TWO GOOD LEGS

Turkey Day Comin'

2010-11-21T20:36:00.002-06:00

The reference to Turkey Day is not November 25 -- the national day of thanksgiving. Rather, it's January 3, when the new Congressional session starts. I don't have a much to comment about that. I just thought I'd write something here to see if I might wake up some of the echoes of the past. In the event of complete silence, I will delete this sight from my favorites and move on, alone, lonely, forlorn, and forgotten.

Take the 40 minutes to watch

2008-03-19T09:40:00.002-05:00

I was pretty moved, and found it thoughtful and somewhat groundbreaking. Interesting to see what others thought. For example, read these select quotes from the writers (not readers, mind you) at National Review Online:

Obama's speech was absurd. It was full of contradictions and stereotypes. Most of all, he took no personal responsibility for adopting a racist as his father figure. Indeed, in excusing Wright he sought to excuse himself.
What kind of person would traduce his grandmother (who is still alive) to score a political point? Yesterday's speech, read through in the clear light of dawn, is worse than I thought: an ugly mish-mash of ancient socialist clichés and Gen-X spoiled-brat self-congratulation, all enveloped in clouds of flatulent Oprahnian rhetoric. Ugh!
The message? Wright’s motives for espousing hatred are complex and misunderstood; your motives for worrying about Obama and his Pastor are simple and suspect. When Obama the magician was all done this morning, Obama was no longer under examination for terrible judgment in subsidizing a racist by his association and purse, nor was even the racist Wright under doubt; instead almost everyone else, from the system to his grandmother, to talk radio, to corporate culture, to your rabbi or priest suddenly was.
Meanwhile, in an effort to lay blame everywhere, Obama called out his own grandmother for admitting to her, now, not so secret fear of young black male strangers. He said that when he was growing up her remarks sometimes made him cringe. Well, for my part, hearing him compare a woman who sacrificed for his well-being to a pastor who's only benefited from his association made me cringe. Real courage and real candor is Chris Rock standing on stage telling a packed black audience that seeing young black men on dark lonely night near the glow of an ATM can make him feel nervous, too.
The speech is slippery, evasive, dishonest, and sometimes insulting.
It's a speech, and a controversy, that are predictable and dispiriting — that with minor changes one could imagine attributing to Hillary or Jesse.
The more I think about this speech, the more I think Obama said: Damn straight, Rev. Wright is angry. That's how I wound up at his church. That's why I stay there. I'm mad too, I just control it better. Now let's get electing me president so we can all feel good.
I stopped listening when the senator started talking about immigrant Americans and it was clear that he was going to extend the roster of victims to include everybody. There is no excuse for Wright and his ugly sermons. Obama could have said he loved the man, but he’s wrong in his hatred of America. But that is not what Obama said. There is no excuse for Wright’s brand of hatred.
This a breathtaking attempt to pass off Wright's hateful rants by implying that they are little different than the "political views" of some priest with which a parishioner might disagree. Does he think plenty of ministers of every faith are capable of spewing Wright-like vitriol or, despite his repudiations, does he really view the comments as benign "political views" with which we're free to disagree
I thought Sen. Obama spent quite a bit of time disparaging others. All churchgoers hear insulting or offensive preaching? His grandmother's a racist? Low-income white Americans are angry and irrational, too?" Evil business meanies are throwing Americans out of work for "nothing more than profit?"
Gee, this country is kind of "mean," isn't it

After March 4 ...

2008-03-06T22:10:00.004-06:00

"Okay ... you got Ohio and Texas, but it's still a close count."

What great race! Some pundits posit that having no clear victor yet will amp up the rancor and damage the party. I don't think so. True, the Dems have a knack for imploding even before the convention, but this year feels different. The Republicans will start chipping away at both, but at least McCain seems to eschew the Carl-Rove tactics of the recent past. Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama will need to clarify their differences -- hopefully by hammering at policy, rather than personality. All in all, this race has more energy and excitement than any I can remember.

Hope for a Statesman

2008-01-05T23:40:00.001-06:00

Yes, they still exist. Just when you think the pettiness and the fear and the cynicism and insulting divisiveness were terminal, a rural state in the middle of our great country sends a message that enough is enough. For the first time in my life I feel like I am moved by a true statesman and patriot. God bless America.

Sifting the ruins ...

2007-10-04T23:30:00.000-05:00

So, class, here we are at one of the mid-paleoliberal blog sites. As you know, the webscape is littered with literally thousands of these early 21st-century homesteads. Hundreds of thousands of bloggers were lured onto the Great Plains of the cyberfrontier by the promise of free space -- where a man could state his opinion, by god, and make his own way among the punditry.

No one really knows why so many of these settlers gave up on their dreams, although theories abound. We do know this. Some went bust, pulled up stakes, and retreated to their day jobs. Others found that, rather than plowing their wits into this rocky soil, they could make rather handsome fortunes exploiting those who continued to do so. These people are now called campaign consultants, and it's best not to speak of them.

Mostly, though, we can attribute the downfall of the blogsteaders to the steady drought that has afflicted the political landscape for several years now. It's difficult to scratch out a respectable living beating the Bush, and the Dust Bowl obliterated the Democratic Dream. Now, all that's left is a collection of vacant pages like this one -- the dry well of ideas, the shutters flapping in the lonely wind, and the echoes of the erudition that once fertilized these fields. Okay then, class, let's move on ...

Spiritual Experience?

2007-06-18T22:25:00.000-05:00

Here.
2GL Contributors, lets work on getting this thing going again.

Recommends

2007-06-12T19:46:00.000-05:00

spelling bee kid.

Falafel. Never realized fried sawdust could taste so good. top with hummus , baba ganoush, and those pickled parsely springs...oh, it's no longer just a garnish.

Recommends

2007-06-01T18:57:00.000-05:00

Rubberbands--the lazy man's twist tie. So versatile. Bring some home from your office and secure your items in your fridge today. I had a boss constantly call them "elastics." Please don't.

Menthol-infused shaving cream--for some reason, no burn--only cool sensation. Malin and Goetz brand for best results. Makes shaving something to look forward to.

Jogging--yeah, the old-fashioned sort. Far superior a workout than any of its competitors. Just tough to get kick-started, with creeking knees and lower lumbar problems, but worth the fight. Feels like I lost 5 lbs, just thinking about it.

Buying Used Books on Amazon Marketplace--awesome concept. Usually pay about $3-$4 for all kinds of hard-to-find shit. I'd rely on the sellers' with the most feedback. You say "obviously"? I say "$500 million per year in Internet fraud." But I haven't had a problem yet with the less popular sellers. You can't be needing it, though, for a paper due on Monday. Takes a good 10-14 days to receive.

Wasabi & Soy Sauce Blue Diamond Almonds--will kick your @ss initially with bold taste, but then becomes refreshingly addictive.

The Genitive Case--a possessive of time, when you want to short cut "six years of imprisonment" to "six years' imprisonment." We use it easily in speech, on Court TV, avoid it in writing. Its simple, elegant--the new comma. Other examples: an hour's delay, three days' time.

Horse Raddish Hummus from Trader Joe's--refreshingly addictive, see Wasabi/soy almonds. Ate a whole tub straight the other night. Wasabi is just Japanese Horse Raddish, for the tyros out there.

Please feel free to add to the mix....

Patriot Act- Was it worth it?

2007-03-20T18:08:00.000-05:00

This story does not appear to be raising as many eyebrows with the American People as the U.S. Attorneys firings. If you care about the U.S. Attorney story, this one is equally important to our system of criminal justice. The basic idea is that a few FBI Field Offices were audited to determine violations of personal electronic data gather tools allowed in the Patriot Act. (i.e. the sections of the P. Act that broadened the 4th Amendendment's unreasonable search and seizure clause or broadened power for national security reasons.) They did poorly, here's the idea:

In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of just four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during between 2003 and 2005, including failure to get proper authorization, making improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records. He estimated that "a significant number of ... violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported.

In 1986, Congress first authorized FBI agents to obtain electronic records without approval from a judge using national security letters. The letters can be used to acquire e-mails, telephone, travel records and financial information, like credit and bank transactions.
In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.
Fine found more than 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters" which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data, when in fact such subpoenas never been sought.

I can not say the Patriot Act is all bad, but this should be a concern to us all. Better administration can solve this issue. Oh, and Democratic oversight.

