On Nov. 10, 2008, Joe Scarborough (left) said fleeting expletive "fuck" on air. Mike Barnicle, right, laughs as Scarborough continues without noticing his slip-up. A Supreme Court case will decide how to deal with this issue of unintentional cursing on television.

In the early 1970s, the Supreme Court heard a case about an anti-war protester who walked through a courthouse wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft.” When the Supreme Court heard an oral argument on whether the protester had the First Amendment right to do this, his lawyer was told not to use the word “fuck” in addressing the Supreme Court justices, who came from an older generation that did not throw around four-letter words in mixed company.

But the lawyer thought he had no choice but to say “fuck” in the ornate courthouse that is the symbol of American justice. He figured that it would hurt the case if he was afraid to say it when it counted most. He made the stuffy Chief Justice angry, but the lawyer won the case, and today Cohen vs. California is a landmark free-speech case, known for its logic that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

The word “fuck” is again before the Supreme Court, which heard argument a few weeks ago on whether the FCC can penalize TV stations when foul language makes it past the censors on live broadcasts. We are not talking about sitcom scripts or movie dialogue but programs like awards ceremonies when superstars who can’t control themselves say Fuck or Shit on live TV. We call that the “fleeting expletive.”

The Court heard the case on Election Day, an interesting coincidence. I have noted that this year’s presidential election has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court because some of the justices are nearing retirement and President Obama may have a chance to appoint two or three replacements. Change is near, and not just in the potential changes on the Court. According to a website that tracks Supreme Court activity, in the fleeting expletives case, “The court stenographer’s report indicates that ‘F-word’ appears in the transcript 16 times; that ‘F-bomb’ appears once, and that ‘S-word’ was spoken six times.” What caused the Supreme Court to blush in 1971 barely raises an eyebrow today, except that you still can’t say Fuck in court. Saying the “F-word” is enough.

I am not just being a smart-ass here. It’s not 1971 anymore. Television was broadly regulated for decades because it was the only game in town, and there were few TV airwaves, so the government had some leeway to regulate content, particularly vulgarities. We have all heard of George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words You Can’t Say on Television.” We celebrate Carlin’s wit and wisdom. But when the Supreme Court heard whether the FCC could punish the radio station for running Carlin’s vulgarities, the radio station lost the case even though the Court said that his words were not legally obscene. That’s because radio airwaves are not the street corner. There are zillions of street corners, but very few radio airwaves, so the government can more easily regulate them, particularly when children are listening.

The “fleeting expletives” case stems from the following facts, courtesy of Supreme Court Wiki: at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, “singer-actress Cher used ‘the F-Word,’ ” and in 2003, “actress Nicole Richie used variations of that word and used the four-letter excrement word.” At the Golden Globe Awards in 2003 on NBC, “rock singer Bono used a variation of ‘the F-Word’.” As a result of these outrageous disgraces, the FCC announced that it can punish TV stations for using even a single four letter word on TV. The Supreme Court has to decide whether the rule against “fleeting expletives” is legal under the First Amendment, or whether, at a minimum, the FCC has to come up with a good reason for prohibiting these fleeting vulgarities.

Lets step back for a minute and take a look at what’s going on. If network television is more carefully regulated than cable TV or satellite radio, the question is why? It’s not the 1970s, anymore, when no one had cable and, if you did, you got about 15 cable channels. Now everyone has cable, hundreds of channels, and network TV and cable TV stations sit side-by-side. If the F-Word is thrown around on cable every three minutes, then what is the point in prohibiting it on network TV?

You don’t need a foul mouth to appreciate my argument. The Constitution does not demand good taste. It demands common sense. The distinction between network TV and cable TV is non-existent. That normally is enough for the Supreme Court to say that regulating one entity is unfair if a comparable entity is not similarly regulated. I may be a dummy, but a quick Google search shows that a serious constitutional law professor agrees with me. Michael Dorf, Esq. writes: “The rationale for content-regulation of broadcast television and radio has long been the scarcity of electromagnetic spectrum: Government must divvy up the airwaves among broadcasters and so, the scarcity rationale goes, it can insist on their use in the public interest, which includes restrictions on profanity. The rationale was dubious when announced and has become laughable with the proliferation of cable, satellite and internet alternatives to broadcast tv, all of which fall outside of the FCC’s regulatory reach.”

