Let Me Help You

I can't believe I've been following the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes drama. This is the first drama I've ever followed, and it probably hasn't been my choice completely.

See, the NYTIMES website continues to run frontpage stories on Tom, so I click on them. I figure, if it's frontpage on the Times it has to have some relevance. Man have I been wrong. Yet I still follow.

In every interview I've seen, whether it be Oprah, Letterman, Leno, and now Lauer, the same question is asked of Cruise, and he can't answer it. He's so overwhelmed by love he can't even come up with a good answer. This is that answer:

''It's that thing where you just -- in life when it just happens. ... You meet someone. And it's -- I can't even describe it.''

Well, I'm here to help the Cruiser out by answering the question.

Katie Holmes is very hot, even when she had herpes. I think I'm immune to that stuff so I would've gone there......maybe..... Point is, she's really cute, seems nice, and has a head on her shoulders.

Holmes admitted a few weeks ago, right about the time they met, that she used to be in love with him as a "little girl." Well, now that she's all growns up she has the chance to make a dream come true.

Tom is a total freakshow. Around Katie he may be a bit normal, relaxed, etc., but he's a freak. Katie probably finds Tom very bohemian, and being that she's 26 she can afford to be. She's coming into her own right now, and this is part of the learning process. Tom must be totally freaked out that this really attractive young actress who can most likely be with anyone wants to be with him. Hey, regardless of fame, age is age, especially when you're both famous.

The reason Cruise can't describe the situation is he can't believe it himself! I know, he's Tom Cruise, he can have anyone. But no, he can have anyone who can't have anyone and right now he's dipping into the super-desirable youth pool. He doesn't want to describe that to the masses, trust me.

My advice to Tom is tell the hosts not to ask that question because we all know why you can't explain it.

The two of them will not be together when our next President takes office, and that's the high side of things. I'd take the under in that bet in a second.

Right? Right.

Yesterday`s Supreme Court decision involving property rights isn't as black and white as conservatives and libertarians are making it out to be. Unless, of course, you're talking about the people affected. In that case, it's definitely more black than white.

When I first read the articles detailing the case I was prone to side with those whose homes would be uprooted. Of course, then I read on and realized it's not so clean cut.

While I don't agree a good precedent is being set by allowing government, local, or larger, to remove people from their homes so a private entity can setup shop, it's also not the end of the world. Courts find themselves these days making detailed decisions, not general ones which will in turn affect every case like it (See United Airlines/PBGC case).

Certainly it seems a precedent is being set in this case, but for any other case to be decided along the same lines the details would have to be almost exact, whish is the case Justice Stevens made.

The question in this case is: do governments have the right under the "Fif" Amendment to take land for "public use" even though it's being turned over for private development? I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say "yes."

The heart of this debate doesn't center on whether the lives of the weak are being pushed aside by the strong. For the conservatives on the bench this case represents a deviation from the Founders supposed intent when writing the Constitution. In their eyes, the Founders would never have supported the taking of private property to be given to another private entity. To them there's no "public" right in that. It's not a practice of eminent domain.

Ahh, but the majortiy see it differently, and it can be summed up simply:

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice Stevens said, adding, "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

The New London, CT area in question is not a healthy one. The hotel, office space, and new homes will increase tax revenues for a city of 26,000 that supposedly needs it. The people who are being removed are most likely not getting the best value for their property, which is often the case with eminent domain. I do wish that part was different, and in a case like this they should find a way to make it so.

For the conservatives they have to view this case as "the Founders never intended this" because in almost every other aspect they should be supportive. They believe in big business!

The area isn't going to fix itself up, right? Right. So what if the city decided to build a recreation center, parking deck, and new municipal building on that land. The homeowners would still have to go, right? Right. That's essentially eminent domain. The public is benefitting, supposedly, from these new buildings. Cities take the land of the poor all the time and do this. That's their easy way of cleaning it up, in a sense. Ever been to New Brunswick, NJ? Perth Amboy, NJ? I can go on. Ever see the hospital that is New Brunswick? A city will eventually find a way to clean up a neighborhood that has serious value. Why let it crumble?

