Wong & Owens

OK, then Clinton gave up adultery years ago too. That make it better? You're right, I can't prove he did cocaine, but this is enough on it's own: Convicted of Drunk Driving, and Lied to Cover It Up George Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. [The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie.] Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. His spokesman says that he had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. Bush was 30 at the time. He now says that he stopped drinking when he turned 40 because it was a problem. More troubling, Bush lied in denying such an arrest, and still won't take responsibility for his actions. His first reaction was to blame Democrats and Fox News -- the only openly conservative TV network -- for reporting the story. "Why [was this reported] now, four days before the election? I've got my suspicions." He refused to say what his suspicions are, though. Bush admits covering up the story, but seems to think he has no responsibility for the failure of his cover up. In fact, just like Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Bush has brazenly and repeatedly lied to cover up and minimize this arrest. 1. Bush Lied at his Press Conference, 11/3/2000 Bush said he paid a fine on the spot and never went to court. That is clearly a lie, as you can see on this court document showing his court hearing a month later. In fact, it was a man also in court for DUI the same day who revealed Bush' arrest. Here is exactly what Bush said in his press conference: Bush: "I told the guy I had been drinking and what do I need to do? And he said, "Here's the fine." I paid the fine and did my duty...." Reporter: "Governor, was there any legal proceeding of any kind? Or did you just -- " Bush: "No. I pled -- you know, I said I was wrong and I ..." Reporter: "In court? " Bush: No, there was no court. I went to the police station. I said, "I'm wrong." 2. Bush Lied in Court, 1978 Bush got a court hearing to get his driving suspension lifted early, even though he had not completed a required driver rehabilitation course. He told the hearings officer that he drank only once a month, and just had "an occasional beer." The officer granted his request. But Bush continued drinking for 8 years after that date and has said publicly that he drank too much and had a drinking problem during that time. Presumably Bush was under oath during the hearing, though we haven't been able to pin down that detail. The Bush campaign refuses to comment on this contradiction. 3. Bush Lied To "The Dallas Morning News", 1998 "Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said, 'After 1968? No.'" Dallas Morning News, 11/03/2000 [before 1968, Bush was arrested for theft and vandalism in college.] 4. Bush Lied On 'Meet The Press', 11/21/99 Tim Russert: "If someone came to you and said, 'Governor, I'm sorry, I'm going to go public with some information.' What do you do?" Bush: "If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning." 5. Bush Lied to CBS, 1999. "Bush has often acknowledged past mistakes, but CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports that in a 1999 interview with CBS station WBZ in Boston, he denied there was any so-called smoking gun." CBS TV news Bush also evaded countless questions and gave Clintonesque half-truths. For example, while struggling with how to answer charges of drug abuse, he said that he would have been able to pass FBI background checks during his father's administration. But those checks include the question "Have you ever been arrested for any crime?" So either he was directly lying, or he has some Slick explanation like "I could have explained the circumstances of the arrest and still passed the FBI check." In another evasion, Bush decided to serve jury duty in 1996, during his first year as governor. On his questionairre, he simply left blank the questions about prior arrests and trials. Then he found himself on a trial for drunk driving, where every juror is eventually asked about prior convictions for drunk driving. The night before the trial, Bush's lawyer asked the defense attorney to dismiss him, because "it would be improper for a governor to sit on a criminal case in which he could later be asked to grant clemency." It's a silly argument, because that problem exists with any criminal trial and Bush had already decided to serve on a jury, but the defense attorney obliged and excused him before direct questioning of jurors began. Bush now justifies covering up his arrest "to be a good role model for his daughters." How does he figure that? Lying to cover up your crimes is not what I call being a good role model. Taking responsibility for your actions, admitting fault honestly and warning people of the consequences you suffered, THAT would be a good example. But Bush prefers the Clinton route of bald-faced lying, then blaming your enemies and the press when you get caught. Bush is now the first person to be elected president after being convicted of a crime. Bush had several other drunken incidents, as well. In December, 1972, Bush challenged his dad (the ex-president) to a fist fight, during an argument about Bush's drunk driving. He had taken his little brother out drinking, and ran over a neighbor's garbage cans on the way home. Bush's atypical public service job, working with inner city Houston kids, appears to have been an unofficial community service stint set up by Bush, Sr. Apparently the governor didn't learn his lesson, because his drunk driving conviction occured almost four years later. In another incident, he started screaming obscenities at a Wall Street Journal reporter, just because that reporter predicted that Bush's father would not be the 1988 Republican nominee. The reporter obviously was wrong, but a drunken Bush Jr. walked up to him at a restaurant and started yelling "You f***ing son of a b****. I won't forget what you said and you're going to pay a price for it." In fact, Bush' running mate Dick Cheney now admits he had two drunk driving offenses in 1962 and 1963, giving the Bush -- Cheney ticket a new world record of 3 DUI's on one ticket. No wonder they seem so relaxed. The conviction is bad enough, but the real question is, what other revelations are going to come later, about his drug use (which he won't deny), failing to show up for a year of his National Guard service, or sexual escapades in his swinging single days? There is evidence that Bush has more to hide involving his Texas driving record. Soon after he became governor, he had a new driver's license issued with the unusual ID number of "000000005", an action that destroyed the records of his previous license. His staff could only say, weakly, that this was done for "security reasons" but there is no record of any previous Texas governor having done so. Now we have at least of hint of why Bush wanted his records obscured, and a dark foreboding that more might be lurking, still covered up.

