Mr. Wyden and one other Democrat, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, joining Mr. Nelson.

holy cow! i think this means that sheldon whitehouse didn’t just vote for the entire bill – he specifically voted for telco immunity!

we’ve got to make a ton of calls on monday to 1) find out wtf is going on and 2) encourage a change of heart.

this is seriously depressing. i thought we could count on the support of whitehouse on this type of issue.

J.K. Rowling has outed one of the main characters of her best-selling Harry Potter series, telling fans in New York that the wizard Albus Dumbledore, head of Hogwarts school, is gay.

The Iranian government announced Saturday that its top nuclear negotiator had resigned, a move seen as a victory for hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that could bring about an even tougher stance in ongoing talks.

Government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham, said Saeed Jalili, a little-known deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, was to succeed Ali Larijani as lead negotiator effective immediately.

America’s Working Poor Stretching Paychecks to the Breaking Point

These are the people who the sociopaths at the WSJ editorial page call “Lucky Duckies” because they don’t pay much income tax.

This story hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, but I believe it will pave the way for many other soldiers who object to the tragedy in Iraq to get out. This sets an interesting precedent. If other soldiers choose to follow suit in big numbers, it could mean serious trouble for President Bush and an Army already failing to meet recruiting goals.