Just because this is a private company reeping the profits from the land use, does this mean there's no "public" benefit? Of course not. In fact, the "public" in question probably benefits more from the prospective hotel/office/homes plan than anything else. More tax revenues to the city to help fix schools, right? Right. Hopefully, the tax renveues are large, and the schools can educate their children well enough so they don't end up living in the crummy neighborhood in question! Oh, but that's such a dream...a dream conservatives, like those on this court, don't address in other cases.

The one sore spot in all of this, a precedent if you will, is how big business will then start looking at more bad neighborhoods for developlment (not that they don`t now). You'll have lobbyists pushing local, state, and federal politicians to get them waterfront property in Camden, NJ, or something similar. Of course, the people taking advantage of this ruling will most likely be supporters of the 4 disenters. Man, that's the fucking irony, right? Right.

I'd say the ruling is a good ruling because the town definitely needs the cash infusion, and that's the "public" benefit. However, the likelihood for abuse is certainly there. But afterall, that's America for you. What can you expect?

You have 4 Justices arguing for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and 5 who think the Founders would agree with their decision. We live in modern times, folks. But before we even throw this issue back to the Founders we should really let them sit with Gore v Bush a bit longer.

Conservatives, please get off your fake high horses. You should care more about individuals than you do the interpretation of laws. If you cared more about the people in the first place we wouldn't even have this problem. If you didn't give these big business the green light at every other turn at the expense of the lesser off, again, we wouldn't have problems like these.

They have no problem taking the rights of citizens away, both US and other. They have no problem taking the will of the people away during an election. They have no problem inserting religion in the public domain. They don`t have a lot of problems with a lot of things. Ahh, but this was a chance to be on the side of the little, it may seem, and they`ve got a way to justify it to themselves. So they ran with it.

It's the right decision, although a tough call, which of course will be exploited by those who support the 4 who dissent.

Ridiculous

I know most people are not falling the story about Jack Abramoff, but you should be. It's the MOST ridiculous thing going on right now.

Check out TNR's email coverage of this. It's a must read:

You've Got Mail
by Michael Crowley

"I hate to ask your help with something so silly," Jack Abramoff wrote to his friend Daniel Lapin on September 15, 2000. Abramoff, of course, is the now-disgraced Republican lobbyist who stands accused of defrauding several Indian tribes of millions of dollars and trying to buy off various Republican congressmen. Lapin is a Seattle-based rabbi who is a close friend and spiritual advisor to Abramoff. Now Abramoff, at the time still hustling his way to the top of Washington lobbying, was coming to him for help:

I have been nominated for membership in the Cosmos Club, which is a very distinguished club in Washington, DC, comprised of Nobel Prize winners, etc. Problem for me is that most prospective members have received awards and I have received none. I was wondering if you thought it possible that I could put that I have received an award from Toward Tradition with a sufficiently academic title, perhaps something like Scholar of Talmudic Studies?... Indeed, it would be even better if it were possible that I received these in years past, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I think you see what I am trying to finagle here!

Indeed he did. "Mazel tov, the Cosmos Club is a big deal," Lapin replied. A few days, later the rabbi wrote again:

Let's organize your many prestigous awards so they're ready to 'hang on the wall.'... I just need to know what needs to be produced. Letters? Plaques? Neither?

"Probably just a few clever titles of awards, dates and that's it," Abramoff replied.

Clever indeed. As the latest batch of Abramoff emails released at yesterday's hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee reminds us, the lobbyist's cleverness knew no bounds. The hearing--which was the first since last November on the Abramoff scandals--delivered no new bombshells, nor fresh evidence of wrongdoing by members of Congress. Its real value was in the accompanying release of committee evidence documents containing dozens of new emails from the man Tom DeLay once called "one of my closest and dearest friends." It will likely take weeks to sort through all the tantalizing new material they contain, but here is a brief guide to some of the most interesting revelations from the latest Abramoff emails:

Creative Billing: The focus of yesterday's hearings was on Abramoff's lobbying for the Mississippi-based Choctaw Indians, who became the first of his casino-gaming tribal clients in the mid-'90s. Some of the details the emails provide on the subject are precious.