The Supreme Court will issue its ruling by June 2009.

Yours & truly,

Steve Bergstein

Here’s the latest on the Cheney indictment in Texas from My San Antonio, a San Antonio news website:

Willacy County, Texas District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra in a recent YouTube video. Guerra failed to show up to court on his own grand jury's indictments.

RAYMONDVILLE — Willacy County prosecutor Juan Angel Guerra stumped a presiding judge and attorneys for clients as high up as Vice President Dick Cheney when he failed to show up to court on his own grand jury’s indictments.

The no-show infuriated attorneys who’d spent the day milling about with what they’d hoped would be slam-dunk motions to quash the cases.

And it put Presiding Judge Manuel Bañales in a position he said he’d never been in before.

“At the very least I expected the district attorney to be here,” Bañales said, asking Guerra’s office manager, “Do you know where he is?”

The manager, Hilda Ramirez, was subpoenaed by defense attorney J.A. “Tony” Canales when buzz circulated in the courthouse that Guerra was nowhere to be found.

Canales summoned Ramirez to act as representative for Guerra in hopes the motions could go forward.

She told the judge she had been trying to reach Guerra all day.

When Bañales asked if she were concerned for Guerra’s safety she said she would not know how to answer the question.

Guerra’s cell phone message box was full much of the day, but an assistant who answered the line late Wednesday said he was not ill.

Bañales said he would not hear the motions without the state present and set arraignments for Friday morning.

He allowed all defendants to waive court appearances and appear via their lawyers and set a jury to be called Dec. 8.

“The State of Texas is entitled to have its day in court,” he said.

Guerra, a 53-year-old Rio Grande Valley prosecutor who drew national attention for suing counterparts in the county justice system and staging a protest with barnyard animals, long has alleged high-ranking corruption in the deals that brought the impoverished county a $60 million immigration detention center.

On Monday, he got a grand jury to sign off on a slew of indictments including an acceptance of honorarium charge against state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., and an engaging in organized criminal activity charge against Cheney and Gonzales.

Cheney is accused of contributing to the neglect of federal immigration detainees by contracting for-profit prisons.

“By working through corporations as prisons for profit, Defendant Richard Cheney has committed at least misdemeanor assaults of our inmates and/or detainees,” the indictment reads, adding that a “money trail” can be traced to Cheney’s substantial investments in the Vanguard Group, which invests in privately run prisons.

This morning, attorneys filed motions to quash indictments “for prosecutorial vindictiveness and failure to allege an offense.”

“In most of the indictments, the prosecutor identifies himself as the victim. The prosecutor has usurped for himself the role of prosecutor, judge, victim, and director of the grand jury. His conflict of interest and abuse of office require that he be stopped,” Canales said.

A number of experts were shaking their heads at the indictment.

Shannon Edmonds of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, after reviewing a faxed copy of the indictment against Cheney and Gonzales, said he’d never seen one like it.

“It’s a creative indictment, but I don’t think it properly alleges any crime,” Edmonds said. “It’s more of just a rambling narrative … I think a court will find that it’s legally insufficient in that it fails to allege a crime.”

Chip B. Lewis, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Houston whose clients have included former Enron chairman Ken Lay, said, “It’s a shame. I’m not a Cheney supporter by any means. I’m Democrat. But the misuse of our criminal justice system is apparent … It just smacks of partisanship and it’s a shame that credence can be lent to this type of charge because you have a grand jury indictment.”

Lewis said, “I don’t think he (Cheney) will ever spend a day in court.”

We’ll keep you up to date on this story as it breaks.

Yours and truly,

Fe Bongolan from San Francisco

“And some say that God doesn’t exist.”

