Ann Coulter goes down on John Edwards

Ann swallows a hard one...



...after using the "faggot" word.

A Positive Light Shines In New Richmond

"You know the bozos I’m talking about. These Hudson bloggers have invaded your fair city a few times. Their goal is the destruction of public education. When you say “Go Tigers!” they say “Go Away Tigers!”'

Bob "Mudslinger" Muchlinski

(An excellent letter was published in the New Richmond News this week. The letter writer demonstrated that the concerned for, and dedication to, the education of our kids can reach beyond the boundaries of the local school district. It's nice to see some position encouragement from outside the New Richmond community. The New Richmond school district and members of the community have been smeared repeatedly by a group of anti-education bloggers oozing out of Hudson who specialize in misinformation and slander.)

To the Editor:

How encouraging to see Superintendent Veilleux and the New Richmond School Board take the bull by the horns, complete a thorough review of your K-12 space needs, and propose a comprehensive plan for referendum.

I’m very envious. I’ve been asking the Hudson School Board and superintendent to do the exact same thing. But they don’t have the guts. They’re afraid of a few anti-school bloggers in Hudson.

You know the bozos I’m talking about. These Hudson bloggers have invaded your fair city a few times. Their goal is the destruction of public education. When you say “Go Tigers!” they say “Go Away Tigers!”

I’m glad New Richmond citizens care more about your schools, students and teachers than you do about the vile intimidation of a few miscreants in Hudson.

And what a pleasant surprise to read in the newspaper that Mr. Bob Ziller has promised the superintendent he would put a “Vote Yes” sign in his yard! For too long, Mr. Ziller has aligned himself with the Hudson bloggers. But now he is putting New Richmond first - telling the bloggers to stay away, and vocally supporting the referendum.

Mr. Ziller will be pressured by the Hudson bloggers to change his mind, but I’m sure that Mr. Ziller will be a man of his word. He’ll put up that Vote Yes sign. He’ll tell his friends and neighbors to vote yes. And he’ll proudly vote yes in the voting booth.

When your new high school opens in 2010, I’m going to take a tour. I’ll be green with envy, knowing that Hudson desperately needs the same thing.

New Richmond has what it takes. You know the strength of your city goes hand-in-hand with the strength of your schools. You are ready to invest in what your city needs.

Go Tigers!

Robert Muchlinski

Hudson

Take your stand...

As my entire Regiment forms a part of the expedition and I am the senior officer of the regiment on duty in this department, I respectfully but most earnestly request that while not allowed to go in command of the expedition I may be permitted to serve with my regiment in the field.


I appeal to you as a soldier to spare me the humiliation of seeing my regiment march to meet the enemy and I not share its dangers.


I would be willing, yes glad, to see a battle every day during my life.


My purpose is to make my narrative as truthful as possible.


There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.


You ask me if I will not be glad when the last battle is fought, so far as the country is concerned I, of course, must wish for peace, and will be glad when the war is ended, but if I answer for myself alone, I must say that I shall regret to see the war end.

George Armstrong Custer

The 10 Worst Presidents

It's too soon to judge the current one, but for past leaders, the verdict is in
By Jay Tolson
US News & World Report

George W. Bush's presidency shaping up to be one of the worst in U.S. history? You hear the question being asked more and more these days. And more and more, you hear the same answer. With Iraq a shambles and trust in the administration declining, it is probably not surprising that 54 percent of respondents in a recent USA Today/Gallup survey said that history would judge Bush a below-average or poor president, more than twice the number who gave such a rating to any of the five preceding occupants of the White House, including Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Public opinion is a notoriously fickle beast, of course, which is why historians and other custodians of the long view prefer to reserve judgment until they can speak of their subjects in the past tense. But clearly something about Bush ii has inspired many historians to abandon their usual caution. Meena Bose, a Hofstra University political scientist who has written about presidential ratings, says that the scholars' rush to rank the current president comes out of an acute awareness of the long-term consequences of his policies. "Since it's hard to see how Iraq will work out for the better,'' Bose says, " it's hard not to pass judgments."