Take, for instance, Abramoff's attitude towards billing. Emails show that when Abramoff concludes in early 2001 that his staff should be billing more hours to the Choctaw, he instructs one of them to "[a]dd 60 hours for me and pump up Scanlon, Todd and you. Give Amy some hours if you have to" (the names are references to fellow lobbyists at his firm). Later Abramoff asks his colleague, who is still tallying up billable hours, to "tell me how much you need me to cover to get the bill up to around $150,000."

"This is a very bad system that I am very uncomfortable with," the colleague replies.

"Fine," writes Abramoff, without apology.

Free Ride?: Another episode comes in a September 2001 email from one of Abramoff's Preston Gates deputies, Tony Rudy, a former top DeLay staffer, with the subject line: "Is this viable?"

"There are a few Senate staffers I would like to help reward," Rudy writes. "Would the choctaws or coushatta"--another Abramoff tribal client--"donate like 10k to pay for a trip?"

"There is a hunting and fishing resort 3 hours south of texas that smith's people expressed an interest in," Rudy explains. (The two Smiths in the Senate at the time were the since-retired Bob Smith of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon; both are Republicans.)

"I don't see how we can sell them on the funding for that," Abramoff replies.

"Thank you trip for the approps we got," says Rudy (abbreviating the term "appropriations").

Abramoff: "Smith's people didn't get us the approps for Choctaw, but good try! :)"

Rudy: "But how would coushatta know? :)"

"Let's discuss next week," Abramoff concludes. The outcome is unknown.

What Did Ralph Reed Know?: Despite being an avowed opponent of gambling on moral grounds, Reed has admitted to taking more than $4 million from Abramoff to run anti-gambling grassroots operations. Reed claims he never realized that money he took originated with casino-owning Indian tribes. But that will be a tough position to maintain in light of these latest emails.

In April 1999, for instance, Reed and Abramoff discuss a planned grassroots anti-gambling blitz by Reed (whose target is unclear). The emails show Reed saying he needs to be paid by Abramoff's law firm, Preston Gates, before he launches his effort. Abramoff pleads that he needs a cash infusion from his Choctaw clients before he can pay Reed.

"I need [the money] today," an impatient Reed writes on April 9. "Ralph," Abramoff replies, "I am not sure that I can get this wire moving fast enough today. Give me your wire info and I'll do what I can. Any chance that a wire from Choctaw directly would be OK?"

Reed's reply, if there was one, is not included in the committee documents. But at that point it should have been nakedly obvious to Reed that his payments were originating with the casino-managing Choctaw and were only making the briefest of detours through Abramoff's hands.

There's more of the same in November 2000, when Reed writes to Abramoff complaining that he is still owed money for his anti-gambling work.

"Thanks Ralph," Abramoff replies. "The firm has held back all payments pending receipt of a check from Choctaw which was held up." Reed thanks Abramoff and raises no objection.

But it's easy to understand why Reed might not have wanted to make a fuss. First, he was making good money. Second, Reed may have felt indebted to his old friend, as suggested by a November 1998 email from Reed to Abramoff: "Hey, now that I'm done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts."

The Israeli Settler Connection: Of all the new facts to emerge from yesterday's hearing, few are as strange as the details of Abramoff's connection to militant Israeli settlers. Newsweek reported this spring that Abramoff had funneled Indian money through his ostensibly charitable organization, The Capital Athletic Foundation, to pay for paramilitary equipment and training for Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The new batch of emails seem to confirm it. They show long exchanges between Abramoff and a West Bank settler named Schmuel Ben Zvi, a former high school friend of his from Hollywood, in which Abramoff discusses the procurement of military-use equipment for Ben Zvi and his fellow settlers.

