The Coney's are still great at the Gopher Bar. On a side(?) note George is still perfecting his Maitre'd bow (click "continued" for more)
Friday, March 31, 2006
Gopher Bar Update
The Coney's are still great at the Gopher Bar. On a side(?) note George is still perfecting his Maitre'd bow (click "continued" for more)
Lest We Forget
"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a president and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
"Will consumers have a beef with test-tube meat?
ANNE MCILROY
SCIENCE REPORTER
Scientists can grow frog and mouse meat in the lab, and are now working on pork, beef and chicken. Their goal is to develop an industrial version of the process in five years.
If they succeed, cultured or in vitro meat could be coming to a supermarket near you. Consumers could buy hamburger patties"
...Full Story
SCIENCE REPORTER
Scientists can grow frog and mouse meat in the lab, and are now working on pork, beef and chicken. Their goal is to develop an industrial version of the process in five years.
If they succeed, cultured or in vitro meat could be coming to a supermarket near you. Consumers could buy hamburger patties"
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Oglala Sioux Tribe on the South Dakota Abortion Ban
"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty." President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, says "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."
South Dakota's abortion law
Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) 3/20/2006
© 2006 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.
When Governor Mike Rounds.... signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother's life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set off a maelstrom of protests within the state.
Napoli suggested that if it was a case of "simple rape," there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli's description of rape as "simple." He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by "simple rape."
The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.
"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," she said to me last week. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."
Strong words from a very strong lady. I hope Ms. Fire Thunder challenges Gov. Rounds and the state legislators on this law that is an affront to all independent women.
(Tim Giago is the president of the Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc., and the publisher of Indian Education Today Magazine. He can be reached at najournalists@rushmore.com or by writing him at 2050 W. Main St., Suite 5, Rapid City, SD. He was also the founder and publisher of the Lakota Times and Indian Country Today newspapers)
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
America is Not God
By Paul Craig Roberts
In Cleveland yesterday Bush gave a delusional speech that shows he is detached from reality. "We're going to help the Iraqis build a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East, ....More
Baby You Can Drive My Car
If you were a billionaire, what would you drive? Each year Forbes magazine compiles the list of the richest people in the world. This year, it checked into the car they drive (some had more than one; I'm listing what's apparently the main one). No, this isn't a joke, but I find it amusing that they're not driving the latest, most expensive, Ferraris. Only one of the American high-tech guys drives a truly flash car; is he more insecure than the rest, or...?
Each line shows rank in richness, name, who they are, how much Forbes figures they're worth, and what they drive:
1. Bill Gates (co-founder, Microsoft; $46.5B): 1999 Porsche 911
2. Warren Buffett (investor; $44B): 2001 Lincoln Town Car
3. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud (nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia; $23.7B): Rolls-Royce Phantom
4. Ingvar Kamprad (founder, IKEA furniture stores; $23B): 1993 Volvo 240 GL
5. Paul Allen (co-founder, Microsoft; $21B): 1988 Porsche 959 Coupe; 1988 Mazda pickup
6. Larry Ellison (founder, Oracle; $18.4B): 2006 Bentley Flying Spur
7. Jim Walton (son of Wal-Mart founder; $18.2B): 2002 Dodge Dakota pickup
8. Alice Walton (daughter of Wal-Mart founder; $18B): 2006 Ford F-150 pickup
9. Michael Dell (founder, Dell Computer; $16B): 2004 Porsche Boxter
10. Steve Ballmer (CEO, Microsoft; $12.1B): 1998 Lincoln Continental
Source: Forbes magazine, 6 March 2006
Each line shows rank in richness, name, who they are, how much Forbes figures they're worth, and what they drive:
1. Bill Gates (co-founder, Microsoft; $46.5B): 1999 Porsche 911
2. Warren Buffett (investor; $44B): 2001 Lincoln Town Car
3. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud (nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia; $23.7B): Rolls-Royce Phantom
4. Ingvar Kamprad (founder, IKEA furniture stores; $23B): 1993 Volvo 240 GL
5. Paul Allen (co-founder, Microsoft; $21B): 1988 Porsche 959 Coupe; 1988 Mazda pickup
6. Larry Ellison (founder, Oracle; $18.4B): 2006 Bentley Flying Spur
7. Jim Walton (son of Wal-Mart founder; $18.2B): 2002 Dodge Dakota pickup
8. Alice Walton (daughter of Wal-Mart founder; $18B): 2006 Ford F-150 pickup
9. Michael Dell (founder, Dell Computer; $16B): 2004 Porsche Boxter
10. Steve Ballmer (CEO, Microsoft; $12.1B): 1998 Lincoln Continental
Source: Forbes magazine, 6 March 2006
Brain Teasing Riddles
Try to answer them before looking at the answers -- and all do have logical answers.
- - -
1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?
2. A woman shoots her husband. Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes. Finally, she hangs him. But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. How can this be?
3. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you throw it away?
4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?
5. This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so plain you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is unusual though. Study it, and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.
- - -
Click "Continued" for the answers:
1. The third. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
2. This one's fairly lame, but the woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it and hung it up to dry.
3. Charcoal.
4. It's pretty easy: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow!
5. The letter "e," which is the most common letter in the English language, does not appear once in the long paragraph.
- - -
1. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?
2. A woman shoots her husband. Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes. Finally, she hangs him. But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. How can this be?
3. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you throw it away?
4. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?
5. This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so plain you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is unusual though. Study it, and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.
- - -
Click "Continued" for the answers:
1. The third. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.
2. This one's fairly lame, but the woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it and hung it up to dry.
3. Charcoal.
4. It's pretty easy: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow!
5. The letter "e," which is the most common letter in the English language, does not appear once in the long paragraph.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
'Invitation' Virus Warning - Netlore Archive
If you get the "Invitation" virus alert email warning -- don't worry, it's a hoax -- check it out.
'Invitation' Virus Warning - Netlore Archive
'Invitation' Virus Warning - Netlore Archive
Rule change could allow sale of your tax return
By Jeff Gelles
Knight Ridder Newspapers
PHILADELPHIA — The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers, for the first time, will be able to sell information from individual returns — or even entire returns — to marketers and data brokers.
The possible change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."
IRS officials portray the proposed changes as house-cleaning measures needed to update outmoded regulations that were adopted before the IRS began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.