Read more about the worst Presidents.

The Republican Road to Perdition

Domenici Called About U.S. Attorney Four Times

At least four recently fired U.S. attorneys who've been issued subpoenas are to testify before the House and Senate judiciary committees Tuesday. The panels are probing allegations that eight federal prosecutors were dismissed by the Justice Department in December for political reasons.

Now a senior Republican senator says he regrets a phone call he made to one of the fired attorneys.

On his last day as U.S. attorney in New Mexico last week, fired federal prosecutor David Iglesias told local reporters that he had been contacted by two congressional Republicans shortly before the November elections.

Iglesias said the two lawmakers, whose names he did not reveal, wanted him to speed up a probe into alleged corruption by a prominent local Democrat.

When the Associated Press asked New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, last week about Iglesias' allegations, Domenici was quoted as saying he had no idea what Iglesias was talking about.

But over the weekend, Domenici did an about-face. He issued a statement acknowledging having called the fired U.S. attorney late last year. Domenici said he asked Iglesias about the ongoing investigation and wanted a timeframe on it. He also said that in retrospect, he regretted making the call, and he apologized.

The Justice Department has disclosed that Domenici called U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales four times over the past year and a half to raise questions about Iglesias. A Justice Department spokesman did not respond to repeated requests for further comment.

Domenici's call concerning a case Iglesias was involved has raised ethical concerns. The Senate ethics manual says senators should not communicate with agencies involved in ongoing investigative matters.

What few know about the Patriot Act:

From Law.com

"Recent fallout from the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys revealed that senators last year -- some knowingly and others unknowingly -- waived their advise and consent power by giving the attorney general the sole authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely when vacancies occurred.

The change in the process came at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice and was inserted into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act that was subsequently adopted by both chambers of Congress. The proverbial "sleeping giant" awakened in the ensuing controversy surrounding the unexplained requests for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys in Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle."

One more step on toward more Executive Power.
One more step down the road to perdition.

A judge's thoughts on judges and the Constitution

(Note: From time-to-time we get the arm-chair Constitutionalists giving their indoctrinated observations about what the US Constitution is and isn't. My guess, like most of us, their experience with the court system is a traffic ticket, divorce proceedings or some other minor infraction. Nothing that would actually provide any fiber into the intellectual stuffing of their arm-chair conjectures. Such cardboard bantering reminds of the little kids who are all pumped up to see Santa Claus and then clam up when they meet him face-to-face. I found the quote below an interesting observation of a real judge on the workings of the highest court of our land.)

"Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."

Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes


"I thought of the law in the terms of Moses -- principles chiseled in granite. I knew judges had predilections. I knew that their moods as well as their minds were ingredients of their decisions. But I had never been willing to admit to myself that the 'gut' reaction of a judge at the level of constitutional adjudications, dealing with the vagaries of due process, freedom of speech, and the like, was the main ingredient of his decision. The admission of it destroyed in my mind some of the reverence for the immutable principles. But they were supplied the Constitutions written by people in conventions, not by judges. Judges are, after all, not creative figures; they represent ideological schools of thought that are highly competitive. No judge at the level I speak of was neutral. The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people, and no wiser man than Hughes ever sat on our (US Supreme) Court. I say that although his predilections, drawn from a different age, were not always mine. I never, for example, could envision (Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans) Hughes in a boxcar filled with Wobblies (IWWs) roaring across the dusty plains of Washington State at night, but it was not difficult to picture Hugo Black, Wiley Rutedge, Felix Frankfurter and Frank Murphy there. I could, however, imagine Hughes as an advocate pleading our cause or as a judge putting imperishable words the tolerance which governments show even the most lowly of us."

William O. Douglas
US Spreme Court Justice (1939-1975)
from The Court Years