The Truth, With Conviction

I had the same reaction as Sully: "wow"

Watch the video.

Montana Campaigning

Why is it that every national story about a congressman from my homestate either has to do with being in Abramoff's pocket or cold cocking somebody.

First there was this.

Now this.

A seemingly drunk constituent found himself on the wrong end of a knuckle sandwich Wednesday after harassing Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and his staff and then following one of the aides into the men’s room.
According to local TV station KECI, Rehberg and “several staff members” were having dinner at the Iron Horse in Missoula when they were interrupted by one Tim Hanson, who began giving Rehberg a hard time.
“A lot of constituents say hi to him or give him a piece of their mind politely,” Rehberg spokesman Todd Schreiber said. But Hanson, who seemed “intoxicated,” began voicing his “displeasure with Hamas being in control of the Palestinian state and blamed it on President Bush and the Republicans.”
After Hanson became increasingly belligerent toward Rehberg — and his own girlfriend — bouncers offered to remove him, Schreiber said, but Rehberg declined.
But when Randy Vogel, Reh- berg’s state director, went to the men’s room, Hanson followed him. What happened in there isn’t yet clear, but Vogel, a former police officer, “punched Hanson in the face,” authorities told KECI.
The station said Hanson “does not remember exactly what happened in the bathroom, but he does remember being punched and said he did not hit Vogel.”
Montana Democrats tried to make hay out of the incident. “It looks like Denny Rehberg and his band of jack-booted thugs have finally crossed the line, at least according to the Missoula police,” said state Democratic Party spokesman Matt McKenna. “I wonder if he’s planning on bringing his goons to the debates in case he gets asked too many tough questions.”
But Schreiber painted a different picture — one that had Vogel using violence as a last resort. He noted that Vogel was the one who first called police.

High School Basketball Assistant with Autism

This story broke late last week, here is the video. Unbelievable, this student assistant was allowed to dress for the final game and in the final quarter scores 20 points.

Maybe We Should Allow States To Ban Abortions

South Dakota looks to be the first state to challenge Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), under the Roberts Court. The overturning of Roe v. Wade will be good for the country and for the Democrats. Many states will choose not to ban abortions, so pro choice folks win and, more importantly, we can get back to the business that will make this country a better place. If the Republicans have no divisive issues to exploit, they will be a losing party for decades to come.

Corporate Scoundrels

For those of you who are concerned about corporate corruption, here is a good short read from the NY Times. For those of you not concerned, maybe you should be.

Beheaded

What was it that our good friend Colin Powell said?

You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it."

What I see in that picture above is one hell of a broken piece of pottery.

And what has it done? Well, it has pitted Muslim against Muslim. But look what the mainstream media in Iran is saying.

These people are insane.

$1 Million To Kill "The Cartoonist."

Hitch gets around to commenting on the Danish cartoon fiasco.

The preposterous person of Karen Hughes is quoted in the same New York Times article, under her risible title of "Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy." She tittered outside the store she was happily giving away: "The voices of Muslim Americans have more credibility in the Muslim world frankly than my voice as a government official, because they can speak the language of their faith and can share their experience of practicing their faith freely in the West, and they can help explain why the cartoons are so offensive." Well, let's concede that almost any voice in any world has more credibility on any subject than this braying Bush-crony ignoramus, but is the State Department now saying that we shall be represented in the Muslim world only by Muslims? I think we need a debate on that, and also a vote. Meanwhile, not a dollar of Wahhabi money should be allowed to be spent on opening madrasahs in this country, or in distributing fundamentalist revisions of the Quran in our prison system. Not until, at the very least, churches and synagogues and free-thought libraries are permitted in every country whose ambassador has bullied the Danes. If we have to accept this sickly babble about "respect," we must at least demand that it is fully reciprocal.

He is on point and on fire.

There is no permissible moral relativism here. Freedom of speech trumps religious sensitivity. It's that simple.