Critics call the proposed changes a dangerous new breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.
"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "
Criticism of the proposal also came from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In a letter last Tuesday to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.
How to weigh in
Although the formal comment period for the proposed rule change ended March 8, IRS spokesman William Cressman said late comments "may receive consideration if they are sent to the IRS promptly." Consumer advocates urge taxpayers who oppose the changes to contact the IRS and Washington lawmakers.
"There is no more sensitive information than a taxpayer's return, and the IRS's proposal to allow these returns to be sold to third-party marketers and database brokers is deeply troubling," Obama wrote.
The IRS first announced the proposal in a news release the day before the official notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."
The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information. It said the proposed rules were guided by the principle "that tax return preparers may not disclose or use tax return information for purposes other than tax return preparation without the knowing, informed and voluntary consent of the taxpayer."
IRS spokesman William Cressman defended the proposal in similar terms.
"The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information," Cressman said in an e-mail response to questions.
Cressman said he was unable to explain "why this issue has come up at this time other than our effort to update regulations that date back to the 1970s and predate the electronic era."
Not all the proposed changes have drawn opposition.
Beth McConnell, director of the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, said she welcomed a rule that taxpayer consent would be required for overseas processing of any portion of a tax return.
"That's a positive development, but I don't think it's worth giving up our tax returns' privacy for," said McConnell, who plans to testify on behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group at an April 4 IRS hearing in Washington on the proposed rule changes.
McConnell accused the IRS of using the new limit on overseas processing to dress up changes that would chiefly benefit tax preparers, marketers and data brokers.
"That's a disturbing trend among Washington officials lately," McConnell said. "They'll offer a modest consumer protection in one area in exchange for dramatic weakening of consumer protections in another area, and then try to convince the public that it's all in our interests."
Critics of the proposal said it could do more than open up sales of tax information to data brokers and marketers, because it could undermine taxpayer confidence in the entire tax system.
"Privacy protections for tax information are especially critical given the largely voluntary nature of the U.S. tax system," said Chi Chi Wu, a tax-law specialist at Boston's National Consumer Law Center.
Wu and other critics said they were uncertain who or what was behind the proposed changes in IRS privacy rules, which now prohibit tax preparers from selling returns to third parties for marketing purposes, and require written consent if they want to use it for marketing.
Officials at H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt, two of the nation's largest tax-preparation firms, did not respond to requests for comment. Cressman said, so far, the IRS has received only about a dozen comments on the proposal.
"I think this just flew under the radar screen for so many people," McConnell said.
While the formal comment period for the proposed rule change ended March 8, an IRS spokesman said late comments "may receive consideration if they are sent to the IRS promptly."
Here's how:
Call Dillon Taylor at the Office of Associate Chief Counsel, 202-622-7752 or 202-622-4940. Or e-mail him at dillon.j.taylor@irs.counsel.treas.gov
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Knight Ridder Newspapers
PHILADELPHIA — The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers, for the first time, will be able to sell information from individual returns — or even entire returns — to marketers and data brokers.
The possible change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them "not a significant regulatory action."
IRS officials portray the proposed changes as house-cleaning measures needed to update outmoded regulations that were adopted before the IRS began accepting returns electronically. The proposed rules, which would become effective 30 days after a final version is published, would require a tax preparer to obtain written consent before selling tax information.
Critics call the proposed changes a dangerous new breach in personal and financial privacy. They say the requirement for signed consent would prove meaningless for many taxpayers, especially those hurriedly reviewing stacks of documents before a filing deadline.
"The normal interaction is that the taxpayer just signs what the tax preparer puts in front of them," said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, one of several groups fighting the changes. "They think, 'This person is a tax professional, and I'm going to rely on them.' "
Criticism of the proposal also came from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In a letter last Tuesday to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, Obama warned that once in the hands of third parties, tax information could be resold and handled under even looser rules than the IRS sets, increasing consumers' vulnerability to identity theft and other risks.
How to weigh in
Although the formal comment period for the proposed rule change ended March 8, IRS spokesman William Cressman said late comments "may receive consideration if they are sent to the IRS promptly." Consumer advocates urge taxpayers who oppose the changes to contact the IRS and Washington lawmakers.
"There is no more sensitive information than a taxpayer's return, and the IRS's proposal to allow these returns to be sold to third-party marketers and database brokers is deeply troubling," Obama wrote.
The IRS first announced the proposal in a news release the day before the official notice was published, headlined: "IRS Issues Proposed Regulations to Safeguard Taxpayer Information."
The announcement did not mention potential sales of tax information. It said the proposed rules were guided by the principle "that tax return preparers may not disclose or use tax return information for purposes other than tax return preparation without the knowing, informed and voluntary consent of the taxpayer."
IRS spokesman William Cressman defended the proposal in similar terms.
"The heart of this proposed regulation is about the right of taxpayers to control their tax return information. The idea is to emphasize taxpayer consent and set clear boundaries on how tax return preparers can use or disclose tax return information," Cressman said in an e-mail response to questions.
Cressman said he was unable to explain "why this issue has come up at this time other than our effort to update regulations that date back to the 1970s and predate the electronic era."
Not all the proposed changes have drawn opposition.
Beth McConnell, director of the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, said she welcomed a rule that taxpayer consent would be required for overseas processing of any portion of a tax return.
"That's a positive development, but I don't think it's worth giving up our tax returns' privacy for," said McConnell, who plans to testify on behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group at an April 4 IRS hearing in Washington on the proposed rule changes.
McConnell accused the IRS of using the new limit on overseas processing to dress up changes that would chiefly benefit tax preparers, marketers and data brokers.
"That's a disturbing trend among Washington officials lately," McConnell said. "They'll offer a modest consumer protection in one area in exchange for dramatic weakening of consumer protections in another area, and then try to convince the public that it's all in our interests."
Critics of the proposal said it could do more than open up sales of tax information to data brokers and marketers, because it could undermine taxpayer confidence in the entire tax system.
"Privacy protections for tax information are especially critical given the largely voluntary nature of the U.S. tax system," said Chi Chi Wu, a tax-law specialist at Boston's National Consumer Law Center.
Wu and other critics said they were uncertain who or what was behind the proposed changes in IRS privacy rules, which now prohibit tax preparers from selling returns to third parties for marketing purposes, and require written consent if they want to use it for marketing.