Mendoza's Book Club: Think Oprah Style

2007-02-21T13:58:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. Great read, not too long and rather captivating. The author tells of his childhood in Sierra Leone before, during and after civil war. Before I read the book, I thought the children were enslaved by the government or rebel military. That was not the case, this guy essentially chose to fight because he was given food, shelter and protection. Something he did not have for months when he lived day by day in the forest trying to avoid starvation or death at the hands of rebels. This book will make you truly empathize with the author as he takes you through his unfortunate journey. He finally made an unlikely escape to New York City and now, at the age of 27, is an advocate for those similarly situated.

Propaganda 101

2007-02-21T13:39:00.000-06:00

The propaganda machine is cranking. Either that or Cheney is simply crazy.

Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well

I would feel sorry for this administration at their pathetic attempts at trying to put a good face on this situation, if they weren't such arrogant, incompetent, self serving individuals. So the Brits pulling out is a positive thing, right? The establishment of order in Basra and Southern Iraq would be a positive event, if the VP is correct. I have more reason to disbelieve than believe anything coming out of this administration. But considering the chaos in Baghdad and elsewhere,(i.e. the Kurds essentially carving out their own country) wouldn't it follow that the Brits would offer to place those troops, the ones in Basra, in other areas that badly need help. I mean, if things were going as well as the VP says, why wouldn't the Brits want to finish the job that, according to the VP, is going so well? Realistically, the Brits are cutting their losses. They do not have the stomach that we all need to figure out a way to establish order in Iraq. And the end result is additional harm to American troops.

Airlines Passengers Stranded for 10 Hours on Tarmac

2007-01-25T13:28:00.000-06:00

These folks were stranded on the tarmac in late December in Austin due to weather in the DFW area. For 10 hours! The plane eventually ran out of food and drinks and the toilets were overflowing. The flight was then cancelled and passengers had to get a flight the next day. They created a blog to push a "Passengers Bill of Rights". Apparently elected officials are not paying much attention. I suggested they should get the D.A. to prosecute the American Airlines agents for false imprisonment.

Does the New Year have legs?

2007-01-07T19:51:00.000-06:00

Tradition holds that the Old Year is the Old Man with the scythe, while the New Year is an infant in diapers. However, given the lack of any vital signs shown on this blog over several weeks, this image seems to be the harbinger of 2007 for Two Good Legs.

Let's review: the Democrats take over Congress, Rumsfeld is out, Negroponte moves over to State, and so far this year, Cheney hasn't shot anyone. Surely something there puts the itch to your little blogger fingers, eh?

On the other hand, maybe I need to pay more attention to the fad lists that come out about this time of year -- blogging - out, burrowing - in.

Red? Blue? Ah, to hell with it ...

2006-11-19T22:01:00.000-06:00

Ain't it strange -- an earthshaking shift of power in the mid-term election, and this blog snoozes on. Well, I'll report from Big Sky country. The Senate race was one of the bated-breath cliff hangers that caught national attention. Jon Tester (D) ousted Conrad Burns (3-term incumbent R) in a race decided by less than 3,000 votes. Way to go, Jonny! Rep. Denny Rehburg (R) held on to his seat by a handy margin.

With the Senate results and a sitting Democratic governor, I expected the Dems to bolster their hold on the state legislature. Not so. The state senate tied 25-25, and the house went 50-49 GOP, with one Constitutional party (i.e. radical conservative) victor.

But hold the phone! In the house, a couple recounts are underway, and one race in Yellowstone County looks deadlocked. In case of a tie, the Gov gets to appoint the winner, so it could shift 50-49 Dems. In the senate, the results were all in, then a sitting GOP senator decided to switch parties. On top of that, this senator recently went to work for the current administration's (D) revenue department and sits on the Finance Committee.

So, 4 for 2 Sam has shaken the tree of power, and a lot of vocal Republicans are going nuts. It's fun, actually. I think there's more mud in the air after the election than before it. And the campaign mud was pretty thick.

Kerry me home ...

2006-11-02T22:43:00.000-06:00

So here's what Jody sent along ...

It is kinda funny. I sometimes chuckle at Mallard Fillmore, too.

But think back to a week ago. Our Vice President advocated a "dunk in the water" for suspects. Yeah, it got a little MSN hysteria de jour going, but nothin' like this flap over Kerry. I'm not saying the "liberal" press is biased one way or the other -- it's just that nobody can crank up the mean machine like this Administration and its party.

On the whole, I'd rather have a senator who botches a joke than a President who botches a war.

Good TNR Article; What Say You Democrats

2006-10-27T13:39:00.000-05:00

Against the myth of American innocence.
Cowboy Nation
by Robert Kagan
From The New Republic

These days, we are having a national debate over the direction of foreign policy. Beyond the obvious difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a broader sense that our nation has gone astray. We have become too militaristic, too idealistic, too arrogant; we have become an "empire." Much of the world views us as dangerous. In response, many call for the United States to return to its foreign policy traditions, as if that would provide the answer.

What exactly are those traditions? One tradition is this kind of debate, which we've been having ever since the birth of the nation, when Patrick Henry accused supporters of the Constitution of conspiring to turn the young republic into a "great and mighty empire." Today, we are mightier than Henry could have ever imagined. Yet we prefer to see ourselves in modest terms--as a reluctant hegemon, a status quo power that seeks only ordered stability in the international arena. James Schlesinger captured this perspective several years ago, when he said that Americans have "been thrust into a position of lonely preeminence." The United States, he added, is "a most unusual, not to say odd, country to serve as international leader." If, at times, we venture forth and embroil ourselves in the affairs of others, it is either because we have been attacked or because of the emergence of some dangerous revolutionary force--German Nazism, Japanese imperialism, Soviet communism, radical Islamism. Americans do not choose war; war is thrust upon us. As a recent presidential candidate put it, "The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

But that self-image, with its yearning for some imagined lost innocence, is based on myth. Far from the modest republic that history books often portray, the early United States was an expansionist power from the moment the first pilgrim set foot on the continent; and it did not stop expanding--territorially, commercially, culturally, and geopolitically--over the next four centuries. The United States has never been a status quo power; it has always been a revolutionary one, consistently expanding its participation and influence in the world in ever-widening arcs. The impulse to involve ourselves in the affairs of others is neither a modern phenomenon nor a deviation from the American spirit. It is embedded in the American DNA.

ong before the country's founding, British colonists were busy driving the Native American population off millions of acres of land and almost out of existence. From the 1740s through the 1820s, and then in another burst in the 1840s, Americans expanded relentlessly westward from the Alleghenies to the Ohio Valley and on past the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, southward into Mexico and Florida, and northward toward Canada--eventually pushing off the continent not only Indians, but the great empires of France, Spain, and Russia as well. (The United Kingdom alone barely managed to defend its foothold in North America.) This often violent territorial expansion was directed not by redneck "Jacksonians" but by eastern gentlemen expansionists like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams.

It would have been extraordinary had early Americans amassed all this territory and power without really wishing for it. But they did wish for it. With 20 years of peace, Washington predicted in his valedictory, the United States would acquire the power to "bid defiance, in a just cause, to any earthly power whatsoever." Jefferson foresaw a vast "empire of liberty" spreading west, north, and south across the continent. Hamilton believed the United States would, "erelong, assume an attitude correspondent with its great destinies--majestic, efficient, and operative of great things. A noble career lies before it." John Quincy Adams considered the United States "destined by God and nature to be the most populous and powerful people ever combined under one social compact." And Americans' aspirations only grew in intensity over the decades, as national power and influence increased. In the 1850s, William Seward predicted that the United States would become the world's dominant power, "the greatest of existing states, greater than any that has ever existed." A century later, Dean Acheson, present at the creation of a U.S.-dominated world order, would describe the United States as "the locomotive at the head of mankind" and the rest of the world as "the caboose." More recently, Bill Clinton labeled the United States "the world's indispensable nation."

From the beginning, others have seen Americans not as a people who sought ordered stability but as persistent disturbers of the status quo. As the ancient Corinthians said of the Athenians, they were "incapable of either living a quiet life themselves or of allowing anyone else to do so." Nineteenth-century Americans were, in the words of French diplomats, "numerous," "warlike," and an "enemy to be feared." In 1817, John Quincy Adams reported from London, "The universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth of our population and power is that we shall, if united, become a very dangerous member of the society of nations." The United States was dangerous not only because it was expansionist, but also because its liberal republicanism threatened the established conservative order of that era. Austria's Prince Metternich rightly feared what would happen to the "moral force" of Europe's conservative monarchies when "this flood of evil doctrines" was married to the military, economic, and political power Americans seemed destined to acquire.

