Feingold Can't Get No Satisfaction

Russ "I have never had a craving to be president of the United States" Feingold has weighed in on the leaks from the Iraq Study Group's report due NEXT WEDNESDAY.

He's not happy with what he's hearing. The leaks aren't satisfying Russ.

He's troubled.

He wants a timeline for troop withdrawal and he wants it NOW.

Feingold's Press Release

“I look forward to reading the report of the Iraq Study Group and I expect that it will provide some useful proposals to correct this administration's misguided policies in Iraq. But I am troubled by reports that the Group will not recommend a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq. We must redeploy from Iraq so that we can refocus on what must be our top national security priority - the threat posed by terrorist networks operating around the world. While I welcome the reports that indicate the Group will recommend greatly expanded diplomatic efforts in that region, not including a flexible timetable for redeployment of our troops would be a mistake that weakens both our efforts to help Iraqis reach a political solution in Iraq and our national security.”

(Note: "Redeployment" means retreat.)

Feingold wants a dramatic troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Originally, his deadline for retreat was set for December 31, 2006.

Think about that. Feingold proclaimed that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq in a month.

Talk about being completely misguided. What a disastrous policy that would be!

It illustrates just how ridiculous a set timetable is.

Of course, Feingold joined with failed presidential candidate and failed comedian John Kerry to support a July 1, 2007 deadline for troop withdrawal.

When that date rolls around, will the time be right for troops to leave Iraq?

Perhaps. Without question, Iraqis should take responsibility for maintaining order in their country.

But the sort of timetable that Feingold wants is a mistake.

What's guaranteed is that a defined timetable is like calendaring violence, atrocities, and the certain deaths of men, women, and children.

Furthermore, as I've said, I'm troubled by the assumption that this report will be the road map for U.S. policy in Iraq.

Read the transcript of President Bush’s News Conference With Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq.

President Bush hasn't resigned. The executive branch has not changed hands. There hasn't been a coup.

Remember, the Constitution does not grant the Iraq Study Group the powers of the presidency.

Who's grabbing power now?

Billions of Gallons of Raw Sewage

That's what the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District has dumped into Lake Michigan.

Metaphorically speaking, billions of gallons of raw sewage also refers to a significant portion of the content of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Case in point -- The article on the Sierra Legal Defense Fund's "Great Lakes Sewage Report Card."

I wrote about the report card in the wee small hours of Wednesday morning, "The Great Toilets." (What took The Journal Sentinel so long to get to the story?)

Naturally, The Journal Sentinel carries water for MMSD, gleefully reporting the findings that Milwaukee is not the worst polluter of the Great Lakes.

Milwaukee has long been painted by environmentalists as a villain for its chronic sewage spills into Lake Michigan, but a report released Wednesday by a Canadian conservation group shows the city is far from the worst polluter in the Great Lakes.

Milwaukee's grade of a C-plus, in fact, ranks in the top half of the 20 Great Lakes cities evaluated for their sewage management, and at the top of all the major cities surveyed, including Cleveland, Detroit and Toronto.

Still, nobody anywhere in the Great Lakes should be doing back flips, because the report prepared by Sierra Legal Defence Fund shows that an "appalling" amount of fouled water is gushing into the world's largest freshwater system, a drinking source for millions of people, including the Lake Michigan cities of Milwaukee and Chicago.

The 20 cities surveyed in the report alone dump an estimated 24 billion gallons of untreated sewage each year into the Great Lakes, "an outrageous quantity," said Jode Roberts, communications director for Sierra Legal.

"I knew it was a problem, but I had no idea how serious it was," added Elaine MacDonald, senior staff scientist for the group and author of the report.

But Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' deputy water administrator Bruce Baker was somewhat buoyed by the news. While he is dismayed by the volume of nasty stuff spilling into the lakes each year, he said he was happy the group took the time to put the problems of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in perspective with other Great Lakes sewage spillers.

What a load!

The report declares the dumping of sewage to be "appalling."

Milwaukee only got a C+ grade.

That's not good news.

I guess relatively speaking one could consider it to be positive. It's sort of like being happy about someone committing only a few murders rather than killing hundreds of people.

He said the district still has a lot to do to curb its overflow problems, but it has been "singled out as this really bad actor when we've known all along that when you put them in the context of large cities on Great Lakes, they're certainly not the lowest on that list."

Since 1994, MMSD has dumped an average of more than 1 billion gallons of untreated sewage per year into Lake Michigan. Last-ranked Detroit dumped more than 13 billion gallons in 2002 alone, according to the report. That waste ultimately makes its way into Lake Erie.

Detroit is a worse offender than Milwaukee.

I DON'T CARE.

The Sierra Legal Defense Fund's report is not vindication for MMSD.

The city isn't the worst sewage dumper. So what?

That doesn't make the practice of pouring billions of gallons of raw sewage into the lake easier to swallow.

There is no good news here.

The Iraq Study Group: Quasi-Commander-in-Chief

The Iraq Study Group has arrived at some conclusions.

The "elite" assembly of some of the finest minds in the country has agreed on a plan of action for U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The results were to be revealed NEXT Wednesday.

Of course, the group's findings were leaked already.

From (where else?) the leakers' paradise, The New York Times:

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

NONBINDING.

Yes and no.

Actually, I think the recommendations are binding, at least in the sense that they place a great deal of pressure on the President to accept them.

In effect, this little Study Group has taken on the role of a shadow administration.

I don't think there's anything wrong with input and suggestions; but that's not how all of this has been framed.

The presentation to the American public, via the lib media, is that the Iraq Study Group has the authority to come up with a solution to the Iraq problem (or civil war, if you work for NBC or are Colin Powell).

The leaking of its conclusions are hardly being reported as some simple suggestions from merely an advisory panel.

A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”

"A person who participated in the commission's debate."

Don't you just love those leakers? What would The Times without them?

The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

In effect, the report takes power out of the President's hands and pressures him to do what the Study Group says.

As the commission wound up two and a half days of deliberation in Washington, the group said in a public statement only that a consensus had been reached and that the report would be delivered next Wednesday to President Bush, Congress and the American public. Members of the commission were warned by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton not to discuss the contents of the report.

But four people involved in the debate, representing different points of view, agreed to outline its conclusions in broad terms to address what they said might otherwise be misperceptions about the findings. Some said their major concern was that the report might be too late.

What upstanding people these group members are!

They reach consensus yesterday and before the night is out, they're leaking.

Members were warned not to discuss the report.

Well, four people dismissed that entirely, supposedly due to their concerns that a week might make the report irrelevant.

What a lame excuse! Truly lame!!!

Although the diplomatic strategy takes up the majority of the report, it was the military recommendations that prompted the most debate, people familiar with the deliberations said. They said a draft report put together under the direction of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton had collided with another, circulated by other Democrats on the commission, that included an explicit timeline calling for withdrawal of the combat brigades to be completed by the end of next year. In the end, the two proposals were blended.

If Mr. Bush adopts the recommendations, far more American training teams will be embedded with Iraqi forces, a last-ditch effort to make the Iraqi Army more capable of fighting alone. That is a step already embraced in a memorandum that Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, wrote to the president this month.

“I think everyone felt good about where we ended up,” one person involved in the commission’s debates said after the group ended its meeting. “It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’ ”

“Those who favor immediate withdrawal will not like it,” he said, but it also “deviates significantly from the president’s strategy.”