Religions are required to subject their beliefs to robust public scrutiny. This means Kanye West can pose as Christ, South Park can mock the Mormons, The Family Guy can show God calling Bush on the phone, some artist in New York can make a portrait of the Virgin Mary out of cow crap... A confident modern religion shrugs, lets its believers believe and lives with the fact that everyone else can make all the damn noise they want.

The followers of Islam, by killing people and burning down stores in response to a simple cartoon, are showing their religion to be weak and midieval. And they are the only ones who should be apologizing.

Utah - State of Confusion

These days, around 40% of Americans support Bush.

However, in Utah, Bush still enjoys a 58% approval rating! (the highest in the country)

Why?

Maybe because they're being lied to by their leaders.

Mini Golf Creator Dies

I heard the founder of mini golf died yesterday. Can't find a story on it, don't know his name, etc. But the story reminded me of a time when I hit the links daily for a round of mini golf.

Not sure if the HT goes to Abe?

For those who've been in a cave...

or a covey, the past few days: a recap of the vice president's unfortunate weekend.

Disclaimer: this was before the "mild heart" attack, reported yesterday.

Cheney Commits Attempted Homicide

I am sure all you 2GL readers know about this story, but I thought I would post it anyway. As if the Bush Administration did not have enough to deal with, the VP, in very Dan Quayle fashion, shoots a friend on a hunting trip. I grew up with hunting rifles and shotguns in the house. I also enjoy hunting and the outdoors. The first thing you EVER think about when guns are around is safety. That is always rule #1 and one practiced by all responsible hunters. The fact that the veep would allow this guy to be in his line of fire is absurd and extremely irresponsible. Seriously, when things like this happen, as they do every year, the first thing I say after I read the article is "what an idiot".

Loveline with Grand Ayatolla Sistani

Everything you always wanted to know about sex, but were afraid of being stoned to death.

Learn, from Iraq's leading cleric, about...

hand holding,

§ Question : Are shaking of hands with girls allowed?
§ Answer : It is not permissible.

oral sex,

§ Question : Is oral sex by husband or wife allowed?
§ Answer : It is permissible provided no liquid out swallowed.

§ Question : I want to know the ruling on oral sex?
§ Answer : It is obligatory precaution not permissible; it's very disgust if she agrees.

anal sex,

§ Question : What is the ruling on anal sex? Is a Moslem allowed to have anal sex?
§ Answer : Based on the widely held opinion of Shiite scholars this act (anal sex) is strongly Akrooh (undesirable, what is not Haram to do, but it is better to avoid). There is no objection to the couple getting pleasure from the entire body of one another. But it should be taken into consideration that some actions are beneath human dignity.

foreplay for engaged couples,

§ Question : I want to ask about talking to ones fiancee on telephone, is it permissible or not?
§ Answer : If talking is free of provocative words and if there is no fear of falling in sin, there is no objection.

masturbation,

§ Question : When I am unable to do Muta’h (temporary marriage), am I allowed to masturbate?
§ Answer : Masturbation is not permissible under any circumstances.

§ Question : If my wife wants me to masturbate in front of her, is it then allowed? § Answer : You are not allowed to excite yourself with your own hands, but you can do it your wife.

and orgies,

§ Question : What is an orgy?
§ Answer : It's forbidden.

How about those workplace romances?

§ Question : Whether men and woman are allowed to work together in the same organization?

§ Answer : This is not permissible. He who steals government property will be indebted for the electricity bill. However, if the person is compelled to do, he may refer to the next “most knowledgeable” Mujtahed.

Ah, the old electricity bill problem. That shit is Akrooh.


HAT TIP - Sullivan, who linked to the site for more cerebral reasons.

Do Uncomfortable Facts = An Attack?

There has been some whining from conservatives about the "potshots" taken at President Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Bush's dad said: "I didn't like it and I thought it was kind of ugly frankly . . . Anybody that shoots at the president of the United States at a funeral, I just didn't appreciate that." Someone shot at the president? Man, even Ann Coulter has enough restraint not to actually squeeze the trigger.

What were these horrific personal attacks on Bush the younger? What brought dad out onto the porch to say "stop picking on my kid"?

