Man about Murfreesboro

We had a great holiday. I smoked some salmon, grilled a couple of steaks, helped Dolls with some home improvement projects, watered the neighbors' flowers and managed to talk Rozzy into going to see the fireworks.

That last one was the hard part. Rozzy is a tough nut to crack. She's not scared of much, but loud noises tend to freak her out. Bad. I took a very gentle approach to getting her excited about the idea of going to see the fireworks. I showed her video of herself from 2004 having a good time at the fireworks show. We bought her some ear plugs so the loud noises won't scare her. I petted and cajoled and had her willing to stand outside while Max and Dollie shot off some bottle rockets.

She was holding two lit sparklers before the session was over and asking if we could go buy some more fireworks. So we went to one of the 10,000 fireworks stands in our neighborhood and bought about 10 bucks worth of fun.

Rozzy like the smoke bombs and black snakes. She liked the stuff that shot fountains of sparks. Then Dollie had to light some firecrackers.

Bang! Boom! Boom! Boom! Bang! Bang! Bang! And that was it. She clamped her hands over her ears and began to cry that she wanted no more to do with fireworks. She didn't want to attend. She didn't care.

Now I can relate. I've never been a fan of firecrackers. I've never seen the point. It makes a loud noise. So what? Why is that entertaining? Show me something that lights up, flys in the air or chases Max around the yard. But firecrackers? Feh.

So we dragged Rozzy to the show anyway. She clamped her hands over her plugged ears and didn't like it very much. The rest of us had a good time, though.

Saw "Superman Returns" on Monday night. It was quite good. It had many of the qualities that made the original Richard Donner film so likeable. Brandon Routh's Clark Kent was great. Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor was satisfyingly evil.

I'm hoping that, in the next film, they'll find some other villain for Supes to take on. There are dozens of quality bad guys in Superman's rogues gallery. They don't all have to be bald madmen, do they?

"The Venture Brothers" is back. What a great show. It's so absurd that I crack up every time I see it. The voice work, the animation, the music -- all great. It's been a long time between seasons one and two, but it's been worth the wait.

Vanity Fair has an article posted on Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the Republican culture of corruption. It's long (as most VF articles are) but well worth the read.

While digging through old video footage of the kids, I came across an "interview" I did with Max when he was five. I put him through his paces: counting, naming his birthday, his full name and his favorite color. He told me his favorite thing to do was "fight" and she showed me his fist. It was fun to watch three years later. Dollie suggested I do the same for Rozzy and perhaps start interviewing them each year on their birthdays.

I've been firing up the grill a bit lately. I do love cooking over a bed of red-hot coals. You can keep your fancy propane grills with their stainless steel surfaces and electric push-button ignitions. Give me steel barrel, some newspaper, matches and some charred wood and I'm a happy guy.

Because it's grill season, all the stores have their grills out on display. Lowes, Home Despot and even the local Bi-Lo have rows and rows of grills. I'd guess that there are a dozen gas models for every one charcoal. Some of them are quite eleborate. At Sam's Club, they had an L-shaped outdoor kitchen, with a sink, marble counters, a fridge, griddle and high-output propane burners. It would go really well with the outdoor living room I saw at Target that included a canopy, sofa, loveseat, coffee table and fireplace.

What is this obsession with bringing our insides out? I don't want an outdoor living room. I don't want an outdoor kitchen. I do my relaxing on the inside where the air conditioning ensures I stay comfortable and the cats eat any bugs that come my way.

If I want to cook outside, I'll build a fire. I don't need to bake a cake on my patio. Or boil corn. Or deep fry fish. If that's your thing, then by all means, knock your socks off. The only reason I bring it up is because Dollie and I were recently in the market for some new patio furniture. We searched every possible outlet in Murfreesboro and beyond. Most of the stuff we found were . . . well . . . too nice for our deck. Why should my patio furniture be more expensive than my living room furniture? The cats are just going to shed all over it anyway.

Let's just get this whole bank-spying story cleared up right now, okay. The NYT published a story about the Bush administration spying on our bank records. The Bush administration and the rest of the GOP went ape-poopy and, among other things, called for a condemnation of the NYT and accused the editors and reporters of treason for revealing these "secret" plans.