What Metternich understood, and what others would learn, was that the United States was a nation with almost boundless ambition and a potent sense of national honor, for which it was willing to go to war. It exhibited the kind of spiritedness, and even fierceness, in defense of home, hearth, and belief that the ancient Greeks called thumos. It was an uncommonly impatient nation, often dissatisfied with the way things were, almost always convinced of the possibility of beneficial change and of its own role as a catalyst. It was also a nation with a strong martial tradition. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Americans loved peace, but they also believed in the potentially salutary effects of war. "No man in the nation desires peace more than I," Henry Clay declared before the war with Great Britain in 1812. "But I prefer the troubled ocean of war, demanded by the honor and independence of the country, with all its calamities, and desolations, to the tranquil, putrescent pool of ignominious peace." Decades later, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the famed jurist who had fought--and been wounded three times--in the Civil War, observed, "War, when you are at it, is horrible and dull. It is only when time has passed that you see that its message was divine."

Modern Americans don't talk this way anymore, but it is not obvious that we are very different in our attitudes toward war. Our martial tradition has remained remarkably durable, especially when compared with most other democracies in the post-World War II era. From 1989 to 2003, a 14-year period spanning three very different presidencies, the United States deployed large numbers of combat troops or engaged in extended campaigns of aerial bombing and missile attacks on nine different occasions: in Panama (1989), Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995-1996), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (1991, 1998, 2003). That is an average of one significant military intervention every 19 months--a greater frequency than at any time in our history. Americans stand almost alone in believing in the utility and even necessity of war as a means of obtaining justice. Surveys commissioned by the German Marshall Fund consistently show that 80 percent of Americans agree with the proposition that "[u]nder some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice." In France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, less than one-third of the population agrees.

How do we reconcile the gap between our preferred self-image and this historical reality? With difficulty. We are, and have always been, uncomfortable with our power, our ambition, and our willingness to use force to achieve our objectives. What the historian Gordon Wood has called our deeply rooted "republicanism" has always made us suspicious of power, even our own. Our enlightenment liberalism, with its belief in universal rights and self-determination, makes us uncomfortable using our influence, even in what we regard as a good cause, to deprive others of their freedom of action. Our religious conscience makes us look disapprovingly on ambition--both personal and national. Our modern democratic worldview conceives of "honor" as something antiquated and undemocratic. These misgivings rarely stop us from pursuing our goals, any more than our suspicion of wealth stops us from trying to accumulate it. But they do make us reluctant to see ourselves as others see us. Instead, we construct more comforting narratives of our past. Or we create some idealized foreign policy against which to measure our present behavior. We hope that we can either return to the policies of that imagined past or approximate some imagined ideal to recapture our innocence. It is easier than facing the hard truth: America's expansiveness, intrusiveness, and tendency toward political, economic, and strategic dominance are not some aberration from our true nature. That is our nature.

hy are we this way? In many respects, we share characteristics common to all peoples through history. Like others, Americans have sought power to achieve prosperity, independence, and security as well as less tangible goals. As American power increased, so, too, did American ambitions, both noble and venal. Growing power changes nations, just as it changes people. It changes their perceptions of the world and their place in it. It increases their sense of entitlement and reduces their tolerance for obstacles that stand in their way. Power also increases ambition. When Americans acquired the unimaginably vast territory of Louisiana at the dawn of the nineteenth century, doubling the size of their young nation with lands that would take decades to settle, they did not rest content but immediately looked for still more territory beyond their new borders. As one foreign diplomat observed, "Since the Americans have acquired Louisiana, they appear unable to bear any barriers round them."

But, in addition to the common human tendency to seek greater power and influence over one's surroundings, Americans have been driven outward into the world by something else: the potent, revolutionary ideology of liberalism that they adopted at the nation's birth. Indeed, it is probably liberalism, more than any other factor, that has made the United States so energetic, expansive, and intrusive over the course of its history.

Liberalism fueled the prodigious territorial and commercial expansion in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that made the United States, first, the dominant power in North America and, then, a world power. It did so by elevating the rights of the individual over the state--by declaring that all people had a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness and by insisting it was the government's primary job to safeguard those rights. American political leaders had little choice but to permit, and sometimes support, territorial and commercial claims made by their citizens, even when those claims encroached on the lands or waters of foreigners. Other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century governments, ruled by absolute monarchs, permitted national expansion when it served personal or dynastic interests--and, like Napoleon in the New World, blocked it when it did not. When the king of England tried to curtail the territorial and commercial expansionism of his Anglo-American subjects, they rebelled and established a government that would not hold them back. In this respect, the most important foreign policy statement in U.S. history was not George Washington's farewell address or the Monroe Doctrine but the Declaration of Independence and the enlightenment ideals it placed at the heart of American nationhood. Putting those ideals into practice was a radical new departure in government, and it inevitably produced a new kind of foreign policy.

Next: "Liberalism not only drove territorial and commercial expansion; it also provided an overarching ideological justification for such expansion."

Liberalism not only drove territorial and commercial expansion; it also provided an overarching ideological justification for such expansion. By expanding territorially, commercially, politically, and culturally, Americans believed that they were bringing both modern civilization and the "blessings of liberty" to whichever nations they touched in their search for opportunity. As Jefferson told one Indian leader: "We desire above all things, brother, to instruct you in whatever we know ourselves. We wish to learn you all our arts and to make you wise and wealthy." In one form or another, Americans have been making that offer of instruction to peoples around the world ever since.

Americans, from the beginning, measured the world exclusively according to the assumptions of liberalism. These included, above all, a belief in what the Declaration of Independence called the "self-evident" universality of certain basic truths--not only that all men were created equal and endowed by God with inalienable rights, but also that the only legitimate and just governments were those that derived their powers "from the consent of the governed." According to the Declaration, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." Such a worldview does not admit the possibility of alternative truths. Americans, over the centuries, accepted the existence of cultural distinctions that influenced other peoples to rule themselves differently. But they never really accepted the legitimacy of despotic governments, no matter how deeply rooted in culture. As a result, they viewed them as transitory. And so, wherever Americans looked in the world, they saw the possibility and the desirability of change.

The notion of progress is a central tenet of liberalism. More than any other people, Americans have taken a progressive view of history, evaluating other nations according to where they stood on the continuum of progress. The Russians, Theodore Roosevelt believed, were "below the Germans just as the Germans are below us ... [but] we are all treading the same path, some faster, some slower." If Roosevelt's language sounds antiquated, our modern perspective is scarcely different. Although we may disagree among ourselves about the pace of progress, almost all Americans believe that it is both inevitable and desirable. We generally agree on the need to assist other nations in their political and economic development. But development toward what, if not toward the liberal democratic ideal that defines our nationalism? The "great struggle of the epoch," Madison declared in the 1820s, is "between liberty and despotism." Because the rights of man were written "by the hand of the divinity itself," as Hamilton put it, that struggle could ultimately have only one outcome.

It was a short step from that conviction to the belief that the interests of the United States were practically indistinguishable from the interests of the world. "The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind," Thomas Paine argued at the time of the revolution. Herman Melville would later write that, for Americans, "national selfishness is unbounded philanthropy; for we cannot do a good to America but we give alms to the world." It was another short step to the belief that the United States had a special, even unique, role to play in serving as a catalyst for the evolution of mankind. "The rights asserted by our forefathers were not peculiar to themselves," Seward declared, "they were the common rights of mankind." Therefore, he said, the United States had a duty "to renovate the condition of mankind" and lead the way to "the universal restoration of power to the governed" everywhere in the world. Decades earlier, John Quincy Adams had noted with pride that the United States was the source of ideas that made "the throne of every European monarch rock under him as with the throes of an earthquake." Praising the American Revolution, he exhorted "every individual among the sceptered lords of mankind: 'Go thou and do likewise!'"

Russian minister, appalled at this "appeal to the nations of Europe to rise against their Governments," noted the hypocrisy of Adams's message, asking, "How about your two million black slaves?" Indeed. The same United States that called for global revolution on behalf of freedom was, throughout its first eight decades, also the world's great defender of racial despotism. The slaveholding South was itself a brutal tyranny, almost totalitarian in its efforts to control the speech and personal behavior of whites as well as blacks. Much of the U.S. territorial expansion in the nineteenth century--including the Mexican War, which garnered today's American Southwest and California--was driven by slaveholders, insisting on new lands to which they could spread their despotic system.