The report also would offer military commanders — and therefore the president — great flexibility to determine the timing and phasing of the pullback of the combat brigades.

Translation: Bush should agree to implement the recommendations. Anything short of compliance will be viewed as pigheaded on the part of President Bush and the administration.

Reuters also reports on the Iraq Study Group's leaked recommendations.

The anonymous source that talked to Reuters gave a little different take on things than what The Times splashed.

"The main thing is (the group is) calling for a transition from a combat role to a support role," said the source, who spoke on condition that he not be named. "It's basically a redeployment."

It says, "HE not be named." That means Sandra Day O'Connor was not the leaker.

The source said the idea was to shift U.S. combat forces both to bases inside Iraq as well as elsewhere in the region as the military gradually moved away from combat operations, adding that this should happen over the next year or so.

The New York Times earlier reported that there was no timetable for the proposed U.S. pullback, but the source said: "there is a kind of indication in the report as to when that ought to be completed ... sometime within the next year."

The independent, bipartisan group also decided to call for a regional conference that could lead to direct U.S. talks with Iran and Syria, both accused by the United States of fomenting violence in Iraq, the source added.

The Iraq Study Group is not only acting as Commander-in-Chief, but it's assuming the role of Secretary of State as well.

Who needs a State Department or a Department of Defense when you've got a Study Group?

Many in Washington have held out hope that the group's report would provide a way for the United States to extricate itself from an increasingly deadly and unpopular war or, at least, a set of recommendations on how to move forward that could attract support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Their conclusions are likely to carry significant political weight even if President Bush chooses to ignore them, especially after his fellow Republicans lost control of the U.S. Congress in November 7 elections largely because of deep public discontent with the Iraq war.

This is the problem.

Their conclusions are more than advisory. They have much greater significance.

I'm not comfortable with the politics.

I wonder what would have happened in 1945 if Harry Truman has been bound by a Study Group's recommendations to decide the course of the war in the Pacific.

_________________________________

Today, President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, after talks scheduled for Wednesday were abruptly cancelled.

He didn't seemed fazed by the Study Groups' recommendations.

AMMAN, Jordan -- President Bush pledged Thursday that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to strengthen the authority of embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and said the two agreed to speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces.

...The president acknowledged the pressure at home for the beginning of U.S. troop withdrawals but he said, "We'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people."

He said the United States — which now has about 140,000 troops in Iraq _will stay "to get the job done so long as the government wants us there."

Bush said he wanted to begin troop withdrawals "as soon as possible. But I'm a realist because I understand how tough it is inside of Iraq."

Iraq Study Group? What Iraq Study Group?

Danny DeVito

After his disastrous appearance on The View this morning, will Danny DeVito go on an apology tour?

Will he apologize to President Bush and his supporters via satellite on Letterman?

Will he appear on The 700 Club and beg forgiveness from moviegoing conservatives?

Will Gloria Allred represent President Bush and demand that DeVito personally meet with him before a retired judge to determine just compensation for victimizing the President?

Is this a career ender for DeVito?

The answer to all of the above is NO.

The reason is obvious. DeVito's a lib and he was mocking President Bush.

Thus, no apologies are really necessary, though he has called Barbara Walters to make nice.
ABC, home of the Rosie O'Donnell-hijacked show The View, reports on the incident:

The actor, who was on the show to promote his movie "Deck the Halls," admitted he had been partying with George Clooney the night before and had not slept.

"I knew it was the last seven limoncellos that was going to get me," the actor told the show's co-hosts.

DeVito looked tired and frazzled. He occasionally slurred his speech, some of which was bleeped by the show's producers.

Some of the talk surrounding DeVito's appearance focuses on a long-winded anecdote he told about staying at the White House.

Seeming confused over whether he slept with his wife Rhea Perlman when he stayed in the Lincoln bedroom, DeVito said, "I don't know. Something happens when you go in that hallway. You start not recognizing women."

"No, it was Rhea," he continued. "We went in and we made it our business to really wreck the joint."

What a boorish display!

The executives at Twentieth Century Fox must be thrilled!

Deck the Halls is being panned by critics. If that's not bad enough, then DeVito goes on national TV and insults the target audience of the film -- FAMILIES.

DeVito's publicist, Stan Rosenfeld, told ABC News that the actor has apologized to Barbara Walters, "The View's" creator and co-host.

"He has called Barbara Walters to apologize for anything that could be construed as unfortunate," he said.

Rosenfeld said he has no idea whether DeVito was drunk during his appearance but emphasized that the actor has never had a problem with drinking.

Personally, I don't care whether or not DeVito was drunk, nor do I care if he has a problem with alcohol.

I do care that he spoke so crassly and disrespectfully about the President, imitating a stuttering, stammering Bush.

He not only insulted the President, but he also mocked people with speech difficulties.

Many media outlets are leaving that part out of their accounts, preferring to focus on his alleged drunkenness.

Watch DeVito embarrass himself.

TMZ

YouTube



DeVito is absolutely classless.

Don't go see Deck the Halls.

Two reasons:

1. The reviews are horrible.

2. It stars Danny DeVito.

Jim Webb Disses Bush

Jim Webb, noted author and Virginia's SENATOR-ELECT, hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's making waves in Washington.

RICHMOND, Va. -- Democratic Sen.-elect Jim Webb avoided the receiving line during a recent White House reception for new members of Congress and had a chilly exchange with President Bush over the Iraq war and his Marine son.

"How's your boy?" Webb, in an interview Wednesday, recalled Bush asking during the reception two weeks ago.

"I told him I'd like to get them out of Iraq," Webb said.

"That's not what I asked. How's your boy?" the president replied, according to Webb.

At that point, Webb said, Bush got a response similar to what reporters and others who had asked Webb about Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb, 24, have received since the young man left for Iraq around Labor Day: "I told him that was between my boy and me."

Webb, a leading critic of the Iraq war, said that he had avoided the receiving line and photo op with Bush, but that the president found him.

How childish!

Webb was trying to avoid the President?

Doesn't this genius realize that he needs to work with the President?

And Webb can't bring himself to exchange a few words with Bush socially.

Yeah, the Dems intend to change the tone in Washington.

What a crock!

Webb is really strange. He certainly could have given a very generic response to the President's inquiry.

...He said he meant no disrespect to the presidency during the reception, but "I've always made a distinction about not speaking personally about my son."

In interviews during the campaign, Webb said it was wrong to elevate the role of one Marine over others. Webb also expressed concern that a high profile could subject a Marine to greater peril.

He wore his son's buff-colored desert boots throughout the campaign, but refused to speak extensively about his son's service or allow it to be used in campaign ads.

In other words, he readily exploited his son's service to dupe the people of Virginia into electing him; yet he refuses to give a simple response to questions about his son.

President Bush wasn't asking for an in-depth account of Webb's relationship with Jimmy Webb.

The President was showing concern and acknowledging Jimmy's service.

Webb, on the other hand, showed that he's extremely disrespectful and socially awkward.

He also has a violent streak.

Webb should stick to writing those creepy novels. He doesn't relate very well with others.

Mahmoud's Message: Dear Noble Americans

"Noble Americans, I love you. Do you love me?"


Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made good on his promise.

No, not wiping Israel off the map. He hasn't accomplished that -- yet.

I'm talking about his pledge to send a message to the American people.

On Tuesday, November 14, Ahmadinejad said:

"I will soon send a message to the American people. The message is in the stage of preparation."

Ahmadinejad completed his project and delivered the finished product today.

