Helping Out The Kiwis

The site is getting an enormous number of search engine hits looking for pictures of Lisa Lewis, the semi-streaker from New Zealand. So they don't sprain a finger, purely as a public service, mind you, here's a picture. Sorry, mates, this is as good as it gets. Any photos with , er, less than the bikini you'll have to talk to the lady herself.

Last check on her auction of the bikini has it around $3,400 NZ. She has also added the statement that the bikini has been washed.

Flags And Freedom

I will have to agree with Bob Kerrey on this particular issue. An amendment to the Constitution to ban the burning of the flag is a bad idea.

With campaigns at full tilt and the Fourth of July just around the corner, the Senate's new priority is to debate and vote on yet another resolution to amend our remarkable Constitution. This time it's an amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit a form of protest that a large majority of Americans do not like: the burning or desecration of the American flag. Since 1989, when the Supreme Court decided unanimously and correctly that these rare, unpleasant demonstrations are expressions of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment, there have been many such attempts. Fortunately, all have failed.

Unfortunately, enthusiasm for this amendment appears to have grown even as flag-burning incidents have vanished as a means of political protest. The last time I saw an image of the U.S. flag being desecrated in this way was nearly 20 years ago, when the court issued its decision. Thus this amendment — never appropriate in the oldest democracy on earth — has become even less necessary. But necessity is not always the mother of legislation.

….

No doubt the sponsors and advocates of this amendment mean well. They believe it is a reasonable and small sacrifice of our freedoms. They believe no serious consequence will come of this change.

No doubt, too, some of the increasing interest in limiting free speech is a response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. It was a remarkable moment, when the hearts of most of us filled with a kind of pure patriotism we had never felt before. It was a patriotism that bound liberty to equality and fraternity. It was a patriotism that brought us together, friend and stranger alike. We discovered heroes who inspired us. No longer did we say, "It's good to see you," and not mean it.

Most impressive to me was that the "we" included men and women of many nations, every religion and every ethnic group. The "we" was global. The patriotism we felt extended beyond our boundaries and beyond the cramped spaces of ritual nationalistic fervor. We understood that the vulnerability of our freedom bound us together more than any symbol or slogan can. Millions of Americans, then and now, proudly flew their flags because they wanted to, not because any law told them to.

All the more reason, then, for patriotism to turn aside the understandable impulse to protect our flag by degrading the constitutional freedoms for which it stands. Real patriotism cannot be coerced. Our freedom to speak was attacked — not our flag. The former, not the latter, needs the protection of our Constitution and our laws

The burning of our flag is a rare event (fortunately) in this country. It is also a horribly upsetting event for people who truly love this country and the flag that stands for it.

But it is also free speech. As offensive and as awful as it is. It is free speech. It needs to be protected for that reason alone. And I think the action of burning the flag itself it is also the biggest single advertisement against that action. People who do love this country and what it stands for feel a deep and complete revulsion for those who burn the flag. That alone is reason enough not to ban the action. The sunlight that shines on the people and the cause they represent who would do such a thing is enough reason not to try to ban it. For it is essentially a self-defeating gesture. People and causes that embrace such a tactic will be cast out by their very actions.

Let's not take away the right of such people to make asses out of themselves and their cause. Instead, let us allow them the freedom to destroy themselves and what they stand for.

I’d Rather Be Me!

Then Dan Rather becaue, well, Dan Rather gets the boot! It has nothing whatsoever to do with his presentation of forged documents. Nope. Honest. Really. That's what they are saying.

NEW YORK — CBS executives have decided there is no future role at the network for Dan Rather, making it certain that the man who sat in the anchor chair for 24 years will depart by this fall.

These executives recognize Rather's contributions over four decades and are not trying to boot him because of the controversy surrounding his botched story on President Bush and the National Guard, say network sources who declined to be named while discussing a sensitive personnel matter. But the executives concluded there was no room for Rather at "60 Minutes," particularly with incoming anchor Katie Couric planning to report a half-dozen stories a year and the hiring of CNN's Anderson Cooper as a part-time contributor.