In the end, the violent abolition of slavery in the United States was a defining moment in the country's foreign policy: It strengthened the American tendency toward liberal moralism in foreign affairs. The Northern struggle against slavery, culminating in the Civil War, was America's first moral crusade. The military defeat of the Southern slaveholders was America's first war of ideological conquest. And what followed was America's first attempt at occupation and democratic nation-building (with the same mixed results as later efforts). The effect of the whole struggle was to intensify the American dedication to the universality of rights and to reaffirm the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution with its tacit acceptance of slavery, as the central document of American nationhood. The Civil War fixed in the American mind, or at least in the Northern mind, the idea of the just war--a battle, fought for moral reasons, whose objectives can be achieved only through military action.

Such thinking led to the Spanish-American War of 1898. One of the most popular wars in U.S. history, it enjoyed the support of both political parties, of William Jennings Bryan and Andrew Carnegie, of eastern Brahmin Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge, radical prairie populists, and labor leaders. Although one would not know it from reading most histories today, the war was motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. Civil strife in Cuba and the brutal policies of the Spanish government--in particular the herding of the civilian population into "reconcentration" camps--had caused some 300,000 deaths, one-fifth of Cuba's population. Most of the victims were women, children, and the elderly. Lodge and many others argued that the United States had a responsibility to defend the Cuban people against Spanish oppression precisely because it had the power to do so. "Here we stand motionless, a great and powerful country not six hours away from these scenes of useless bloodshed and destruction," he said, imploring that, if the United States "stands for humanity and civilization, we should exercise every influence of our great country to put a stop to that war which is now raging in Cuba and give to that island once more peace, liberty, and independence." The overwhelming majority of the nation agreed. The U.S. intervention put an end to that suffering and saved untold thousands of lives. When John Hay called it a "splendid little war," it was not because of the smashing military victory--Hay was no militarist. It was the lofty purposes and accomplishments of the war that were splendid.

It was also true that the United States had self-interested reasons for going to war: commercial interests in Cuba, as well as the desire to remove Spain from the hemisphere and establish our preeminence in the region. Most of Europe condemned the United States as selfish and aggressive, failing to credit it with humanitarian impulses. Moreover, the war produced some unintended and, for many who idealistically supported it, disillusioning consequences. It led to the acquisition of the Philippines and a most unsplendid war against independence-minded Filipinos. It also produced a well-intentioned, but ultimately disappointing, multiyear occupation of Cuba that would haunt Americans for another century. And it reignited an old debate over the course of U.S. foreign policy--similar to the one that consumes us today.

ow, as then, the projection of U.S. power for liberal purposes faces its share of domestic criticism--warnings against arrogance, hubris, excessive idealism, and "imperialism." Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, conservatives in the republican tradition of Patrick Henry worried about the effect at home of expansive policies abroad. They predicted, correctly, that a big foreign policy generally meant a big federal government, which--in their eyes--meant impingements on the rights and freedoms of the individual. The conservatives of the slaveholding South were the great realists of the nineteenth century. They opposed moralism, rightly fearing it would be turned against the institution of slavery. As Jefferson Davis put it, "We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man. Our struggle is for inherited rights. ... We are conservative." At the end of the century, when Americans were enthusiastically pushing across the Pacific, critics like Grover Cleveland's long-forgotten secretary of state, Walter Q. Gresham, warned that "[e]very nation, and especially every strong nation, must sometimes be conscious of an impulse to rush into difficulties that do not concern it, except in a highly imaginary way. To restrain the indulgence of such a propensity is not only the part of wisdom, but a duty we owe to the world as an example of the strength, the moderation, and the beneficence of popular government."

But, just as progressivism and big government have generally triumphed in domestic affairs, so, too, has the liberal approach to the world beyond our shores. Henry failed to defeat the Constitution. Southern realism lost to Northern idealism. The critics of liberal foreign policy--whether conservative, realist, or leftist--have rarely managed to steer the United States on a different course.

The result has been some accomplishments of great historical importance--the defeat of German Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet communism--as well as some notable failures and disappointments. But it was not as if the successes were the product of a good America and the failures the product of a bad America. They were all the product of the same America. The achievements, as well as the disappointments, derived from the very qualities that often make us queasy: our willingness to accumulate and use power; our ambition and sense of honor; our spiritedness in defense of both our interests and our principles; our dissatisfaction with the status quo; our belief in the possibility of change. And, throughout, whether succeeding or failing, we have remained a "dangerous" nation in many senses--dangerous to tyrannies, dangerous to those who do not want our particular brand of liberalism, dangerous to those who fear our martial spirit and our thumos, dangerous to those, including Americans, who would prefer an international order not built around a dominant and often domineering United States.

Whether a different kind of international system or a different kind of America would be preferable is a debate worth having. But let us have this debate about our future without illusions about our past.

Robert Kagan is a contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of Dangerous Nation: America's Place in the World from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century.

Two lewd yeggs ...

2006-10-16T21:21:00.000-05:00

Perhaps this blog should change its name. "TWO GOOD SIGHS"? "TWO SOFT-BOILED EGGS"? "JODY IS A SCHMUCK"? I think this image sez it all.

Here's a nice one from Hannah ...

Rumsfeld is reporting to the President and the Cabinet. He says, "Three Brazilian soldiers were killed today in Iraq." George Bush says, "Oh, My God!" as he buries his head in his hands.

The entire cabinet is stunned. Usually the President shows no reaction to these reports. Just then, Bush looks up and says, "Exactly, how many is a brazilian?"

OUR VALUES

2006-09-28T16:38:00.000-05:00

The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days [of the Revolutionary War], years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it's easy to imagine how far that must have seemed.
General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners:
"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren."
Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new
nation.
Above all, we are bound by our values.
George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.
Now these values – George Washington’s values, the values of our founding – are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our nation's conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics.

The Senate, under the authority of the Republican Majority and with the blessing and encouragement of the Bush-Cheney Administration, is doing a great disservice to our history, our principles, our citizens, and our soldiers. The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty."

I don't think Hillary Clinton should run for president. But today, she deserves our thanks for standing up for the values of our founding fathers.

Just Watch It.

2006-09-14T22:11:00.000-05:00

And tell me what you think. Is your government torturing people?

Immigration and Democrats

2006-09-06T12:17:00.000-05:00

With regard to the immigration issue, Lou Dobbs and many other pundits have been asking the question, why not just secure the border first. The proposed immigration bills have generally attempted to resolve the many difficult issues all at once. I have been saying the same thing for months, just secure the border, it's a security issue (which could help the GOP)and most Americans agree that the border is a vulnerability. The Democrats should covertly attempt to rally immigration protests. My guess is that the GOP does not even want to deal with border security because it brings attention to the issue of amnesty, worker program, etc. So long as the Democrats do not appear to be supporting the movement (which they do not), the GOP will take losses for having the amnesty issue in the news. If we do not win at least one house, the embarrassment will be destructive and it will be because the D's will not exploit this issue. It's not policy kids, it's politics!!!

Burns burned on burns ...

2006-09-01T20:08:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm getting tired of logging on to "Hannity Sucks Ass." So I'll just post a picture of an ass. This is Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), who is in a fight for his political life. During his life as an auctioneer, he came down with foot-in-mouth disease, and it has plagued him throughout his unfortunately extended senatorial career. (This is the guy who, when running for his first term, said he would seek only two. Now he's seeking his fourth.)

So anyway, in July Conrad approached a group of hotshot firefighters in the Billings airport. ("Hotshot" isn't a pejorative term; this is the elite crew.) These guys were bone tired, headed back home to Georgia. Based on the whines that Burns had heard from his rancher pals, he lit into them, saying they had done a "piss poor" job of firefighting. Well, that little imbroglio has cooled down a bit. Or it would if Connie didn't keep throwing tinder on the fire. And, unfortunately, the wildfire season continues in Montana.

Here's the latest. Burns wrote a condescending "official" letter to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, urging him to declare a fire emergency and mobilize the National Guard. Schweitzer was seven weeks ahead of him, having declared an emergency on July 11. Ah, Connie ... if only you knew your burro (ass) from a burrow (hole in the ground). Jon Tester (left -- in more ways than here) looks better every day.