Yippee!!!

The Islamic Republic News Agency reported it this way:

In an important message released Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the people of the United States of America.

In his message, the president said, "While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States of America geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer."

What's with this guy?

He wrote that goofy, long letter to President Bush last Spring. Now, he's bypassed our President and has decided to directly address the American people.

The full text of the message is lengthy. It's a long-winded treatise that's in the same league as the best of John Kerry's babbling.

The AFP refers to the letter as "stinging."

Good grief.

The IRNA has translated the message in four parts.

I

II

III

IV

Basically, Ahmadinejad sucks up to the Americans, taking a stance that I'm sure many libs like. I think he was inspired by the recent U.S. elections.

He wants the Dems to make good on their campaign promises -- surrender, cut and run, that stuff.

He appeals to the pro-Palestinian, thinly-veiled anti-Semitic types in America.

He talks about Katrina.

Yes, Ahmadinejad covers all the lib talking points. In fact, I think he secretly longs to be an American lib. He is certainly hoping to be an American lib darling. Maybe he will win the hearts and minds of the American Left, but he won't win me over.

He's a Holocaust-denying, deranged, nuclear weapons obsessed maniac. He hates Israel and he hates that America is allied with Israel.

Big deal. Ahmadinejad wrote a letter.

Bottom line: WHO CARES?

The Great Toilets

The Great Lakes aren't really toilets. We just treat them that way.

Today, the Sierra Legal Defense Fund released its Great Lakes Sewage Report Card.

The grades are somewhat disappointing.

Surprised?

Read the report here.

It's a massive work.

The Associated Press sums up the key findings.

TORONTO -- The untreated urban sewage and effluents that flow into the Great Lakes each year are threatening a critical ecosystem that supplies water to millions of people, according to a study by a Canadian environmental group.

Even though municipalities in the Great Lakes region have spent vast sums of money in recent decades upgrading their wastewater plants, the situation remains appalling, said the Sierra Legal Defense Fund.

Sierra Legal said in a report to be formally released Wednesday that it studied 20 Canadian and American cities, analyzing municipal sewage treatment and discharges into the Great Lakes basin, the Canadian Press news agency reported on the report Tuesday, saying it received an advance copy.

The survey graded municipalities in areas such as collection, treatment and disposal of sewage based on information provided by the local governments.

The main problem, the environmental group said, is that in many cases, antiquated sewage systems are incapable of dealing effectively with the vast amounts of effluent that flow through them.

The situation is especially bad when heavy rains overwhelm treatment systems in cities where storm run-off is collected in the same pipes as sewage.

Some 24 billion gallons of untreated effluent enter the Great Lakes every year through combined sewage overflows, the study found.

Even with a relatively minor rain event, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District dumps untreated sewage into Lake Michigan. Sometimes, it's not completely untreated. It's what MMSD calls a "blend."

When the rain is especially heavy, MMSD's "Lake Michigan solution" can be especially jaw dropping in scale.

For example, from the June 8, 2oo4 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Rained a lot; not our fault.

That, in a nutshell, was the defense sewerage district officials offered Monday for the record 4.6 billion gallons of raw sewage that was dumped into local streams and Lake Michigan last month.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials told the state regulators that the rains through much of May were so heavy and local sewer lines so leaky that MMSD's system just couldn't handle all the flow. Dumping was done legally as an alternative to causing basement backups, MMSD officials said.

Astonishingly, the report gives Milwaukee (p. 50) a grade of C+.

That's scary. If Milwaukee can pull a C+, how bad does a city have to be to get a lower grade?

Green Bay (p. 49) can be proud with its B+ performance.

...Canada's worst offender was Windsor, Ontario, which _ along with U.S. cities Detroit and Cleveland _ performed "abysmally." Cities such as Toronto and Hamilton also earned below-average grades.

At the top end, Peel Region just west of Toronto, Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota, were the best performers, thanks largely to their ability to keep rain water and sewage separate.

So Wisconsin is among the best performers in the country because it manages to keep rain and sewage apart.

That's amazing.

Also from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

On Tuesday, two environmental groups notified the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that they intend to file a second lawsuit against the district in federal court in Milwaukee in an attempt to halt ongoing sanitary sewer overflows.

In March 2002, Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers in Milwaukee and Alliance for the Great Lakes in Chicago, formerly the Lake Michigan Federation, filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a cessation of sanitary sewer overflows and asking a federal judge to impose financial penalties against the district for violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit alleged the dumping of more than 900 million gallons of untreated sewage from sanitary sewers into Milwaukee rivers and Lake Michigan from 1994 to January 2002.

Who knew that a city with a history of dumping BILLIONS of gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan was worthy of a C+ grade?

More proof of grade inflation I guess.

POPE BENEDICT IS NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC

The Turks greeted Pope Benedict today.

Amid heavy security, Pope Benedict XVI brought a message of peace and brotherhood to Turkey.

How sad that a holy man bringing a message of love and reconciliation must risk his life to deliver it!

ANKARA, Turkey -- Pope Benedict XVI began his first visit to a Muslim country Tuesday with a message of dialogue and "brotherhood" between faiths, and Turkey's chief Islamic cleric said at a joint appearance that growing "Islamophobia" hurts all Muslims.

Benedict also said guarantees of religious freedom are essential for a just society. His comments could be reinforced later during the four-day visit when the pope meets in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians.

Religious freedom is about as foreign in some places as tolerance.

..."The so-called conviction that the sword is used to expand Islam in the world and growing Islamophobia hurts all Muslims," Bardakoglu said at a joint appearance.

Here's the problem:

ME, ME, ME.

Why is it always about Muslims? Why must they play the victim card so readily?

Religious tolerance is NOT a one-way street.

True, Islamophobia hurts all Muslims.

Judeophobia hurts all Jews.

Fear of Christians hurts all Christians.

Theophobia in general is a problem when it promotes violence and hate.

Here's some relevant questions:

Why aren't Muslims expected to be held to the standards that others are?

Why aren't they required to reflect on the reasons some people exhibit from Islamophobia?

I think a little personal responsibility is in order rather than whining about being victimized.


A small group of about 20 people, one holding a sign reading 'blood in the past, blood in the future, blood in the Vatican', protest the visit of Pope Benedict XVI in Ankara, Tuesday Nov. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

Gee, I wonder why there's a rise in Islamophobia.

...The comment appeared to be a reference to Benedict's remarks in a speech in September when he quoted a 14th century Christian emperor who characterized the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman." Those remarks triggered a wave of anger in the Islamic world; on Sunday, more than 25,000 Turks showed up to an anti-Vatican protest in Istanbul, asking the pope to stay at home.

People hold placards comparing Pope Benedict XVI to the devil during an anti-pope demonstration outside Turkey's religious affairs directorate in Ankara, November 28, 2006. (Yves Herman/Reuters)

The Pope is the devil.

What a peaceful message from the anti-Christian crowd! Can you feel the love?

"Peace is the basis of all religions," Benedict told Bardakoglu.

The Vatican said the speech was an attempt to highlight the incompatibility of faith and violence, and Benedict later expressed regret for the violent Muslim backlash.

"All feel the same responsibility in this difficult moment in history, let's work together," Benedict said during his flight from Rome to Ankara, where more than 3,000 police and sharpshooters joined a security effort that surpassed even the visit of President Bush two years ago.

"We know that the scope of this trip is dialogue and brotherhood and the commitment for understanding between cultures ... and for reconciliation," he said.