No, Really. Honest it has nothing to do with the forged memos. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Nothing to see, move along. 

It looks like Dan got his very own "Decent Interval", doesn't it? Sort of fitting that his career ends the same way the war he helped lose.

UPDATE: Others: Outside the Beltway and ChicagoBoyz

The press Plays It’s Hand

Specifically the Washington Post here. Before the debate on the Iraq war even begins in the House, the WaPo comes out with an article that is rather badly, and rather obviously, skewed. While the debate is an obvious political ploy to force some people to declare one way or the other and stop trying to straddle, the Post paints it almost exclusively in terms of Republican dissenters.

But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers' misgivings about Bush administration policy — and years of congressional support for it — in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.

"I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), a usually soft-spoken backbencher who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?"

By my count there are seven mentions of Republicans - almost all against the debate - versus just two Democrats. That's kind of slanting the article, don't you think? Why did they not find an equal number of Democrats to quote? Why did they not balance the anti-debate Republicans with pro-debate Democrats?

I think you know why.

UPDATE: AP has  report on the actual start of the debate which goes the other way and highlights the dissent within the Democratic party. I guess if you read both you'll get a fair representation of this complex issue.

Chuck Recovers, But Appears Groggy

Chuck "Is There A Camera In The House?" Schumer recovered from his disorientation over George Bush's sudden spate of good press and delivered a victory lap talk to reporters because Webb won in the Virginia primary.

At a briefing for the Washington, D.C. political press corps today, DSCC chair Chuck Schumer was in a mood to marvel and brag. Last night, with the victory of Jim Webb, Democrats finally found their eighth competitive Senate contest. (Chuck always wanted eight; Dems need to win at least six and keep hold of the roughly four Dem-held seats that are vulnerable.)

Pointing to the victories of Webb, a Reagan Democrat with a flair for non-traditional Democratic positions, and Jon Tester, who spent half as much as his primary challenger in Montana, Schumer said that party activists had turned to pragmatism and were less inclined to hold candidates to litmus tests.

Schumer said the Dem primary voters want winners and are focused one electability. He couldn't resist adding even "in 2008," which pricked the ears of reporters who thought he was sending a message about the relative electability of Hillary Clinton. (He wasn't, apparently.)

I don't follow Virginia politics since I don't live there, but unseating an incumbent these days isn't an easy thing at all. Frankly, Webb's rather juvenile campaign literature doesn't bode well for the chances, either. I suspect Chuck is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking in a reaction to his whack on the head by some good coverage for Bush.

UPDATE: Jim Dean, Howard's brother, is pretty ticked off at Schumer for his remarks about Lieberman.

Joementum In The News

Well, I still stand by my earlier take on Lieberman. What his long-time associate did the other day was a very, very smart political move. I don't think the left or the main stream media understood what Lieberman pulled off yet. This AP article (which could have been in the process of being written when Droney made his move) is still speculating on an independent run.

I still suspect that Droney made it possible for Lieberman to deny wanting an independent run, while painting the challenger as someone backed by out-of-state interests. I also think the uber-creepy, stalker-themed Kos Kommercial will come into play at some point. Not in a good way for Lamont, either.

UPDATE: Speaking of Kos, Hotline on Call reports that Kos ain't happy with Chuck Schumer at the moment.

Well, It’s A Start

It's pretty weak, but it's at least a semblance of a line item veto bill.

The House Budget Committee on Wednesday approved by a 24-9 vote a bill to allow the president to single out wasteful items contained in appropriations bills he signs into law, and it would require Congress to vote on those items again.

Under the proposal, it would take a simple majority in both House and Senate to approve the items over the president's objections.

The idea is that wasteful "pork barrel" spending would be vulnerable since Congress might vote to reject such items once they are no longer protected by their inclusion in bigger bills that the president has little choice but to sign.

This is a far weaker version of the line-item veto that Republicans in Congress gave        President Clinton in 1996. That bill allowed Clinton to strike items from appropriations and tax bills unless Congress mustered a two-thirds margin to override him. The bill was found unconstitutional since it allowed the president to amend laws passed by Congress.