Terrorists already know that we're tracking their bank transactions. Bush crowed about it right after Sept. 11. He and his cronies have been bragging about it regularly. SWIFT, the company that allowed the Bush administration to illegally use their databases to track our bank records has a web site inwhich they explain that they cooperate with the Financital Action Task Force (FATF). FATF is an international organization dedicated to tracking down terrorist organizations via their bank records. They have a web site. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a secret that we're tracking the bank records of terrorists.

The fact is that the only thing that was news in the NYT story was that Bush has been looking at our bank records without probable cause and without a court order. That is another in a long line of attempts by Bush to bypass the law and subvert our right to privacy. What the NYT did was not harmful to the war on terror, it was embarrassing to the Bush administration.

What's also an embarrasment to the Bush administration is the Supreme Court decision not to allow Bush to create his own military tribunals for the prisoners at GITMO. The court said that in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

The court also said that article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to al Quaeda. This is exactly the opposite of what Bush has been declaring since GITMO was opened. The Bush argument is that the Geneva Convention applies to conflicts between states and al Quaeda isn't a state. This conflicts with Bush's assertion that the war on terror is a war and therefore subject to the laws of war and not the U.S. legal system or the Constitution.

See, by putting our prisoners in this legal limbo, Bush can do whatever he wants -- torture, detain forever without representation or charges, kidnapping and murder -- all legal under this new thing Bush has created: the war that's waged against a concept, rather than a country.

Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda.

Not so, says the Roberts Court (in which Roberts abstained because he heard this case as a jurist on it's way up the legal ladder).

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Under the federal criminal law, anyone who violates Article 3, is guilty of war crimes and can face fines, life inprisonment and (if the prisoner dies while in custody) the death penalty. Under just about any reading of the facts you'd care to name, the Bush administration contains war criminals.

Among them, Alberto Gonzales -- supposedly the top cop in the land. Attorney General Gonzales has repeatedly declared that the treatment of the GITMO prisoners was legal and necessary. In fact, Gonzales says that the Supreme Court's decision has hampered the Bush administration's ability to deal with terrorists.

"What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told CNN.

We'd really hoped we could keep torturing people without the courts butting in, but it looks like we're going to have to switch to Plan B -- have our rubberstamp congress declare it legal for us to torture people.

Now I know the red-staters among you are going to call me a wimpy liberal who coddles terrorists, but that's not true at all. If the prisoners in GITMO are guilty of terrorism, then let's set up a series of show trials and pop some popcorn. But if the government hasn't been able to make a case in the years since the original attack, then we need to quit fooling ourselves. America is not the land of secret prisons, gulags, tortured political prisoners and shadow governments who spy on us. At least it didn't use to be.

The Ann Coulter is a plagarist story has hit the mainstream media. The New York Post is reporting that experts have found, in her new book, whole passages lifted from other sources and the citations she used were incomplete and misleading. A search of her columns over the last year has also turned up several instances of copycat behavior. Tsk tsk.

I grew up with two younger brothers, so I have plenty of experience at being disgusting. Young boys like nothing more than grossing each other out. My boyhood friend and idol, Seve and his brother Jay, lifted this phenomenon to a high art.

Nothing would make Jay laugh with more delight than to fart on Seve. Or, which happened more often, fart in his hand and force Seve to smell it. I bring this up because engineers in Japan are working on a device that would have made Jay hop on the couch and squeal like a little girl.

They are building a device that will "record" odors and play them back. I can see the future and it is the fartPod. I envision a device in which big brothers catalog their favorite odors to torture their younger siblings again and again.

What's really funny is that the article has all these peaceful applications for the technology: using these devices to sell food or perfumes. My mind immediately went to the fart database.

Joe Lieberman has left the Democratic Party. He won't admit it. He will even deny it. But if he loses the Aug. 8 primary, he has no plans to abide by the decision of his party.

Instead, he intends to run as "an independent Democrat." Lieberman has been Bush's best friend among the Democrats. Whenever you hear Bush talk about bi-partisan support in the senate, he's talking about Lieberman, who has made it job one to provide Bush with this sort of political cover.

Now Ned Lamont is building a strong campaign to take the nomination away from Lieberman, so Joe wants to take his ball and go home. Fine.

The Sidekick 3 is out. For some reason, I'm not nearly as excited about this one as I was about my Sidekick II.

Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport last night upon his return from the Dominican Republic for the possible possession of illegal prescription drugs. Customs noticed that his bottle of Viagra did not have his name on it. Instead, it appeared to have been prescribed to a doctor. Here is his lawyer's statement:

"While going through routine Customs inspection of luggage at Palm Beach International Airport upon his return from an international trip, Rush Limbaugh was detained by customs agents after they noticed a non-narcotic prescription drug, which had been prescribed by Mr. Limbaugh's treating physician but labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh. After a brief interview, Mr. Limbaugh was permitted to continue on his journey."

Now, it's none of my business, but I can't help speculating. Does Rush actually have erectile disfunction or did he take Viagra recreationally? And what was he doing in the Dominican Republic that required an erection?

Kidding aside, there are two reasons this is news: 1) It's Rush Limbaugh, a public figure and self-appointed purveyor of "truth," "common sense," and conservative "values." and 2) It's only been a couple of months since he plea bargained out of a charge of obtaining prescription drugs illegally.

Finally, the pharmacy that supposedly issued Rush these mislabled pills has some 'splaining to do. Unless, of course, the lawyer's story is bogus and Rush obtained his Viagra through illicit means.

All last week the Republicans beat up on the Democrats over plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. If I heard the slogan "cut and run" once, I heard it 2,000 times. Then Gen. Casey issued his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and Tony Snow had the difficult task of explaining why the general's plan wasn't "cut and run" but the Democrats' was.

Now we're hearing from Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind) that withdrawing 30,000 troops from Iraq could help the Republican chances in November. For those who doubted that the Republican-sponsored non-binding "stay-the-course" resolution that passed two weeks ago was just a politcal stunt, then here's your proof.

I sometimes feel like lining up every talking head on Fox news: O'Reilly, Gibson, Hume and the rest of the usual suspects and giving them a big stooge slap -- a really good one. A slap that would make Brit Hume's jowls vibrate for about 20 minutes.

The New York Times (as well as a host of other papers such as the WaPo, the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal) ran a story about yet another breech of the public trust and our privacy enacted by the Bush administration. Now it seems, they've been spying on our bank records. This is a big story in that it is another example of a pattern of deception and invasion of privacy by a rogue administration that has no regard for the law or the Constitution.

Cheney and Bush responded by attacking the NYT (but not the Wall Street Journal, hmmmm). Bush called it "disgraceful." Cheney said it hurt America, without explaining exactly how. But that's expected from this group. They are all about shooting the messenger. And I really shouldn't be surprised that Fox is lockstep with the Bushies on this, but just the same, Hume's reaction is jarring:

I would say about the program that it's probably less important in some ways than the wiretapping or the phone intercept program. But I have to say that the case for revealing it seems even worse, even weaker.

The editor of The New York Times said something to the effect, it's a matter of public interest. Well, that can apply to almost anything. [National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News analyst] Juan [Williams] and I were talking about this earlier. That applies to ball scores. And you know, I mean, women with their breasts exposed are a matter of public interest to some people.

Of course it is a matter of public interest. The president is spying on us. In journalism school, one of the big cases hammered into students is about the Pentagon Papers -- classified documents concerning the way the Vietnam War was being executed. It was in the public's interest and the Supreme Court upheld the paper's right to print them.

The job of the media is to disseminate information, not sit on it so as not to cause the president embarrassment. The fact that Hume can't see that just shows that he's a puppet -- a jowly, bitter puppet with Cheney's hand up his backside.

Then there's Bush himself. He detests leakers (unless they work for him). He thinks leaking is bad (unless it comes from him). November can't get here soon enough.

Speaking of crass political moves, the Senate has taken up a four-day debate on flag burning. Do we need to tie up the Senate for four days on this issue? Well, we do if we want to score some cheap political points with red-staters. It's nothing more than a chance for Republicans to stand up and wrap themselves in the flag, while eating apple pie and wiping a single crocodile tear from each eye as they hum the "Battle Hym of the Republic."

Top that, Democrats, with your "First Ammendment" and your "Freedom of Expression."

Do you know how many incidents of flag burning we had last year? Four. For those of you keeping up at home, that's one day of debate in the Senate for every incident of flag burning. In their defense, that is a 33 percent increase from last year in which there were three.