Too many Muslims don't want understanding. They don't want brotherhood. They don't want reconciliation.

That's a tragedy.

I admire Pope Benedict for stressing the incompatibility of faith and violence.

The 25,000 anti-Pope protesters in Turkey should put down the placards, take off the headbands, stop shotting ugly slogans, and listen to what Pope Benedict has to say.

Profiles in Terror

Yesterday, there was a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport, a "pray-in" held by imams, rabbis, and ministers.

The demonstration was staged to keep the story of the six imams removed from a US Airways Minneapolis to Phoenix flight last Monday alive.

Supposedly, the purpose of the protest was to get US Airways to apologize for being anti-Muslim, discriminatory, and engaging in racial profiling.

Actually, I think the entire episode was a test.

How would passengers and airline personnel react to the weird behavior of the imams?

After charges of profiling were leveled, would US Airways back down?

Would the public side with the imams?

According to the Associated Press:

Imam Omar Shahin, one of the six imams detained last Monday at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, said they hadn't done anything suspicious.

The imams, who were returning from a religious conference, had prayed on their prayer rugs in the airport before the flight. After they boarded the flight, a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant. The men were taken off the airplane, handcuffed and questioned.

"It was the worst moment in my life," Shahin said.

I don't buy that. I think it was a highlight for Shanin. I think he got exactly what he wanted -- an opportunity to criticize the U.S. government for profiling and a chance to stir up Muslim rage.

If that incident last Monday was the worst moment Shahin has experienced, then he's had a very charmed life.

I think there's a good chance that Shahin hated being removed from the plane, handcuffed and questioned as much as Cindy Sheehan hates being arrested and led away in handcuffs.

US Airways Group Inc. spokeswoman Andrea Rader said prayer was never the issue. She said the passenger overheard anti-U.S. statements and the men got up and moved around the airplane.

"We're sorry the imams had a difficult time, but we do think the crews have to make these calls and we think they made the right one," she said.

The men were behaving suspiciously.

It would have been a grave mistake for US Airways to ignore them.

I sincerely believe that this was a case of entrapment.

These imams WANTED to cry, "Profiling!"

Yesterday's goofy "pray-in" smacks of Cindy Sheehan tactics. Instead of camping out near President Bush's ranch to attract the media, the clergy drew the media by camping out near the US Airways ticket counter in Terminal A.

As the religious of various faiths joined together to protest the alleged dehumanization of the imams and the degrading treatment they endured, more details from witnesses have emerged.

The information makes the protesters look ridiculous.

It makes MSNBC's Contessa "Rosa Parks" Brewer, a former Milwaukee news personality, and CAIR members look like absolute fools.


Watch--



Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times has the story:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

And they claim that all they were doing was praying.

The imams were discriminated against for exercising their religion.

Is switching from their assigned seats on a plane part of their prayer practices?

...Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

BS.

The imams were acting suspiciously.

It wasn't Islamophobia to have them removed from the plane and questioned.

It was a completely rational and totally appropriate thing to do.

...The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

I completely disagree with Jackson-Lee.

The 9/11 attacks weren't used as justification to harass the imams.

It would have been negligent on the part of the airline to allow the behavior to pass without investigating further.

Yes, there are "soft on terror" Dems like Russ Feingold who would prefer to aid the terrorists and put American lives at risk rather than question people acting inappropriately.

We can't afford to make that mistake.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

Sure. That happens all the time. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

Who doesn't ask for extenders and then store them on the floor? That's perfectly normal behavior. Right.

I'd like to know how the imams' explained their request for extenders to authorities.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Are all these witnesses conspiring against the six imams?

That's not believable.

...One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.

The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.

It sounds like this was a setup, arranged for the media's consumption.

The discrepancies between the imams' stories and those of the witnesses are too dramatic to be explained away as differences in interpretations.

The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.

"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."

I feel sorry for the crew and passengers of Flight 300.

They are being victimized by these imams. They're being exploited by Muslims with an anti-American government agenda.

"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.

A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.

That's key. Muslims fly all the time without problems.

This was not civil disobedience.

The six imams were not involved in a Rosa Parks moment. To suggest that is an insult to her courage and strong will.

These imams were playing a game, not making a statement.

The men do not have the right to cause a disturbance and disrupt the flight.

They acted like terrorists and so they were treated like terrorists.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Georgia Thompson Reporting for Duty

Over the river and through the woods,
To Grandmother's house we go.

It's not going to be a very festive holiday season for Georgia Thompson and her family.

She's not going to Grandmother's house.

She's going to Illinois, to prison.

MADISON, Wis. -- Former state employee Georgia Thompson is reporting to prison on Monday after she was convicted this summer of of illegally steering a state contract to a company whose executives gave money to Gov. Jim Doyle's campaign.

...Thompson will serve an 18-month sentence at a minimum-security facility near Peoria, Ill.

I wonder what Jim Doyle will be doing for the holidays.

I suppose he's too busy to pay Thompson a visit.

I wonder if Doyle feels guilty. It's highly unlikely, but if he does, it might be cathartic for him to write an O.J. Simpson-style If I Did It book.

I'll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams.

Frank McBride and Kyle Doss: Serenity Now!

It seems like this story has been going on forever. It's only been a week, but that seems like an eternity when it comes to news.

Enough already!

Everyone is familiar with Michael Richards' explosion into a racist rant during his stand up act at a comedy club.

Read the background here if you've been living under a rock and don't know what happened.

Unfortunately, the saga continues.

Yesterday, (while I was doing my post-Thanksgiving patriotic duty to support the nation's economy), one of the targets of Richards' attack and his lawyer announced that they believed Richards needed to apologize for his behavior, not just verbally but financially as well.

This should come as no surprise. The lawyer is Gloria Allred. The woman is everywhere. She has an uncanny ability to get the infamous to hire her to represent them.

From the Associated Press:

Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday.

Frank McBride and Kyle Doss said they were part of a group of about 20 people who had gathered at West Hollywood's Laugh Factory to celebrate a friend's birthday. According to their attorney, Gloria Allred, they were ordering drinks when Richards berated them for interrupting his act.

When one of their group replied that he wasn't funny, Richards launched into a string of obscenities and repeatedly used the n-word. A video cell phone captured the outburst.

Richards, who played Jerry Seinfeld's wacky neighbor Kramer on the TV sitcom "Seinfeld," made a nationally televised apology on the "Late Show with David Letterman" earlier this week. He has since apologized to the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both civil rights leaders.

Let me be clear.

I think Richards was completely out of line and should apologize for his horrendous behavior. It was such an out of control, horrible display.

BUT--

Why should he apologize specifically to Jackson and Sharpton?

What is that???

I think it's funny that the AP identifies them as civil rights leaders.

If they're the best the civil rights movement can offer, then the movement is lost. Don't forget that Jackson and Sharpton have anti-Semitic remarks in their pasts.

Now Doss has come out of the shadows and anonymity of the audience and taken center stage. He wants an apology, too. It can't be just any apology.

But Doss, 26, said Friday he wanted a "face-to-face apology."

"To have him do what he did to me ... I can't even explain it," Doss said. "I was humiliated, even scared at one point."

Richards' publicist said his client wants to apologize to both men, who are black, but hasn't been able to locate them.

Again, Richards is in the wrong.

He went absolutely nuts.

BUT--

I don't believe that Doss was scared.

He's not a shy, meek, and mild type of person. He's a heckler, right?