Most members of Congress simply said good riddance. Clinton's use of the line-item veto against a military projects bill had provoked howls of outrage on Capitol Hill and Congress promptly overrode them.

But Bush in March proposed the new, watered-down version in concert with conservatives such as Rep. Paul Ryan (news, bio, voting record), R-Wis., sponsor of Wednesday's bill.

"Even if the president identifies numerous pork-barrel projects … he is unlikely to use his veto power because it must be applied to the bill as a whole and cannot be used to target individual items," said Ryan. "Does he veto an entire spending bill because of a few items of pork when this action may jeopardize funding for our troops, for our homeland security or for the education of our children?"

Ryan made several changes to the measure in a bid to ease criticism from Democrats and others who said the original version was tilted too far in the president's favor.

The new plan modified the Bush proposal to ensure he could not paper Congress with spending-cut proposals and require repeated votes on the same item. The new power would expire after a six-year trial. But Ryan also narrowed the measure's application against special interest tax breaks so that, as a practical matter, few such provisions could be targeted by the president.

"It is so watered down that it is not a line-item veto," said Rep. Jim Cooper (news, bio, voting record), D-Tenn.

At this point, anything that makes it more difficult to put pork into the budget is helpful, even as weakened as this is. Of course, it still actually has to pass both houses, so the battle is far from over.

Sky

Oh For Heaven’s Sake

Well, this is great. The Philadelphia restaurant, Geno's, that put up a sign telling customers to order in English has been hit with a discrimination complaint by the city's Commission on Human Relations. It has now become a free speech issue. The man is entitled to run his business as he sees fit.

(Joseph) Vento, whose Italian grandparents arrived in America unable to speak English, faces a discrimination complaint from the city's Commission on Human Relations, which said the English-only sign may violate city laws.

At a time when illegal immigration has become a divisive national issue, the tiny sign above the bright orange tile at a local culinary institution has sharpened the debate in a neighborhood founded by Italian immigrants. Though some civic leaders are appalled, many Geno's customers insist that everyone in America should speak English — and express themselves freely.

"Hey, what happened to freedom of speech?" customer Al Buck asked Tuesday, clutching a hot cheesesteak and sporting a T-shirt with a red, white and blue message: "Welcome to America — Now Speak English."

Vento, 66, has said the sign is aimed at illegal immigrants in a community where the Mexican population has grown in recent years. He told the Associated Press on Monday that the sign would remain, even if the city fined him. "They would have to handcuff me and take me out because I'm not taking it down," he said.

City Councilman James F. Kenney has called the sign "divisive and mean-spirited," not to mention "bad for the neighborhood and bad for tourism." The Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau, concerned about the city's image, reminded everyone that the city values immigrants' "culture, vibrancy and history."

A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial called Vento's policies "boneheaded," which may explain why he is no longer speaking to the newspaper, or any newspaper.

"The papers twisted his words," said his son, Geno Vento, who was working the counter at lunchtime Tuesday.

Joey Vento was taking the day off, his son said, "resting his vocal cords" after a marathon round of TV interviews. Asked for a comment, Geno Vento replied, "This whole thing is getting out of hand."

The Commission on Human Relations will determine whether the sign violates the city's Fair Practices Act, said City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz. If so, Diaz said, the city code calls for fines or imprisonment for failure to comply — though the commission normally tries to resolve issues without sanctions.

The local ACLU chapter has staked out a middle ground. "Putting up a sign saying you need to speak English is protected speech," said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney in Philadelphia. But refusing service based on language or nationality would violate the law, she said.

Leave the man alone.

101st Blog Of The Day

My continuing mission to visit one member of the fighting 101st continued today and I found my way over to Jarhead's Firing Range. He's got one particular post that caught my eye. It seems to New Jersey legislators are attempting to pass legislation prohibiting the sale of Ann Coulter's new book. Both of them are Democrats. This, of course, confirms what I have noted before. For all the left's howling (endlessly) about how Republicans are stifling their speech, the only ones I ever see actually trying to pass laws like this are Democrats.

