A corner-sitter

Living in Champaign, I know that many (like our own Pete) are upset that the University of Illinois got rid of its mascot, Chief Illiniwek. Not having the memories of watching the Chief as I walked around good ol' State U when I was a feckless youth, I mostly found the Chief's halftime dance an absurd mockery, and was glad when it was discontinued. Whichever side of the issue you're on, however, I hope you can see the sadness in the following letter in the News-Gazette:

Chief's gone, so what is point of returning?

I was disappointed to learn that Chief Illiniwek is no more. How sad. I grew up in Champaign, graduated in 1964 from Champaign High School and went to the University of Illinois for two years before the U.S. Army came calling.

I remember going to many games at Memorial Stadium as I grew up. We'd park on the grass on the west side of the stadium and walk through the falling leaves to the stadium; I loved those cool, crisp, sunny days.

Even though we lived in Kansas and now reside in Colorado, I'd bring my family back to Champaign occasionally and go the UI's homecoming games specifically to watch the halftime show. The football games often weren't very good. But I still got chills when the band would march across the field, and Chief Illiniwek would crouch down, sneak out through the marching band and then appear to cheers from the crowd.

I used to point him amid the band members to my son. He'd try to find him before I did.

Now I wonder what will happen to the Chief Illiniwek logo that was so common. As for the name Fighting Illini, how long before it will be in danger? Will we call the UI's team "the Fighting Midwesterners" or the "Fighting Central Illinoisans"?

The local Chamber of Commerce should know that I won't be coming back to Champaign and spending several hundred dollars while there. If Chief Illiniwek is gone, so is my desire to return to Champaign. Goodby.

ERIK (RIK) BERGETHON, Pueblo, Colo.

So, Mr. Bergethon spent his formative years in Champaign, up through part of college, and the only thing of value he can find to return to is the frickin' halftime show? That's truly pathetic. We still have the "cool, crisp, sunny days" and the falling leaves and the marching band, and the football team is actually good. But because a white kid no longer dresses up in a headdress for 5 minutes a week, it's all for naught.

Well, I'm glad you won't be here. I'll enjoy it more without you.

The magic beans

Just as Pete from time to time listens to wingnut radio, to hear what hate is being spewed over the air, I find myself drawn to their half-illiterate ramblings.

Today we find:

Ann Coulter saying that she hopes that one day Jews will perfect themselves and become Christian.

Debbie Schlussel comparing the Empire State Building being lit with green lights for the end of Ramadan to the planes flying into the WTC: "Planes into the building, yesterday. Jihadist-Green atop the building, today. Same difference."

BillO ranting about how John Edwards would be a horrible president because he wouldn't torture, he'd give prisoners access to attorneys, and he'd restore the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

And my favorite - the Nobel Prize committee is liberal because they gave Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for his work alerting the world about the dangers of global warming: "I can't help thinking that Gore's prize is yet another attempt by the left to undo the horrible trauma of Election 2000."

Now back to your regularly scheduled hate attacks against 12 year olds.

Anniversary of Shame

Five years ago, the U.S. Senate completed what the House had done the night before. They gave a madman a blank check to wage unprovoked war. Here are the words of that madman:

The United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice. We hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror. Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met.

The Congress gave him all he wanted, as many craven democrats, afraid of what the big bad media would say, shamelessly caved.

The president's conduct is shocking, though, even in light of the egregious grant of authority by Congress, because even that pathetic measure allowed for the use of force only if the president certified to Congress that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Lies upon lies in a night of shame.

An outstanding liberal arts college....

Yet we produce Dan Quayle and Fred's trophy wife

Take a second look...

(Thanks to team member/all too infrequent contributor JB)

Much attention has been given to the military force authorization vote concerning Iraq. We conveniently forget, though, the outrageous power grant given to the president just a week after the terror attacks:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression

and

This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Read that in light of the odious "Lieberman-Kyl" amendment that says

the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization

Feel good about that?

The Conservative "Mind" at Work

Courtesy of Daily Kos, some tidbits from the sort of people you find flailing around the National Review, looking for a clue:

Are there even a thousand really poor people in all of America? Really poor. Dying-on-the-sidewalks-with-open-sores poor?

The so-called poor have cars and cable tv and free medical. They live in America in the 21st century, where school is free and libraries are free and a bus ticket to a better town costs less than a bag of crack. If they're "poor" it's because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on.

and

Advanced western democracies have delivered the most prosperous societies in human history. There simply are no longer genuinely "poor" people in sufficient numbers. As Miss Shaidle points out, if you're poor today, it's almost always for behavioral reasons - behavior which the state chooses not to discourage but to reward. Nonetheless, progressive types persist in deluding themselves that there are vast masses of the "needy" out there that only the government can rescue.