At one point a grateful Ben Zvi--who "heatedly denied" to Newsweek in April that he had been involved in procuring military equipment--thanks Abramoff for his help:

I feel like the tank commanders in the Yom Kippur war, who when hearing over the radio that reinforcements were coming, felt so great that they raised their seats higher out of the tank hatch and went forward.
"Thanks brother," Abramoff replies. "If only there were another dozen of you the dirty rats would be finished."

The emails are not entirely clear on this point, but it appears that Abramoff was writing off his payments to Ben Zvi as charitable contributions. After Abramoff's accountant raises concerns, he tries to find a way to justify Ben Zvi's activities as a charitable cause. A September 2002 email from an Allison Bozniak, who appears to be Abramoff's assistant at his law firm, relays Ben Zvi's helpful suggestions.

"He did suggest that he could write some kind of letter with his Sniper Workshop Logo and letter head." And then she adds, brilliantly, "It is an 'educational entity of sorts.'"

Abramoff demurs. "No, don't do that. I don't want a sniper letterhead."

From Russia With Love: There is one last, even more bizarre, twist to the new information about Abramoff's West Bank connection. It comes in the form of an email to Abramoff, which details prices of thermal vision devices, from a Russian man named Vadim. His complete email address has been redacted by the Indian Affairs Committee, but his email domain is still legible: naftasib.com. As Abramoff scandal junkies know, Naftasib is a Russian oil and gas company which helped to arrange and underwrite a murky and much-discussed 1997 trip Tom DeLay took to Moscow with Abramoff. According to the Post, DeLay met with Naftasib executives while in Moscow, for reasons that have never been entirely clear.

Why would someone at Naftasib be helping Abramoff procure military equipment? Well, the Post has also reported that Naftasib "has business ties with Russian security institutions." And the email from Abramoff's correspondent, Vadim, includes an email signature identifying him as "Assistant to Mrs. Nevskaya." That is presumably Marina Nevskaya, a Naftasib executive who reportedly served as an instructor at a Russian military intelligence school.

So there you have it. A rich Washington lobbyist apparently schemed to use money from Indian tribes to buy paramilitary equipment from Russian oil executives and send it to Israeli settlers in the West Bank. What could be simpler?

Actually, this sounds just like the sort of thing you'd hear from a schizophrenic homeless man ranting outside the White House. But in reality, it appears to be the story of Jack Abramoff.

That's Why

The reason flag burning is so important is because of a story like this:

Worry in Congress about the course of U.S. strategy in Iraq boiled over yesterday into a scalding attack on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and some of the toughest questioning of the Pentagon leader since the war in Iraq began.

During a day of contentious hearings in the Senate and House, Rumsfeld disputed assertions that the U.S. campaign is faltering and argued that the conflict there remains worth its costs in lives and dollars. He also rejected the idea, backed by a small bipartisan group of lawmakers, of setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, although he said he favors pressing Iraqi authorities to keep to their timetable this year for a new constitution and national elections.

"Any who say we have lost or are losing are flat wrong," he declared in an opening statement, appealing for perseverance. "We are not..."

But Abizaid also offered an assessment of the Iraqi insurgency that contrasted with more optimistic portrayals by some administration officials. He said that the resistance remains about as strong as it was six months ago and acknowledged the possibility that enemy fighters still have sufficient reserves to mount "a military surprise" such as a surge in coordinated attacks.

His remarks appeared at odds with a claim last week by Vice President Cheney -- reaffirmed yesterday in an interview with CNN -- that the insurgency is in its "last throes." Pressed on the seeming difference, Abizaid said, "I'm sure you'll forgive me" for not criticizing the vice president.

I could go on all day about this one, but I won't.

That's Why

The reason flag burning is so important is because of a story like this:

For six months, Republicans have traveled the country as fiscal Paul Reveres, sounding the alarm about the coming collapse of Social Security. Polls showed that although voters did not warm to President Bush's proposed solution, he made substantial headway in convincing them the retirement system is headed for insolvency.

But when House leaders finally rolled out their Social Security plan this week, it did nothing to address the problem that lawmakers and the president have convinced the public is looming as baby boomers retire. Instead, the GOP proposal would create a temporary system of personal accounts that Democrats dismissed as a costly shell game.