If that formula -- one day of Senate debate for each incident of flag burning this year -- were to be applied to other matters, the Senate would need to schedule 12 days of debate to contemplate the number of years before Medicare goes broke, 335 days of debate for each service member killed in Iraq this year and 11 million days of debate on the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country.

Bill Frist issued a press release announcing his intention to back the ammendment:

"Ever since the Boy Scouts first taught me how to care for our flag over 40 years ago, it has always held a special place in my heart."

What none of these Republicans can explain to me is how ten cases of flag burning in the last ten years rises to the level of Constitutional crisis. We have laws against vandalism and theft, so why do we need an Ammendment?

There are 49 days left on the Senate calendar this year. By all accounts the vote will be close, but hopefully will fail. See, the House has already passed it. So if it passes the Senate, it will be sent to the states to ratify. That means every state legislature will have to take time to debate this non-issue and every Republican party in the country will use it as a club against his or her Democratic opponent. This will drag on for years.

The best plan for the Dems is not to play. Vote "present." Use the floor time to call the Republicans out for not paying attention to the real problems this country faces. While our troops are on the battlefield, we're dickering over symbology. Bah. Announce that they can waste their time and lose their votes and the grownups will be on the steps of the Capitol when the Republicans are ready to get serious about governance.

Mrs. Lela May Hudson Reed

May 28, 1921 - June 21, 2006


				Sidebar Hiplog Archives Unashamed (my brother, Scott) Crazy Aunt Purl (my friend Laurie) There's Pie In the Lunchroom (my friend Chuck) Too Fat For Ponies (my friend Sam) Post Secret (a place to share secrets) Recent posts: 2006 June 13-20, 2006 May 30-June 8, 2006 May 22-26, 2006 May 9-16, 2006 May 2-5, 2006 April 17-28, 2006 April 10-14, 2006 March 27-April 7, 2006 March 6-10, 2006 Feb. 27 - March 3, 2006 Feb. 20-24, 2006 Feb. 13-17, 2006 Feb. 6-9, 2006 Jan 30-Feb 2, 2006 Jan 23-27, 2006 Jan 16-20, 2006 Jan 3-11, 2006 2005 Dec 27-30, 2005 Dec 19-22, 2005 Dec 8-16, 2005 Dec 1-7, 2005
	July 5, 2006 We had a great holiday. I smoked some salmon, grilled a couple of steaks, helped Dolls with some home improvement projects, watered the neighbors' flowers and managed to talk Rozzy into going to see the fireworks. That last one was the hard part. Rozzy is a tough nut to crack. She's not scared of much, but loud noises tend to freak her out. Bad. I took a very gentle approach to getting her excited about the idea of going to see the fireworks. I showed her video of herself from 2004 having a good time at the fireworks show. We bought her some ear plugs so the loud noises won't scare her. I petted and cajoled and had her willing to stand outside while Max and Dollie shot off some bottle rockets. She was holding two lit sparklers before the session was over and asking if we could go buy some more fireworks. So we went to one of the 10,000 fireworks stands in our neighborhood and bought about 10 bucks worth of fun. Rozzy like the smoke bombs and black snakes. She liked the stuff that shot fountains of sparks. Then Dollie had to light some firecrackers. Bang! Boom! Boom! Boom! Bang! Bang! Bang! And that was it. She clamped her hands over her ears and began to cry that she wanted no more to do with fireworks. She didn't want to attend. She didn't care. Dollie lit another string. Bang! Boom! Boom! Boom! Bang! Bang! Bang! Screams. Now I can relate. I've never been a fan of firecrackers. I've never seen the point. It makes a loud noise. So what? Why is that entertaining? Show me something that lights up, flys in the air or chases Max around the yard. But firecrackers? Feh. So we dragged Rozzy to the show anyway. She clamped her hands over her plugged ears and didn't like it very much. The rest of us had a good time, though. Saw "Superman Returns" on Monday night. It was quite good. It had many of the qualities that made the original Richard Donner film so likeable. Brandon Routh's Clark Kent was great. Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor was satisfyingly evil. I'm hoping that, in the next film, they'll find some other villain for Supes to take on. There are dozens of quality bad guys in Superman's rogues gallery. They don't all have to be bald madmen, do they? "The Venture Brothers" is back. What a great show. It's so absurd that I crack up every time I see it. The voice work, the animation, the music -- all great. It's been a long time between seasons one and two, but it's been worth the wait. Vanity Fair has an article posted on Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the Republican culture of corruption. It's long (as most VF articles are) but well worth the read. While digging through old video footage of the kids, I came across an "interview" I did with Max when he was five. I put him through his paces: counting, naming his birthday, his full name and