That was the reaction of Andrew Sullivan, the conservative columnist for The Atlantic to today’s breaking story about the Cheney indictment. I doubt all conservatives will be as relieved.

Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales (among others) were indicted by a grand jury for “engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers.” The indictment awaits a signature by a judge.

The Otay Mesa, California detention center is managed by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), based in Nashville, Tennesee. Photo by Robert Nickelsburg / Getty.

Regional reporters have had their eyes on the growing system of for-profit prisons that have popped up like summer dandelions all along the Mexican border with the United States. This includes prisons in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona where most immigrants pass across the border — legally or illegally. But with our eyes locked on Iraq and our see-sawing economy, most Americans have lost interest in the fate of thousands of imprisoned illegal immigrants.

As this story develops, you can be sure Americans will have to examine the failure of yet another American institution — our justice system and it’s practical adjunct, prisons. Willacy Country, where the grand jury deliberated the evidence for the indictment, lies at the far southern tip of Texas, just a few miles from Brownsville and the Mexican border.

The geography is important because Willacy County’s local troubles gives us a microcosmic picture of two persistent problems of the American justice system — immigration and incarceration. Immigration law was supposed to be one of Bush’s priorities in his first administration. He was supposed to be on good terms with then Mexican President Vicente Fox. What happened? September 11th happened and national security trumped regional, or rather continental, welfare. Gone was the hope for comprehensive immigration reform that benefited both our neighbor to the south and us. Instead we built for-profit prisons by the hundreds and herded illegal border-crossers (men, women and children) into these permanent holding pens.

The profit angle of these businesses isn’t appealing, either. Privatization was originally sold in the mid-1980s as a means to reduce the costs of incarcerating a growing population of prisoners. But as laws changed and the prison population grew, profits shrank. Back in 2001 (when John Ashcroft was Attorney General) a Department of Justice monograph, “Emerging Issues On Privatized Prisons,” concluded that “rather than the projected 20 percent savings from privatization, the average savings was only about one percent, and most of that was achieved through lower labor costs.”

If money isn’t on the table here, at least there’s power. As more details emerge, a tale of small-town politics and internecine intrigue, coupled with conveniently distant DC power players, suggests this story is going to rival the most cynical of political/criminal thrillers. Here’s why: companies like Corrections Corporation of America specifically target money-hungry small towns for their prison projects.

At first this seems like a win-win situation for everyone. Small towns get jobs and a new industry, and companies like CCA get inexpensive land and labor. But the hand that feeds, also beats; small town becomes company town, and with the local economy at risk should their biggest employer leave, no one wants to challenge the corporate sugar daddy. Those who do, pay for it with their reputations and careers.

Cheney and the rest seem far from these local political machinations, but their distant power posts and their ability to influence contractors and lawmakers at the heart of the for-profit prison business means the indictment’s conflict-of-interest questions add up to a whole lot more than just investing in an industry they hoped would turn a profit and add a little to the retirement kitty.

With Cheney’s name at the head of this indictment, perhaps more of us will get curious about our “privatized” prison industry.

Additional links of interest:

The Truth About Private Prisons, by Jenni Gainsborough (2003, alter.net)

A regional reporter’s view of the Cheney story: the narcosphere.

Corrections, a documentary about the return of for-profit prisons.

Two leaders in “privatized correctional and detention management” (a.k.a. for-profit prisons):

The GEO Group

Corrections Corporation of America

Yours & truly,

Shanna Philipson

Today Mercury is opposite Admetos in Taurus. It’s a very interesting relationship having to do with the mind (Mercury) and a Uranian Point called Admetos.

Photo by Danielle Voirin.

This aspect finds Mercury in Scorpio. Hickey describes this energy as being swift, sharp and aware of weakness, knowing precisely where to strike. My other sources concur that Mercury in Scorpio is on an inexhaustable search for the truth, and delves into the heart of the matter on this quest. This is not the kind of Mercury given to letting things lie for the purposes of an illusion.