Any guy in America would lie at first when asked if he cheated on his wife. I don't care if he's the President. he's still human. The fact that he was cheating on his wife should never have been a court matter anyways--except maybe divorce court.

Are you saying that by comparison, George W. (the cokehead and drunk) sets a good example for the people of the USA?

Urbina wants way too much money, and I wouldn't touch Mesa with a 10-ft pole. Mesa's really never been that good. I'd certainly take a shot at any of those other guys on your list--especially Sauerbeck. Wasn't it only a couple years back that he had the best batting average-against vs. lefties in the league? I thought it was him, I could be wrong though.

To answer your (rhetorical?) question-- Bush. A guy's private life is his private life, and if Clinton chooses to cheat on his wife he may be an embarrassment to his family, but that's none of my business. As far as representing our nation goes--nobody in Europe or Asia or Antarctica gave a rat's ass that Clinton had a mistress. Would you consider John F Kennedy an embarrassment, Nuke?

Some interesting points, baggio, for sure. However, I'd like to see if Robert Sherman and his atheists get "equal access" to these funds, along with Buddhists, or Hindus et al. And, I don't see how allowing TAXPAYER-funded groups to hire discrimiately based on religious beliefs is anything other than a violation of what the founding fathers intended. There are some violations of church and state that I certainly don't agree with, i.e. the phrase on our money, the swearing on the bible, etc. But everyone must choose their battles, and I choose the ones that are taking my tax dollars and spending them in a way I greatly disprove of. Money is going to get minted, so what do I care what the wordage is? I don't like it, but it really doesn't affect anything.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the problems of inner city families and the inner city in general have nothing to do with people not understanding how to make a marriage work. If you're a minority, coming from a split home where the dad was a drunk and the mom lived off welfare, went to a crappy school, with no role models, no guidance, no hope, there is no marriage or family seminar in existence that is going to do anything more than temporarily mask a much deeper problem.

When "Homes" become "Broken Homes", it is due to a number of different circumstances, one of which is NOT the lack of marriage education courses. Try drug use, lack of employment, neglected-in-childhood-turns-into-bad-husband/wife/parent-later-in-life. This money, if allocated, would be one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in the history of America. A f***ing band-aid solution to a problem he knows nothing about--what an arrogant prick.

HAHA! Good one! Seriously though, I've never been this riled up over a political figure in my life. He's an arrogant, ignorant moron who has no business running the engine of the free world. He's a goddamned embarrassment.