Yes, the conservative says, if you're poor, it's clearly a result of your choices, and besides, no one is really all that poor anyway - at least not the poor people they see on TV. One of the great things about this attitude is then nothing has to be done - poor people obviously have chosen to be that way because of their immoral lifestyles (we'll ignore the data, for example, about the preponderance of veterans among the homeless), so it's all their fault. And since we don't have, Ethiopian kids lying bloated and covered in flies on the street, no one is poor enough that they actually need help, so we're covered there.

I'm not going to bother to refute these arguments - those of us who actually have brains know poor people, from the truly extremely poor living on the street, or in constant threat of disaster, to the working poor - those with jobs (often multiple) but who still can't sustain a living and whose lives suffer every day because of it.

Schmidlap - is this an example of Evil, Greedy, or Stupid conservatives? I can see an argument for all 3.

Sen. Widestance and Der Chimpenfuhrer

George W. Bush and Larry Craig. Hmm, what do they have in common--other than an ambivalent sexuality? Very simple--neither one gives a damn about their Republican party.

The president brings out the veto pen to kill a bill that has widespread bipartisan support, a measure supported by 47 of 50 governors and radicals like Orrin Hatch. Fiscal conservatism? Please, more money falls off the back of supply planes in Iraq than this measure would have cost. There is no logical reason for the veto other than he wanted to do it and he doesn't give a damn about his party. That makes perfect sense, given that he feels he owes the party nothing. He did nothing with the party in terms of coming to prominence. He was the accidental empty suit who was the first spawn of a mediocre president and nothing else. He owes the party nothing, and is giving it nothing in return.

And Larry Craig? He is an embarrassment to the party and has angered even the Idaho GOP. He can do nothing as a legislator from now on, and he is a tremendous liability both locally and nationally. Does he care? No, like his president, "it's all about me."

How screwed up is our presidential selection system?

On how many levels is the process by which we choose our next president screwed up?

First of all--the "primaries."

Primaries have no explicit or implicit basis in the constitution. They are rooted in this rather bizarre "party" system we have now. The order of primaries is bound by nothing other than tradition.

With all due respect to the fine citizens of these states, WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? These two states together have fewer people than live in metro Chicago, yet they can determine who leads the free world? Iowa farmers who think Steve Alford is a great guy and the inhabitants of Our Town get to decide? Also note that a primary vote is only a vote for delegates, who, in many states, have no obligation to do what the voters want.

Second--money. I don't really need to say more, we have a perverse system where fundraising, rather than positions, defines who wins. I get at least 10 calls a day from various candidates because I stupidly gave $50 to the DNC in '04 (and the "Do Not Call" list does not apply to political solicitations.) Money has grotesquely perverted what used to be "the democratic process."

And finally--"the electoral college." Yes, I know it is defined in the constitution, and I am loathe to amend the constitution to put the social policy du jour in place.

However, it is beyond clear that this vestige of an era when the vote was not universal and there was no national media no longer serves a defensible purpose. If a national candidate need not campaign in Texas or Illinois, the system is broken--period. Every vote counts, so--count them.

Thomas Jefferson on Blackwater

We're beyond being shocked at what this administration does, but the Blackwater revelations last week came close. We heard that this private army of mercenaries, hired by an ideological soulmate and close friend of the administration, has been killing Iraqis largely for sport, where drunken killers fire at random and face no legal consequences.

Mercenaries. Just think about it, what have we become? As Thomas Jefferson wrote of mercenaries 231 years ago,

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Indeed, this is "totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

Who could have said such a thing?

"This defines Petraeus’s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction -- are we or are we not at war? -- he chose instead to let them off the hook….

"Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly."

The title of this piece is "Sycophant Savior," and it also says that Petraeus "is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."

From MoveOn perhaps? Daily Kos? How about

(link)

Now, that's truly special

C&L has this one, but I wanted to make sure that everyone read it. (Of course, our readership here is much larger than theirs...)

Movie critic/Wingnut Michael Medved is out with an essay on Townhall entitled "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery". You could go read the drivel, and there are those, I'm sure, who would want to try to rebut his arguments. But really, folks, here's the key - he's arguing that slavery wasn't that bad. Slavery. You know, one person owning another. I don't care if it was slavery based on race, or gender, or religion - I think most of us could pretty well agree that slavery is on the list of no-no's, well, at least those of us who aren't evil.

The buried, racist heads of the evil wing of the GOP continue to sneak out of the sand and their vestigial eyes are blinking in the harsh light of reality. What possesses someone to write an essay like this? If you read any part of it (and then wipe the vomit off your keyboard), you see that he's upset that anyone (I think there's a straw man slave in here somewhere) says that the US doesn't have the moral authority to bomb brown people because slavery was legal in parts of the country 142 years ago. Personally, I don't think we have the moral authority to bomb brown people because I don't think anyone has the moral authority to bomb brown people, but maybe I need to take a closer look at things.

Oh, for crying out loud, I can't even get sarcastic about this idiocy.

Just a suggestion

Under Harry Truman, the name of the "War Department" was changed to the Department of defense.

I think we should change it back.