The Rev. Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., drew a roaring standing ovation when he said: "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" - a takeoff on a line from a Stevie Wonder song. The comment drew head shakes from Mr. Bush and his father as they sat behind the pulpit.

Former President Carter brought up the government response to Katrina, saying, "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi" to know that inequality exists. He also noted that the Kings once were "victims of secret government wiretapping" - echoing Mr. Bush's domestic spying program.

Ok. Then what did they say? When did the Glocks come out?

No. That's it.

"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor." Folks, that's not an attack. It's what used to be known in these parts as a "fact" - something that has actual existence - a matter of objective reality. Follow the links and judge for yourself.

Isn't it appropriate to point out, at a funeral honoring a peace activist who dedicated her life to helping the disadvantaged, that there is still much to be done to realize her vision? Why would that make the Bushes squirm? Isn't the president comfortable with his request for $120 billion more for Iraq and his request to cut programs for the less advantaged?

If Bush attends the funeral of Elton John (no, he's not dead - yet), I just hope they don't attack Bush by letting Elton's husband speak. Or at least he shouldn't say anything about how he was happy to be married or that Elton believed they had a right to be married. That would just politicize the whole funeral and turn it into an attack on Bush's policies.

Maybe Bush should just skip funerals for people who spent their lives working for things he disagrees with. I mean, that was his original plan.

Now to Carter. He didn't bring up the "government response to Katrina," as the article suggests. Carter said that Katrina showed us that poverty too often falls along racial lines. This also seems appropriate at Mrs. King's funeral.

What if Carter had said the following:

As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.

Would that have been an attack on Bush? Would it matter that Bush himself said that?

Finally, Carter noted the resistance the Kings faced in their struggle to help blacks gain equality - including wiretapping by the government. Again, a fact. Unless Bush thinks it was a good idea to wiretap King, how is this an attack on Bush? Was it forbidden to note that the Kings struggled valiantly even against the government?

This is a neat example of the right wing crying victim and simply making up a "controversy" out of thin air. Oh, how Bush was inappropriately smeared! This is almost bad as War on Christmas (note: the "Bush Administration" has yet to clearly state its position as to whether it can violate our civil rights pursuant to the executive war power for the duration of the War on Christmas).

When you live by it, you die by it....Good Luck Mr. Bush

Hurricane Katrina: Brownie

For them to now claim that we didn't have awareness of it, I think is just baloney," he said. "They should have had awareness of it because they were receiving the same information that we were.

Michael Brown-Former FEMA Director
Oh, in case you don't believe him, there are emails.

White House Outing of CIA Spy Valeri Plame- Scooter Libby

A former top U.S. intelligence official said it's unusual for National Intelligence Estimates to be declassified by the president or vice president without consulting the CIA director.

The former official adds that some key judgments of that intelligence report were declassified on July 18, 2003 -- 10 days after Libby's meeting with Miller.

Patrick Fitzgerald said it is his understanding that Libby testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors."

Abramoff Pleads Guilty to Fraud Charges: Bush-"I Don't Know Him"

"I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him," Bush said at his first solo news conference since December 19.

"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows," Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.

War In Iraq: "Cherry-Picking" Intelligence to Justify Decision

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

My predictions, Cheney resigns in next two weeks, Democrats take back one house.

NSA Surveillance Part Dos

In response to ARM and Abe:
I agree with you ARM, this is a constitutional question. If ARM would have put on his listening cap (instead of his partisan cap) he would have noticed that I am not attacking the "Bush Administration" on this issue. I believe they are doing what they think is best for the country at a time of imminent threat. Even good intentions do not allow us to ignore the constitution.

ARM, you state that “congress cannot limit presidential powers”. See Con. Law 101. Bravo! Now what the eff does that mean? Your response does not show the thinking of one trained in the law. You sound like a political hack, honest. Reread my post. If anything, that is the entire point of it. You say that Congress cannot limit presidential powers. I agree. But what are the presidential powers? You can’t just say, “we are at war, therefore the president has his wartime powers”. Your statement is correct, but what do wartime powers include? Unlike Abe’s imperceptible position(A persisting problem with Democrats), I do believe we are at war and we need to look through that lens when debating this issue. The answer to this question is important. Article II is rather vague and likely purposefully so. You might say that the reason the framers left it as such is because they were giving the president tremendous powers during time of war. I take a different approach by looking at the constitution as a whole.