What's with this "ordering drinks" stuff?

So Doss and company were behaving appropriately and politely and Richards went berserk?

That's a new kink in the story.

Even if that's the case, I don't buy that 26-year-old Doss feared for his safety because a guy pushing sixty was screaming at him from a stage in front of an audience.

If Doss is demanding a "face-to-face apology," that's his business.

Is it really necessary to get a lawyer?

Richards has said he wanted to apologize directly to the people he insulted.

Why hire Allred?

Is she working pro bono?

I think it's more likely that Allred found Doss and not the other way around.

Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation.

"It's not enough to say 'I'm sorry' on 'David Letterman,'" she said.

She did not mention a specific figure, but pitched the idea as a way for the comic to avoid a lawsuit.

What sort of retired judge is Allred thinking of?

Is she envisioning a Judge Judy or a Judge Joe Brown scenario?

If Allred thinks Doss and McBride should file a lawsuit against Richards, then they should sue for damages.

This retired judge idea is really weird.

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

How dramatic!

Richards did taunt them. Absolutely.

However, they weren't captive. They were free to leave.

And if it's true that they were heckling Richards, then they certainly can't be seen as vulnerable.

I'm not excusing Richards' behavior in any way.

However, I do object to Allred's description of the men as vulnerable. In no way can they have been considered captive.

...Richards' publicist said the comic wasn't considering any demand for payment. "He's not dealing with that," Howard Rubenstein said. "He wants to apologize to them directly and then see what happens."

A face-to-face apology is fine if a phone call or a formal letter isn't enough. I would imagine that could be arranged.

However, I don't think Richards should be expected to pay monetary reparations for his outburst.

Did anyone in the audience know Doss and McBride?

Without knowing their identities, the argument can't be made that Richards' slandered them and that would have a negative impact on their careers. It can't be said that Richards or other audience members could track them down and harass them.

Were they emotionally harmed by the episode?

That's difficult to quantify.

If Doss and McBride want money and Allred wants her piece of that pie, then let them go to court, not to a retired judge.

Why a retired judge?

It seems like a shakedown.

Richards shouldn't be expected to fork over money without the benefit of a defense.

Let's hear what McBride and Doss' roles were in the incident. Put them all under oath. Get witnesses.

I suspect it would come out that Doss and McBride were taunting Richards.

If they were completely innocent in the matter, you can bet that Allred would have already filed a lawsuit.

"The Politics of Murder"

David Ignatius has an interesting, albeit naïve, opinion piece in today's Washington Post.

He tackles the "troubles" in the Middle East.

He thinks he has isolated the problem and come up with some potential solutions regarding the the United States' role in the Middle East.

I think he's wrong.

Ignatius writes:

A disease is eating away at the Middle East. It afflicts the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, even the Israelis. It is the idea that the only political determinant in the Arab world is raw force -- the power of physical intimidation. It is politics as assassination.

This week saw another sickening instance of this law of brute force, with the murder of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister who had been a strong critic of Syria. Given the brutal history of Syria's involvement in Lebanon, there's an instant temptation to blame Damascus. But in this land of death, there are so many killers and so few means of holding them to account that we can only guess at who pulled the trigger.

I fell in love with Lebanon the first time I visited the country 26 years ago. Part of its appeal, inevitably, was the sense of living on the edge -- in a land of charming, piratical characters who cherish their freedom. Lebanon has great newspapers, outspoken intellectuals, a wide-open democracy. It has almost everything a great society needs, in fact, except the rule of law.

And thus Ignatius identifies the problem in the vibrant land of Lebanon and the Middle East in general -- no rule of law.

As is so common today, he uses the disease paradigm to illustrate what's happening in the violent region.

The assassination, the murder, the use of force are all symptoms of the "sick" society.

A cure is needed, desperately.

...The sickness must end. The people of the Middle East are destroying themselves, literally and figuratively, with the politics of assassination. So many things are going right in the modern world -- until we reach the boundaries of the Middle East, where the gunmen hide in wait. Those who imagined they could stop the assassins' little guns with their big guns -- the United States and Israel come to mind -- have been undone by the howling gale of violence. In trying to fight the killers, they began to make their own arguments for assassination and torture. That should have been a sign that something had gone wrong.

Did the U.S. and Israel think that they could stop the "politics of assassination" and the terrorists' little guns with their big guns?

That's being very simplistic.

In the first place, neither the U.S. nor Israel have unleashed the truly big guns.

If we've been undone by the Middle Eastern brand of violence, it's precisely because we're fighting a war while trying to be politically correct. If we're bogged down, it's because we're permitting ourselves to be.

Ignatius dismisses U.S. efforts to compromise and to empower the people of the Middle East, to establish a framework by which freedom-loving people can seek a better life via the rule of law rather than by the barrel of a gun.

...The Middle East needs the rule of law -- not an order preached by outsiders but one demanded by Arabs who will not tolerate more of this killing. Any leader or nation who aspires to play a constructive role in the region's future must embrace this idea of legal accountability. That is what the United Nations insisted this week, with a unanimous Security Council resolution demanding that the murderers be brought to justice.

Ignatius has solved the problem!

The Middle East needs the rule of law.

No kidding!!!

In case he hasn't noticed, there are maniacs standing in the way of satisfying that need. God is supposedly telling them to destroy the infidels (that's us).

The real problem is far too many Arabs ARE tolerating the killing. They support it. They teach it. They want it.

Legal accountability?

The Middle Eastern suicide bombers, murdering in the name of Allah, are on a holy mission. Do you think these people care about legal accountability?

Moreover, Ignatius seems to think that there is a separation of church and state in the Middle East.

That's absurd.

Of course, there are citizens in the Middle East who want to have an ordered and civilized society. These oppressed people need help to fight the tyrants and the terrorists. We're helping them.

What's the alternative? Just stand by and let the hatred for Israel and America continue to be taught to Middle Eastern children, and wait for the next 9/11?

That's not an option.

Ignatius seems to forget that WE were attacked repeatedly throughout the 90s. And it's as if he can't remember the grand scale of the acts of war on September 11, 2001, when nearly three thousand innocents were slaughtered on American soil.

Now the United Nations must find a way to make the rule of law real. It has chartered a special investigator, Serge Brammertz, to gather the facts and has called for an international tribunal to try the cases. It must make this rule of law stick.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. It's meaningless.

How is the UN, that savior worshipped by libs, going to make the rule of law stick?

It's nuts to think that special investigator Brammertz will supply the magic bullet to end the politics of murder.

...The idea that America is going to save the Arab world from itself is seductive, but it's wrong. We have watched in Iraq an excruciating demonstration of our inability to stop the killers. We aren't tough enough for it or smart enough -- and in the end it isn't our problem. The hard work of building a new Middle East will be done by the Arabs, or it won't happen. What would be unforgivable would be to assume that, in this part of the world, the rule of law is inherently impossible.

This paragraph is pure crap.

America isn't aiming to save the Arab world from itself. It's assisting Arabs save themselves from the hostile forces of Islamic extremists.

Ignatius slaps our military and our country when he says we aren't tough enough or smart enough (echoes of John Kerry) to deal with the extremism that brought down the World Trade Center and destroyed a section of the Pentagon and murdered all aboard United Airlines Flight 93.

And it certainly is our problem.

How incredibly stupid to suggest otherwise!

The terrorists and nutcase Middle Eastern leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have clearly stated their goals -- to destroy Israel and do as much damage to the U.S. as possible.