Some famous people with Mercury in Scorpio include Pablo Picasso, John Lennon and Deepak Chopra: with these men, the intense, delving, philosophical mind is highlighted.

Simply put, Mercury in Scorpio is that FBI agent obsessed with finding the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god if his eye falls upon you.

Trans-Neptunian Points, TNPs or Uranian Points are not bodies in space, but rather sensitive points in the fabric of the Universe. If you were to jump into a rocket ship and try to find Admetos, you wouldn’t be able to — it’s not there in the sense of something you can stab a flag into.

Here at the Planet Waves bat cave, we prefer to call them Uranian Points to keep clear of any confusion between TNOs and TNPs. I will save the TNO talk to a time when there’s one being aspected, but to keep it clear, the TNPs (Trans-Neptunian Points) do not exist in the sense of a planet or a comet that can smash into a planet.

The Uranian Points were first established by Alfred Witte, founder of the Hamburg School of Astrology. The purpose of Uranian astrology was different from that of more traditional methods of astrology, in that it is more precise compared to traditional astrology’s evocative tendencies.

Martha Lang-Wescott writes that Admetos is about “facing blockages…encountering delays…taking inventory…storage.” For a more detailed definition of Admetos from her website, click here. There are quite a few sites devoted to Uranian astrology interpretations. One of the better ones I’ve found is here at this site. Eileen Naumann, Uranian astrologer from the tripod site linked above, suggests that Admetos is about blockages, as well as sludge, seeds, the origins of problems and the beginnings of growth in a medical or earthy sense, as well as soul recovery and extraction.

Admetos is in Taurus today, further highlighting the earth-bound, bodily sense of this Point. I would suggest that this aspect has to do with searching for the heart of an ailment, or understanding in a holistic sense the problems and illnesses of the self and others. Scorpio-Mercury slices down to the heart of the matter on its quest for the truth, while Admetos presides over seeds and the beginnings of things. It seems to me that this is about the Truth and about Origin and our relationships to them.

The Moon is in Virgo today: adding emphasis to matters of health and maintenance.

Merry Met,

Genevieve

A Texas grand jury has charged US Vice-President Dick Cheney for “organised criminal activity” related to alleged abuse of private prison inmates.

The indictment says Mr Cheney - who has invested $85m (£56m) in a company that holds shares in for-profit prisons - conspired to block an investigation.

A judge has yet to approve the indictment against Mr Cheney.

The indictment has not been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it.

Mr Cheney’s spokeswoman declined to comment, saying his office had not yet received a copy of the charges.

One Texas lawyer said the charges were politically motivated.

‘Conflict of interest’

The indictment was overseen by county District Attorney Juan Guerra, an outgoing prosecutor at the end of his term of office.

He cites the case of Gregorio De La Rosa, who died on 26 April, 2001 inside a private prison in Willacy County, Texas.

The grand jury in Willacy County, near the US-Mexico border, accuses Mr Cheney of committing “at least misdemeanour assaults” of inmates by allowing other inmates to assault them.

It said there was a “direct conflict of interest” because Mr Cheney had influence over federal contracts awarded to prison companies.

US grand juries weigh evidence to decide whether a case is worthy of being sent for a full trial, before issuing formal charges known as indictments.

The three-page indictment also alleges that former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales “used his position…to stop the investigations as to the wrong doings.”

The grand jury wrote that it made its decision “with great sadness,” but said they had no other choice but to indict Mr Cheney and Mr Gonzales “because we love our country.”

Several other related indictments were brought against a host of public officials in what one lawyer called a circus act by the outgoing prosecutor, Mr Guerra, who he said was seeking revenge in his final weeks in office.

It has now been confirmed that Hitler only had one testicle.

AN EXTRAORDINARY account from a German army medic has finally confirmed what the world long suspected: Hitler only had one ball.

War veteran Johan Jambor made the revelation to a priest in the 1960s, who wrote it down.

The priest’s document has now come to light – 23 years after Johan’s death.

The war tyrant’s medical condition has been mocked for years in a British song.

