My thoughts on politics, foreign policy, sports, America, and anything else I come up with.

 
If You're State Attorney General, Make Sure You Don't Drive Drunk

I shouldn't talk, because I have been pulled over in the past, and gotten away with a couple other driving incidents without police involvement. Lucky for me the one time I was pulled over, I blew a 0.09 back in the days of the 0.10 cutoff. I was lucky, and incredibly stupid. But then again, I'm not the chief law enforcement official in the state of Wisconsin! That's right, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager was arrested near Columbus, after being found in the ditch of northbound USH 151.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A preliminary breath test showed her blood-alcohol level to be 0.12, or 0.04 above the state's legal limit of 0.08, according to the Dodge County Sheriff's Department...

...She took a preliminary breath test, the results of which generally are not admissible in court. But she refused a blood test three times, saying she wanted to talk to an attorney. She later offered to take a blood test, but the deputy told her it was too late.

State law says that when someone refuses to take a test to determine whether they are intoxicated, it triggers the suspension of a driver's license for a year. That is separate from the mandatory suspension of six to nine months for a conviction of a first-offense drunken driving. That conviction also carries a forfeiture of $784.

If convicted and if her license is suspended, Lautenschlager could still apply for and obtain a permit that would allow her to drive to and from work.

She was arrested at 12:15 a.m. Tuesday, handcuffed and placed in the rear of a squad car. At 1:10 a.m., she was released to her husband, William Rippl, a retired Neenah police officer.

Sheriff's Department Arrest Report

Way to go, Peg! At least you have two years until that reelection campaign. Dumbass.

Posted by Brian Adams at 01:04 | Permalink | |

 
Earth Almost Put on Impact Alert

From the BBC:

Astronomers have revealed how they came within minutes of alerting the world to a potential asteroid strike last month.

Some scientists believed on 13 January that a 30m object, later designated 2004 AS1, had a one-in-four chance of hitting the planet within 36 hours.

It could have caused local devastation and the researchers contemplated a call to President Bush before new data finally showed there was no danger.

The procedures for raising the alarm in such circumstances are now being revised...

...Fortunately for all concerned, shortly after the ominous Chesley e-mail, an amateur astronomer managed to dodge the clouds and take a picture of a blank patch of sky.

This was significant because if 2004 AS1 really was going to hit the Earth, it would have been in the amateur's sights. The fact that it was absent meant the rock would not strike us.

But Chapman says in his presentation that if it had been cloudy, and no more observations could have been obtained at the time, he would have raised the alarm.

Marsden disagrees. "If it had been cloudy and the call had been made to the President it would have been disastrous."

Yeah, I think it would have been pretty disastrous. And we thought people went ape shit buying up plastic sheeting and duct tape last year. I shutter to think of the compressed chaos that an announcement of an asteroid impact in 36 hours would create. Again, there's times when I'm glad I live in a small town.

Posted by Brian Adams at 22:55 | Permalink | |

 
Country Wisdom on Dubya

I got this in an email from a long-time friend of mine yesterday:

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 70-year-old Texas rancher (whose hand had caught in a gate while working cattle), a doctor and the old rancher were talking about George W. Bush being in the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'."

Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old man said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor stupid bastard get down."

This friend of mine is one of those Americans out there, who almost always votes Republican, but now cannot imagine ever voting for any member of the Bush administration again. There is hope for this election, my friends.

Posted by Brian Adams at 03:36 | Permalink | |

 
Bush Campaign Chairman Caught in Lie About Bush's Service

As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote this morning, "Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and his surrogates just won't stop lying about it."

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot had this to say this morning on NPR:

"He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn’t selected to go, but nonetheless served his country very well."

But wait, Calpundit has this from Bush's military service records:



Josh Marshall has more here.

Posted by Brian Adams at 22:49 | Permalink | |

 
Ralph Nader, You Self-Aggrandizing, Arrogant Prick!

Why is Ralph Nader running for president this year? What does he hope to gain this time around? What is he going to do with the votes he receives? He's not representing any party trying to reach that magic number of 5% of the popular vote, the cutoff to receive federal matching funds in the next election. He'll have a hard time just getting on the ballot in every state. We all know that the majority of votes that he'll receive would have gone to the Democratic nominee. This is all about Ralph, and Ralph knows it, but he doesn't care.

Unity against a reckless and dangerous Bush administration is the furthest thing from his mind. As I've said before, the defeat of George W. Bush in 2004 is more important than who defeats him. And Ralph? There's misguided idealism - and then there's just being an asshole.