There is also a “judiciary Power of the United States” created by Article III Section 1. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..” Art.III Sec. 2. This allows our courts to decide by circumstances of the times what Article II means. Even if you are a “strict constructionalist” as many conservatives claim to be, you would have conflicting constitutional language in this case, the 4th Amendment against Art II.

Therefore, the constitution, by necessity, must be interpreted by the judiciary in many circumstances. This is one of the greatest checks and balances and why the framers left the constitution so vague. An ambiguous constitution allows for situations just like this NSA surveillance debate.

If you look at Article II, the so called war powers of the president, you will notice no mention of “war time powers”.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..

Cite me to other language if you disagree. So how does this clause give a president the power to intercept communications between two Americans, one being overseas and the other in the United States? The 4th Amendment is also a part of the constitution, for those who choose to cherry pick constitutional wording for disingenuous debate. Why does Article II trump this protection against unreasonable searched and seizures as the Bush Administration essentially argues? The Supreme Court should settle this issue, as I trust them to protect my rights as an American against governmental intrusion. (They have a pretty good track record) One last point, the FISA and Wiretapping statutes, although relevant, will not answer this issue as the constitution is authoritative over statute.

Legality of NSA Surveillance

I watched most of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA surveillance. Pretty good legal arguments on both sides. I thought AG Gonzales was effective. Gonzales made a few good points about past presidents that ordered interception of wire messages. According to Gonzales, President Wilson during WWI ordered the interception of each and every cable or telegraph communication going in and out of the country. Another example of a president spying on individuals within the US without warrant was during WWII. Roosevelt ordered wiretapping on communications to "learn plans of spies in the US and gave the military permission to listen to any communication going in or out of the U.S". Assuming Gonzales is representing these occurrences genuinely, which is a large assumption under this administration, President Bush has precedent on his side. Precedent is relevant to determine if he blatantly violated the law. The legal questions remaining are whether the Presidents Gonzales cites were acting lawfully. It seems to me that if FISA forbids Bush's behavior, then this will be a question of whether FISA is constitutional. If this becomes an issue as to the constitutionality of FISA, then Bush slides easily on this.(not that he would not otherwise considering the American people don't seem too concerned). I have not read through FISA and have not looked to the legislative intent. Nor have I reviewed the federal wiretapping laws. Both of these laws were passed after all of the previous administrations cited by Gonzales. The wiretapping laws were passed in response to the Nixon administration's corruption. So maybe these laws were clarifying the power of the president (i.e. limiting his authority). Considering the courts have not struck FISA or the wiretapping laws down, they are authoritative unless exceptions are carved into the rules. Just a few thoughts, here is the link, worth a watch.

Oops.

You have to be kidding me. Considering Sen. Obama is the only African-American in the Senate (and only the 5th in its history), I find this appalling. Seems like an article from The Onion.

NBC’s Williams apologizes after Obama-Ford mix-up

“NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams told The Hill that he wrote Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) letters of apology last week after he confused the two men at the State of the Union address.

During NBC’s broadcast, Williams noticed Obama on the House floor and identified him to the viewing audience. Unfortunately, it was actually Ford.

“I made a silly and honest mistake, and knowing both men I knew instantly what I had done,” a contrite and gracious Williams said in a phone call. “I obviously should have corrected it, but the proper time never arose.”

Williams isn’t alone. Rewind to last’s year’s State of the Union. Another reporter asked Obama’s office why he hugged the president. Again, it was Ford.

People mix them up plenty, even though the Capitol Rotunda separates the two men on most workdays. And “they don’t look that much alike,” one Senate staffer said. That they get confused at all is “pretty amazing,” one House aide lamented.

Neither Ford nor Obama’s offices would comment.

The two lawmakers are good friends, and Ford even campaigned for Obama in 2004.

