Monday, January 29, 2007

To task: Ballplayers with Playmates

The new ethics reform is referred to as the "toothpick rule" and after reading about its scope, I understand the nickname.

Like in having the impact of harvesting a toothpick from Yellowstone.

The nickname, truthfully, comes from the rule that only food on a toothpick can be served at schmoozy receptions. Meaning essentially, that little weenies are in and filet mingnon is out.

Aw, shucks.

Wait a minute, there are 23 exceptions. So find a way to put that slab of meat on a stick, talk to the ethics committee and you're likely in.

It's a creative way to avoid the point of reform and provide some red tape. The only thing missing are congressmen's red faces.

The influence peddling remains in full effect. The lobbyists are still rubbing elbows with senators, still pushing their words into legislation.

Nothing has changed. Yet, the Democrats will tout this bill as their keystone change in their first "100 hours."

The Wall Street Journal, thankfully, will turn some faces red over this issue.

The Journal is slyly, and maybe unknowingly, taking professional ballplayers to task.

See each July, the America Meat Institute uses ballplayers to hand out hundreds of hot dogs to lawmakers.

At the same time, Playboy playmates wear lettuce garnished bikinis and hand out veggie burgers on behalf of PETA.

The watchdogs at The Journal have shed some light for housewives who thought Washington was a harmless midseason road trip. David Eckstein & Co. will have some explaining to do.

Thanks to The Journal.

Not Fonda

I'm not fond of Jane Fonda.

I agree with her opposition to the war, but she is a lightning rod toward her Vietnam incident when she sat on a Viet-cong gunner in opposition to the war. It was stupid and she should be cast into the shadows of any Iraq War protest.

Sadly, she was front and center in Saturday's protest in Washington. In the Star Tribune story, she was mentioned in the second paragraph and quoted in the third. Whenever Fonda is present, it gives Republicans a reason to illegitimize the protest or the anti-war stance.

Other Hollywood actors were there -- Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon. Please quote them. Or, stick to the issue! 21,000 more troops in Iraq, buried the 14th graph.

Friday, January 19, 2007

For US only

The hipocrisy of the United States government is stunning.

Last August, Bush's new national space policy prohibited antisatellite weapons tests, yet "preserved its rights capabilities and freedom of action in space."

Meaning that the U.S. can play star wars while the rest of the world must watch.

The Chinese defied this imperious notion and tested an antisatellite weapon Thursday. The U.S. didn't vehemtly oppose the action publicly, but did "express concern."

What crafty wordsmiths.

Bush's space policy also states that the U.S. can "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

The Chinese shot down one of its old weather satellites, not a U.S. spy satellite or anything involving another nation.

The Chinese aren't North Korea or Iran and shouldn't be treated as such.

Meanwhile, the Bush administation wants to produce a laser to be used against enemy satellites. This tidbit was ignored in CNN's report and buried in paragraph 22 of the New York Times' report.

Also, the U.S. wants to start work on a new nuclear warhead to improve its aging stockpile.

The hipocrisy is too stank to ignore. Somebody open a window.

Monday, January 15, 2007

A cheap shot indeed

So get this, a woman gets drunk, goes swimming in the La Crosse river and then blames the bar responsible for her intoxication.

Yeah, that seems logical. Not to mention, she must be credible with that slur.

What's better is that she was drinking at a bar named Cheapshots.

I'm sure "Lisa the Lush" went to Cheapshots for the ambiance.

Cheapshots must be a typical college bar with Fergalicious playing too loud and sales too abreviated with rounds that a bartender can't identify the drunk unless it's painfully obvious.

The binge drinking culture isn't OK and the eight La Crosse drownings since 1998 are serious, but the blame should rest soley on "Lisa the Lush" and her swimming subordinates.

Let's hope the ruling judge puts the responsibility on the individual. If not, shot glasses might include labels like: Contents impare your judgement and make you want to go swimming.

The story is pasted below from the Star Tribune ...

LaCrosse bar owners protest citations on word of drunken patrons

LA CROSSE, Wis. — As police crack down on binge drinking, some bar owners say they're being unfairly cited when drunken individuals inaccurately finger their establishment as the place where the excessive alcohol was served.

Scott Kundy, the owner of Cheapshots in downtown La Crosse, received a citation Jan. 7 after a drunken 22-year-old woman was found drenched and barefoot after climbing out of the La Crosse River. The woman was not cited but Kundy received a $285 ticket for serving an intoxicated person after the woman told police she drank at his bar.

"It's not right. I didn't do anything wrong and did everything by the book," Kundy said. "I don't even remember her. It's crazy."

State law prohibits serving an intoxicated or near-intoxicated person. Municipal Judge Dennis Marcou said he wants both bartenders and bar owners cited so he can assess responsibility in court.

La Crosse police handed out four such citations in 2006. But authorities are stepping up enforcement after eight college-age men drowned in area rivers since 1997.

It's an accepted practice to cite bar owners and servers based on an intoxicated person's word and a follow-up investigation, said Police Chief Ed Kondracki.

"We generally ask that question, 'Where have you been drinking? Who served you?' When an individual is able to say where they were, and able to describe the bartender, a citation may be issued," Kondracki said.

Monday, January 08, 2007

THE ShApe I'm iN

New Fav:

Go out yonder, peace in the valley
Come downtown, have to rumble in the alley
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

Has anybody seen my lady
This living alone will drive me crazy
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

I'm gonna go down by the wa - ter
But I ain't gonna jump in, no, no
I'll just be looking for my mak - er
And I hear that that's where she's been? Oh!

Out of nine lives, I spent seven
Now, how in the world do you get to Heaven
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

I just spent 60 days in the jailhouse
For the crime of having no dough
Now here I am back out on the street
For the crime of having nowhere to go

Save your neck or save your brother
Looks like it's one or the other
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

Now two young kids might start a ruckus
You know they feel you trying to shuck us
Oh, you don't know the shape I'm in

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Teddy

"It is not the critic who counts: Not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valianty, who errs and comes up short again and again ... who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly ..."

~Theodore Roosevelt

Saturday, December 30, 2006

?

"Where would we be right now if our dreams had come true?"
~ Mason Jennings

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

HOW? WHY?

President Bush will seek an overall increase in the size of the military.

How?

The Army routinely misses recruitment goals and has increased their marketing campaign in an effort to compensate. (Think: "Army of One" to "Army Strong.")

There is a logistical disconnect here. Less than a 1/4th of the U.S. population supports of the war, with that number significantly lower in younger demographics.

The increase will be voluntary? ... right?

It's like a runner tearing his hamstring then sprinting in pursuit.

Yet, the coach: "the military industrial complex" doesn't ask the severity of the injury , just how soon they will be full strength while sprinting.

For them, it's only when.

For "the military industrial complex," that question is coupled with: When will the additional $100 billion in Iraq funding be approved by Congress?

It's when. Not why or how? Logistics, morals and justification are conveniently ignored.

More ... more ... more ...