Meanwhile...

Back at the ranch:

A Texas Indian tribe filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday alleging that ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and their associates engaged in fraud and racketeering to shut down the tribe's casino.

The Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Livingston, Texas, alleged the defendants defrauded the tribe, the people of Texas and the Legislature to benefit another of Abramoff's clients — the Louisiana Coushatta tribe — and "line their pockets with money."

I think the ever ethical Rudy Giuliani was hanging out with Ralph Reed a few whippons past...

New Ideas

I have new ideas! Lets make a light bulb out of paper! Lets make a tire out of glass! Lets make a baseball glove out of stone! Lets make a pillow out of sand! Lets make a sneaker with a glue sole! Lets make a window out of thread! Lets make a fire extinguisher with gasoline! Lets make a toothbrush out of tin foil! Lets make toilet paper out of thumb tacks! Lets make a condom out of swiss cheese!

These are all my new ideas!!!

Hey, I listened to the Sean Hannity show yesterday, and he kept talking about "the Democrats and their old ideas...Republicans have new ideas..." Oh yes they do, Seanazi, they sure do. They have new, and really fucking dumb ideas.

Just because it's new doesn't mean it's improved. And in their case, just because it's theirs doesn't mean it's dumb...it just happens to be that way most of the time.

Old ideas seem to work well, which is why they stick around for such a long time. Social Security, it's an older idea, but a good idea. Republicans come along and claim they want to "fix" it, after they've spoken about dismantling it for so long. Who would believe them? Well, their sheep do; they believe everything.

I'm not really sure what old ideas were in place in the 1990s, but I can tell you one thing: whatever we were doing it was working! All of a sudden, things not so good anymore.

Israel's on the brink of a war, which for all intents and purposes puts the "non-nation building" clan back into war, and we've already got 2 to deal with. It was probably a good, new idea, to not engage Israel for 3-4 years during Bush's first term. Don't want to get our hands dirty before the next election. Well, things ain't lookin' so purdy now, are they?

Here's an old idea: hire a white man to be National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State. Apparently this new idea hasn't worked so well the last 6 years.

Righteous Folk

Everything changed after 9/11, and included in that everything is the way conservative lawmakers feel about gambling, I guess.

A few days ago, buried under all the news about Israel, Russia, the doctor who tried to kill himself, and whatever else, the anti-internet gambling bill cleared the house, and is now headed to the Senate (where it will be defeated, not that it matters). Also buried was how Republicans felt so differently about this issue in 2000, when they defeated a similar bill, shocking anyone who was knew anything about it.

See, it's a story, a tale about Jack Abramoff, and people like Tom Delay. Delay is now being hailed as a martyr; a man who was removed from the House leadership position even though he had done nothing illegal, so conservatives will say. But I think this story seems to back it self up when you take into account the passing of this anti-internet gambling bill just this week. Why did so many people change their minds?

On July 17, 2000 the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was defeated with the help of Abramoff and Delay. Now with the two of them gone, a new bill has passed. This time there doesn't seem to be any illegal activity going on behind the scenes, with companies like ELottery forging documents and flooding money to House members like Tom Delay. Now the bill passes. Now they are righteous folk.

Of course, it's all about values, and if you read the latest article you'll see that this is about the Republicans new newer NEWEST values agenda.

See, gambling in Las Vegas, Connecticut, New Jersey, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Illinois, California, EVERYWHERE, that's all well and good. Slot machines in convenience stores located in poor neighborhoods, that's fine. People have "choice." But when it comes to online gambling, where companies other than those operating and funnelling monies to campaigns in their states, that's a different story. It's a joke, of course. It's the hypocritical Republicans once again trying to mask who they are.

You have folks like Bill Bennett with major gambling issues, and it gets washed over. You've got Rush Limbaugh hooked on oxycontin, which for all intents and purposes is heroin. You've got Dan Burton fatherig children out of wedlock. You've got all these people attacking the Clintons. It's all because they are such liars, cheats, and scumbags that they need to divert attention away from the realities of the world: they have no morals.

This attack an internet gambling, whether you're for it, or against it, is irrelevant. The fact is these Republicans were bought and sold by Jack Abramoff with Tom Delay holding the whip. Now that they're gone, 6 years later, everything has changed, right? Yes, things have changed. They are no longer being paid to vote in the other direction.