Now this jackass thinks he can just toss aside the principles this country was initially built upon? The Europeans are right--this guy is an idiot. Bush Makes Appeal on Faith-Based Programs NEW ORLEANS -- President Bush said Thursday the "miracle of salvation" is the key to solving some of societies most intractable problems as he sought increased support among black voters with a renewed push for his plan to let religious charities in on more federal spending. Bush used himself as an example of the good that religion can do, referencing his own decision to stop drinking at age 40 "because I changed my heart." "My attitude is, the government should not fear faith-based programs -- we ought to welcome faith-based programs and we ought to fund faith-based programs," he said from the pulpit of the packed Union Bethel A.M.E Church in a run-down, crime-plagued neighborhood near this city's downtown. "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that." On a sweep through the South that had him spending Thursday in Louisiana and Georgia, two states he won handily in 2000, Bush also was marking the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday with a wreath-laying at the late civil rights leader's crypt in Atlanta -- a visit that has drawn protests from local King supporters. In addition, the president appeared at a luncheon at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, where protesters shouted outside, and later was headed to an evening reception at an Atlanta hotel for a second fund-raiser that would bring his day's total take to $2.3 million for his already bulging campaign account. In Atlanta, Bush was to be introduced by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, a conservative who was courted by the campaign after he announced his support last year for the president's re-election. At Union Bethel, in a speech laced with religious references -- and at a meeting with community leaders -- Bush promoted his desire to open more federal spending on social programs to religious groups. He said he church's many efforts -- such as feeding the homeless, teaching neighborhood children karate and running a day-care center -- are a perfect example of the kind of programs the federal government should fund. "Problems that face our society are oftentimes problems that, you know, require something greater than just a government program or a government counselor to solve," he said. "Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to solve, can be solved. There is the miracle of salvation that is real, that is tangible, that is available for all to see." Bush has sought legislation to give religious groups access to federal funds as long as their services are available to anyone, but without requiring them to make fundamental changes. The proposal got a cold reception in Congress, and lawmakers put forward instead a package of tax incentives for charitable giving. While that measure awaits approval, Bush has used executive orders and new regulations to remove many of the barriers -- such as being required to ban all religious activities and adjust hiring practices -- that have kept religious groups from competing for federal grants. Bush announced Thursday that the Justice Department has finalized just such regulations affecting $3.7 billion in funding, primarily for programs that help crime victims, prevent child victimization and promote safe schools. Some opponents of the policy fear the government will wind up paying to support religion. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Bush is trying to overturn two centuries of church-state separation required by the Constitution and institute "taxpayer-subsidized job discrimination" by allowing taxpayer-funded groups to hire and fire based on religious belief. For Bush, the issue is aimed at appealing to two important constituencies: religious conservatives, who make up his base of support, and black voters, only 9 percent of whom supported him in 2000. Indeed, Bush almost always chooses black churches in poor neighborhoods as the setting to talk about his initiative. In Atlanta, the president's visit to mark King's 75th birthday, four days before the federal holiday, has upset some civil rights leaders. They say the president's politics and poor scheduling conflict with their plans to honor King. State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said Bush's policies on the Iraq war, affirmative action and social service funding have been "in direct contradiction to the King legacy." "It's wonderful to come lay a wreath, but there must be a commitment beyond laying the wreath," Brooks said. Officials at The King Center said they extended no formal invitation to Bush but agreed to the plans when the White House said he was coming. "It's important for our country to honor his life and what he stood for," Bush said at the New Orleans church.

Kids spend more waking hours in school than they do at home, and I'm not saying they spend all their time at parks/schools. My point was you can't take people living in the ghetto, with garbage resources, garbage opportunities, garbage influences, and expect them to break out of it courtesy of some half-assed "interpersonal relations" classes. You can't seriously believe a program like that would have ANY effect at all on the state of things, can you? We are obviously not spending enough on things like parks, schools, et al, and you'd see that if you spent any time in any large city. I'm not saying shut down other programs, but spending billions on Mars and more billions on "promoting" marriage does not strike me as "addressing multiple problems from multiple directions." The abundance of which you speak is obviously not being spread out evenly, and if that isn't the purpose of government, then I don't know what is. I agree that poverty/unemploiyment adversly affects the family, and I agree that single moms have lower standards of living after a divorce, and that again illustrates why government should be spending money on "foundational" programs, so these people have something to fall back on(like a degree maybe) if their marriage fails--or give them a reason to think they don't have to get married out of fear they'll be left with no way to fend for themselves. Provide for the individual to be self-sufficient, and healthy relationships and communities can grow from that. Housing projects haven't worked, welfare hasn't worked, and neither will "interpersonal relations" programs.

Alex Brown has nowhere near Leonard Little speed to be that type of pass rusher. I think that I agree it really depends on who the coordinators are. If it's Fairchild or Linehan, then I like it because both those guys have shown that they can design offenses that can move the ball and score against NFL defenses. Shoop's system wouldn't have worked with any personnel--I've seen high school offenses that created more confusion.