"Hannity Sucks Ass"

2006-08-10T12:15:00.000-05:00

This is great, couldn't have been stated better. This is a screenshot from Tuesday night on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes was covering the Lieberman race, Hannity was in studio asking Colmes questions. 2GL Reports, You Decide

Too Bad for the Democrats

2006-08-09T12:27:00.000-05:00

Howdy Doody lost his reelection bid yesterday due to his support of the President on the war in Iraq. This is unfortunate for the Democrat party and, more importantly, for a moderately progressive movement. Joe Lieberman had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and was one of the most reasonable elected officials in D.C. But, the crazy wing of the D party is out for blood and unfortunately, Lieberman has fallen victim. I would love to see him win as an Independent, but realistically, he is done. To the detriment of the Democratic Party. I have inched closer to declaring myself as an independent and so long as folks like Howard Dean, Sheehan and Pelosi continue to be the face of the liberal movement, we will constantly lose elections. DUH!!!! What say you Abe, you true "liberal". Oh wait, Abe is windsurfing this week.

Happy Independence Day

2006-07-04T10:08:00.000-05:00

Party Three

2006-06-29T08:55:00.000-05:00

"A third party will be a reality within the next 20 years. It will be a socially
libertarian party, that is fiscally conservative and protectionist, yet serious
and logical about national defense." - RAM

I thought I'd pull ARM's prediction from the comments section for discussion - because, to tell you the truth, it sounds pretty good to me. Maybe we take the gaps in his brief sketch and, in the words of The Police, "fill it up! fill it up!"

Socially libertarian: I am assuming that this means the government will keep its nose out of people's private lives. Overall, I think this is great. Gays can get married. No more government money to abstinence preaching. Fewer attempts to limit speech. There are also some questionable positions of true social libertarianism that will never fly with the public at large, but which I could personally agree with to some extent - like legalizing drugs and repealing gun control laws. And finally, there are libertarian principles that I just couldn't get behind, like abandoning professional licensure, eliminating mandatory school attendance, and of course the big one: ditching government-assisted health care. Overall, though, I think a third party that believes the government should butt out of our private lives would resonate with most Americans outside of the religious right.

Fiscally conservative: Like the Clinton Administration? Sorry, I just can't resist that. But seriously, I think damn near every American can agree that the government should spend as little as possible, and keep the budget balanced. The question is how. Most money goes to entitlement spending, which can and should be both trimmed and reorganized. But where will this third party come down on things like making social security a need-based system, reinstating the estate tax, and, as mentioned above, health care? In any event, our third party should push for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Seriously, how about an amendment that actually means something for a change.

And what else does "fiscally conservative" mean? Is it code for "let the free market reign?" I'm all behind responsible non-deficit spending, but I'll never subscribe to the voodoo trickle down theories. Where's our third party on things like minimum wages, progressive taxation, and capital gains taxes?

Protectionist: Meaning anti-free-trade? I can't say I fall on either side of the dividing line on this issue. Protectionism seems to me to foster laziness. Free trade might punch our economy up a little bit, but it forces competition not just within our country but with the rest of the world. At the same time, I think we can use protectionist methods to affirm our commitment to the environment and global human rights, and use our trading power to force other countries to up their standards in those regards. These are all tough issues, especially politically. Farmers want subsidies. Unions want high-paying jobs.

Serious and logical about national defense: There seems to be national agreement that neither party has this characteristic. But it's also so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Flag flap fails

2006-06-28T13:15:00.000-05:00

On June 27, Senate Joint Resolution 12 went down in the Senate. This bill would have put a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to criminalize the act of descrating the flag. The measure fell one vote short of the 67 needed to pass.

My most recent post shows the letter I sent the two senators from my state. Senator Burns (R-MT) replied only today:

I voted in support of this amendment, as I have in the past, because I feel the flag serves as a reminder of sacrifice of Americans who have fought and died for out freedoms. Our flag is a symbol of freedom for Americans and has long been a symbol of hope for our oppressed friends beyond our borders. The feelings that so many Americans have toward this symbol is enough to show that it is not just an inanimate object that should be subject to desecration at the whims of those who are upset with our nation. This symbol should be held with high esteem and protected to honor what so many brave Americans have done for their country and for what this great country has done for all of us.

Fortunately, the Senate – by a margin slightly larger than its collective IQ – has protected a bit of what this great country has done for all of us.

The Flag and the Fury

2006-06-14T22:56:00.000-05:00

Check out the proposed constitutional amendment coming before the Senate in a couple weeks. I urge you to contact your senators and express your opinion. Here's what I wrote to mine.

Dear Senator:

I’m writing this message on Flag Day. I flew my flag today and was proud to do so. If the Senate passes the anti-desecration amendment, that flag is toast. I’ll burn that puppy in the public square.

Here’s why. The flag stands for our freedom, hard won and at a dear cost. At the core of that freedom is the right of free expression. The constitutional amendment before the Senate would take a big bite out of that right. If passed, the amendment would, in effect, desecrate the flag.

And if I burned my flag in the public square, it would not be desecration. It would be euthanasia. Please protect our freedom -- vote against the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Rocket

2006-06-07T10:53:00.000-05:00

Roger Clemens recently committed to the Houston Astros for another season at a price tag of $12 million. The Astros need him, considering their freeze after a hot start and Oswalt's recent injury. The Rocket decided to shake off some rust with three minor league appearances with three different teams. Last night, he pitched for the Lake County Captains, a Cleveland Indians affiliate. In the first inning, Clemens hung a splitter and this 19 year old, maybe a year out of high school, went dong on it. Amazing. This is a good read link below as this Mac that I am on refuses to load my toolbar.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2473587

Give a Penny, Take a Penny

2006-06-03T13:38:00.000-05:00

On a typical weekday, I buy a grahn-day cup of coffee at Starbucks in the morning. Cost: $1.87. I drop the dime and three pennies into the tip jar. Then, for lunch, I usually get a Caesar salad and a roll at Soprafina. Cost: $8.08. This inevitably yields a pocketful of change, including two pennies. That's five pennies a day.

I leave the pennies on top of the pop machine in the afternoon.

I hate pennies. If I find one in my pocket, it's like a cockroach. I toss it in the street.

Our leading economists are saying we should get rid of the penny, and I wholeheartedly agree. Lincoln still has the fiver. But a commenter at Mankiw's blog asks some interesting process questions.

Does it mean that the government simply stops minting new pennies, and we are left to devise our own rules thereafter on an ad hoc basis?

Does it mean that the penny is no longer legal tender?

Does it mean that if the nickel is the smallest form of currency being minted, that people must round up or down? Or are they (merchants and/or individuals)allowed to use pennies when it is advantageous to not round off?

You would think that all merchants would simply set their prices at the nearest nickel, right? So there would be no need to round up or down? But then there's the sales tax problem in most states. But there is a way around that, too, of course. The merchant could set its prices so they would end up at the nearest nickel after tax.

Can you imagine how many jars full of pennies would be cashed in during the weeks before the penny expired as legal tender? My suggestion: the government should commission an artist to make some massive copper sculpture in D.C. out of all the old pennies.

Roses and Democracy Watch

2006-06-01T08:19:00.000-05:00

heartbreaking.

2006-05-25T20:31:00.000-05:00

We've been light on the posting for the last few months. As Piano noted in the comments section, it's been mostly grizzly bear porn and airplanes. Still, we've been on top of the goings on. One of the more important stories has been the NSA compiling a database of all of our telephone calls. Then Bush appointing one of the plan's architects as head of the CIA. Tom Tomorrow tracks the evolution of the Bush line on this story perfectly.

So, commenters. Does it bother you that the government is making a record of every phone call you make? I'd especially like to hear from "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" on this issue.

Lay & Skilling Found Guilty on Most Counts

2006-05-25T12:29:00.000-05:00

I hope these guys die a natural death in prison. They deserve to be there and such a damn shame where greed takes you. And BTW, Enrons are what happen when there is no governmental regulation. Watch Enron, best documentary I have ever seen.

Pat Roberston Leg Pressed 2,000 lbs, So He Says

2006-05-24T16:38:00.000-05:00

I would like all the credit for breaking this story in the blogosphere first. Piano, this one will stir your mind. Pat Robertson claims that he leg pressed 2000lbs. Thanks to a dietary shake that he enjoys daily. Right, Two Thousand. No you didn't Pat

Psst... The Gays Are After You, Pass It On

2006-05-18T19:46:00.000-05:00

I have to admit that I have sometimes taken a perverse glee in watching Republican congressfolk do stupid things. But now, as approval for the Republicans is circling the drain in tighter and faster circles, and as intellecually honest conservatives are trying to see who can jump farthest from the ship, to watch the GOP try this last ditch move again is just so pathetic and miserable that I find myself feeling genuine pity for them.