New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson had this to say Sunday morning about Ralph Nader:

"It’s his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody’s backing him," New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader’s announcement.

"The Greens aren’t backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It’s all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."

"Now, Ralph’s made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it’s not going to help us," he said. "I don’t think he’ll have a sizable impact, but it’s terrible if he goes ahead because it’s about him. It’s about his ego. It’s about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."

Posted by Brian Adams at 22:08 | Permalink | |

 
My Favorite Rumsfeld Quote, Winner of the "Foot in Mouth" Award for 2003

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a news briefing in February 2002.

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

And the George W. Bush Quote to Top Them All

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again." [September 17, 2002]

Posted by Brian Adams at 18:03 | Permalink | |

 
Classic Exchanges Yesterday Between White House Press Corps and Press Secretary McClellan

Last week, President Bush issued an economic report to Congress that projected 2.6 million new jobs will be created by the end of 2004. However, the White House now says it will not stand behind those numbers.

From CNN:

The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.

Oh, I believe them when they say the president is not a statistician. For more on the backtracking of the White House on this jobs prediction, a good display of how this administration will never admit to anything negative, and a fine example of the level of animosity between The White House press corps and Press Secretary Scott McClellan, check out this section of the noon press briefing from Wednesday, 2/19/04:

Q: Scott, does the White House stand behind its report issued just nine days ago, the Economic Report, there will be 2.6 million new jobs created this year?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went through a little bit of this earlier today. I think that people can debate the numbers all they want; the President is focused on acting on policies to create as robust an environment for job creation as possible so that we can help those who are hurting because they are looking for work and cannot find a job.

The President is encouraged by the direction the economy is moving. It is growing strong -- or growing stronger, I should say -- it is strong and growing stronger. There have been more than 366,000 new jobs created in the last five months. The unemployment rate continues to decline. It is now the lowest point -- at the lowest point it has been in two years, and it is below the average of the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Certainly, productivity continues to be high, and people's disposable incomes are up. There are a lot of good indications about the direction the economy is moving.

But there is more to do. And the President is focused on acting to create as robust an environment as possible. That means acting on his six-point plan for strengthening our economy even more. We live in a changing economy right now, John, and the President has put forward a plan that will help create as robust an environment for job creation as possible. It will help retrain workers who have lost their jobs to meet the jobs of the 21st century -- these jobs that are high-paid, high-skill jobs. And so that's where the President's focus is on.

Q: Well, you say this is a changing economy, and you also said earlier that this report was based on economic data that is now three months old. So would it be wrong for the Democrats, later this year -- if you don't meet this 2.6 million forecast of jobs -- would it be wrong for them to beat you on the head about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It would be wrong for people to raise taxes at this point in our economy. And there are some -- (laughter) -- well, there are some that are advocating letting the tax cuts that the President worked to pass expire. And what that would be doing is raising taxes on small businesses. Small businesses are the economic engine for our economy and they're at the foundation of creating a strong and growing economy. It would raise taxes, if they let these tax cuts expire, on moms and dads who are trying to raise a family. It would raise taxes on married couples by restoring the marriage penalty.

Q: When you dismissed the premise of John's question by saying, people can debate the numbers, let's be realistic here, the debate is going on between your Council of Economic Advisors and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Are there people here in this White House who never believed that forecast?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, John, I think that the Council of Economic Advisors puts out an annual report on the economy; it's the President's Economic Report. And they do that every year. They've been doing it for some 20 years now. That's based on economic modeling and the data that is available at that point in time. The President is interested in the actual number of jobs being created, and the President is interested in making sure that everybody who is looking for a job can find one. That's where the President's focus is.

That's why I say people can debate the numbers all they want, but the President is going to be looking at the actual numbers of jobs being created. And the number of jobs being created is growing. The number is up. New jobs are being created. The economy is certainly moving in the right direction. And my point to John was that the last thing we need to do right now is raise taxes. And we need to focus on the policy decisions that are being made here in Washington, D.C. to create as robust an environment for job creation as possible. And that's where the debate ought to be focused.

Q: But it would appear, though, that people very high up in this administration didn't have a whole lot of faith in the forecast of the report that went up to Congress just a week ago in terms of the job creation numbers.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's an annual economic report that is put out by the administration based on the economic modeling and the data that's available at that point in time.