Officials at H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt, two of the nation's largest tax-preparation firms, did not respond to requests for comment. Cressman said, so far, the IRS has received only about a dozen comments on the proposal.
"I think this just flew under the radar screen for so many people," McConnell said.
While the formal comment period for the proposed rule change ended March 8, an IRS spokesman said late comments "may receive consideration if they are sent to the IRS promptly."
Here's how:
Call Dillon Taylor at the Office of Associate Chief Counsel, 202-622-7752 or 202-622-4940. Or e-mail him at dillon.j.taylor@irs.counsel.treas.gov
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Online Freedom of Speech Act
Please forward to anyone you know who cares about free expression on the Internet.
UPDATE: We've so-far sent 14,112 messages to Congress asking them to pass the "Online Freedom of Speech Act," but we need to send many more before the vote tomorrow. We're recirculating the message (below) explaining why this is important. Please help us pass this important legislation. If you don't need the explanation below you can send your message to Congress by clicking here.
Now here's the explanation of the "Online Freedom of Speech Act":
Dear friend,
The "Online Freedom of Speech Act" would preserve the First Amendment's "Freedom of the Press" for individuals on the Internet.
It would place bloggers and webpage publishers on the same legal footing as the mainstream media.
The Federal Election Commission is under court order to impose the burdensome incumbent protection laws (otherwise known as campaign finance regulations) on the Internet. Political expression on your blog or web page would be regulated. But political expression on blogs and web pages owned by the mainstream media, such as NYTimes.com, would be exempt. The "Online Freedom of Speech Act" is designed to prevent this from happening.
Only Congressional action can prevent us from having two tiers of citizenship in this country when it comes to the Freedom of the Press. Unless the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" passes only the mainstream media will retain full, unregulated freedom of expression on the Internet.
The first step in passing the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" will come this Thursday, when the House is due to vote on the measure. The situation is more complicated in the Senate, where the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" has been combined with a very bad bill, the so-called Lobbying Reform Bill. There is time to work things out in the Senate, but . . .
There is no more time in the House. There the vote is likely to happen this week. Please act now, and tell your Representative to vote for the "Online Freedom of Speech Act." Do not delay. It's now or never. You can send your instructions to your Representative by clicking here.
Thank you for your participation.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
UPDATE: We've so-far sent 14,112 messages to Congress asking them to pass the "Online Freedom of Speech Act," but we need to send many more before the vote tomorrow. We're recirculating the message (below) explaining why this is important. Please help us pass this important legislation. If you don't need the explanation below you can send your message to Congress by clicking here.
Now here's the explanation of the "Online Freedom of Speech Act":
Dear friend,
The "Online Freedom of Speech Act" would preserve the First Amendment's "Freedom of the Press" for individuals on the Internet.
It would place bloggers and webpage publishers on the same legal footing as the mainstream media.
The Federal Election Commission is under court order to impose the burdensome incumbent protection laws (otherwise known as campaign finance regulations) on the Internet. Political expression on your blog or web page would be regulated. But political expression on blogs and web pages owned by the mainstream media, such as NYTimes.com, would be exempt. The "Online Freedom of Speech Act" is designed to prevent this from happening.
Only Congressional action can prevent us from having two tiers of citizenship in this country when it comes to the Freedom of the Press. Unless the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" passes only the mainstream media will retain full, unregulated freedom of expression on the Internet.
The first step in passing the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" will come this Thursday, when the House is due to vote on the measure. The situation is more complicated in the Senate, where the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" has been combined with a very bad bill, the so-called Lobbying Reform Bill. There is time to work things out in the Senate, but . . .
There is no more time in the House. There the vote is likely to happen this week. Please act now, and tell your Representative to vote for the "Online Freedom of Speech Act." Do not delay. It's now or never. You can send your instructions to your Representative by clicking here.
Thank you for your participation.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Heavenly Hotcake
A couple in Ohio claims the image of Jesus appeared to them after they whipped up a weekend breakfast of pancakes, according to a Local 6 News report. Mike Thompson said he was making flapjacks for his family over the weekend when an image caught his eye. Upon closer inspection, Thompson noticed what appeared to be the face of Jesus. He showed his wife, who agreed the image appeared to be Jesus.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Dr. Sidney Esensten
Dr. Sidney Esensten, life long twin cities resident and noted physician died of kidney failure on Feb. 7th, a day before his 83rd birthday, at his winter home in Rancho Mirage, CA. Numerous stories about Dr. Esensten have appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune since 1950. His home coming from the Korean War was celebrated by friends and family, and he was often cited in newspapers and books about his P.O.W. experiences. In addition to his 50+ year medical practice, he served as Chief-of-Staff for Fairview Riverside Hospital, and helped establish Temple Israel’s Camp Teko at Lake Minnetonka.
Sidney was born in 1923 in St. Paul. The fourth of five sons, his mother wanted him to become a rabbi. With the passing of his parents, he was raised by his oldest brother and sent to medical school. While a medical student, he married Gloria York in 1944.
Upon graduation from the U of M Medical School, Sidney was commissioned an Army 2nd Lt. and served his active duty time in Seattle, Kansas and Texas. Upon his return to Minneapolis, Sidney joined the Belzer Clinic as a young associate. In August of 1950 he was called back to active duty and sent to Korea as a Captain and commander of MASH unit. He was captured by the Chinese Communist army on November 22, 1950 in the North Korean Village of Unsan. Seventy-five percent of the U.S. soldiers captured during this time perished in the P.O.W. camps from starvation, disease and torture. Sidney walked across the Freedom Bridge at Pammunjon on October 3, 1953. Dr. Esensten continued his military service in the reserves, and retired as a Major.
He gave testimony to the U.S. Congress regarding treatment of P.O.W.s by the Chinese and North Koreans. In addition, he provided advice to the Army regarding recommended changes to rules of conduct for prisoners-of-war.
He returned to his medical practice at the Belzer Clinic, later known as the Fairview Clinic. He was very proud of the fact that throughout his career he delivered over 10,000 babies. He often spoke to medical groups about diseases and conditions he encountered as a P.O.W. In addition, he took every opportunity to speak with groups and share his experiences with Communism and how it was really practiced.