The whole thing is embarassing, but perhaps my favorite player in the lurid affair is Utah's Orrin Hatch. He supports this purported crusade to save "the sanctity of marriage." For more information on what a good wholesome marriage means to Big O, click here.

Ridiculous, pathetic, or both? You be the judge.

The Airbus A380---Very Cool

2006-05-18T11:36:00.000-05:00

This commercial plane is nearly the length of a football field, measuring in at 240 feet. This is just damn cool, I can't wait to take my first trip.

Conservativism Does Not Work....Admit or Deny

2006-05-18T08:31:00.000-05:00

Aren't international treaties despised by true conservatives? Oh right, the most ideological administration in American history came into office with the goal of finally putting into practice the ideas of pure conservativism. Ban Abortions, cut taxes, shrink government, wage war with big cajones, discredit the UN, turn a blind eye to international partnerships and treaties and refuse to work unilaterally with the "axis of evil". Guess what, it didn't work and even your brush clearer is finally starting to get it. I applaud W. Look for his poll numbers to begin climbing, as he is beginning to listen to the people.

P.S. I grew up in a blue collar home in Texas. Many of my relatives have small ranches where I spent much time as a kid. I never had to clear brush. Why would a rich spoiled W. need to do this......

W's to Send National Guard Troops to Border

2006-05-17T14:31:00.000-05:00

I totally agree with W's decision to place troops on the Mexican border. Sometimes, a lame duck president is beneficial to this country. When W has nothing to lose, he actually makes decisions that are best for the country. I support the president in this first step towards solving this problem. It's a common sense approach. Interestingly, I read today in the Austin American that Vicente Fox, El Presidente de Mexico, has threatened to file suit in a U.S. Court if the troops, and not the INS, apprehend or detain any Mexican nationals. Where else could a foreign government sue a country for not allowing its citizens to break our laws.

Satan and A Priest

2006-05-14T11:00:00.000-05:00

This story seems like a Dan Brown novel. A priest alleged to have conducted satanic rituals. A nun brutally murdered. Her body found in a hospital chapel with an altar cloth draped over it. No DNA or physical evidence linking the main suspect, the priest of the church, to the crime. An upside down cross etched into her skin. The weapon of choice, an envelope opener. 26 years the case went unsolved until a few unlikely advocates take on the power of the church. Here is the link. I will now write the book.

"I don't really believe those polls"

2006-05-14T10:40:00.000-05:00

Our first lady has lost her mind

Nixon and Liddy Predecessor to Libby and Cheney

2006-05-14T00:58:00.000-05:00

In this great country, a criminal court of law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. This seems to have been accomplished in this case . What crime you ask? Deliberate betrayal of those you govern! Being a Democrat and proud advocate for the idea of liberalism, I was the last that paid much credence to the crazies that said W. lied to go to war. I am now slowly beginning to believe the "nuts".

Clinton v. W.

2006-05-13T16:45:00.000-05:00

Validation!!

Proving my theory...

2006-05-12T07:50:00.000-05:00

that Gentle Ben prefers blondes.

Will W. Stick to His Word?

2006-05-04T21:12:00.000-05:00

If the House passes this spending bill for the Iraq War and Katrina recovery, will W. veto? Or will he flip flop as he usually does?

En Espanol

2006-04-29T12:36:00.000-05:00

Now we're talkin'

2006-04-21T19:15:00.000-05:00

I ran into Patrick Fitzerald yesterday. Sent it into Wonkette and got ink.

It’s getting warm in Chicago, so they’re leaving the door to the Soprafinna
restaurant on Madison and Dearborn open to the sidewalk. At peak hours, the line
to wait to get your salad tossed (simmer down) extends out the open doorway.
Right next to the open door is a glass revolving door. I was in the tail end of
aforementioned salad tossing line today [4/20], standing in aforementioned
doorway, when I saw none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney Extraordinaire, exiting through the revolving glass door right next to me. We locked eyes through the glass and time froze. I gave the one-up nod, as in “hey, I recognize you… what’s up?.” He gave the one-down nod, as in “I appreciate that you recognize me and I am a serious man.” It was effing awesome. I guess he’s spending some time in Chitown to suck up the credit for the conviction of our ex-governor, even though he didn’t do anything in the trial.

Another exit, stage right

2006-04-19T21:06:00.000-05:00

Sure seems to be a lot of White House staffers who, all of a sudden, want to spend more time with family. Of course, some of the old family guard will still be hangin' around, such as Carl Rove. Pity. Wonder who'll be the next person they hang in McClellan's spot -- the job Ari Fleischer described as "human pinata."

Polls, Polls, Polls

2006-04-10T23:25:00.000-05:00

Rather interesting numbers especially when you look at opinions on individual issues. President Bush and the GOP lose rather badly on every issue except "terrorism".

The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating.

Look for the mid-term elections to reflect the strategy in 2004. In other words, the GOP paints the Democrats as weak on terrorism and the Democrats sit back windsurfing with hardly a clue!

Impeach?

2006-04-07T14:05:00.000-05:00

If this was impeachable, shouldn't this be as well?

A primary problem

2006-04-06T23:02:00.000-05:00

A leading Democrat in Montana's US Senate campaign, State Auditor John Morrison, got a big splash today, although it's definitely not the kind he wanted. It's a complicated story, solidly reported by two top-notch journalists. I won't oversimplify with lurid words like "affair" and "fraud," though both appear in the headline.

There's quite a bit of buzz surrounding the development, with questions like who? why? why now? what next? It seems clear that the story didn't come from the GOP or from Morrison's leading Dem rival, Senate President Jon Tester. I think it's just hard-headed reporting. Tester, however, can be forgiven the grin.

Organs

2006-04-04T10:58:00.000-05:00

Doctors are now growing organs from a patient's own cells and tissue. Unbelievable.

The Hammer!!!

2006-04-04T09:51:00.000-05:00

THE HAMMER HAS NOW BEEN HAMMERED! And now we should march forward and get the rest of the corrupt. I cannot wait for a Democrat to be destroyed. Dead serious. Unfortunately, the promised lobbying reforms after the jackABRAMoff scandal have gone nowhere. DesEFFINspicable! Not just his caps either. Why should we be surprised? The folks we send to office have been doing this since the government was created. DeLay's tactics were just especially egrigious. Nothing will change so long as the people could care less. Got to go, American Idol is coming on.

A Skating Monkey

2006-04-03T10:56:00.000-05:00

Monkeys are simply funny to watch.

Sen. Conrad Burns keeps at it ...

2006-04-02T21:19:00.000-05:00

After a news conference in the Capitol ended Thursday (3/9) and lawmakers and aides were shuffling out the door, a young woman asked Burns, “How ya doing today, Senator?”

Without batting an eye the Senator replied, “I’m ready to go get knee-walking drunk!”

And there's the esteemed senator with a few of his drinking buddies -->

Meanwhile, it's election year for Conrad. As the recipient of the most funds from Jack Abramoff's clients ($150K), Burns remains under a cloud. But none of the stockyard stuff that hit the Abramoff fan has yet officially splattered Conrad's boots. (The link goes to Burns's web site -- his anti-attack-ad attack ad starts as soon as you reach the site.)

Back home, though, a prominent legislator has stepped forward to challenge Burns in the GOP primary. Although this shakes things up a bit, the state GOP says it's standing solidly behind Conrad. Springtime in the Rockies, and the fun has begun!

Knute Rockne--75 Years Later

2006-04-02T14:39:00.000-05:00

Worth a quick read.

Bush's Second Term

2006-03-30T22:46:00.000-06:00

How he has spent it so far.

Stab Stab

2006-03-11T20:00:00.000-06:00

A case we at 2GL have been following closely ends in a no contest plea. Why is Hintz's attorney wearing an orange jumpsuit?

He Ain't Kinky, He's My Governor

2006-03-09T12:52:00.000-06:00

Now that the primaries are over in Texas, we have Governor Rick Perry (R) running against Chris Bell (D), Carole Keeton Strayhorn (I) and Kinky Friedman (I). You need to take a look at this guy. Not only does he interview with a cigar in his mouth, he also curses and tells it like it is. Here is a Fox News article about the race. This is the only article from Fox News that I have read that does not spin for the Republican. When I listen to this guy's message, he comes off as cheesy and somewhat fabricated........it worked for W. As for Kinky, "Why the Hell Not".