Cute Fuzzy Hippos

A British woman traveling in a canoe on Botswana’s Okavanga Delta with a group of fellow travelers was enchanted by the scenery and the wildlife she was seeing on her safari. A glorious idyllic journey to see the wonders of nature, so to speak. Then she spotted a hippopotamus nearly submerged among the reeds near the river bank. Why don't we let Vinka March, the tourist take it from here:

“It was lurking in the reeds with only its nostrils and eyes poking above the water.

“It looked half-asleep but in seconds it turned into the hippo from hell. It lunged out of the water like a missile and snapped our boat in half.

“It was the size of a tank. The other tourists screamed as it thrashed around, trying to kill us with its huge canines.”

Vinka, of Kilburn, North London, was saved when her fellow canoeists created a diversion by banging the water with paddles.

She said: “The hippo turned to look at them, then sank underwater.

For five minutes we didn’t see it, which was the most scary thing as I kept thinking it was underneath me ready to pounce.”

She added: “I thought hippos were sweet, like the ones you see on adverts for pillows.”

Ah yes, the wonders of nature. And the cluelessness of some of the nature lovers. Hippos are about the most deadly animal in Africa, killing an average of 15 people a year. Heck, I knew that from watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom when I was a kid.

Cute fuzzy bunnies translate into cute fuzzy hippos for some folks, I guess. 

Montana Town Bans Lawnmower

The town council of the thriving metropolis of Manhattan, Montana has just ordered Bob Perkins to get rid of his lawnmower after a neighbor complained. The growing town (population 1,400) couldn't let Bob keep his lawnmower. Others might want one, too.

Bob's lawnmower is a goat. Named Buddy.

Buddy is the latest lawnmower, but the first goat. Bob has had 13 sheep to keep the grass and weeds under control over the years. All of Bob's lawnmowers have been named Buddy. Which makes it easy to remember the lawnmower's name, I suppose.

An adjacent property owner recently complained about the goat, which Perkins has owned for about a year.

Initially, a police officer informed Perkins that keeping the animal in the city could be punishable by a fine and jail time.

The town council voted Tuesday night to force him to remove the goat from the city limits.

Sadie Hensler, who rents a house next to Perkins, wrote a letter to the town council saying the goat was quiet and friendly.

Harold Ralston, who works at a dog-grooming business said, "All it does is mow the lawn."

Before adopting Buddy the goat, Perkins has kept sheep on his property to keep the weeds and grass at bay. Over the years, he has had 13 different sheep, and they were all named Buddy.

"They were a real babe magnet," Perkins said. "It's the way I met half of my ex-wives."

Half his ex-wives? How many has he had? With 13 of them over the years, the mind simply boggles at the possibilities.

How Business Doesn’t Work

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has a post up excerpting something John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods Market wrote. It's all about business, business models and what doesn't really work in the real world. Well worth the read.

Reading Roundup

Curt over at Flopping Aces has gathered up a bunch of reading highlights if you're looking for something to peruse on a Wednesday.

Hamas Imitates Mafia

Right down to using a bagman to deliver the cash from the shakedowns.

RAFAH, Gaza Strip - Hours after angry civil servants stormed parliament, the Palestinian foreign minister came back Wednesday from a trip to Muslim nations carrying luggage stuffed with $20 million in cash for his money-starved government.

The piles of bills were a sign of Hamas' desperation in the face of a Western boycott. The Islamic group, which runs the Palestinian government and whose charter calls for        Israel's destruction, has refused to cave in to calls by Western donor nations to renounce violence and recognize the Jewish state.

With hardships growing daily for Palestinians, dozens of the civil servants burst into the parliament building in the West Bank to demand their overdue salaries. They threw water bottles, tissue boxes and other small items at Hamas lawmakers and forced the parliament speaker to flee.

The second attack on the parliament this week, along with the shooting death of a Hamas gunman in the Gaza Strip, cast doubt on renewed efforts by leaders of the rival Fatah and Hamas parties to halt infighting.

Things are getting kind of shaky for Hamas, I think.