As for Delay, and the reason no one stood by him when he was being ousted, and now that it seems he may have been innocent of some charges, that's easy. See, even if he is innocent with regards to redistricting, or if no one can prove a quid pro quo with regards to Abramoff, those in the House knew better. His colleagues knew better. Everyone one of them because of how they voted with regards to the gambling bill in 2000, or any other vote, know that Delay and Abramoff are connected. They know full well these people are unethical. They didn't need a judge or jury to tell them what they all knew in their hearts. Delay is scum, end of story. He's attached to Abramoff. Any level headed Republican was right to assume Delay would be guilty of something having to do with Abramoff because these Congressmen have witnessed it. Even if nothing could be proven, these folks know bad things went down. Therefore they were not willing to defend Delay. Now when it seems possible he won't actually be seen as guilty by law they will come to his aid and defend him. But when he was yet to be guilty they all relied on their instincts, and those instincts told them that this scumbag did a lot of bad things. Their silence was all the proof I needed. Of course, the same way they change with the wind when it comes to gambling in 2006, they changed with the wind with Delay now.

Whatever it takes to capitalize, regardless of whether it's built on lies and deceit, expect Republicans to do it. That's their American Way.

Middle Feast

Do you see it? I mean, Israel, asked to give and give and give. Then they give. They pull out of areas, and what happens? Militants step up their militarism, and basically declare war.

Now Iran forces Israel to basically move into Lebanon AGAIN.

I don't agree with US hegemonic wars, but I fully agree with Israel unleashing mass chaos on hostile countries in the Middle East. And while I was born Jewish, this isn't about that at all. I don't believe in God. I do believe in racism, hate, and diversion, and am well aware that the moment Israel shows they will lay down arms, or move towards peace, Arab governments will start war. They do it because they offer their people nothing, so they need to create diversions in order to keep the pressure off themselves.

Syria moves away from Lebanon, but for all I know could be involved, and Iran fills the gap. Not surprised.

It's great we started a war in Iraq to show the world what we could do to something that fucks with us, or our allies: NOTHING.

There comes a point when people within a nation have to do something to control their own. If only a "small percentage" of people are terrorists, or fighters, then a large percentage of people should be able to control them. If the people living within these countries cannot control their own then it is incumbent on the Israelis, and others who believe in civilization, to do something about it. At this point, whatever it takes is what I believe in.

I always say, it's got to get worse before it gets better. It's going to get worse.

Zidane

I've taken some flack over the Zizou comments, but let me set the record straight.

I'm well aware Zidane has had his moments, played dirty, crossed the line, etc. But in the end, the guy is an absolute legend. In this tournament he exemplified greatness. He was even forced to miss a game for having done nothing wrong. It would have been a travesty had France been knocked out and him having missed their last game.

In the end this was, and is, about Zidane RIGHT NOW. He played great, played clean, and was treated like shit by opponents and officials.

I'll defend him until the end. Never have a seen a player make others better the way he does, in any sport.

Final Thoughts

The World Cup was great overall, but like the NCAA tournament, the final games are never as great as the early rounds. Nevertheless, I'm glad Italy won over France, being that I'm Italian, but I was really dissappointed for Zidane...and my dad.

Zidane is my dad's favorite athlete in the world, hands down, and no one wanted to see him go out like that. Minutes earlier he almost nailed the door shut with a beautiful header that hit the crossbar. Minutes after that he nailed Materazzi with a header across his chest, sending him to the ground. Terrible to not see him finish that game, or accept a medal.

According to news reports Materazzi may have crossed the line:

Several newspapers have had lipreaders try to interpret what Materazzi said, though they have come up with different interpretations. Broad consensus is that Materazzi spoke in Italian, a language understood by Zidane. Materazzi reportedly said: "Hold on, wait, that one's [referring to the pass] not for a feccia [i.e. 'shit', 'scum'] like you." Zidane reacted to Materazzi picking his shirt, and allegedly said that, if Materazzi really wanted to have his shirt, he could have it afterwards. Materazzi allegedly replied: "I'd rather take the shirt off your wife." As the players walked forward, he reportedly added: "We all know you are the son of a terrorist whore." (referring to Zidane's Kabyle Algerian descent.) Just before the headbutt, he is seen saying: "Vaffanculo" (i.e. 'fuck off').

I happen to have a pretty bad temper on the pitch myself, or with regards to any competition, so I feel for the guy. I may have made him eat his teeth had I heard that. Had Zidane taken a swing the entire world would have realized Materazzi crossed the line. But being that he head butted him it seems different. I'm sure Materazzi crossed the line.

What bothers me is the officials never give out cards to players who are saying things to each other on the field. According to Materazzi it happens all the time. So why don't referees control that? Do they not hear it? It's not possible. Maybe they're busy giving out horrible cards left and right, awarding penalty kicks on dives in huge games, but can't control the animosity between players? Come on.