Q: Can you answer the specific question, though? Was this report -- was the prediction of this many jobs, 2.6 million jobs, vetted prior to publication by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report, David. It goes through the usual -- it goes through the usual --

Q: That's not the question. Was it or was it not vetted by the entire economic team?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report. It goes through the usual --

Q: So you don't know, or it was, or it wasn't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I get -- can I finish that sentence?

Q: When you answer the question. Let's hear it. What's the answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: The answer was, it is an annual economic report and it goes through the normal vetting process. And if you would let me get to that, I would answer your question.

Q: -- the full economic team vetted the prediction --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual economic report. It's the President's Economic Report. But again, the President --

Q: Just say yes or no --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it goes through the normal -- it goes through the normal vetting process.

Q: So the answer is, yes. I'm not done yet, I've got another one.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q: Why -- if you're suggesting that people will debate the numbers, that's kind of a backhanded way to say, oh, who cares about the numbers. Well, apparently, the President's top economic advisors do, because that's why they wrote a very large report and sent it to Congress. So why was the prediction made in the first place, if the President and you and his Treasury Secretary were going to just back away from it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I disagree with the premise of the way you stated that. This is the annual Economic Report of the President and the economic modeling is done this way every year. It's been done this way for 20-some years.

Q: So why not -- why aren't you standing behind it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think what the President stands behind is the policies that he is implementing, the policies that he is advocating. That's what's important.

Q: That's not in dispute. The number is the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but the President's concern is on the number of jobs being created --

Q: My question is, why was the prediction made --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the President's focus is on making sure that people who are hurting because they cannot find work have a job. That's where the President's focus is.

Q: Then why predict a number? Why was the number predicted? Why was the number predicted? You can't get away with not -- just answer the question. Why was that number predicted?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this, and I've asked -- I've been asked, and I've answered.

Q: No, you have not answered. And everybody watching knows you haven't answered.

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree.

Here's a humorous exchange later in the press briefing:

Q: Two questions, please. The Democratic candidates for the nomination have stopped attacking themselves and have been attacking --

MR. McCLELLAN: People are attacking themselves? (Laughter.)

Q: It's a jungle out there --

MR. McCLELLAN: I wish you would attack yourselves instead of me. (Laughter.)

Q: We love ourselves.

Posted by Brian Adams at 00:48 | Permalink | |

 
A Great Wrong Has Finally Been Righted

Greg Maddux, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, has signed a three-year contract with the team he played for from 1986-1992, the Chicago Cubs!

The Cubs' letting go of Maddux after the 1992 season over a money dispute has gone down as one of the worst transactions in the history of professional sports. It's up there with the Red Sox trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees for cash. Of course, this was familiar territory for the Chicago Cubs. In 1964 the Chicago Cubs sent a young outfielder named Lou Brock and two other players to St. Louis for veteran pitcher Ernie Broglio and two throw-ins. Ernie Broglio turned out to be nothing, while Lou Brock went on to be the great base-stealing Hall of Famer. It is undoubtedly the most lopsided trade in baseball history.

But back to the present. I still try not to think about Game 6 of the 2003 National League Championship Series. The Cubs led the Marlins 3-0, with one out and no one on base in the top of the 8th inning. Mark Prior was five outs away from a brilliant shutout, which would have sent the Cubs to their first World Series since 1945. I really had not gotten that emotionally invested in a sporting event, or maybe anything, in a long time. I was ready to explode with tears of joy, and release the frustration of watching the Cubs stink almost every year of my life...and my parents' lives!

And then 1060 West Addison Street, in the wonderful city of Chicago, Illinois - well, all of a sudden it was over the Hellmouth from "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer." Yes, the Hellmouth pulled up its roots from Sunnydale, California and headed east on I-80. It took up residence under venerable Wrigley Field, and waited until victory seemed certain for the Cubs, to then open up and swallow the hopes of millions of Cub fans. The series of events I saw transpire were worse than any nightmare of which a Cub fan could conceive. But once I saw the fly ball miss Alou's glove and deflect back into the crowd, I almost knew something horrible had started that could not be stopped. The fact that the Marlins got eight runs in the inning was just an exclamation point on the event. Of course we all know the Cubs went on to lose Game 7 as well, and the Florida Marlins advanced to their second World Series in seven years, and in only eleven years of team existence. And they won their second World Series title.

In some form of sick cosmic symmetry, the Boston Red Sox led the New York Yankees by three runs, with one out and no one on base, in the 8th inning of Game 6 of the American League Championship Series. Both the Cubs and Red Sox led their LCS in games 3-2, led by three runs with the opponent batting in the eighth inning, with one out and no one on base. They both went on to lose Game 6 and then Game 7. Cubs and Red Sox fans are truly brothers in pain. The two teams have gone a combined 184 years without a World Series title.