Of course it's our problem. OF COURSE.

I agree with him that building a new Middle East must be done by the Arabs. But just as the reconstruction of Europe happened after World War II, the civilized people need the help of other civilized people to build a democracy and a better life.

Ignatius ends with the lame claim that it would be wrong to assume that the rule of law can't be achieved in the Middle East.

That's just fine and dandy, but what's so frustrating is that Ignatius wants to bail out, redeploy, cut and run, whatever you want to call it.

If he believes that the rule of law can reign supreme, ending the politics of murder, then why would we not lend a hand in establishing it?

Obviously, the forces of good need our help. I'm sure the loved ones of those in the mass graves of Iraq, those brutalized and tortured, those children murdered by Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, want to see justice.

What would Ignatius like to do?

Does he think that the U.S. should buy ad time on Arab TV and run some slick commercials telling Arab kids to "just say no" to Islamic extremism?

We can't possibly eradicate the Islamic extremists' desire to kill us, but we can help to bolster the civilized Arab world.

Think of it this way:

Just because it's impossible to permanently rid a garden of weeds doesn't mean that it's a mistake to pull out as many weeds as possible. It would be wrong to ignore the weeds and give up.

Is it better to let the weeds strangle the flowers and overtake the garden?

More importantly, can the flowers themselves kill the weeds that threaten their existence?

HAVE A BLESSED THANKSGIVING!

Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day

October 3, 1863


The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

A. Lincoln

TURKEY HOTLINES

I love making Thanksgiving dinner almost as much as I love eating Thanksgiving dinner.

No matter how stuffed I am, I never go to bed before having at least a small turkey sandwich.

The ceremonial consuming of the leftovers is as much a tradition at our house as the feast itself.

Although I've been plenty frazzled preparing dinner, I've never called one of the many Turkey Hotlines.

I think it's a great service. They've probably helped rescue many a doomed dinner as well as prevent many trips to the emergency room.

Just a few:

Jennie-O: 1-800-TURKEYS

Butterball: 1-800-BUTTERBALL

Reynolds Turkey Tips: 1-800-745-4000

Here are some actual calls for advice received by the people manning the hotlines.

Butterball turkey experts still talk about the Kentucky woman who called in 1993 to ask how to get her dog out of her turkey. It seems the woman's Chihuahua had dived into the bird's cavity and become trapped there. The woman tried pulling the pooch and shaking the bird, all to no avail. A Butterball economist finally suggested the woman carefully cut the opening in the turkey wider to release the captive canine.

The Reynolds Wrap Turkey Tips Line (800-745-4000) took a query from a woman who wanted to know if she could cook her turkey by placing it in a Reynolds Oven Bag, putting it in the window in the back of her car, and letting the heat from the sun bake the turkey. (She was told that would be an uncontrolled heat source and was instructed to use an oven instead.)

The folks at Butterball have also dealt with cooks determined to roast turkeys on the back ledges of their cars. And they've had people call to ask if they could cook their holiday birds on radiators. Then there was the bride who had a small, apartment-size range and was worried the turkey would get larger as it cooked (similar to a loaf of bread rising) — she was fretting she wouldn't be able to get it out of the oven after it was done.

Why would anyone want to cook a turkey in the back of a car or on a radiator?

I don't think some of these people should be allowed anywhere near a kitchen or given the responsibility of feeding a group.

In recent years, there always seems to be stories about the dangers of the Thanksgiving meal. The potential for food poisoning is high. It's as if handling turkey is the same as handling toxic waste.

EAT AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Sometimes I think the media do everything they can to take the joy out of the holiday.

For example:

MADISON, Wis -- As people start preparations for Thanksgiving meals, experts are urging them to take steps to avoid food poisoning.

Experts said that Thanksgiving is one of the busiest times for the state Poison Center, and they said that people have a one in four chance of getting food poisoning each year.

...As people start preparations for Thanksgiving meals, experts are urging them to take steps to avoid food poisoning.

Experts said that Thanksgiving is one of the busiest times for the state Poison Center, and they said that people have a one in four chance of getting food poisoning each year.

What a pleasant thought to keep in mind while eating Thanksgiving dinner!

Nothing spoils a wonderful holiday meal like food poisoning.


(Gee, I hope I don't send anyone to the emergency room this year.)

Flyer and Fryer

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States

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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

A couple of hours ago, President Bush used his constitutional power to grant pardons.

Clearly, the President acted within the law; but I wonder if the Dems will behave true to form and try to spin this as an abuse of power?

Will Russ Feingold claim that the President is acting like "King George"?

Will Nancy Pelosi insist that the President is engaged in a power grab even though he's acting completely within the powers granted to him by the Constitution?

Will John Conyers and his House band of impeachment supporters, including Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin, charge President Bush with abuses for his action this morning?

I wouldn't put it past them.

Text of the Thanksgiving Pardon

Excerpts

The name of the national Thanksgiving turkey has been chosen by online voting at the White House website. By the decision of the voters, this turkey is going to be called Flyer. And there's always a backup bird, just in case the guest of honor can't perform his duties, and the backup bird's name is Fryer. (Laughter.) Probably better to be called Flyer than Fryer.

...We're here in the Rose Garden. This is a place where Barney likes to hang out. Barney is my dog. And he likes to chase a soccer ball here. He came out a little early, as did Flyer, and instead of chasing the soccer ball, he chased the bird. (Laughter.) And it kind of made the turkey nervous. See, the turkey was already nervous to begin with. Nobody has told him yet about the pardon I'm about to give him. (Laughter.)

Tomorrow is our day of Thanksgiving. It's a national observance first proclaimed by George Washington. In our journey across the centuries from a few tiny settlements to a prosperous and powerful nation, Americans have always been a grateful people, and we are this year as well. We're grateful for our beautiful land. We're grateful for a harvest big enough to feed us all, plus much of the world. We're grateful for our freedom. We're grateful for our families. And we're grateful for life itself.

So on Thanksgiving Day, we gather with loved ones and we lift our hearts toward heaven in humility and gratitude. As we count our blessings, Americans also share our blessings. We're a generous country. We're filled with caring citizens who reach out to others, people who've heard the universal call to love a neighbor as we want to be loved ourselves. On Thanksgiving and every day of the year, Americans live out of a spirit of compassion and care, and I thank you for that. It's the spirit that moves men and women to be mentors to the young, to be scout leaders, to be helpers of the elderly, to be comforters of the lonely and those who are left out.

We love our country, and the greatest example of that devotion is the citizen who steps forward to defend our nation from harm. Members of our military have set aside their own comfort and convenience and safety to protect the rest of us. Their courage keeps us free. Their sacrifice makes us grateful, and their character makes us proud. Especially during the holidays our whole nation keeps them and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

And now to the ceremonial task of the day. Why don't we have a look at Flyer? There you go. I think Flyer heard Barney barking over there. It's a fine looking bird, isn't it? Flyer is probably wondering where he's going to wind up tomorrow. He's probably thinking he's going to end up on somebody's table. Well, I'm happy to report that he and Fryer both have many tomorrows ahead of them. This morning I am grateful -- I am granting a full presidential pardon so they can live out their lives as safe as can be.