his favorite color. He told me his favorite thing to do was "fight" and she showed me his fist. It was fun to watch three years later. Dollie suggested I do the same for Rozzy and perhaps start interviewing them each year on their birthdays. \| July 3, 2006 I've been firing up the grill a bit lately. I do love cooking over a bed of red-hot coals. You can keep your fancy propane grills with their stainless steel surfaces and electric push-button ignitions. Give me steel barrel, some newspaper, matches and some charred wood and I'm a happy guy. Because it's grill season, all the stores have their grills out on display. Lowes, Home Despot and even the local Bi-Lo have rows and rows of grills. I'd guess that there are a dozen gas models for every one charcoal. Some of them are quite eleborate. At Sam's Club, they had an L-shaped outdoor kitchen, with a sink, marble counters, a fridge, griddle and high-output propane burners. It would go really well with the outdoor living room I saw at Target that included a canopy, sofa, loveseat, coffee table and fireplace. What is this obsession with bringing our insides out? I don't want an outdoor living room. I don't want an outdoor kitchen. I do my relaxing on the inside where the air conditioning ensures I stay comfortable and the cats eat any bugs that come my way. If I want to cook outside, I'll build a fire. I don't need to bake a cake on my patio. Or boil corn. Or deep fry fish. If that's your thing, then by all means, knock your socks off. The only reason I bring it up is because Dollie and I were recently in the market for some new patio furniture. We searched every possible outlet in Murfreesboro and beyond. Most of the stuff we found were . . . well . . . too nice for our deck. Why should my patio furniture be more expensive than my living room furniture? The cats are just going to shed all over it anyway. Let's just get this whole bank-spying story cleared up right now, okay. The NYT published a story about the Bush administration spying on our bank records. The Bush administration and the rest of the GOP went ape-poopy and, among other things, called for a condemnation of the NYT and accused the editors and reporters of treason for revealing these "secret" plans. Putting aside for the moment that this is all a put-up job because the GOP likes to rail against the NYT because their constituents like it, and look at the facts: Terrorists already know that we're tracking their bank transactions. Bush crowed about it right after Sept. 11. He and his cronies have been bragging about it regularly. SWIFT, the company that allowed the Bush administration to illegally use their databases to track our bank records has a web site inwhich they explain that they cooperate with the Financital Action Task Force (FATF). FATF is an international organization dedicated to tracking down terrorist organizations via their bank records. They have a web site. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a secret that we're tracking the bank records of terrorists. The fact is that the only thing that was news in the NYT story was that Bush has been looking at our bank records without probable cause and without a court order. That is another in a long line of attempts by Bush to bypass the law and subvert our right to privacy. What the NYT did was not harmful to the war on terror, it was embarrassing to the Bush administration. What's also an embarrasment to the Bush administration is the Supreme Court decision not to allow Bush to create his own military tribunals for the prisoners at GITMO. The court said that in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention. The court also said that article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to al Quaeda. This is exactly the opposite of what Bush has been declaring since GITMO was opened. The Bush argument is that the Geneva Convention applies to conflicts between states and al Quaeda isn't a state. This conflicts with Bush's assertion that the war on terror is a war and therefore subject to the laws of war and not the U.S. legal system or the Constitution. See, by putting our prisoners in this legal limbo, Bush can do whatever he wants -- torture, detain forever without representation or charges, kidnapping and murder -- all legal under this new thing Bush has created: the war that's waged against a concept, rather than a country. Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda. Not so, says the Roberts Court (in which Roberts abstained because he heard this case as a jurist on it's way up the legal ladder). Article 3 of the Geneva Convention forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Under the federal criminal law, anyone who violates Article 3, is guilty of war crimes and can face fines, life inprisonment and (if the prisoner dies while in custody) the death penalty. Under just about any reading of the facts you'd care to name, the Bush administration contains war criminals. Among them, Alberto Gonzales -- supposedly the top cop in the land. Attorney General Gonzales has repeatedly declared that the treatment of the GITMO prisoners was legal and necessary. In fact, Gonzales says that the Supreme Court's decision