Shotgun Approach to Posting

[ATTORNEY GENERAL] ALBERTO GONZALES: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme --

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by --

Is this better or worse than the time then-head of National Security and current-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted that she didn't know what a "warning" was? You know, I don't care what the context, and I don't care if Democrats could or would do better; this Administration is ran and staffed by liars, charlatans, and power-mad cocksuckers. There was, as I'm sure we're all aware, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution an argument for the need of a specific list of guaranteed rights of citizens; in light of this concern the Bill of Rights was added. At the same time, there was criticism of that argument in that listing guaranteed rights allowed for an argument that those were the only guaranteed rights. This criticism was somewhat mollified by the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment, protecting rights that weren't specifically listed. That criticism was founded partially in the idea that guaranteeing particular rights wasn't necessary because the Constitution didn't grant anyone the power to take away any rights of the citizens, demonstrating a shocking lack of foresight. Granted, had our founding fathers predicted the brazen and shameless emperial posturing of our current adminstration, I'm pretty sure they would have written a longer and far more comprehensive document. Or taken up alcoholism.

Moving on to the somehow-more absurd: entirely too many sports pundits are predicting an Indianapolis Colts victory over the New England Patriots in today's AFC Conference Championship game. These two clubs have faced each other twice in the playoffs over the last four seasons with the Patriots coming out on top both times. Obviously, with the parity of the NFL owing to the constant shuffling of players from team to team, rarely is a team's roster the same for an entire course of four seasons. Rarely is the head coach even a constant over that period of time. Accordingly, these two teams are not the exact same teams that faced each other three years ago. But the key personnel are still there: Peyton Manning, Rodney Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, Dwight Freeney and coach Tony Dungy for the Colts; Tom Brady, Corey Dillon, Troy Brown, Tedy Bruschi and coach Bill Belichick for the Patriots. And there are other bit players, but those are the ones of note with one exception: Adam Vinatieri, the uber-clutch super-kicker who won two Super Bowls with last-second field goals and provided the margin-of-victory for a third Super Bowl for the Patriots now plays for the Colts.

From every angle, the Patriots, the first NFL dynasty of the 21st century, are on the decline. A receiving corps of underachievers save for Troy Brown, a relatively inexperienced offensive line, a slow, aging and injured defense. Nothing like the powerhouse which previously won three Super Bowls in four years. On the other side, you have Peyton Manning in another statistically stellar season, the usual Pro Bowl-caliber receivers, two running backs performing admirably in replacement of workhorse now-Arizona Cardinal Edgerrin James and a defense which has held up far better in the first two weeks of the playoffs than they did in the regular season. So why not pick the Colts to win?

In seven winning seasons since Manning's arrival, including five straight, with Manning surrounded by a cast of players that have allowed Manning to put up record-breaking regular season statistics and have him well on his way to numerous career records, the Colts have yet to make it to the Super Bowl. The Colts' first three playoff appearances were one-and-done. The Manning-era Colts' first playoff win was followed by their second. That was followed by the first loss to Brady and the Patriots in the 2003 AFC Championship game. The next two seasons ended at the Divisional playoff level.

Aside from the 1997 SEC Championship game in which Manning led Tennessee to a victory over Auburn, Manning has shown little aptitude in high-pressure situations. Manning and Tennessee followed the SEC Championship with a terrible performance against Nebraska in the Orange Bowl (technically considered the Bowl Alliance Championship game and a victory could have led to a shared or outright National Championship, depending on the outcome of the later Michigan-Washington State Rose Bowl.) Manning-led Tennessee was unable to beat bitter rival Florida in four tries. Manning's first three playoff appearances were first-game losses; at home against Steve McNair's Titans, in Miami against Jay Fiedler's Dolphins, and in New Jersey against Chad Pennington's Jets. The Jets, which held Manning scoreless, would later be obliterated by Rich Gannon's Oakland Raiders. Recent losses were the aforementioned games against the Patriots and last year's loss to eventual-champion Steelers.

In that context, even disregarding Brady and Belichick's successes both against Indianapolis and the rest of the league, which previously came with questionable surrounding casts much like but truly not as presumably weak as this team, how can you possibly pick a Peyton Manning-led team to win? If the Colts win, then hey, you can say "I told you so," but with credibility on the line, you can't and you shouldn't pick the Colts.

And even more absurd than the last two items has been the widespread denial by the pundits of Manning's big-game ineptitude.

Finally, at the bottom of the fucking absurd barrel, a Georgian woman is appealing a court review of a school board decision not to remove the Harry Potter series of books from school libraries. Laura Mallory believes that the Potter series promotes witchcraft; her original complaint was dismissed by the school board because, well, they said "the books are tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination," but I'm guessing that was a polite way of saying the bitch is crazy. A court of non-lunatics agreed with the school board, so she's wasting taxpayer's money and the court's time with an appeal because, "after much prayer and consideration" God gave "significant answers" regarding his opinion on this case. I guess if you're fucking dumb enough to believe that witchcraft is a legitimate concern then you're fucking dumb enough to believe God talks to you and also has a shitty understanding of the American legal system.

(With apologies to Jak D. for the title.)