2006-03-08T22:42:00.000-06:00

Depraved.

And He Calls Himself A Democrat!

2006-03-07T17:12:00.000-06:00

From the state that brought us the second term of George W. Bush (some say it was by cheating, others say by good old fashioned gay-baiting). . .

. . .and the town that brought us our good friend and frequent commenter RAM. . .

. . .comes this idiot.

Enron Crooks

2006-03-06T15:56:00.000-06:00

If you are interested in important issues going on in the good ol USA, here is a good summary of the criminal trial against Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. If you are not, or if you are a Republican, here is an unimportant devlopment, the great state of South Dakota is banning abortions. Ha, as I type this post, Fox News Radio leads the news break with the abortion story.

Randy "Fell Prey to the Demons"

2006-03-04T11:22:00.000-06:00

Disgraced Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham recently received the longest prison sentence of any congressman in history.

Prosecutors wanted ten years. Defense wanted six. Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul and Mary, wanted the judge to take it easy on Randy.

The Burning Bush

2006-03-02T23:22:00.000-06:00

The polls are all showing Bush at sub 40% approval ratings, and every new piece of news seems to cast a glaring spotlight upon the Administration's pale incompetence.

Katrina? Bush was fully briefed about the impending massive disaster, including the danger that the levies would be breached. He sat mute, then went back to his vacation. He later claimed that nobody anticipated that the levies would be breached.

The Dubai ports deal? I'll admit that I think the deal itself is probably being overhyped. However, how about the fact that the President learned about the outsourcing of our ports to the United Arab Emirates from the television. How out of touch is this guy?

Meanwhile, it is widely conceded even among conservatives that the Iraq war, if not a mistake to begin with, was so bungled in its execution that we will be lucky to leave the country looking like Palestine. Bush's misleading experiment in democracy by force has blown up in all of our faces.

And there is increasing evidence that the president intentionally mislead us into this miserable disaster of a war.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has shredded the honor of our military and intelligence agencies by instructing them to torture other human beings - a practice long reserved for barbaric dicatorships, not proud Americans. The fact that the White House was behind this policy is no longer even up for discussion.

What does America do when it realizes its president is incompetent? Wait three years and vote for a new one? Or perhaps people will go to the polls in November and elect a Congress that will hold this man accountable.

He is a pretty damn terrible president.

The Truth, With Conviction

2006-02-28T21:02:00.000-06:00

I had the same reaction as Sully: "wow"

Watch the video.

Montana Campaigning

2006-02-28T12:43:00.001-06:00

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

2006-02-27T12:11:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-25T14:18:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-23T14:41:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-22T22:18:00.000-06:00

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."

2006-02-21T18:24:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-21T12:35:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-21T09:40:00.000-06:00

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...

2006-02-15T17:50:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-13T11:54:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-11T15:00:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-02-11T11:10:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-10T13:37:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-09T13:02:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-08T18:18:00.000-06:00

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.

2006-02-07T11:14:00.000-06:00

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.

2006-02-05T12:07:00.000-06:00

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

2006-02-03T22:49:00.000-06:00

Another gem.

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

The chief in his bubble

2006-02-01T21:42:00.000-06:00

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!

Ripping off the D's for the SOTU

2006-01-31T21:39:00.000-06:00

There was a lot of bullcrap and duplicity in the State of the Union address tonight. It was funny to watch the Democrats sort of stutter standing and soft clapping, not knowing if it is really appropriate to sit quiet when the President hollers "freedom is good!" "If you don't cheer for me right now, you hate freedom!" heh.

All I can add to all the commentary out there is this: A friend of mine works for Nancy Pelosi. She noted that Bush's new "Commitment to Competitiveness" theme sounded eerily familiar. Yes, the Democrats just unveiled that in September!

State of the Union

2006-01-31T11:27:00.000-06:00

Pay close attention to President Bush's shift from divide and conquor politics to campaign politics tonight. If you had a chance to watch his interview with Bob Schieffer, the shift was obvious. Rightfully so, you can't win elections doing what he did in the last five years. Actually, call me crazy, but W. came off as pretty genuine and rather unscripted. He actually made sense too, a rarity. Maybe his handlers should let him think on his feet a bit. The interview gave me a sense that he's grown up a bit since taking office. He seems to understand international poltics and policy much better. But lets not forget, this is the Rove strategy, take a look at this TNR article if you have a login. Was I duped?

On that note....

2006-01-29T20:52:00.000-06:00

Yo, homey, pass that chron! Can't get enough of the Narnia.

This one's for you, 3GL

2006-01-28T17:43:00.000-06:00

Say hello to my little friend.

Jack RepublicansOff.

2006-01-28T16:58:00.000-06:00

Every time you hear the Abramoff scandal referred to as a "bi-partisan" affair, you are hearing a flat out lie.

That's right. A lie.

Abramoff, a lifelong Republican activist, never gave a penny to a Democrat.

So, listen carefully. Every time some newsperson recites the Republican spin that both parties were involved in this corruption, you'll hear that person say that both parties took money from "Abramoff or his clients."

Here's the truth. The Indian tribes Abramoff represented have always given money to Democrats. But lookey here

In total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up.

That answers that. This is Republican corruption. End of story.

Jack Who Off?

2006-01-28T13:28:00.000-06:00

By all accounts, Noel Hillman, the chief of the public integrity department at the Justice Department, has been doing a bang up job with the Abramoff investigation. A Patrick Fitzgerald-esque prosecutor, he's turning over every stone, and was able to get Abramoff to cop to a plea.

He's doing such a good job, in fact, that Bush just yanked him out of there.

Will Alice Fisher be his closer?

You remember Alice. Never been a prosecutor before, reported ties to DeLay's defense team, worked with Senate Republicans to go after Clinton over the Whitewater non-scandal, used to lobby for Frist's family company . . . yeah, that Alice. The one Bush had to sneak into the Justice Department via a recess appointment.

Is the administration trying to throw a wet towel on this fire?

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, those zany law students

2006-01-27T10:04:00.000-06:00

Making us proud one act of disobedience at a time...

Georgetown law students snub Fredo.

From important work on asylum cases to overturning wrongful convictions in death penalty cases to here open protest against Alberto Gonzalez, how law students go from doing so much good when they're in school to so much bad when they're out (Gonzalez is a prime example, see Torture memo) is the life of me.

Kudos, kids;)

STR8 TOK

2006-01-25T16:15:00.000-06:00

Unless, the Democrats can come up with someone I can get excited about in 2008 (and Hillary isn't doing it for me, folks), I'd consider voting for McCain.

But he's losing me with b.s. like this.

Pizza Privacy

2006-01-25T08:37:00.000-06:00

For those of us who are concerned about privacy and consumer rights, this is a great link. HT: Lt. McLaughlin

Update on Texas House Race District 48

2006-01-25T08:31:00.000-06:00

Texas Governor and Lt. Governor Dewhurst set a runoff date of February 14 for this open seat. Good thing the special election was not held in December, the GOP would have set the runoff for Christmas Day. What a bunch of bums trying to stifle voter turnout by scheduling the runoff for Valentine's Day.

I Am Certain I Am Not The Only One Fascinated By These Stories

2006-01-24T16:22:00.000-06:00

If you are up to date on current events, you certainly have run across this article related to pirates off the coast of Somalia. Watch the video half way down the page, okay for kids, I don't believe it's rated Rrrrrrrrrr.

Sorry, had to...

A Prediction on Mid-Term Elections?

2006-01-23T20:47:00.001-06:00

Todd Baxter(R) resigned from Texas House Seat 48 in November 2005 for personal reasons. The Republican dominated state government, in an effort to stifle turnout, rushed to call a special election to fill the vacancy. The special election was held on January 17.

Ben Bentzin, a Dellionare, and GOP darling, lost his previous and only campaign in 2004 for a state Senate seat against Gonzolo Barrientos(D), a veteran and extremely popular State Senator.(Actually drank numerous Miller Lites with him one night two years ago--a story to tell some other time) Bentzin was expected to win easily in this district that was prematurely redrawn by Tom DeLay and Texas Republicans in 2001 to elect a Republican.(Usually redrawn every ten years).