The plan would take money from the surplus that the Social Security trust fund is running and parcel it out to individual accounts that would later be used to pay for workers' retirement benefits and could be inherited by their heirs.

That's Why

The reason flag burning is so important is because of a story like this:

The agency that distributes federal funds to public radio and TV stations yesterday announced that it has hired a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee as its new chief executive, renewing charges of partisanship from public broadcasters and Democrats.

Patricia de Stacy Harrison, an assistant secretary of state, will take over as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the congressionally chartered agency that this year will distribute almost $400 million in tax money to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of noncommercial radio and TV stations.

Harrison, a former public relations executive who has no public broadcasting experience, was a co-chairman of the RNC from 1997 to 2001, and helped raise funds to elect party candidates, including President Bush, who appointed her to the State Department. She earlier was named to a post in the Commerce Department by President George H.W. Bush.

Harrison's new job was made considerably easier yesterday when the House voted to restore $100 million in CPB funding after the money had been cut by the Appropriations Committee. The House vote, on a bipartisan margin of 284 to 140, staved off a 25 percent cutback in the CPB's budget.

Blogging

Will pickup after today, or at least more of it.

Blowger

Yeah, that's me.

Can't really get to a computer much for the next few days, but wish I could.

Nothing better than hearing about the House of Representatives passing a "Flag Amendment" which would outlaw burning the flag, while Baghdad is literally burning.

I'm so happy there are conservatives in the world because I really do enjoy using the term "scumbag."

Zactly

What he says.

A Party Soon to be Divided

The Republican Party:

Hostettler, speaking against the amendment, asserted that "the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives" and "continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats."

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," he said.

How they let this stuff stand is beyond me.

I've always felt Christians didn't have enough control in the world.

I pray to the Christian God the words stand, and Hostettler faces up to them.

Thoughts on POWs

Listening to the news yesterday I had to wonder when America would release certain POWs captured during the "War on Terror."

We have Americans, myself included, hopeful POWs will still return from previous wars, but those wars had a beginning and end. This "War on Terror" isn't the Iraq or Afghanistan war, but rather a "war" in the metaphorical sense, like the "War on Drugs."

When does this conflict actually end? Bush claims the "War on Terror" is an ongoing thing which will last ages. He has done this in order to expand his own powers, of course. They don't want to be answerable.

Take the Afghan conflict: is the war over there? Who are we fighting? Osama bin Laden? What if he's dead? When he's caught does the Afghan conflict end? We're not actively trying to fix Afghanistan, are we? We've shortchanged them at every corner just to get out, and move on to Iraq. There's no real design on fixing Afghanistan. The country is already overrun by warlords and drug dealers. Their entire mock government with it's constitution is nothing but a joke. But we can still capture fighters there and hold them indefinitely, right? I would guess so since this is the "War on Terror!"

Can we detain Americans who sell drugs, and label them enemy combatants, hold them in a brig somewhere for any length of time because they were captured during the "War on Drugs?" Here's a dealer, killing Americans through drugs, caught with automatic weapons in his home during the "War on Drugs." What's the difference? Or has the "War on Drugs" ended? I certainly know the "War on Terror" has made the "War on Drugs" less effective. That's some coincidence, heh?

Here we have news outlets mentioning POWs in Guantanamo, some taken from their families having done nothing wrong but wear turbans, and others actively trying to kill Americans. It's a bad situation, and we condone it because we claim there's a war going on. But is there, or are we dealing with an abusive power situation couched in a term like "War on Terror?" We are referring to these people as "PRISONERS OF WAR" even when they're captured in places we don't legitimately have a war being conducted. El Masri was captured in MACEDONIA! Were we actively fighting in Macedonia?

It gets back to us being a leader, and having other nations believe in us. It makes sense for POWs to be returned between nations when a conflict ends, but we've set up ours so it never has to end. The metaphorical war, of course.

We're certainly living during embarrassing times.

Too Dumb to Lie

I've got quite a bit to say here, I think, so hopefully it'll come out the right way. If you haven't actually read the Downing Street Memo, you should. It's short, and provides insight.