All game Zidane was harassed, kicked, taken down, over and over. It seemed the referee never once gave a penalty to a player that took down Zizou unless it was so overtly ridiculous. In the first half alone there were at least 3 plays the ref let go. If Zidane went down and wasn't fouled then why wasn't he carded? Is it not a dive? Actually, when it comes to Zidane it's NEVER A DIVE. While the Italians lay down more than any team in the world (other than Portugal), Zidane rarely ever lays down. Does the ref not recognize this fact? Is he not aware of the tendencies of one of the best players ever? It's really brutal.

Had the ref done a better job, and not allowed the Italians to assault Zidane all game his temper may not have gotten the best of him. But like in so many previous games the officiating was average at best. They say when you don't notice an official he's doing a great job. Well this ref tried to stay out of the picture as much as possible to avoid spotlight, and in the end it was Zidane who paid the price.

I'm not justifying what Zizou did, but I know for damn sure that I'm the type of person who would have done the same thing. I think in the end, unless Materazzi admits to exactly what he said, the world will feel for what happened to Zidane, rather than rush to negative judgement. It's just terrible the game was scarred like that. The world media will remember that incident, and that incident alone.

--------------------

On another note, Marcelo Balboa is the worst announcer of all time. In fact, the only person I know of who does almost as poor a job discussing soccer was sitting next to him every game.: Dave O'Brien. O'Brien, who has never called soccer in his life was brought in to call the biggest game in the world. Nice call, ABC!

Check this out. Unfortuntately I can't find it in the paper since it was more of a blurb in the Times on Sunday than an article, but according to sources, 30% of the English speaking audience who watched the game viewed it on Univision. That's right! ESPN and ABC's coverage was so annoying that people preferred to watch it in a language they may not understand. Guess what. I was one of those people! When John Harkes and JP Dellacamera called the games I was fine with it, as well as Tommy Smith. But O'Brien and Balboa were absolutely painful. Who made that call? ABC/ESPN actually forced people to turn somewhere else while showing the same game.

Another incredibly annoying thing about ESPN's coverage was having to watch the BOTTOM LINE scroll across the screen the entire game. I couldn't deal with it. That was certainly another reason I watched in Spanish. I'd rather watch the game, take it all in myself, hear the audience, than hear those two annoying idiots babble on and make dumb comments. Like when Balboa would comment on players taking dives, how they were helping their teams rest, and how the French dive was "sold really well." John Harkes calls those players out. Says it's weak. Balboa likes the acting, and the time it buys players to rest. The guy is a terrible commentator and should never be allowed to call another serious match in his life. NO ONE thought he did a good job, except maybe people who have no clue about the sport. Balboa thinks the player "sold" it really well in the biggest game in the world. Cool.

Anyway, I'm glad Italy won, but find it unfortunate that a soccer god was made to look bad because of some douche bag's horrible comments. The one guy who never took a dive, who stood up the whole time, ends up looking like the villain in the end. It's garbage.

Not Cultured

But clearly a moron:

"I did insult him, it's true," Materazzi said in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport. "But I categorically did not call him a terrorist. I'm not cultured and I don't even know what an Islamic terrorist is."

I don't believe him. Say what you said, and that'll be that.

Those on the Field

One of the bigger bullshit comments made about the Iraq War from the administration is the "Generals on the field" thing. Whenever you question how the war is going, or how maybe one aspect, or another, is going completely wrong, either the President, or some other spokesman will defer/refer to these people. As if they cannot be wrong because they're actually on the battlefield. They know best because they're actually there fucking things up. How can someone who is not there, actually failing, have an opinion on the matter, and be right? NOT POSSIBLE!

Basically, it's just an excuse, a comment that helps buy them some space and time. Actually, it's just a lie; a distortion of what's going on. So many times these "Generals on the field" are removed from the field for disagreeing with the White House's preconceived policy of getting it wrong. Many times these men are removed from decision making positions because their field opinions do not suit the political objectives of the White House.

This situation has made me think about the story being reported in the Times today about the new Bush legal strategy for dealing with captured soldiers. It's really no different than the "Generals in the field" approach, especially when you include Congress's role.

Military lawyers had questioned the tactics employed by the Bush Administration with regards to captured soldiers. But the White House, being served by countless lawyers who were not in the military, took a different approach. They assumed they could get away with whatever they wanted because the public as a whole, not versed enough in the laws of this country, or those of the Geneva Conventions, would just go along with the concept of "capturing terrorists" and "doing whatever it takes." They were only answerable to the public and the media, neither of which carry any legal weight. Same things goes for the "Generals on the field" thing: it's really a battle of what they can make the public think, and how they can gain politically from it. Comments like "Republicans want to protect the nation while Liberals want to give them a trial..." You've heard it.