The lyrics are: “Hitler has only got one ball, the other is in the Albert Hall. His mother, the dirty b****r, cut it off when he was small.’

Until now there has never been complete proof Hitler was monorchic – the medical term for having one testicle.

But the document tells how Johan saw the proof with his own eyes. In the account, he relives the horror of serving as an army medic in World War I.

He died aged 94 in 1985, but had told his secret to priest Franciszek Pawlar, who kept a note of their conversation.

Johan’s friend Blassius Hanczuch confirmed the priest’s account of how the medic saved Hitler’s life. He said: “In 1916 they had their hardest fight in the Battle of the Somme.

“For several hours, Johan and his friends picked up injured soldiers. He remembers Hitler.

“They called him the ‘Screamer’. He was very noisy. Hitler was screaming ‘help, help’.

“His abdomen and legs were all in blood. Hitler was injured in the abdomen and lost one testicle. His first question to the doctor was: ‘Will I be able to have children?’.”

Blassius said that when the Nazis swept to power Johan began to suffer nightmares and blame himself for saving Hitler.

Hitler’s genitals have long caused controversy. Some historians dismissed the “one ball” song as propaganda. But an alleged Soviet autopsy on Hitler backed it up.

Records show Hitler did suffer a groin injury in the Somme.

It is the first time an interview with anyone who treated Hitler during WWI has come to light.

Dr Martin Farr, senior lecturer at Newcastle University School of Historical Studies, said last night: “This genuinely new twist is fascinating.”

AFTER THE RANCOROUS presidential primary between Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton for the nomination, one wonders why we’d be watching a Hil-and-Bill show once again as we ponder Obama’s possible appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State?

Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, before the US presidential election. Photo by Don Heupel/AP.

Utilizing talent from previous administrations to staff a new one is nothing new. In fact, one would not want to approach the Office of the President with its myriad trap doors, secret deals and back-door diplomacy without at least a few people on the team who know where the bodies are buried. And I am certain that the Clintons and people from their administration know a few locations.

The Clintons learned about the need for having some “graybeards” on board the hard way when Bill Clinton first took office in 1993. Going in as a unified and experienced team can help move your agenda through the already rough terrain of a hostile opposition party or even a recalcitrant party-in-power.

Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” on the Lincoln Cabinet is the current frame of reference on the forming of President-elect Barack Obama’s new cabinet. Looking at today’s events, Goodwin suggests picking Clinton would be similar to Lincoln’s choice of political rival William Seward for the same gig in 1861. “The parallel with Hilary is almost eerie,” Goodwin says.

It doesn’t surprise me that Obama, an avid reader of Lincoln’s writings and a great student of history would follow in the the footsteps of Illinois’ other favorite son. Obama availed himself of a choice between former “Clintonite” Bill Richardson, as well as Hilary for the Secretary of State post. Now there are those mostly hardcore Obama supporters still a bit miffed from the primary political wars who are totally ambivalent about the possibility of Hillary being on the Obama team. And there is actually some surprising support on the conservative side for it. Michael Goldfarb from The Weekly Standard writes:

Clinton would be a fine Secretary of State, and she is likely to be a nuisance to Obama whether she is inside or outside of his administration, but as our top diplomat she could reprise a role that made Powell a kingmaker in this year’s election. And perhaps she could even present the case for war with Iran to an insubordinate United Nations in the event that Obama’s personal diplomacy somehow fails to deter the mullahs from their present course.

With varying degrees of support coming from all sides for a Clinton pick, and the media piranha-fest waiting for the latest announcement on the final decision, The NY Times article linked above implies that the key decision may be Bill’s. He will need to decide what to compromise in his work for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and the William J. Clinton Foundation in order for his wife to assume this post. The Obama-Biden transition team ethics rules are:

• Federal lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.
• Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.
• If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.
• If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.
• A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

These rules apply to the potential appointee and their spouses. The Times article quotes a former Clinton aide, “The problem is it’s going to require some sacrifice by him…if he’s not willing to do that, it could blow up.”