First off I want to say that George W. Bush may not be a liar in the literal sense. Frankly, I think he's way too dumb to lie. In other words, if someone tells you something you think is true, but it isn't, are they lying when it's passed on? Add to it the person is probably being intentionally tricked, and ask again. I'd say probably not. In Bush's case I think this is very likely.

Dick Cheney is the guy who runs the country. Is there any doubt? Beyond Bush's role as figurehead, religious icon, and good 'ole boy, Cheney runs the show. Is it Bush's fault he hired all these guys? I mean, afterall, he told Cheney to go find a Vice President and Cheney found himself. How convenient. I believe a lot of these other guys, especially Cheney, are liars. Typical Republicans who will do anything to succeed, have no shame, and think they're your parents. Cheney is the head guy.

I can go on about Bush, the "16 words in the State of the Union", etc. Not sure he's a liar per se. A joke? An idiot? A fool? A moron? Confused? Clueless? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The things he says end up being wrong, so they seem like lies. Cheney lies to Bush, as does everyone else since he's easy manipulated. Just because he's President doesn't mean he became smart. He's still an idiot.

I will say that Bush certainly fixed his policy around the facts available to push war forward because he probably believed Saddam had WMD and was an imminebt threat (plus, the whole dad thing). I'd bet he "believed" (because he believes, you know) WMD were going to be found. As shocked as anyone when not. Keep in mind Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Wollsey and others were writing Clinton about the WMD threat. Bush had ZERO foreign policy experience, but we were told he had experts ready and willing to train him. Well, they sure did! Bush would delegate. Great plan. No, really, great plan you fucking douche bags who voted for him with confidence.

Okay, getting past that. The Downing Street Memo issue. How ridiculous do you have to be to deny we were going to war with Iraq long before the public case was made? Read the memo. It doesn't say, "Uhh, yeah, Bush says we're going to war no matter what..." It doesn't need to. Everyone already knew this! However, on some levels it does say just that.

More importantly, the United Nations was going to be overlooked regardless. How ridiculous do you have to be to deny that these conservatives were never going to deal with the UN? For years conservatives have derided the UN, withheld funding, and on, and on, and on. The UN has flaws no doubt, everyone sees that, but conservatives HATE the UN, and would never trust it to conduct an operation they see only themselves fit enough to carry out. To act like we went to the UN for approval is just that, an act.

No US official is dumb enough to actually come out and say the things the Downing Street Memo reveals. They talk in circles, but this is as good as it's going to get. When I hear Republicans saying, "Well, it doesn't say anything new..." I laugh. Of course it does. It spells out the intentions without actually SAYING IT!

People inside the US government who were dealing with the issue are smart enough to not leave a paper trail of their own, but how in the world could they communicate their thoughts and desires without almost spelling it out? They couldn't, so they did. They almost spelled it out, and the Memo almost makes that perfectly clear. These people aren't morons. They're sneaky fucks, except Bush, again, because I really don't think he ever saw both sides.

To digress a second, had this memo come out in the US Press, or had these been notes taken by a US official, imagine the reaction by Republicans. This wouldn't be seen as notes taken by a someone on the inside, but rather, a traitor to America. This person would be caught and tried in 10 minutes, and yet the person who exposed Valerie Plame still walks. This wouldn't be about America's illegitimate role in Iraq, but rather it'd be about "Democrats who hate America..." Being that the US has so few legitimate allies you aren't hearing this about the Brits.

Both Bush and Blair have denied the importance of the memo, but you don't hear too many people commenting on the "liberal media." It's odd since their media is MORE LIBERAL than ours. Newsweek writes a near accurate report of a secret situation and they are attacked by the White House! Just imagine this came out in the UN, and not London. You don't have too imagine much.

Finally, I think I blame Tony Blair more than anyone now that I've seen the memo. If this information is accurate, and he knew, then he's a joke for getting on board with this. He really did have an opportunity to not follow along, but I guess he too was caught up in the disinformation campaign, or actually thought the US would get real UN approval for this. Whatever it was, he dropped the ball bigtime. I always expect Dick Cheney to be the scumbag that he is, but I expected a bit more from Tony Blair.