has hampered the Bush administration's ability to deal with terrorists. "What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told CNN. We'd really hoped we could keep torturing people without the courts butting in, but it looks like we're going to have to switch to Plan B -- have our rubberstamp congress declare it legal for us to torture people. Now I know the red-staters among you are going to call me a wimpy liberal who coddles terrorists, but that's not true at all. If the prisoners in GITMO are guilty of terrorism, then let's set up a series of show trials and pop some popcorn. But if the government hasn't been able to make a case in the years since the original attack, then we need to quit fooling ourselves. America is not the land of secret prisons, gulags, tortured political prisoners and shadow governments who spy on us. At least it didn't use to be. The Ann Coulter is a plagarist story has hit the mainstream media. The New York Post is reporting that experts have found, in her new book, whole passages lifted from other sources and the citations she used were incomplete and misleading. A search of her columns over the last year has also turned up several instances of copycat behavior. Tsk tsk. I grew up with two younger brothers, so I have plenty of experience at being disgusting. Young boys like nothing more than grossing each other out. My boyhood friend and idol, Seve and his brother Jay, lifted this phenomenon to a high art. Nothing would make Jay laugh with more delight than to fart on Seve. Or, which happened more often, fart in his hand and force Seve to smell it. I bring this up because engineers in Japan are working on a device that would have made Jay hop on the couch and squeal like a little girl. They are building a device that will "record" odors and play them back. I can see the future and it is the fartPod. I envision a device in which big brothers catalog their favorite odors to torture their younger siblings again and again. "Oooo, remember this blast from the past?" "Uhhgh, that's disgusting." "I believe that was bean with bacon soup." "Turn it off!" "Oh wait, no that was enchilladas. THIS is bean with bacon soup." "Cut it out! I can't breathe." What's really funny is that the article has all these peaceful applications for the technology: using these devices to sell food or perfumes. My mind immediately went to the fart database. Joe Lieberman has left the Democratic Party. He won't admit it. He will even deny it. But if he loses the Aug. 8 primary, he has no plans to abide by the decision of his party. Instead, he intends to run as "an independent Democrat." Lieberman has been Bush's best friend among the Democrats. Whenever you hear Bush talk about bi-partisan support in the senate, he's talking about Lieberman, who has made it job one to provide Bush with this sort of political cover. Now Ned Lamont is building a strong campaign to take the nomination away from Lieberman, so Joe wants to take his ball and go home. Fine. Good riddance. The Sidekick 3 is out. For some reason, I'm not nearly as excited about this one as I was about my Sidekick II. \| June 27, 2006 Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport last night upon his return from the Dominican Republic for the possible possession of illegal prescription drugs. Customs noticed that his bottle of Viagra did not have his name on it. Instead, it appeared to have been prescribed to a doctor. Here is his lawyer's statement: "While going through routine Customs inspection of luggage at Palm Beach International Airport upon his return from an international trip, Rush Limbaugh was detained by customs agents after they noticed a non-narcotic prescription drug, which had been prescribed by Mr. Limbaugh's treating physician but labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh. After a brief interview, Mr. Limbaugh was permitted to continue on his journey." Now, it's none of my business, but I can't help speculating. Does Rush actually have erectile disfunction or did he take Viagra recreationally? And what was he doing in the Dominican Republic that required an erection? Kidding aside, there are two reasons this is news: 1) It's Rush Limbaugh, a public figure and self-appointed purveyor of "truth," "common sense," and conservative "values." and 2) It's only been a couple of months since he plea bargained out of a charge of obtaining prescription drugs illegally. Finally, the pharmacy that supposedly issued Rush these mislabled pills has some 'splaining to do. Unless, of course, the lawyer's story is bogus and Rush obtained his Viagra through illicit means. All last week the Republicans beat up on the Democrats over plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. If I heard the slogan "cut and run" once, I heard it 2,000 times. Then Gen. Casey issued his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and Tony Snow had the difficult task of explaining why the general's plan wasn't "cut and run" but the Democrats' was. Now we're hearing from Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind) that withdrawing 30,000 troops from Iraq could help the Republican chances in November. For those who doubted that the