----------

But I have a good feeling about 2004! The Cubs have a front office finally that is not afraid to spend some of the Tribune Company's money to improve the team in the off-season. The Cubs have without a doubt the most formidable starting rotation in the National League. And this off-season they have added LaTroy Hawkins and Kent Mercker to the bullpen, traded for Gold Glove first baseman Derrek Lee, and added Todd Walker and Todd Hollandsworth for some bench strength. And almost all the key pieces from last year's success remain in place.

I will not boldly make a prediction that the Chicago Cubs will repeat as National League Central Division champions in 2004, and will once again advance to the NLCS. I will not forecast a World Series appearance ever again. With the confident arrogance of a fan who believes his beloved team has reached the promised land, I proclaimed the Chicago Cubs to be National League Champions...early in the day before the start of Game 6. Bad mojo. But 2004 will be a great year for the Cubs!

Posted by Brian Adams at 01:34 | Permalink | |

 
Today is the big Wisconsin Presidential Primary! I voted at 11:00 AM in my small city, a city of about 5400. There's a lot of families with children in town, so I don't know how big the voting age population is. But I was voter No. 250, and there was parking overflowing out of the parking lots at the public library/city hall building. I think it's the most people I've ever seen voting in this city, including presidential elections. It's a good sign!

And we don't even have any casino referendum on the ballot, just a county judgeship, other than the presidential preference primary.

Posted by Brian Adams at 12:27 | Permalink | |

 
Wisconsin Presidential Debate, 2/15/04 - Transcript

Here's a gem of an exchange between reporter Lester Holt and candidate Rev. Al Sharpton:

LESTER HOLT: I'd actually like to let Reverend Sharpton follow up on that very question. Do you think that the president knowingly lied, and if so, why?

REV. AL SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I think that if he didn't know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said they knew the weapons were there. He had members of the administration say they knew where the weapons were. So we're not just talking about something passing here. We're talking about 500 lives. We're talking about billions of dollars.

So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.

Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He lied in Florida; he's lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

HOLT: And Reverend, you'll recognize, obviously, calling someone a liar is a very serious charge. So it does lead to that question...

SHARPTON: I think he lied.

HOLT: So it does lead to the question: Why would he lie?

SHARPTON: Why do people lie? I mean, if in my judgment...

HOLT: I mean, knowing he would be in the position that you're putting him in now, why would he...

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, Lester, let us look at the facts. The facts are that what they presented to the United Nations, what they presented to the world was not so. You can only assume that they had to know if they said that they knew where the weapons were, that they knew they didn't know where they were.

And now to come back and tell us that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, despicable person, which we all agree, but we believed him when he told us he had them. Can you imagine me telling you that I believe somebody that you should never believe, and I brought 500 people to their deaths believing in a man that was as despicable as Hussein, and this is who we're going to have over the troops' lives in this country?

I think that this is absolutely outrageous. Why he lied? I think we should give him the rest of his retirement to figure that out and explain to us.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Posted by Brian Adams at 23:46 | Permalink | |

 
The Unwritten Rules of Pseudo-Christian Fundamentalism

1. "I'm right and you are wrong."



2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.



3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.



4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical, psychological, or verbal, at all times as defensive.



5. Specific example for No. 4: Cry for "freedom of religion," but whenever followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts agree, scream "Persecution!"



6. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed into a corner in an argument.



7. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious.



8. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.



9. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a something for which you should apologize retract or make amends except verbally and secretly to God himself.



10. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans for the world. Recognize that even your errors are just part of Gods will for the betterment of mankind.



11. Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.



12. Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and oppose all such information through classification of such information in a derogatory and simplistic manner (e.g. by categorizing it as left wing propaganda).



13. Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is complex and there are shades of grey.



14. Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you don't have that right anyhow.

Posted by Brian Adams at 01:00 | Permalink | |

 
Well, this here blog of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.

I don't know where that came from, but this blog has sat dormant for far too long. I'm seriously pumped up about the election this year, as well, anyone with a conscience and time to volunteer should be. And I have a lot of things to say, which have been confined to a few internet forums and message boards. Well, I am back online!

And now, your daily advice from Ty Webb:
Advice from Ty Webb

Posted by Brian Adams at 11:17 | Permalink | |