As an active member of Temple Israel, Sidney made a bold commitment to youth when, in 1965, he and several others funded the purchase of a large Boy Scout camp on Lake Minnetonka, now known as Camp Teko.
Dr. Esensten is survived by his wife Gloria of 61 years, his brother, Jack, three sons, William, Richard and Tom, and their wives, and four grandchildren, Jeremy, Jennie, Joseph, and Benjamin. Funeral services are planned for SUNDAY, FEB. 12, 2006, 1:00 PM, at TEMPLE ISRAEL, 2324 Emerson Ave. S., Minneapolis. Colleagues, patients and friends are invited to the Temple service. Memorials are preferred to the Temple Israel Camp Teko Playground Fund. SHIVA will be at 6400 York Ave. S., Edina in the community room, Sunday & Monday evenings at 7 PM.
Posted by: Sara
Psycho Path voted wackiest street name
Results from an online poll of the nation's wildest, weirdest and wackiest street names.
The complete top 10 list included:
10. Tater Peeler Road in Lebanon, Texas
9. The intersection of Count and Basie in Richmond, Va.
8. Shades of Death Road in Warren County, N.J.
7. Unexpected Road in Buena, N.J.
6. Bucket of Blood Street in Holbrook, Ariz.
5. The intersection of Clinton and Fidelity in Houston
4. The intersection of Lonesome and Hardup in Albany, Ga.
3. Farfrompoopen Road in Tennessee (the only road up to Constipation Ridge)
2. Divorce Court in Heather Highlands, Pa.
1. Psycho Path in Traverse City, Mich.
Posted by: Sara
The complete top 10 list included:
10. Tater Peeler Road in Lebanon, Texas
9. The intersection of Count and Basie in Richmond, Va.
8. Shades of Death Road in Warren County, N.J.
7. Unexpected Road in Buena, N.J.
6. Bucket of Blood Street in Holbrook, Ariz.
5. The intersection of Clinton and Fidelity in Houston
4. The intersection of Lonesome and Hardup in Albany, Ga.
3. Farfrompoopen Road in Tennessee (the only road up to Constipation Ridge)
2. Divorce Court in Heather Highlands, Pa.
1. Psycho Path in Traverse City, Mich.
Posted by: Sara
Friday, March 10, 2006
Blaine-7 Lakeville North-2
Blaine goalie Scott Jaeger stopped a second-period Lakeville North shot en route to a 7-2 victory in Thursday's 2A quarterfinals.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
When your own posse smells the moral rot up top, the end is near
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
March 7, 2006
I'm more and more convinced that it will be Republicans, many of them of the true conservative and realist kind, who effectively will do in the Bush Administration.
In this, I am reminded of the behavior of Richard Nixon
when he realized that he was fast losing his middle-class, bourgeois base: He called it quits on the Vietnam War, and likewise on his presidency after his crimes were exposed.
But unlike Nixon's crew, Bush&Co. seem willing to take the country down with them, so desperate are they to hold onto power, deplete the treasury, pay off their corporate friends, carry out their ideological revolution -- and keep themselves out of the federal slammer.
The crimes of the Bush Administration are so many and varied that none of us should be surprised by anything that might happen in the coming weeks and months: Bin Laden captured or reported killed, a U.S.-Israeli air assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, a major terrorist attack inside the U.S. to be followed by martial law, the announcement of a bird-flu outbreak with the military placed in charge. I'm pretty level-headed and don't usually think in these dire terms, but these guys have backed themselves into a tight political corner and are desperate -- and dangerous.........
THE IMPLODING SCANDALS
Bush is at 34% approval rating (Cheney is at 18!), and their scandals are blowing up in their faces: Katrina lies and incompetence; Iraq lies and incompetence; the Dubai Ports deal and incompetence; GOP bribery and corruption; Libby under indictment and Rove apparently about to be; Bush claiming authority to authorize torture, spy on millions of American citizens and violate the law whenever he incants the magic words "national security"; Congress rebelling at being frozen out of decision-making, etc. etc. But in the face of all that, the Roveian M.O. is always to attack their foes and to hype the fright quotient.
The Administration didn't have to consider the most extreme options until recently, when the wheels started falling off the Bush bus. The attacks were no longer coming mostly from liberals and Democrats; more and more, they were coming from loyal conservative Republicans, who, cognizant of the sinking poll numbers, saw the handwriting on the wall: They realized they could well lose their majorities in the House and Senate -- in other words, severed from their jobs and access to the spoils of power -- and they started distancing themselves from the Administration.
So, rather than beating my usual drum here denouncing the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, I thought I'd just lay out the comments of those conservatives and let them speak for themselves. (My late friend Emile de Antonio, the documentary filmmaker, taught me a good lesson; it's always better, he pointed out, to quote what the Wall Street Journal is saying rather than quoting a hippie or left-activist making the same point. When your own posse smells the moral rot up top, the end is near.)
The quotes here are on Iraq and the neo-con ideologues who took this country to war, though currently the flak is also coming hot and heavy from the Right on both the domestic spying and Dubai ports scandals. (Even conservative Republican Senator Richard Shelby says Bush broke the law in the way he handled the Dubai ports contract, and neo-con leader Bill Kristol suggests the other "i" word ("incompetent") in describing how Bush&Co. stumble around trying to govern: "I think it's become in people's minds an emblem of the administration that just isn't as serious about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should be."
THE NEO-CONS BEHIND THE WAR
Let's begin with a reminder that the conservative establishment didn't agree from the very beginning with Bush's neo-con obsession to invade Iraq. President George H.W. Bush, who successfully organized a massive coalition to push Iraq's army out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, warned his son privately and through his spokesmen of the dangerous consequences both of invading and occupying Iraq and of doing so without wide international support. As he said of Iraq in "A World Transformed" (written with Gen. Brent Scowcroft): "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
Fast forward to the present, when so many Republican stalwarts are saying, in effect, that they backed the wrong horse. Their party was taken over by rightwing extremists, incompetent at that, whose reckless neo-con policies are doing great danger to the country and to the future of the once-great GOP. Here's Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, chair of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation, going even beyond the war into the deeper crimes being committed against Americans' freedoms:
"Most Americans do not yet realize that a war is being waged -- not against Iraq but against each of us. It is not the Republican Party that is charge in this administration but a small cadre who seized executive branch power and converted it to their own uses. Most Republicans are experiencing a deer-in-the-headlights moment right now. Their Party has been hijacked, their president has been hijacked, and they do not know what to do. I remain a registered Republican working for an effective coalition. The attack on us and on our rights has hardly begun. You don't go to the trouble of setting up this degree of control without having made plans to use it."