If Ford is successful in getting himself elected to the Senate this fall, the mix-ups may deepen.

A man draws a picture:

That's the prophet Mohammed, see. His turban is like a bomb, see. I think it's some sort of commentary about the rise of violent Islam. I guess some Muslims find this offensive. Even drawing their prophet at all is offensive to some Muslims, apparently. News to me.

But this response by right-wing Muslims is ... what's the word? ... oh yeah, effing insane. And these aren't empty words. Over in Beirut they torched the Danish embassy.

Yes, over drawings.

Brokeback Mountain: The Sequel

Another gem.

Haven't seen this caliber of editing since Summer of 2001.

The chief in his bubble

Okay, I admit, I didn't watch the President's State of the Union address last night. Instead, I went shopping at the local "soviet" Safeway for groceries (i.e., long lines and nothing on the shelves) and watched my Illini crush the Badgers in Madison.

You've probably seen the University of Illinois, my alma mater, in the news of late in regard to its "mascot," Chief Illiniwek. And it's not good. You see, the NCAA last fall deemed the Illinois mascot and nickname "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and gave the university until today, February 1, 2006, to abandon both or be banned from post-season play.

The university appealed and had their nickname, "Illini," reinstated after the school pulled some research out of their ass that the name was actually a derivation from the state's name and not from any tribe. Wait, isn't the state's name derived from an Indian tribe? No matter, it flew for the NCAA but they still said no to the university's dancing fratboy Chief Illiniwek, who performs a mock war dance at halftimes in full buckskins and Indian headdress.

Now, the university is appealing the mascot ban, again. The reasons: (1) it's not a mascot but a performer and (2) the NCAA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious." You can tell these arguments were found at the bottom of the barrel. The first is a distinction without a distinction, pure semantics.

The second, insults the very people you are trying to convince to cut you a break. "Judge, listen, please reconsider your previous decision that you already thought long and hard about because it was a decision of crazy man, made without reason. You weren't thinking. Maybe you had a bad day that day. Didn't take your medicine. But clearly if you thought AGAIN, you'll change your mind."

Good luck with those.

Frankly, I don't like the Chief, never have. I think the main reasons to have a mascot are to bring the fanbase together, to rally the troops, and cater to the children in the stands. Once it is proven that the mascot disrupts the fans, pisses them off, and actually divides the home crowd, then it's time to get another mascot. They're a dime a dozen. Major League Baseball teams regularly jettison mascots out the ballpark door. Growing up, I remember Ribby and Rhubarb as the Whitesox mascots, now it's Southpaw. Did I abandon the team b/c they fired the mascot? No, even through the Ivan Calderon days and many a loss, I remained in the stands for the last out.

In terms of change to ethnic sounding nicknames and mascots, who even remembers that the Stanford Cardinal were the Indians when John Elway was there? The other day, I had to be reminded that Syracuse was once the Orangemen, not the Orange.

With Illinois, the board of trustees is fighting a foolish battle that only they feel is just. As an alum, Chief Illiniwek embarrasses me. In 1999, I attended a college basketball tournament game in Sacramento, CA, between the Maryland Terrapins and the Fighting Illini. The chief performed at halftime and I never was so embarrassed to have attended Illinois then, then.

The blond-haired fratboy painted and feathers flowing strode out to halfcourt and began his high kicking. Only a couple of the 12,000 fans stood proudly with their arms folded at their chests. The rest were appalled at the sight, staring in disbelief that in the year before the new millennium such an insensitive act was being performed before their eyes. It was as if a man was jumping around with a white pointed hood on to honor the team.

Before a home crowd, everyone in the stands would be revering the dancer. Away, they were revolting.

Now, I love the Illini and try to watch everyone of their games here in D.C. but I know the time for Chief Illiniwek has come and gone. As I learned that memorable day in March 1999, once the Chief is out of his support bubble in the suburbs of Chicago and held to the standards of the rest of America, how quickly it's apparent that we should all be appalled.

To my alma mater, guys/gals, pop the bubble. Let the chief go! Let the Chief go!