Texas election rules require a runoff election if one candidate does not receive 50% plus of the vote in a special election. Bentzin won 37.8% of the vote in a race against two Democrats and one Libertarian. Democrat Donna Howard won 49.5% of the vote, narrowly missing the opportunity to avoid a runoff election. I followed this race closely and expected the two democrats to split votes and Bentzin to easily avoid a runoff. This did not happen and is a strong sign that Democrats, at least in this district, have been busy at work in the last two years organizing and creating a savvy plan.

Political consultant and lobbyist Bill Miller, a close ally of some Republican leaders, described Tuesday's results as surprising because the seat was drawn in 2001 to elect a Republican. He said it could signal that good times are ahead for other Texas Democrats as they try to pick up seats in a Republican-controlled Legislature this year.
"She still has to win, and you have a runoff," Miller said. "But it's a big warning to Republicans to take a look at the issues that are surfacing in this race and how they play with the electorate."

We will see how this race turns out and whether it is a sign that voters are tired of the GOP thinking they can manipulate rules to gain power. Maybe this is a sign of the Democrats making up ground, maybe not, I report, you decide.

Post Mortem

2006-01-19T20:03:00.000-06:00

The biggest weakness the Fighting Irish had last season was clearly their secondary. They were picked apart by everyone from Ohio State to Stanford.

Take a look at their commitments for next year, though: the #3 defensive back in the country; along with the #7 DB and a few other DBs. Exactly what Dr. Weiss ordered.

Not to mention that we just secured a commitment from the #1 offensive lineman.

Next season couldn't come soon enough.

The Big Peach?

2006-01-15T11:37:00.000-06:00

(1) The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

(2) Sen. Arlen Specter (R - Pa) will soon hold chair Congressional hearings on the warrantless eavesdropping program, and Sen. Specter says that if they determine that Bush's actions were illegal (in other words, if the Congressional Research Service is correct) impeachment is a potential remedy.

(3) According to Zogby, the majority of Americans (53%) would support impeachment under those circumstances.

Just sayin'.

Washer Drier

2006-01-11T14:05:00.000-06:00

With the sword of justice trembling over their heads, our Republican friends in Congress are scurrying for lipstick to put on their porcine reputations. In that vein, Speaker Hastert (R) has appointed representative David Drier (R) as the ethics man - the man to clean up the corrupt DeLay machine which has polluted our government.

Wait... you mean the same David Drier who, in 2004, voted to allow Delay to continue as leader of the House even if he was indicted? That Drier?

Yep.

Wait a minute... so now the GOP is looking to Drier to save the day, even after they gave him the cold shoulder when it came time to succeed DeLay because Drier is widely rumored to be a homosexual? That Drier?

Yep.

Ok, so as far as the GOP is concerned - this guy's personal life is immoral (and we should amend the U.S. Constitution to say as much), but because he stuck up for their crooked leader in the past, he's a good pick to bring ethics to the House?

Apparently, but you have to excuse the Republicans for not thinking straight (pun unintended, then realized, now intended - HT T'OD). Their feet are in the flames right now.

Texas Longhorns National Champions!

2006-01-06T11:53:00.000-06:00

What a Rose Bowl performance by the fearless Longhorns. Seriously. I have lived in and around Austin for most of my days and this is the best sports experience I have EVER had. No serious, I am not overemphasizing my happiness. Here is to what I compare:

Chicago Bulls win Championship 90-91, at a time when I worshipped MJ.

Texas Beats Nebraska 1996 Big XII Championship on a play simply known by Texas fans as "4th and 1":

Facing a fourth-and-one at their own 28-yard line with 2:40 left in the game, the Longhorns decided to go for it rather than punt. Brown took the snap and found backup tight end Derek Lewis for a 61-yard completion. On the next play, Holmes ran 11 yards for his third TD run and the clinching score.

Close comparison, but a distant second.

Dallas Cowboys win Super Bowl XXVII, first in my cognizant life.

Notre Dame beats #8 Michigan, Sept. 2004, 28-20: no comparison, although a special win for me as it was my first game back since graduation.

2005 Rose Bowl Texas v. Michigan: A great game and win, especially against UM.

Houston Astros win 2005 NLCS

It appears that Mack Brown and Vince Young have secured legendary status in Austin where Longhorn Football is as big as it gets. It was fun to watch the burnt orange on the big stage and it was great to see them win this match up against a USC team that will be remembered as one of the best college football teams ever.

I think what killed USC was their arrogance. Would Reggie Bush have made a bonehead lateral in the 2nd quarter if his head wasn't swollen from all the accolades? Would Pete Carroll have gone for it on Texas' 17 yard line on 4th and 1 in the 1st quarter, instead of taking an easy field goal, had he not thought his team was unbeatable? I think the early punt return fumble by Texas might have been the best thing for the horns. USC scored easily after this and probably began thinking it would be another win like last year's routing of Oklahoma.

Texas was the better team on the field, yes I said that, but was less poised than USC. This is the truth. And trust me, I am not biased, I have learned to be disappointed in Texas after the many years of choking. I have learned to observe the team objectively and before the season started, I told many friends that if they beat Ohio State at the horseshoe, they would win the National Championship. My logic was that if Texas beat OSU, they, one, would gain confidence and, two, they would finally have that grind it out mentality that a championship team needs, but that Texas has never had. I know Texas Football well and I knew the intangible they lacked because I had seen it many times in an inferior Irish team that knocked off better teams. I also have to give credit to Mack Brown and Vince and the rest of the team for not calling out USC's sometimes classless post game interviews where they still gave little credit to Texas. Leinart said, "I still think we're a better football team. They just made the plays in the end." Dude, that is why they actually schedule football games, sell tickets to fans and broadcast the event on national television. They do this to actually play the game and put to rest the punditry and analysis. There were moments where USC gave credit, but it seemed draped in their obligation to not look like sore losers. Maybe I read too much into these comments, but give credit, admit defeat and walk off the stage.

Regardless, the Longhorns finally won a championship after 35 years and how sweet it was to walk out of a 6th Street bar, holding back the tears of joy watching thousands chant Texas Fight Texas Fight. Texas was good and although Vince Young will get most of the attention, the entire team made unbelievable plays. Consider the interception by Michael Griffin in the 2nd quarter, there are very few defensive backs in the country that could make this play. And we can’t forget about the 4th and 1 stop by the Texas defense in the 4th quarter that kept their hopes alive. Texas played well and got a bit of luck here and there.

I could not understand how a sporting event could make people so damn happy until this win and, although I understand how irrelevant a sports match is in the grand scheme of the world, this was a big deal to this "Austinian". Thanks to the team and staff for a special moment for this town. For those who have seen this Texas town grow to a city over the last two decades, for those who have memories of a Longhorn team that had a tiny following in the 80s, for those who know every nuance that makes this city special and for those who consider themselves Austinites, enjoy this moment where this city is still on cloud nine two days after the fact.

An Exit Strategy of Concrete and Steel

2006-01-05T11:07:00.000-06:00

Are we building permanent bases in Iraq? Gary Hart wonders.

Any attempt to find out whether the US is, or is not, constructing permanent military bases meets with frustration. The few who have attempted to get a direct answer to this question are met with evasion and purposeful confusion over what is or is not "permanent". But this is the ultimate test of true Bush administration intentions in Iraq. If we are, in fact, constructing permanent bases, "leaving" simply means a reduction of forces and the permanent stationing of US brigades in Iraq.

Over Christmas I sat down with my aunt and talked about my cousin, who was just re-deployed to Iraq. I asked what he was going to be doing there. She said "building permanent bases." I said "they're building permanent bases there? I didn't know that." She said "yeah, it's not something that is talked about very much, is it?"

So, Senator Hart - there's some anecdotal evidence for you.

The Eeeeeeyes of Texas Are Upoooooooon You....

2006-01-05T10:22:00.000-06:00

You may wonder why 3GL, our resident Austinian and Longhorn fanatic, has yet to post about the terrific game last night.

Perhaps this one a.m. message on my cell phone, transcribed directly will shed some light as to what 3GL is up to this morning:

What's up buddy, ummm, well, we just won the championship, man, and lemme just let you know how much of a big deal that is to me.
It's a big deal, ok?
Uh..sittin on sixth street, man, where you and I partied back when [incoherent] and uh, it's *%&$ nuts man, like, uhhh, it's %&$*# unbelievable. Uhhh.. give me a hollaaaaaa.... What a game, man. What a game.

Get your rest, 3GL. What a game, indeed.