NEO-CON FUKUYAMA HAS SECOND THOUGHTS
Or try this out. Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the 1992 neo-con best-seller "The End of History," is exhibiting some serious recantation these days in interviews and in his new book, "America at the Crossroads."
He now says that neo-conservatism has "evolved into something I can no longer support," and should be tossed onto history's pile of discredited ideologies. The doctrine, which has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes...is now in shambles," and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy.
For example, though he once supported regime change in Iraq, he now believes the war there is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. "The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally...
"By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."
THE CHENEY-RUMSFELD CABAL
Then we go to a long-time Administration stalwart who couldn't take it any more: Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made," Wilkerson said in a well-publicized speech at the New America Foundation last October. "And you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."
Wilkerson has also focused attacks on the Bush administration for condoning torture, setting lax and ambiguous policies on treatment of detainees that inevitably led to the scandal of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.
BUCKLEY BUCKLES TO REALITY
Onward to the intellectual godfather of the modern conservative movement, National Review founding editor William F. Buckley Jr., who concludes that what may have started as a decent move has evolved into disaster:
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. ... Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. ... The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
THE TROOPS WANT OUT, SOON
Speaking of the troops in Iraq, recent polling reveals that nearly 3 out of 4 of U.S troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admits also that the Iraqis want us to leave "as soon as possible."
Here are some pertinent comments by a U.S. soldier in Iraq, writing as "djtyg," about why the desire to leave that country:
"We need to get out because our military cannot take much more of this. We are stretched too thin and it's about to get worse. ... Soldiers are frustrated. Every soldier I have talked to says that they are getting out of the military when they get home. Every. One. Of. Them. Regardless of rank, experience, or time in, they all want out. There has not been a single Soldier I've talked to that says they want to stay in. This includes officers, NCOs, and rookies who are on their first tour of duty. We need to get out of Iraq because Iraq is the reason why the military is shrinking. We, like Cindy Sheehan, are curious as to what 'noble cause' we are fighting for. We can't seem to find one. This is weakening America. At the rate we are going, we are going to have a military that can't fight because it has old and broken down equipment, and no troops to fight a war with."
SEN. HAGEL LOWERS THE BOOM
Then there are key Republican senators who are willing to stick out their necks by talking truth to power about Iraq. For example, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who said the U.S. is losing in Iraq and raised a parallel to an earlier conflict.
The Vietnam War, he said, "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late. To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," he said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
O'REILLY QUESTIONS STAYING IN IRAQ
So, let's see: Bush is losing old-money Republican conservatives, GOP senators, neo-con theorists outside the Cheney-Rumsfeld nexus, military insiders, troops under fire in Iraq -- who else can he lose? Would you believe the lunatic fringe, as symbolized by that raving Limbaugh wannabee Bill O'Reilly? The Fox News pundit, who usually is in lockstep with the Bush program and calls anybody who criticizes those policies idiots and worse, had this to say the other day about the need to get out of Iraq ASAP:
"[We need to] hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible [because] there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."
GOP DISCONTENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Well, one could go on and on with the criticism coming from the Right -- conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts, Congressional Dem warhawk John Murtha, et al. The point is that the Republicans, formerly associated with a winning national-security message, are now regarded much differently by many GOP politicos and rank-and-file citizens.
Many Representatives and Senators also deeply resent the way the Congress has been frozen out of the power loop by the Bush Administration. "We simply want to participate and aren't going to be PR flacks when they need us," Florida's conservative GOP Congressman Mark Foley said. "We all have roles. We have oversight. When you can't answer your constituents when they have legitimate questions -- we can't simply do it on trust."
Scott Reed, who managed Robert Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, called the current low poll ratings for Bush and the GOP "pretty shattering," noting especially that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent. "The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," Reed said. "It started with women [voters] and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."
THE PRESIDENT AS DICTATOR
"Even if you're a Republican member of Congress, you don't buy the exaggerated view of the unified executive theory, in which the only part of the Constitution that matters is Article II," on presidential power, said James B. Steinberg, a dean at the University of Texas at Austin. "If you want them to be in on the landing, you have to have people there for the takeoff."
For example, two staunch conservative Southern Senators won't accept Bush's Unified Executive theory of governance. "I think the administration has looked at the legitimate power of the executive during a time of war and taken it to extremes," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "[It's] to the point that we'd lose constitutional balance. Under their theory, there would be almost no role for the Congress or the courts." Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott was even more blunt: "Don't put your fist in my face."
EVEN WALL ST. IS TALKING IMPEACHMENT
All those defections from the Bush orbit are doing great damage to the once-unified Bush&Co. juggernaut, but I've left out one key one: Wall Street. The titans of finance are agitated, to the point of raising the awareness of the possibility of impeachment or even urging serious consideration of Bush's removal.
The Wall Street Journal, alone among mainstream daily newspapers, has deigned to mention that there is a growing impeachment movement and an active PAC (impeachpac.org). And here's some of what Barron's Editorial Page Editor Thomas G. Donlan wrote in that establishment financial journal:
...The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him...Perhaps they were researched in a Star Chamber? Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation...
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law. ...
THREE MORE YEARS?
So, friends, when we're down in the dumps, depressed by the fact that Bush&Co. are still in power even in the face of all their lies and bumblings and policies that result in thousands of people getting killed and maimed and tortured, let us consider that even their once-loyal rats are deserting the sinking ship of state.
The thought of nearly three more years of Bush&Co. misrule is too horrible to contemplate. So let's ratchet up the pressure, incorporate distressed GOP moderates and conservatives into the impeachment momentum, and send the Bush Bunker crew packing and return the country to reasonable people dedicated to a restoration of Constitutional rule of law and a realistic foreign policy. It's the least we can do for our country.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment, write >>crisispapers@comcast.net <<.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
March 7, 2006
I'm more and more convinced that it will be Republicans, many of them of the true conservative and realist kind, who effectively will do in the Bush Administration.