In fact, it gets even better. Later today, Flyer and Fryer will be on a plane to Disneyland -- (laughter) -- where they're going to achieve further celebrity as the honorary grand marshal of the Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Thank you all for coming. God bless, and happy Thanksgiving. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush is joined by Lynn Nutt of Springfield, Mo., as he poses with “Flyer” the turkey during a ceremony Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006 in the White House Rose Garden, following the President’s pardoning of the turkey before the Thanksgiving holiday. White House photo by Paul Morse



President George W. Bush invites children to meet “Flyer” the turkey, held by Lynn Nutt of Springfield, Mo., during a ceremony Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006 in the White House Rose Garden, following the President’s pardoning of the turkey before the Thanksgiving holiday. White House photo by Paul Morse

Another Day, Another Shooting

Rise and shine, Milwaukee!

Awake to more violence!

A man delivering newspapers this morning was shot.

A Journal Sentinel carrier was shot in the lower back during an apparent robbery early this morning on the city's west side, Milwaukee police said.

Police said the 45-year-old man was shot just before 4 a.m. today when he exited his vehicle to deliver a newspaper in the 2600 block of N. 54th St.

One or two suspects approached him on the sidewalk, where he was shot, police said. No one is in custody.

Crisis? What crisis?

Noooooooo. The city is not in crisis.

Right, Mayor Tom Barrett?

Janet Reno

Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's disastrous attorney general, is following in the footsteps of the classless and incompetent Madeleine Albright.

Like Albright, Reno has decided to make a high profile move and openly attack the sitting president.

If God forbid a Dem is elected president in 2008, can you imagine Bush administration officials behaving so badly?

I can't.

From The Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case of alleged enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, the former prosecutors assert that criminal courts are well equipped to prosecute terrorism suspects while guaranteeing the constitutional rights of defendants arrested on U.S. soil.

Reno, reached at her Florida home yesterday, said she would let the brief "speak for itself. I've been following this, and it reflects my concerns about the detention and treatment of people who have been determined to be enemy combatants in a manner that is not clear how it is being done."

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

The filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is a highly unusual move for Reno. She has generally maintained a low profile since leaving the helm of the Justice Department in 2001 and has said little publicly about the policies of her successors, John D. Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales.

Remember when President George H.W. Bush's attorneys general, Dick Thornburgh and William P. Barr, ripped Reno for her handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Remember how they went on the record and publicly criticized her for making decisions that led to the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians, including 27 children?

No?

That's understandable, because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Reno's predecessors didn't publicly criticize her, though she certainly deserved to be.

Gonzales defended the administration's detention and surveillance policies in a weekend speech at the Air Force Academy, telling cadets that it is a "myth" that civil liberties have been hampered by anti-terrorism strategies.

Didn't Reno do enough damage to the country will she was attorney general?

Must she come out of hiding to challenge and undermine President Bush in the War on Terror?

I'm sure that officials of past administrations have had serious concerns about the decisions of their successors. I'm sure they've privately questioned the performances of those assuming their positions.

But why have Reno and those of her ilk determined that criticizing the current adminstration so publicly is wise?

Do they really think it's good for our country?

I think it's more likely that they are much more concerned with feeding their egos than doing what's best for the nation.

Reno was a miserable failure as attorney general. She's chosen to be a failure as a former attorney general.

Pathetic.

UNBALANCED DOYLE

Deficit? Balanced budget? Huh?

One of the many lies that Jim Doyle spouted during his campaign was that he balanced Wisconsin's budget.

That was THE accomplishment of his term. He balanced the budget.

Again and again and again, he cited balancing the budget as one of his shining achievements, a highpoint for him as governor.
In Doyle and Mark Green's first televised debate, Doyle had the audacity to blame Green, a single congressman, for the budget problems in Washington.

Doyle bragged about his skill and leadership in pulling Wisconsin out of a deficit and putting the state back in the black.

Of course, that's an absolute crock.

Read about the Doyle Method of "balancing" a budget.

Now that the votes have been cast and the election is over and Doyle is sitting pretty, we get the news that the next budget is anything but balanced.

Madison -- Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature will have to close a $1.6 billion deficit as they develop the next two-year budget, according to a new report released Monday.

Officials vowed that they would not raise taxes to close the gap between what state agencies say they need and what taxes are expected to generate.

That vow is worthless.

Doyle, the state's executive, is a liar. His flunkies will fall in line.

The $1.6 billion figure was the latest estimate of the so-called structural deficit facing the state. It is about 6% of the $26.4 billion that state government is on track to collect in taxes and fees over the next two years.

By comparison, $1.6 billion is how much more would be raised over two years if the 5% state sales tax were increased to 6% - a possible solution no one in the Capitol has dared to whisper. It is also the amount the state spent on Medicaid health care programs last year, not counting matching federal dollars.

State Administration Secretary Steve Bablitch said that Doyle will live up to his campaign promise and make whatever choices are necessary to control spending in a 2007-'09 budget. Doyle won't raise general sales, individual income or corporate income taxes, Bablitch said.

Parsing campaign promises is not a good idea.

But Doyle hasn't said how much of an increase he will recommend next year in fees, including the $55 annual vehicle registration fee. During his re-election campaign, Doyle had indicated he might support a $10 increase in the fee. But state Department of Transportation officials have asked that the fee be increased to $80.

In addition to raising fees and cutting costs, Doyle could also borrow more money, pushing the problem off into the future. Borrowing for transportation jumped 183% from 2002 to '06, for example, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Fees. Taxes. What difference does it make?

Calling something a "fee" doesn't change what it means.

If it's money out of Wisconsinites' pockets and into government coffers, it's hurting the people.

...The new estimate came two weeks after Doyle was re-elected in a campaign in which the deficit was often debated.

How convenient!

Imagine. All of sudden a $1.6 billion deficit was discovered.

I bet no one saw that coming.

Riiiiiiiight.

Hey, Doyle supporters!

Do you feel duped, or are you apologists for the corrupt Doyle and busy towing the Doyle line?

The fact is Doyle lied.

He intentionally misled the voters.

I'd suggest an immediate recall effort, but there's time. I want to find out if there will be any revelations coming from Steve Biskupic that might be helpful in ousting Doyle.

Simply put, Doyle is a disgrace. The voters didn't get it right.

When Celebrities Attack

JERRY: "What happened to your mental alarm?"

KRAMER: "I guess I hit the snooze."



Another celebrity has run amok.

The latest is Michael Richards of Seinfeld fame. He went into a racist rant at a comedy club, the Laugh Factory, last Friday.

You've probably already seen this, but here's the video in the unlikely event that you haven't.

There's no way around it, no room for misinterpretation -- it's a horrible display.

As soon as Drudge posted the video, the story exploded.

This was NOT a show about nothing.

There was Richards, not as the odd yet endearing Kramer from Seinfeld; he was a raving, racial epithet-spewing maniac verbally assaulting some African-American hecklers.

Richards completely lost it.

And what follows when a celebrity behaving badly becomes a national story?

The obligatory apology of course, the Act of Contrition.

Richards moved at lightning speed.

Although the incident occurred on Friday, it didn't get widespread attention until Monday.

By Monday night, he was already apologizing on network TV.

Jerry Seinfeld was scheduled as guest on David Letterman, to hawk the release of Seinfeld - Season 7 on DVD.

He's doing publicity for the new release, and Richards is underfire for his inexcusable tirade. What awful timing for Jerry Seinfeld! What great timing for Letterman!

Drudge was promoting Richards' appearance earlier in the evening. I'm sure that gave Letterman quite a ratings boost. And it's Sweeps!!!

I'm not at all saying that it was a ratings ploy on Letterman's part. I think he did it as a favor to Seinfeld.