Bill currently travels around the globe to promote the CGI, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from various organizations and countries for an individual speech. He also speaks on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, having raised more that $500 million dollars from countries around the world, some of which are at odds with the US, and funded construction of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The new ethics rules the Obama transition is pressing on potential cabinet appointees seem to be generating enough dynamic tension to create change within his own party, shaking up the party’s elite. It may also be creating some interesting dynamic tension between the Clintons themselves. Taking on a popular former President, who by his status as a private citizen is not as limited as a new President, I’m sure Obama must be smiling at himself for engineering the ethical choice that Bill and Hilary have to make. Referencing history as precedent, taking on this post may mean Hilary’s last job in politics, and would cancel a future Presidential run against the incumbent she served.

I’m sure Bill and Hilary, experienced in bloody-fisted Washington politics, are probably smiling secretly to themselves as well. We have two shrewd lawyers and a crafty politician (all interchangeable roles between the three, by the way) engaged in an unspoken mutual admiration society, or three-way chess match, between what is indeed a team of rivals. Like the case of the Rahm Emanuel appointment to Chief of Staff, are we witnessing the use of players versed in the toxic soup that is Washington politics to shake up the foreign policy and diplomatic core of Washington itself?

Bill, what do you say?

Yours and truly,

Fe Bongolan from San Francisco

Today finds us in the midst of a trine between Eros and Uranus. Both of these deities in myth are said to be primordial: Eros is one of the fundamental building blocks of existence, and Uranus is the starry sky, who conceived the gods with Gaia, thus giving them form.

Photo by Danielle Voirin.

Kim Falconer of falconstrology.com relays a tale told by Aristophanes of Eros coming into being from a germless egg layed by Night (or Nyx). After a long time, Eros sprang from this egg and mated with Chaos in the depths of Tartarus, thus bringing the immortal Olympians into existence.

Another myth claims the goddess of rainbows and the god of the north wind are the parents of Eros. Still another traces the heritage to Uranus and Gaia, or Artemis and Hermes. Falconer writes:

“The mixed parenthood of Eros, as well as his transforming images, (some versions of [the] myth have him assisting Aphrodite at her birth and in others he is her offspring), may illustrates ongoing changes in the collective awareness of the concept of love and creativity.  As the son of chaos, he has no tangible form.  He is the power of attraction that co-ordinates the elements of the universe bringing harmony to all creation.  In this image, Eros is more a cosmic force than an actual god of passionate or personal love.”

For an excellent article regarding the myths involving Eros, including his origins and an impressive list of sources, please visit the above link. It’s a really interesting read.

Falconer also suggests that throughout the metamorphoses of Eros, one thing remains the same: it is his fundamental power to make things mingle. Without his assistance, there would be no striving and no interactions. This, in my opinion, puts him in close relation to Mars.

So here we have the god of elemental attraction and co-mingling in a trine with Uranus, also attributed with the formation of the gods. According to Wikipedia, Uranus is attributed as being lord of the night sky and of the stars. He was the first god in a long pattern of cannibal infanticide, ending with the young god Saturn castrating him with a scythe and tossing his balls into the sea.

Uranus as the astrological energy is related to sudden, unshakable awakenings and new perceptions, electricity and humanitarianism, and unconventionality. Fittingly, there seems to be an ongoing debate over whether or not Uranus has been misnamed, and if the energy and study do not point to a more fitting name: Prometheus.

So, to sum it up, here we have the primal god of lovemaking (that counts as co-mingling, don’t you think?) in a harmonious position to the god of being different. If I had to take a guess, I would say that this aspect is about sexuality and the awakening that can take place on journeys of self exploration. If it is taken in a more hands-to-yourself tone, it could suggest the process of intermingling influences, ideas and experience in order to create an original being. After all, it could be said that the gods are personifications of enduring ideas and emotions. In this case, perhaps this aspect is all about the creative process of feelings, awareness, and the awakening of sensuality.

The Moon enters Virgo today at 8:13 pm EDT.

Merry Met,

Genevieve