In this, I am reminded of the behavior of Richard Nixon
when he realized that he was fast losing his middle-class, bourgeois base: He called it quits on the Vietnam War, and likewise on his presidency after his crimes were exposed.
But unlike Nixon's crew, Bush&Co. seem willing to take the country down with them, so desperate are they to hold onto power, deplete the treasury, pay off their corporate friends, carry out their ideological revolution -- and keep themselves out of the federal slammer.
The crimes of the Bush Administration are so many and varied that none of us should be surprised by anything that might happen in the coming weeks and months: Bin Laden captured or reported killed, a U.S.-Israeli air assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, a major terrorist attack inside the U.S. to be followed by martial law, the announcement of a bird-flu outbreak with the military placed in charge. I'm pretty level-headed and don't usually think in these dire terms, but these guys have backed themselves into a tight political corner and are desperate -- and dangerous.........
THE IMPLODING SCANDALS
Bush is at 34% approval rating (Cheney is at 18!), and their scandals are blowing up in their faces: Katrina lies and incompetence; Iraq lies and incompetence; the Dubai Ports deal and incompetence; GOP bribery and corruption; Libby under indictment and Rove apparently about to be; Bush claiming authority to authorize torture, spy on millions of American citizens and violate the law whenever he incants the magic words "national security"; Congress rebelling at being frozen out of decision-making, etc. etc. But in the face of all that, the Roveian M.O. is always to attack their foes and to hype the fright quotient.
The Administration didn't have to consider the most extreme options until recently, when the wheels started falling off the Bush bus. The attacks were no longer coming mostly from liberals and Democrats; more and more, they were coming from loyal conservative Republicans, who, cognizant of the sinking poll numbers, saw the handwriting on the wall: They realized they could well lose their majorities in the House and Senate -- in other words, severed from their jobs and access to the spoils of power -- and they started distancing themselves from the Administration.
So, rather than beating my usual drum here denouncing the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration, I thought I'd just lay out the comments of those conservatives and let them speak for themselves. (My late friend Emile de Antonio, the documentary filmmaker, taught me a good lesson; it's always better, he pointed out, to quote what the Wall Street Journal is saying rather than quoting a hippie or left-activist making the same point. When your own posse smells the moral rot up top, the end is near.)
The quotes here are on Iraq and the neo-con ideologues who took this country to war, though currently the flak is also coming hot and heavy from the Right on both the domestic spying and Dubai ports scandals. (Even conservative Republican Senator Richard Shelby says Bush broke the law in the way he handled the Dubai ports contract, and neo-con leader Bill Kristol suggests the other "i" word ("incompetent") in describing how Bush&Co. stumble around trying to govern: "I think it's become in people's minds an emblem of the administration that just isn't as serious about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should be."
THE NEO-CONS BEHIND THE WAR
Let's begin with a reminder that the conservative establishment didn't agree from the very beginning with Bush's neo-con obsession to invade Iraq. President George H.W. Bush, who successfully organized a massive coalition to push Iraq's army out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, warned his son privately and through his spokesmen of the dangerous consequences both of invading and occupying Iraq and of doing so without wide international support. As he said of Iraq in "A World Transformed" (written with Gen. Brent Scowcroft): "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
Fast forward to the present, when so many Republican stalwarts are saying, in effect, that they backed the wrong horse. Their party was taken over by rightwing extremists, incompetent at that, whose reckless neo-con policies are doing great danger to the country and to the future of the once-great GOP. Here's Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, chair of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation, going even beyond the war into the deeper crimes being committed against Americans' freedoms:
"Most Americans do not yet realize that a war is being waged -- not against Iraq but against each of us. It is not the Republican Party that is charge in this administration but a small cadre who seized executive branch power and converted it to their own uses. Most Republicans are experiencing a deer-in-the-headlights moment right now. Their Party has been hijacked, their president has been hijacked, and they do not know what to do. I remain a registered Republican working for an effective coalition. The attack on us and on our rights has hardly begun. You don't go to the trouble of setting up this degree of control without having made plans to use it."
NEO-CON FUKUYAMA HAS SECOND THOUGHTS
Or try this out. Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the 1992 neo-con best-seller "The End of History," is exhibiting some serious recantation these days in interviews and in his new book, "America at the Crossroads."
He now says that neo-conservatism has "evolved into something I can no longer support," and should be tossed onto history's pile of discredited ideologies. The doctrine, which has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes...is now in shambles," and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy.
For example, though he once supported regime change in Iraq, he now believes the war there is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. "The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally...
"By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."
THE CHENEY-RUMSFELD CABAL
Then we go to a long-time Administration stalwart who couldn't take it any more: Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made," Wilkerson said in a well-publicized speech at the New America Foundation last October. "And you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."
Wilkerson has also focused attacks on the Bush administration for condoning torture, setting lax and ambiguous policies on treatment of detainees that inevitably led to the scandal of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.
BUCKLEY BUCKLES TO REALITY
Onward to the intellectual godfather of the modern conservative movement, National Review founding editor William F. Buckley Jr., who concludes that what may have started as a decent move has evolved into disaster:
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ... Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. ... Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. ... The kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
THE TROOPS WANT OUT, SOON
Speaking of the troops in Iraq, recent polling reveals that nearly 3 out of 4 of U.S troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admits also that the Iraqis want us to leave "as soon as possible."
Here are some pertinent comments by a U.S. soldier in Iraq, writing as "djtyg," about why the desire to leave that country:
"We need to get out because our military cannot take much more of this. We are stretched too thin and it's about to get worse. ... Soldiers are frustrated. Every soldier I have talked to says that they are getting out of the military when they get home. Every. One. Of. Them. Regardless of rank, experience, or time in, they all want out. There has not been a single Soldier I've talked to that says they want to stay in. This includes officers, NCOs, and rookies who are on their first tour of duty. We need to get out of Iraq because Iraq is the reason why the military is shrinking. We, like Cindy Sheehan, are curious as to what 'noble cause' we are fighting for. We can't seem to find one. This is weakening America. At the rate we are going, we are going to have a military that can't fight because it has old and broken down equipment, and no troops to fight a war with."
SEN. HAGEL LOWERS THE BOOM
Then there are key Republican senators who are willing to stick out their necks by talking truth to power about Iraq. For example, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who said the U.S. is losing in Iraq and raised a parallel to an earlier conflict.