Season 7 is released today and a major character in the show is revealed as an out of control racist. That's not good for sales.

So, via satellite from LA, Richards apologized during Seinfeld's segment on Letterman.

It was the first matter of business. They got right to discussing the incident immediately after Seinfeld was introduced. Then, they quickly cut to Richards.

Read the AP's account of his mea culpa here.

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.

I didn't think he became angry. He looked stunned to me, a deer in the headlights.

I think he was trying to be forceful and sincere.

However, it's hard to say you're not a racist when there's video of you repeatedly shouting the N-word.

Richards descried himself as going into "a rage" over the two audience members who interrupted his act Friday at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Richards responded to the black hecklers with repeated use of the "n word" and profanities.

Unlike Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant while under the influence of alcohol, Richards didn't blame drugs or any mood-altering substance for his actions.

He did say that he needed to understand the rage.

At times as he spoke, he became rather incoherent, talking about Katrina and where we are as a nation in terms of race relations. That was a bit off topic. Actually, it was irrelevant. Richards was supposed to be apologizing for his horrible behavior, not analyzing the American psyche.

...Richards deserved the chance to apologize, Seinfeld said on the "Late Show." Seinfeld said, "He's someone that I love, and I know how shattered he is about" the incident.

I think Seinfeld struck the right balance. He was loyal to a dear friend, yet he in no way excused or condoned his racist remarks.

If I wanted to be cynical, I could say Seinfeld was trying to do damage control so sales of Season 7 wouldn't suffer. Perhaps Seinfeld feared that his classic show would be tarnished forever unless he worked quickly to help save Richards.

Or worse yet, if I wanted to be really cynical, I might say that the entire thing was staged. Maybe it was all a stunt, in the vein of "no publicity is bad publicity."

I don't want to be cynical, so I will assume that Seinfeld, as well as Richards, were being sincere. It certainly seems to have been a genuine meltdown by Richards, and the reactions and apologies seem legitimate.

At one point, however, Richards grew flustered and expressed second thoughts about appearing on the "Late Show" when his use of the term "Afro-American" proved funny to some audience members.

"I'm hearing your audience laugh, and I'm not even sure that this is where I should be addressing the situation," he said in a tape of his appearance shown by CBS to reporters.

This is a little misleading.

Some in the audience laughed initially when Richards was speaking. They clearly thought it was a comedy bit.

Seinfeld admonished them, telling them not to laugh.

It wasn't the term "Afro-American" that elicited the chuckles.

I also wouldn't say Richards was flustered.

He looked to be in shock, as though he couldn't believe that he found himself in this situation.

There's no denying that he did go off the deep end when he reacted to the hecklers.

Should he be forgiven?

I think when someone sincerely apologizes (not the non-apology apology sort, but a real one), that individual deserves another chance.

Richards can't take back his words, but he can and did express remorse. That doesn't entirely clear him. I do think that he has some serious anger management issues and would benefit from sensitivity training.

Does this take the shine off Seinfeld as one of TV's funniest sitcoms?

I don't think so. Richards isn't Kramer. Kramer is a character. When actors are doing their jobs well, what counts is the performance, not the person behind it.

Will people boycott Seinfeld because of the Richards episode?

Some will and that's their choice. While I think that's a reasonable reaction, I don't think that continuing to watch the show means that one condones racism.

I suspect that with time the Laugh Factory episode will be forgotten and Richards eventually will redeem himself.

That's the way this sort of thing usually works.

Filling Budget Potholes

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has yet again come up with an editorial that is pathetic.

The Editorial Board likes the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's recommendations to increase driver and car fees, even though it does seem a little excessive.

The editorial, entitled "Filling Budget Potholes," begins with an acknowledgement that it's a bit odd that the fee increases weren't announced until after the election.

The timing may have been suspicious and the suggested boosts are probably too much, but the state Department of Transportation's recommendations for driver and car fee increases in its next budget address a real need: adequate funding for transportation. Right now, there's a big hole in transportation funding, and that hole has to be filled if the state wants the infrastructure it needs - in roads, freeway interchanges and public transportation - to foster economic development.

The timing of the recommendations was suspect because the recommendations, due two months ago, came after the Nov. 7 election. DOT officials say the timing was not political. Maybe, but it looks funny. And inconsequential. Does anyone seriously think that the announcement would have turned the election against Gov. Jim Doyle?

Of course, the DOT would say the timing wasn't political.

Does anyone seriouly think that the DOT would say that it was?

Furthermore, if it really was so inconsequential, then why the delay in announcing the hike in fees?

It's possible that the increase could have ticked off enough voters to have made a difference.

Would that difference have been significant enough to have turned the election in Mark Green's favor?

That's unlikely, but is that a valid reason to excuse the sleazy, dishonest move?

I don't think so.

More important is the amount of the recommended boost. The DOT wants a $25 hike in the annual car registration fee and a $10 hike in the driver's license fee. That's a 46% boost in the car registration fee, from $55 to $80. The department also wants to raise the registration fee for light trucks, to between $80 and $112, depending on their weight.

In the past, the governor has said he supports a $10 increase in the registration fee, and we're inclined to agree with Doyle.

It's true that even an $80 registration fee would leave Wisconsin car owners paying less than their counterparts in neighboring states; in Iowa, registration for a midsize car can be up to $210. But Wisconsin's gasoline tax at 32.9 cents a gallon is among the highest. Furthermore, one of the excuses given for Wisconsin's perennial ranking as a high-taxing state is that the fees are low. If the state keeps raising fees, taxpayers will be hit by a double whammy of taxes and fees that won't be good for a healthy economy, not to mention the family pocketbook. A $25 hike seems excessive.

Still, the state needs to pay for building projects, road maintenance and public transportation, which is a vital element in helping many people get to their jobs. If drivers want potholes filled and roads improved for safe travel, it's going to be costly.

What a convoluted mess!

The Editorial Board says Wisconsinites don't pay as much as citizens of neighboring states, but then it cites the whopping gasoline taxes that place an incredible burden on the people of the state.

Also, the increases are a burden that is more difficult for the poor to carry than the financially blessed. The Journal Sentinel doesn't address that issue at all.

In sum, the increases are bad.

BUT, they're necessary.

The money is needed to cover the costs of maintaing the state's roads.

Here's a thought:

Instead of increasing fees, why not trim some of the budget fat?

Here's another way for the state to spend money more effectively-- Why not award state contracts to the most economical and lowest bidders instead of handing out contracts as rewards for filling the campaign coffers of corrupt Gov. Doyle?

...At the same time, the governor and the Legislature can help future DOT budgets by not raiding the transportation fund to fill holes elsewhere in the state budget, something that has occurred too often in recent years and is one of the reasons for the transportation department's structural deficit.

WHAT?

The DOT budget has been raided to cover other budgetary expenses?

I thought Jim Doyle balanced the budget and without raising taxes.

Wasn't that one of the alleged major accomplishments of his first term?

Read about the Doyle Method of "balancing" a budget.

Drivers should not be taxed by the state twice, once on income and once in fees, to meet the education budget, for example. The fees and the gasoline tax should be reserved for transportation.

Keeping the fund segregated, responsible scheduling of projects and a small increase in fees could go a long way toward meeting the state's needs without doing too much harm to taxpayers.

Which is it?

The Editorial Board argues against the excessive hike in fees after it argued for it.

The way the Board explains it the increases are an unfortunate necessity and the buck doesn't stop with Doyle.