Question and Answer Time

Chimpy McDumbass, January 11, 2000 - "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

The Giggling Murderer, September 26, 2007 - "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

On Bill O'Reilly

At first glance, this is just fun. We can enjoy watching a Fox News blowhole makes some idiotic and racially ridiculous remarks, and then tries to bluster his way out of his self-inflicted head shot.

If you look a little deeper, though, you may see something more disturbing.

Bill O'Reilly is a jerk, a blowhard, a sexual bully, hypocrite, and an arrogant self-promoter who never let the facts get in the way of one of his silly tantrums.

But is he a racist? Well, what he is not, I presume, is the simple, evil, ugly racist, the vile creature that can drag a man to death behind a pickup truck or burn crosses on a family's yard. That kind of racism is vulgar, simple--and obvious.

O'Reilly, though, demonstrates a much more subtle, and I fear pervasive form of racism. It is the prejudice of ignorance and the bigotry of low expectations. Admittedly, Bill is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a rather repulsive person, but what is shocking is not what he said, but what he thought about it. He thought he was sharing some kind of enlightening observation with his audience, that black people are, what do you know, just like "us."

This is the racism that allows many to say, "I'm no bigot," but would shudder at having a black boss, neighbor or son-in-law. This is the racism that allows home buyers and real estate agents, without saying a word between them, to only visit houses in certain parts of town.

It isn't shocking that Bill O'Reilly said that Sylvia'a Restaurant and its patrons were like any other. What is shocking and sad is how many Americans would, like Bill, be surprised at such an obvious "revelation."

Solidarity

The student editor of the Colorado State University newspaper is taking some serious heat for a controversial headline he wrote recently. In the interest of supporting our fellow Americans in advocating for freedom of speech and in telling the truth, we here at The Thinker would like to join CSU in saying:

FUCK BUSH.

That is all.

The Wrath of Khangress

The Senate still can't get it's collective thumb out of it's ass about Iraq - the GOP killed James Webb's amendment to require that troops stay home at least as long as they're in the field (the RNC considers it disrespectful to the troops to do such a horrible thing) -- but they can make sure that no wacky leftists can say mean things about generals without feeling the lash from an angry bunch of do-nothing bastards. I can be glad that neither of my senators joined the moronity, but 77 senators did.

Here lies: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

B: December 15, 1791
D: September 20, 2007

A Sun-Times Dumbass

I usually read the Chicago Tribune letters, but this is a classic from The Bright One

Got O.J.?

White America can finally re-hang the banner "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the aircraft carrier. The threat of terrorism exists no more. Our troops can finally come home, Osama bin Laden can come out of hiding and 9/11 can finally be put behind us. Why? Because they got O.J.

William L. Bowman, Loop

Yep, William. It is "white America." That damned "white America" has been after O.J. ever since he nearly beheaded two people while slaughtering them was railroaded by the white establishment.

Good work, Bill, and

Politics Makes Strange Stall-Fellows

State of Minnesota, Plaintiff v. Larry Edwin Craig, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MINNESOTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT..

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf

Ladies and Gentlemen - your Republican Party in action

I am as annoyed as anyone that the Democrats in Congress haven't been more effective at doing, well, anything, but there is the unfortunate reality that the GOP is still stuck in lockstep mode and would rather go down on the USS Chimptanic than pretend they're Americans. Specifically, after bitching for years anytime the Democrats utilized the filibuster (remember the whole discussion about the "nuclear option"?), they can't help themselves, and filibuster everything so that every vote essentially has a 60 vote requirement to pass. Of course, it's more civilized than that, so the Senate just has a cloture vote to end debate and proceed to a real vote, and unless the cloture vote gets 60, the bill or amendment stalls. Counting Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but not Joe Lieberman (Jackass-CT), the Dems have 50 votes, and that's unfortunately not enough.

Case in point: Arlen Specter, one of the more moderate Republicans, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment would strike the staggeringly offensive portion of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, which revoked the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus for those detained by the US. This really should be a no-brainer, except for those who think that anyone arrested is guilty by default and, as such, gives up all their human and civil rights. Hey - who thinks that way? Republicans!

In the cloture vote yesterday, the amendment got 56 votes, including 6 Republicans (but not Fascist Joe), so of course it failed. I'm sure the whiny brat who plays President would have had a temper tantrum, and might have even pulled out the old veto pad, so it might not have mattered (unless they could get 67 votes).

Sigh.

Of course, they're consistent, these Republicans who claim to love America but hate everything the country once stood for. The other vote yesterday was about granting congressional representation to the US citizens living in the District of Columbia (and giving one more seat to Utah). And it failed. No taxation without representation, indeed.

For once he told the truth...

It was refreshing, wasn't it, that for the first time, the president actually told the truth about Iraq?

He said "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment. "

How true. The moment here was to decide--should the U.S. resume its role as a decent and honorable member of the community of nations or continue its course as a rogue outlaw nation occupying and destroying sovereign states?

The answer? The latter of course, as he offers Iraq "an enduring relationship with America." An enduring relationship of occupation, war and death.