The Vietnam War, he said, "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late. To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," he said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
O'REILLY QUESTIONS STAYING IN IRAQ
So, let's see: Bush is losing old-money Republican conservatives, GOP senators, neo-con theorists outside the Cheney-Rumsfeld nexus, military insiders, troops under fire in Iraq -- who else can he lose? Would you believe the lunatic fringe, as symbolized by that raving Limbaugh wannabee Bill O'Reilly? The Fox News pundit, who usually is in lockstep with the Bush program and calls anybody who criticizes those policies idiots and worse, had this to say the other day about the need to get out of Iraq ASAP:
"[We need to] hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible [because] there are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."
GOP DISCONTENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Well, one could go on and on with the criticism coming from the Right -- conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts, Congressional Dem warhawk John Murtha, et al. The point is that the Republicans, formerly associated with a winning national-security message, are now regarded much differently by many GOP politicos and rank-and-file citizens.
Many Representatives and Senators also deeply resent the way the Congress has been frozen out of the power loop by the Bush Administration. "We simply want to participate and aren't going to be PR flacks when they need us," Florida's conservative GOP Congressman Mark Foley said. "We all have roles. We have oversight. When you can't answer your constituents when they have legitimate questions -- we can't simply do it on trust."
Scott Reed, who managed Robert Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, called the current low poll ratings for Bush and the GOP "pretty shattering," noting especially that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent. "The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," Reed said. "It started with women [voters] and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."
THE PRESIDENT AS DICTATOR
"Even if you're a Republican member of Congress, you don't buy the exaggerated view of the unified executive theory, in which the only part of the Constitution that matters is Article II," on presidential power, said James B. Steinberg, a dean at the University of Texas at Austin. "If you want them to be in on the landing, you have to have people there for the takeoff."
For example, two staunch conservative Southern Senators won't accept Bush's Unified Executive theory of governance. "I think the administration has looked at the legitimate power of the executive during a time of war and taken it to extremes," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "[It's] to the point that we'd lose constitutional balance. Under their theory, there would be almost no role for the Congress or the courts." Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott was even more blunt: "Don't put your fist in my face."
EVEN WALL ST. IS TALKING IMPEACHMENT
All those defections from the Bush orbit are doing great damage to the once-unified Bush&Co. juggernaut, but I've left out one key one: Wall Street. The titans of finance are agitated, to the point of raising the awareness of the possibility of impeachment or even urging serious consideration of Bush's removal.
The Wall Street Journal, alone among mainstream daily newspapers, has deigned to mention that there is a growing impeachment movement and an active PAC (impeachpac.org). And here's some of what Barron's Editorial Page Editor Thomas G. Donlan wrote in that establishment financial journal:
...The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him...Perhaps they were researched in a Star Chamber? Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation...
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law. ...
THREE MORE YEARS?
So, friends, when we're down in the dumps, depressed by the fact that Bush&Co. are still in power even in the face of all their lies and bumblings and policies that result in thousands of people getting killed and maimed and tortured, let us consider that even their once-loyal rats are deserting the sinking ship of state.
The thought of nearly three more years of Bush&Co. misrule is too horrible to contemplate. So let's ratchet up the pressure, incorporate distressed GOP moderates and conservatives into the impeachment momentum, and send the Bush Bunker crew packing and return the country to reasonable people dedicated to a restoration of Constitutional rule of law and a realistic foreign policy. It's the least we can do for our country.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment, write >>crisispapers@comcast.net <<.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner
State High School Hockey Tounament
CLASS 2A TODAY -- Updated Hourly
State Tournament Games:
Boys' Hockey
Lakeville North H.S. -- 2
Blaine H.S. -- 7
Final
• Lakeville vs. Blaine, 11 a.m.
• Cretin-Derham Hall vs. Eagan, 1 p.m.
• Hill-Murray vs. Minnetonka,
6 p.m.
• Grand Rapids vs. Roseau, 8 p.m.
State Tournament Games:
Boys' Hockey
Lakeville North H.S. -- 2
Blaine H.S. -- 7
Final
• Lakeville vs. Blaine, 11 a.m.
• Cretin-Derham Hall vs. Eagan, 1 p.m.
• Hill-Murray vs. Minnetonka,
6 p.m.
• Grand Rapids vs. Roseau, 8 p.m.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.: The freedom to offend
February 28, 2006
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
Fred Phelps prepares to protest at the Kansas statehouse Feb. 1. (ORLIN WAGNER/Associated Press)
Allow me to share with you an epiphany. I think Fred Phelps is gay.
Not that I'd have any way to know for sure, and not that there's anything wrong with that. But it seems obvious to me Freddie has spent a little time up on "Brokeback Mountain," if you catch my drift.
Granted, that's not the first thing that comes to mind when you talk about the Fredster, who is defined by an apparently pathological hatred of all things homosexual. Perhaps you remember how his followers desecrated the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was beaten and left to die on a prairie fence in Wyoming eight years ago. They showed up at the funeral bearing signs that said, "God Hates Fags."
Now Phelps has updated his act. His "thinking" is that the casualties of the Iraq war are divine retribution for this country's tolerance of homosexuality. So, he says, thank God for the IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that have sent so many American soldiers home dead or in broken pieces.
Phelps' followers -- he pastors a church in Topeka, Kan., where most of the congregants are members of his family -- have been showing up at military funerals to express this view. Picture it: As your son, sister, wife, brother is being consigned to the soil, these idiots pop up with signs, celebrating his or her death.
Small wonder the state of Wisconsin enacted a law last week banning protests at military funerals. Or that more than a dozen other states are moving in the same direction.
Phelps has vowed to fight the restrictions on First Amendment grounds, and the unfortunate truth is that he has a point. His message is bizarre, grotesque and calculated to hurt. But the Constitution carves out no exception for messages that are bizarre, grotesque and calculated to hurt. The right to freedom of speech is a precious thing that extends even here.
At this point, you probably think he's crazy. Well, I don't think he's as crazy as he seems. Nobody could be. No, he's just gay.
Hear me out. How often have we seen public moralists railing against that in which they themselves secretly indulge? Think Jimmy Swaggart with his prostitute. Think Dr. Laura's pose in the nude. How many times have we seen homosexuality condemned by those who turned out to be closeted themselves? There was Pat Robertson biographer-turned-gay activist Mel White, Spokane Mayor James West, who spent his days opposing gay rights and his nights in gay chat rooms, and Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee, who founded a group that purported to cure people of homosexuality but gave it up when they fell in love with each other.