WOW!

I rarely comment on pop culture, and shit like that, but I just saw Batman Returns, and it was absolutely ridiculous.

6 out of 6 for those familiar with the 'Figure Skating' scale I like to employ.

It's the level of Indiana Jones, and better than all of those other superhero movies that have come before it, including Superman.

My buddy Chris and I went to see it and both were locked in. Neither of us expected it to be that good. Fans cheered when it ended. I wasn't one of them, but I almost did. The reason I didn't is because I was afraid there'd be a guy in the theatre thinking I was the tool I usually think the guy who claps is. But it was close. I toed the tool line.

I judge a movie on whether it does what it's supposed to do. "Along Came Polly" is a good example. Certainly not a great movie, but going into it I knew what to expect, and the movie more than met those average expectations. I was told Batman was great, but wasn't really sure since the guy who told me still reads comic books. I was waiting for a B, and they delivered and A+ film.

Ftr, Christian Bale is pretty hot. Ooops, was that outloud? Seriously, that dude is ripped! He really makes me want to increase my working out routine from 3-4 days a week to 8. It's unfair.

He was great as Batman. Perfectly screened.

He has now taken his fame to another level because as Ari pointed out in Entourage, "Spiderman, Superman, and Batman are all in the same club: RICH!" This performance is going to help take him closer to his on screen love's beau, Tom Cruise. It also helps that Bale probably isn't the tool Cruise is.

Anyway, go see it. It's great.

Those Honest Republicans

Not only did they most likely cheat in Ohio, but they'd also prefer it that Ohio voters don't have all the information to make a fair decision:

COLUMBUS - In the final weeks of the 2004 presidential race, the nation focused on Ohio as both campaigns carefully choreographed every move by their candidates, knowing one misstep could throw the keys to the White House into the hands of the opponent.

The national media scrutinized every detail of the high-stakes political battle, as President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry crisscrossed Ohio, energizing their bases and reaching out to swing voters in the Buckeye state, which ultimately decided the race by fewer than 120,000 votes.

At the same time - beneath the surface and out of public view - allegations were swirling that Tom Noe had laundered contributions into President Bush's campaign, and facts were emerging that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation had lost $215 million meant for injured workers in a Bermuda hedge-fund.

Now, more than six months later, those bombshells have created the biggest state government scandal in decades in Ohio. Democrats are charging that Republican leaders suppressed the potentially explosive information until all the votes were counted to save the President's re-election campaign.

The Blade has learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio knew of the campaign-finance allegations against Mr. Noe about three weeks before the November, 2004, election, giving it little time to do a thorough investigation.

Between the Downing Street Memo, which is an issue growing worse by the day for Republicans, and stories like these, why don't Democrats pressure the President to answer questions about these things?

Bush lives in a scripted world, and I'm sure Karl Rove would like to keep him out of the media as much as possible before 2006. Democrats should be asking, "Well, there are a lot of stories floating around, and certainly problems in Iraq. I think Americans want to hear from the President about these things. Gas prices are high, soldiers are dying daily, there are stories about the President wanting to goto war before the facts were on the table, and yet he seems to have spokespeople answer the questions for him. Americans didn't elect his spokespeople to answer the questions..."

Force this guy to answer questions. Republicans don't want him to and there's a reason. Make him do it. Once he does it will be so apparent just how clueless he is. He'll grow frustrated, and his true colors will shine. Asking him to speak is totally legitimate, and undefensible. Congresspeople who are comfortable in their districts should be saying these things over and over. Just last week it was reported the President was going to be more visible because of his low poll numbers, problems with Iraq, and high gas prices. This is the last option for Republicans, so press it.

Nice

I wonder how many witnesses the government pressured to weaken their evidence, who actually did do it:

"I would have felt I was lying under oath, and I couldn't do that," Bazerman said. "I thought then, and I believe now, that it was inappropriate influence to weaken the government's case against the tobacco industry."

