So… is anybody going to this, uh, Winter Ball thing? Should I buy tickets? I so haven’t been paying attention…

Looking through some of the computer files that I brought home from Connecticut last weekend, I came across a picture from 1998 or 1999 of my family — the Fleming-Loomers, Loomer-Loys, and Ashes (”Floomashoys” for short) — at my Aunt Patty’s house. When compared with the most recent Floomashoys picture (including the newest member of the family, Becky), from the wedding in Arizona, it makes a great “then and now” picture:

Man, I used to be freakin’ skinny!

Click the photos for a larger version.

By the way, for those who might remember that I promised I’d have full wedding galleries online by now… yeah… sorry about that. Two things have caused the delay: our official photographer sent us the CDs a week later than we expected, so we don’t have those pics yet; and the server isn’t ready. I’m hoping for mid-week next week.

A.J. makes a good point: as the “Internet’s #1 Katrina blog,” I really should be blogging about the tornadoes that hit New Orleans today:

Tornadoes early Thursday tore through New Orleans neighborhoods that were hit hard by Hurricane Katrina just five months earlier, collapsing at least one previously damaged house and battering the airport, authorities said.

Roofs were ripped off and utility poles came down, but no serious injuries were reported. …

Electricity was knocked out at Louis Armstrong International Airport, grounding passenger flights and leaving travelers to wait in a dimly lit terminal powered by generators. The storm also ripped off part of a concourse roof, slammed one jetway into another, and flipped motorized runway luggage carts.

“There’s more damage to the terminal than I saw during the hurricane,” airport spokeswoman Michelle Duffourc said.

NOLA has more.

In other news, Tropical Storm Cindy, which hit Louisiana on July 5 — following virtually the same path that Katrina would take less than two months later — has been posthumously upgraded to a hurricane at landfall. This brings 2005’s record-shattering hurricane count to 15. (The previous record was 12, in 1969.)

P.S. Then there’s this:

Failure to designate a single person in charge of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina led to confusion and a lack of decisive action in the aftermath of the devastating storm, congressional investigators said on Wednesday. …

A report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ watchdog agency, said neither Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff nor former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown filled a leadership role in the response to the hurricane.

The report also faulted Chertoff for waiting until a day after the storm hit and much of the Gulf Coast region was already devastated before he declared the area an event of national significance. That designation frees up federal funding and personnel to assist local officials.

Investigators said Chertoff should have designated the storm a catastrophic event [Gee, ya think?!? -ed.], which would have triggered a broader federal response.

“As a result, the federal posture generally was to wait for the affected states to request assistance,” the report said.

“In the absence of timely and decisive action and clear leadership responsibility and accountability, there were multiple chains of command, a myriad of approaches and processes for requesting and providing assistance and confusion about who should be advised of requests.”

GAO Comptroller General David Walker said at a news conference that in the future, the president needs to designate a single individual to take charge and cut through the bureaucratic red tape.

He said a similar recommendation made by GAO more than a decade ago after Hurricane Andrew went unheeded.

The same article quotes Mayor Ray Nagin as saying that New Orleans will be “pretty well protected by the next hurricane season.” Well, that’s reassuring.

Anyway, here’s the PDF file of the full GAO report. A Congressional report will follow in the coming weeks. (Hat tip: A Nun Mouse.)

UPDATE: The Star-Ledger reports:

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke attacked the GAO’s preliminary report as “premature and unprofessional.” He called it incomplete, filled with “obvious errors” and displaying “a significant misunderstanding of core aspects of the Katrina response.”

(Hat tip: Lojo, who has more.)

In an upset, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio has been elected House Majority Leader, defeating Acting Majority Leader (and former Tom DeLay deputy) Roy Blunt.

[Heh heh… you said “Boehner.” -Beavis]

[Heh heh… you said “Blunt.” –Butthead]

John Shadegg of Arizona, whose conservative bona fides and squeaky-clean reputation made him the blogosphere’s preferred choice, was eliminated on the first ballot. Oh, well.

And another one…

(Photo by Dane Lindberg)

That’s Bea and Andrew, of frequent commenter and California Republican fame.

I’ve been feeling like something is missing from the blog, and I suddenly realized what it is: caption contests! We haven’t had one for like a week. Well, here goes…

That’s me and Josh (fellow blogger, commenter and friend from high school) dancing, with Bea and Chris P. (from ND) in the background.