Republican-sponsored non-binding "stay-the-course" resolution that passed two weeks ago was just a politcal stunt, then here's your proof. I sometimes feel like lining up every talking head on Fox news: O'Reilly, Gibson, Hume and the rest of the usual suspects and giving them a big stooge slap -- a really good one. A slap that would make Brit Hume's jowls vibrate for about 20 minutes. The New York Times (as well as a host of other papers such as the WaPo, the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal) ran a story about yet another breech of the public trust and our privacy enacted by the Bush administration. Now it seems, they've been spying on our bank records. This is a big story in that it is another example of a pattern of deception and invasion of privacy by a rogue administration that has no regard for the law or the Constitution. Cheney and Bush responded by attacking the NYT (but not the Wall Street Journal, hmmmm). Bush called it "disgraceful." Cheney said it hurt America, without explaining exactly how. But that's expected from this group. They are all about shooting the messenger. And I really shouldn't be surprised that Fox is lockstep with the Bushies on this, but just the same, Hume's reaction is jarring: I would say about the program that it's probably less important in some ways than the wiretapping or the phone intercept program. But I have to say that the case for revealing it seems even worse, even weaker. The editor of The New York Times said something to the effect, it's a matter of public interest. Well, that can apply to almost anything. [National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News analyst] Juan [Williams] and I were talking about this earlier. That applies to ball scores. And you know, I mean, women with their breasts exposed are a matter of public interest to some people. Of course it is a matter of public interest. The president is spying on us. In journalism school, one of the big cases hammered into students is about the Pentagon Papers -- classified documents concerning the way the Vietnam War was being executed. It was in the public's interest and the Supreme Court upheld the paper's right to print them. The job of the media is to disseminate information, not sit on it so as not to cause the president embarrassment. The fact that Hume can't see that just shows that he's a puppet -- a jowly, bitter puppet with Cheney's hand up his backside. Then there's Bush himself. He detests leakers (unless they work for him). He thinks leaking is bad (unless it comes from him). November can't get here soon enough. Speaking of crass political moves, the Senate has taken up a four-day debate on flag burning. Do we need to tie up the Senate for four days on this issue? Well, we do if we want to score some cheap political points with red-staters. It's nothing more than a chance for Republicans to stand up and wrap themselves in the flag, while eating apple pie and wiping a single crocodile tear from each eye as they hum the "Battle Hym of the Republic." Top that, Democrats, with your "First Ammendment" and your "Freedom of Expression." Do you know how many incidents of flag burning we had last year? Four. For those of you keeping up at home, that's one day of debate in the Senate for every incident of flag burning. In their defense, that is a 33 percent increase from last year in which there were three. Dana Milbank: If that formula -- one day of Senate debate for each incident of flag burning this year -- were to be applied to other matters, the Senate would need to schedule 12 days of debate to contemplate the number of years before Medicare goes broke, 335 days of debate for each service member killed in Iraq this year and 11 million days of debate on the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country. Bill Frist issued a press release announcing his intention to back the ammendment: "Ever since the Boy Scouts first taught me how to care for our flag over 40 years ago, it has always held a special place in my heart." What none of these Republicans can explain to me is how ten cases of flag burning in the last ten years rises to the level of Constitutional crisis. We have laws against vandalism and theft, so why do we need an Ammendment? There are 49 days left on the Senate calendar this year. By all accounts the vote will be close, but hopefully will fail. See, the House has already passed it. So if it passes the Senate, it will be sent to the states to ratify. That means every state legislature will have to take time to debate this non-issue and every Republican party in the country will use it as a club against his or her Democratic opponent. This will drag on for years. The best plan for the Dems is not to play. Vote "present." Use the floor time to call the Republicans out for not paying attention to the real problems this country faces. While our troops are on the battlefield, we're dickering over symbology. Bah. Announce that they can waste their time and lose their votes and the grownups will be on the steps of the Capitol when the Republicans are ready to get serious about governance. \| June 26, 2006 Mrs. Lela May Hudson Reed May 28, 1921 - June 21, 2006 \|