The point I'm getting at is, the "Generals on the field" thing was clearly another piece of bullshit. For if it wasn't then the advice given to the White House from military lawyers should have been heeded long ago. If those who are actually involved in the fight, who are engaged in the laws and practices of war, whether from a combat perspective, or in this case a legal perspective, feel a certain way, then by golly, those are the people the White House should have been listening to the entire time. They are, afterall, the "LAWYERS IN THE FIELD!" But no, no, that was never going to happen because the White House couldn't gain politically from listening to those lawyers. The White House couldn't go beyond the law, buy time, and seem "tough on terrorists" if they had actually listened to those in the military who understood the law. Instead, the White House decided that their legal strategy, legal or not, could be shaped in a way that gave President Bush favorable ratings with those who believe that seeming "tough" is what it's all about.

Congressional Republicans have been no different. When it comes to making a decision about the war they do what is seemingly favorable, and seemingly tough. They excoriate Democrats for "not having a strategy" as if the strategy of staying on the road to death is better than stopping the car, or pulling over. The vote to stay in Iraq and fight is a political vote, not a sensible one. Now, of course, that the White House legal strategy is being questioned the administration will hope Congress helps them out in creating a new legal avenue for them to pursue their bad policies. And you can bet your ass Congress will act. A bunch of goose-steppers, many without law degrees, will surely try to override the nation's laws, and the opinions of the military lawyers if doing so helps them politically; if it helps them seem tough. Forget "generals in the field" theory if that strategy doesn't bring them votes in the district.

Of course, at the same time Mr. Bush was pursuing this illegal strategy, which was also making us less safe abroad, millions watched and read how the hypocritical US treats combatants, and in turn, resulted in ours being treated as poorly as possible. But what's another dead soldiers to a group of people who never fought in wars, and would make sure no one in their families ever do. It's really "tough" to send someone else's kid to die. I'm sure a lot of sleep is lost.

The Supply Siders Were Right!

That's what I'm hearing now that tax revenues are up this year. WOO HOO!

I don't believe in the economics in the world because the calculations seem to be, well, uncalulatable (if that's a word). There are too many factors that having nothing to do with economics, like mood, or an event, that sway the economy this way, or that.

With a two-party system controlling the direction of the country, swinging it this way and that, nothing really changes. Politics decides what will/not be spent, and what the deficits will be. Which is the one thing I do believe in, the deficit. Our bills will come due, and the Republicans, who are always so fiscally minded, want to raise the ceiling to over $9 Billion. Of course, when they weren't in power they wanted the deficit reduced, so we did it. We left Bush with a surplus. He's leaving us in debt forever, well trying to avoid budgeting his wars so no one knows what's really going on (one day we'll even factor in the effect of Fannie and Freddie, and that should stir things up).

Events change everything more so than economics, tax cuts, etc. With Republicans the good news is hear for now: tax receipts are booming! When they're not booming they'll have an excuse, like they always do. But lets focus on the positive! This week things are BOOMING! KABOOM!

Wait, there is a Republican who no longer has to toe a line, or buy a vote. Lets here what he has to say since he worked for President Bush:

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush.

Love Republicans...because they love Jesus. And when you love Jesus, especially when you're a Catholic, you can confess your sins, and wipe the slate. Jews can to once a year. So when people like Holtz-Eakin have nothing to lose, then you'll get the truth. See Paul O'Neil for the last bit of economic truth. I'm sure John Snow is writing his book right now, for which, of course, he'll profit.

The Talmud ALSO SAYS...

I just heard that shouted by one jew dressed in khakis and a button down to another wearing the full black suit with paius intact. Amazing. The Jews don't have enough enemies so they feel the need to fight with themselves on the streets of New York.

Apparently there are Jews who think a Zionist state is forbidden, and that they should be wandering. Somehow they wandered all the way to 44th and 2nd Avenue, but haven't moved on. The Khaki Jew, with his "the Talmud ALSO SAYS..." believes New York City is the defacto Zionist state, or else he'd move to the actual one in order to fulfill his juties.

Basically, I think you're all crazy for going with the Jew thing, Muslim thing, Christian thing, whatever thing. If you think standing on a street corner is going to make a difference you are insane. For every person you convert you inflame 2 times as many who then share their thoughts with others, and convince the same amount the other way. Religious battles are a zero sum game. Afterall, the number of Jews, no matter how many live or die seems to stay the same over time, regardless of the news articles telling you about those lost to conversion.

In the end, I'm all for you believing what you want to believe, but please, PLEASE, keep it out of my face and my ears. Once I hear it that's when I comment. Bringing up religion is not my thing because I believe in the theory "If you ignore something it will go away." WHEN CAN ONLY PRAY THAT IT DOES!