Consider all that, and then consider the sick ferocity of Phelps' attack: God hates "fags." Gays are vomit-eating dogs. Gays are "worthy of death."
Can you say "self-hatred"? Isn't it obvious? The poor fellow is gayer than a Bette Midler AIDS benefit. In San Francisco.
He needs not our condemnation but our understanding. Maybe someday he'll find the strength to stop living this lie. He might just go on to be the greatest gay-rights activist this country has ever known. Maybe then, in the arms of the right man, he'll stop hurting.
Of course, the Fredster will deny all this. He might even call me unpleasant names. Hey, that's his right. We may not see eye to eye on much, but on one thing, we agree.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132.
February 28, 2006
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
Fred Phelps prepares to protest at the Kansas statehouse Feb. 1. (ORLIN WAGNER/Associated Press)
Allow me to share with you an epiphany. I think Fred Phelps is gay.
Not that I'd have any way to know for sure, and not that there's anything wrong with that. But it seems obvious to me Freddie has spent a little time up on "Brokeback Mountain," if you catch my drift.
Granted, that's not the first thing that comes to mind when you talk about the Fredster, who is defined by an apparently pathological hatred of all things homosexual. Perhaps you remember how his followers desecrated the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student who was beaten and left to die on a prairie fence in Wyoming eight years ago. They showed up at the funeral bearing signs that said, "God Hates Fags."
Now Phelps has updated his act. His "thinking" is that the casualties of the Iraq war are divine retribution for this country's tolerance of homosexuality. So, he says, thank God for the IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that have sent so many American soldiers home dead or in broken pieces.
Phelps' followers -- he pastors a church in Topeka, Kan., where most of the congregants are members of his family -- have been showing up at military funerals to express this view. Picture it: As your son, sister, wife, brother is being consigned to the soil, these idiots pop up with signs, celebrating his or her death.
Small wonder the state of Wisconsin enacted a law last week banning protests at military funerals. Or that more than a dozen other states are moving in the same direction.
Phelps has vowed to fight the restrictions on First Amendment grounds, and the unfortunate truth is that he has a point. His message is bizarre, grotesque and calculated to hurt. But the Constitution carves out no exception for messages that are bizarre, grotesque and calculated to hurt. The right to freedom of speech is a precious thing that extends even here.
At this point, you probably think he's crazy. Well, I don't think he's as crazy as he seems. Nobody could be. No, he's just gay.
Hear me out. How often have we seen public moralists railing against that in which they themselves secretly indulge? Think Jimmy Swaggart with his prostitute. Think Dr. Laura's pose in the nude. How many times have we seen homosexuality condemned by those who turned out to be closeted themselves? There was Pat Robertson biographer-turned-gay activist Mel White, Spokane Mayor James West, who spent his days opposing gay rights and his nights in gay chat rooms, and Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee, who founded a group that purported to cure people of homosexuality but gave it up when they fell in love with each other.
Consider all that, and then consider the sick ferocity of Phelps' attack: God hates "fags." Gays are vomit-eating dogs. Gays are "worthy of death."
Can you say "self-hatred"? Isn't it obvious? The poor fellow is gayer than a Bette Midler AIDS benefit. In San Francisco.
He needs not our condemnation but our understanding. Maybe someday he'll find the strength to stop living this lie. He might just go on to be the greatest gay-rights activist this country has ever known. Maybe then, in the arms of the right man, he'll stop hurting.
Of course, the Fredster will deny all this. He might even call me unpleasant names. Hey, that's his right. We may not see eye to eye on much, but on one thing, we agree.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.
LEONARD PITTS JR. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132.
News Flash -- This Just In......
In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, in response to the question whether President Bush is a "uniter" or a "divider," 49 percent of Americans said uniter, and 49 percent said divider.
Ass Backwards
To support its December rate-increase request, the Connecticut utility Yankee Gas Services said it needs more money because too many of its customers have lowered their bills by heeding calls to conserve energy. And a November report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce included the proposal that Congress replenish the federal Highway Trust Fund by imposing a special tax on gas-saving hybrid cars (in that those cars consume less fuel than regular cars and therefore pay less in gasoline tax). [Connecticut Post, 12-10-05] [Boston Globe-AP, 11-26-05]
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Man demands money, then says "just kidding"
The Associated Press
11:38 a.m. -- WILLISTON, N.D. (AP) — A man wearing a ski mask walked into a bank here and demanded money, then told tellers, ``Just kidding,'' police say.
Ryan Wright, 20, of Williston, surrendered to police Monday night, said Sgt. Mark Hanson, a Williston police detective. Wright faces a charge of terrorizing in the Feb. 17 incident.
"He walked into the bank wearing a ski mask and demanded money,'' Hanson said. ``After a few moments, he pulled the ski mask over his chin, and the tellers could see his face, and said, 'just kidding.'''
No customers were in the bank at the time, Hanson said. The man never did take the ski mask off completely, he said.
``He never showed a weapon, but the tellers got quite scared and concerned and thought the worst,'' Hanson said.
Wright then went about his banking business, Hanson said.
``He took some money from his checking account and left,'' the detective said.
Police issued a warrant for Wright last week but could not find him. Wright turned himself in early Monday night, Hanson said. He was jailed in Williston, awaiting a bond hearing.
Terrorizing, a Class C felony, carries a maximum sentence of five years in jail and a $5,000 fine.
Hanson said he did not know if Wright intended to rob the bank but backed out. ``We have no way of knowing that,'' he said.
``You don't walk into a bank with a ski mask and say 'Give me all your money,''' Hanson said. ``It's just like going on an airplane and saying you have a bomb.''
Monday, March 06, 2006
Ladysmith Black Mambazo
Traditional South African folk group Ladysmith Black Mambazo will be in Detroit Lakes on March 12. The group is heard on Paul Simon’s ‘Graceland’ album.
Danny Ulmer
Yesterday in the Bismarck Tribune there was an artical about the Mandan mayor having a heart attack. Dan Ulmer the commision vice president is to take over until the mayor can resume his duties. Thought you'd like to know. DAD
(click here for full story)
(click here for full story)
Friday, March 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)