For 6 years the government goes after tobacco companies. Do you think these companies were more or less excited to George W. Bush president, or John Kerry, a former prosecutor.

Take a guess.

Bill

Getting involved:

Bill Clinton has become the most prominent figure so far to add his voice to criticisms of the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

In an interview with the Financial Times, the former president called for the camp, set up to hold suspected terrorists, to “be closed down or cleaned up”.

Mr Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guantánamo. “It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused,” he said.

Mr Clinton said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the “fundamental nature” of American society. If the answer is Yes, you have already given the terrorists a profound victory.”

Just to digress a bit, the word "impeachment" has been popping up quite a bit the last week, or so.

"That's fucken teamwork!!!"

The Israelis an Palestinians have agreed to destroy something together.

Remember

When 100 dead was a lot?

500?

1,000 was a big deal. So big Sinclair TV stations wouldn't run ABC's special, honoring those who had fallen.

Well, we crossed 1,500 with hardly a sound, and now we're over 1,700 and counting.

Just curious, how many people died when Clinton lied? None.

How many people died when Newsweek lied? Uhh, none, because Newsweek didn't lie.

Father's Day

This is a holiday my family doesn't celebrate. We don't really do Mom's Day either, but we do it a bit more than Dad's.

The thing is, we do it every day, for the most part, and no stupid fucking card is going to really do it for my dad. He's good to go if his kids are alright, and his grandchildren are better.

Let me tell you how it is in the household I was raised in. Obviously, we're all liberal. There's an outside chance my Italian mom, who was once Catholic, could have been a conservative assuming she'd give such a jackass the time of the day. My dad, no chance in hell, and he's a small business owner. Yet somehow he doesn't buy into the bullshit rhetoric about "helping the small business owner..." This is because he's not a fucking idiot.

As a kid I was a handful. Not to say I'm not anymore because if you read this site, heard me on the air, or know me on some level, you know it still holds. I was worse as a kid. A LOT WORSE.

One day I woke up and realized sports wasn't an important enough topic to be wasting my life talking about on the radio even though everyone told me I had to do it. Guess what? I didn't have to do it. In fact, I find sports, unless playing them, to be pretty damn boring. There are a few exceptions, of course.

I realized changing peoples' lives through words is pretty important. Even if I could change only a few people from bad to good I was accomplishing a lot. This was instilled in me through my dad. Granted, my folks were praying for a lawyer, and who knows, they may still get one, but talking and entertaining were just too big of a draw. We'll see...

So then there's Father's Day, a day my Pop really doesn't give a shit about. I won't care either. I'm not a holidays guy at all. I'm a spontaneous guy. However, I am obviously the son of my dad, and if you've met him you know.

While we're totally different in many ways because I've tried my best to be like mom (she's calm, never shows her cards, and gets everything done), my dad really is the best guy ever. Granted, he'd beat the crap out of me as a kid for doing all types of stupid shit, but it was so deserved. I'll never be that guy, but I understand where he was coming from. He's an older guy, the youngest of 4 boys, his family escaped Nazis, the whole thing. He couldn't always deal. But he's also the guy who doesn't think kissing his son, or his son's friends, isn't "macho", like so many other jackass, toughguy, men. He's very affectionate. It's a wonderful quality. It's the quality conservatives rarely have, and liberals have too much of. I think we have the perfect balance.

Granted, my dad had to stick my mom to get me, which is why I'm more the balance than he is, but it's my dad's compassion and intensity that make me the way I am. I'm thankful every day that as big a loon as he i, he's that loon. I need that. I can't imagine being wholly mellow, timid, or intimidated by anything. He's given me that. He's made me recognize all that's right and wrong. He's always had a superior moral compass guiding him to do the right thing, regardless of the costs. He's passed that on to me.

You might think I'm an asshole, and I'll be the first to tell you, I am an asshole, but hey, don't thank me, thank my dad. I do every day, not just today.

Daily Kos

The Downing Street Minutes may be old news, but this isn't.