If Bush was so f***ing concerned about the stability of the "lower-classes," then why not pour that $1.5 billion into proper education and facilities at the ground level--schools, after-school programs, etc.? Does he really think that, after a lifetime of learning the "wrong way" people will be able to sustain a happy marriage after some bulls*** marriage course at the YMCA? Give me a f***ing break, it's an insult to anyone with half a brain. Why not provide these lower-class children with a more stable environment to grow in? Spend money on improving neighborhoods, more educational programs, better park district programs, little league/softball programs, etc. Give these people an overall better life experience, and they won't have as many problems with "interpersonal relations." Give them the resources and attention necessary to build a solid base for their lives, and THEN they can propegate a healthy family environment. Or, if they choose not to, then they can help in the raising of the community's children--coaches, teachers, volunteers, etc. You think only married people have f***ing influence over a kid's life? Bush and friends can't see the forest for the trees. f*** him, f*** Cheney and all the aloof silver-spoon ignoramuses--SEND THEM ALL TO f***ING MARS! Even for Republicans--a vote for Bush/Cheney is a vote against human decency and equality.

Yes, I keep him in an old ice cream freezer in my garage.

I used it, and it worked

Er, not exactly. I.E.--Braves, Mets and Rangers.

Well, here's my .02 on the issue, and let me preface this by saying I mean no offense to any "believers" on this site, nor do I claim to have any indisputable proof that I am right and religious folk are wrong. This is just how I honestly view things. 1) I believe that ALL organized religions are folklore and great storytelling, which were twisted by some clever folk into a means for exerting power over as many people as they could draw in. Nothing non-natural has been responsible for the killing of more innocent people over time than religion. 2) I believe that-- just as we giggle at the thought of worshipping cats, or trees, or bugs-- future generations will shake their heads at the concept of worshipping Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, et al. 3) I believe that something more powerful created the earth and put us here, but I think something that awesome would have better things to do than create a planet full of people, tell them good=salvation, bad=hell, then make it so difficult to be good that, by religious text standards, about 99% of people fail at it. 4) I believe that at some point the country stepped over the line separating church and state. If a religion deems marriage to be a man and woman only, then that's their right, but then the state shouldn't have butted in with tax laws, divorce laws, et al pertaining to marriage. Once this occured, any legislation to deny these same rights to gay people makes me sick and goes against everything this country was founded to protect. Rant over, back to work........

Jim -- Great stuff there on Schaller's and the Pit. I have heard that Schaller's is the "unofficial" oldest pub, but I think there a few other places that can challenge them, and nobody seems to be able to prove who is right.(I think one is Glascott's, and some place in Canaryville another.) Brewing/bars in Chicago have a fascinating history, even for those who don't drink.

Love the List Jim! However, as an amateur Chicago Historian, I must take umbrage with your designation of Schaller's as the "oldest Saloon in Chicago." While many bars lay claim to this distinction, it is the Berghoff, originally opened as a beer garden in 1893, that holds Chicago Liquor License #1. Moment of silence for the Hickory Pit?

The line should be drawn at the point where what is being observed is too much for a child to handle.(And that line can be moved. 50 years ago, it might have been at 20, now down to what, 14?) There is no reason a child shouldn't be able to handle seeing a naked human body (of either gender) so long as the person in question isn't doing something that a kid isn't ready to deal with. Would you let an 8-year old see Michaelangelo's David? I think so, so what is the difference between that and seeing a naked guy walking down the street? Robert Mapplethorpe art? Maybe when he/she's is older. And the moral argument is something different than discussing whether or not citizens' tax dollars are being wasted by arresting/prosecuting guys like this. If I were a cop, I wouldn't waste one second of my shift attending to so-called "crimes." Let the guy walk from coast-to-coast in the buff, who friggin' cares?

For whatever reason, the Orioles are using the Texas Rangers as a model of how to build a baseball team. Nice pitching staff, you're still a 4th place team.

How about Eric Owens, Todd Zeile and Turk Wendell? or maybe............................................................................................... ........ Greg Norton, Rick White and McKay Christansen??????????

Steff, do you belong to some kind of "Sex Crimes Daily" email list?

Yeah, true in 1950. I do ALL the cooking in my household--my girlfriend couldn't make scrambled eggs without a 3-week course--and I do at least half of the cleaning, if not more.

These laws, in any country, are some of the most ridiculous on record. People need to stop being so goddamned petty. It's a naked guy walking--who the f*** cares? If you really think children would become permanently scarred by seeing a penis or testicles, then you're probably too repressed and uncomfortable with your own sexuality anyways to properly address any questions a child might have upon seeing aforementioned genitalia. I'm not saying let 6 year olds watch porn, but supporting the theory that the human body in and of itself has parts that are "naughty" and need to, BY LAW, remain covered is really antiquated and irresponsible.