In what is clearly the most advanced weather forecasting tool available to modern man, Punxsutawney Phil has predicted six more weeks of winter. One would hope so, as this January (warmest on record for the mid-Atlantic states) has totally ruined my ski season. :)

The history of Groundhog Day is apparently based in German/Christian superstition: if a hibernating animal casts a shadow on February 2 (Candlemas) winter will last another six weeks, but otherwise, spring will arrive early.

(How this affects the angle of the earth toward the sun is beyond me, but whatever. :) )

Posted by Brian (Briandot)

Hey everybody… please take Dane’s blog-reader survey! (I’m highlighting it here because it’s rapidly scrolling down the page. :)

Reports from the right-wing website WorldNetDaily should always be taken with several grains of salt (more on that below), but this particular report is sensational and specific enough that I thought it was worthy of a mention:

There is a high likelihood of a major terrorist attack next Sunday, say international terror analysts and intelligence sources.

The warning is made on the basis of several factors, according to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin:

* There is increased “chatter” in the terrorist world about a major new attack in the West — a sign often leading to an impending strike;

* The date Feb. 5 has been specifically referenced in some of this chatter;

* The date is significant to Osama bin Laden;

* Much of the western world will be watching television that day;

* The release of al-Qaida videotapes seems to provide clues about the dates of future attacks and, in this scenario, Feb. 5 becomes the most likely near-term terror strike date.

Terror attacks seem to follow the release of al-Qaida videos by about 30 days. … Zawahiri released his last video Jan. 6, making Feb. 5 the most likely target date, according to past attacks. Some analysts suggest the release of communiqués by both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden might be the precursor to a mega-attack — something even rivaling Sept. 11 in scope and devastation. …

Zawahiri, bin Laden’s right-hand man, who narrowly escaped death in the Pakistani missile attack weeks ago, seems to release videos in pairs. After the release of the second video, within 30 days a major event occurs.

For instance:

* release dates of Sept. 9 and Nov. 9, 2004, were the first set of videos, followed by the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, bombings Dec. 6.

* release dates of Feb. 20 and June 26, 2005, were followed by the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

* release dates of Aug. 4 and Sept. 1, 2005, were followed by the Bali bombings Oct. 1, 2005.

The next set started Oct. 23, 2005, and on Jan. 6, the second video followed.

That, suggests some analysts, makes Feb. 5 a likely target date. Interestingly, it is also a significant date to bin Laden. Feb. 5, 1989, was the day the last Soviet troops withdrew from Kabul, Afghanistan, signaling their defeat at the hand of the mujahedeen. Kabul was the capital of Osama’s adopted country and was a major win for him and Islam. Significantly, perhaps, in bin Laden’s audio release he referenced the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also happens to be Super Bowl Sunday, when the eyes of the entire world will be watching America.

Authorities in Detroit, where the Super Bowl will be played, are certainly taking the threat of terrorism seriously. According to the FBI and Detroit police, the game will be the focal point of one of the largest security operations in U.S. history, guarding against any threats to Super Bowl XL and aided by more than 50 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Including private security guards, there will be about 10,000 security personnel on duty, more than for any other one-day event in U.S. history. Radiation detectors will be stationed near the stadium. SWAT teams, bomb removal and other specialized law enforcement officials will be on hand.

Despite the recent taped messages, authorities say there are “no credible threats against the Super Bowl.”

Personally, although the 30-day business is interesting, I’d like to hear some elaboration on the statement that “the date Feb. 5 has been specifically referenced in some of this chatter.” Is that really true? Where is Farah getting this information from? Has this been confirmed by multiple sources?

Anyway… above, I mentioned taking Farah’s reports with “several grains of salt.” Here are a few that I found via Technorati:

Grain of salt #1: “Keep in mind [WorldNetDaily] also predicted a suitcase nuke attack last year.” [And I blogged it… although I concluded that “Farah is very probably wrong.” -ed.]

Grain of salt #2: “And remember, we didn’t see this [30-day videotape warning] pattern before either attack on the World Trade Center.”

Grain of salt #3: “Of course, he DOESN’T mention all the tapes that were released WITHOUT an attack 30 days later.”

Grain of salt #4: “The lengths of speculation and coincidence-mongering to which WorldNetDaily has to resort to imply that we should be worried about a major terror attack on the Super Bowl convince me that nothing is going to happen.”

Grain of salt #5: “We’ve heard about increased security before every major sporting event over the past few years. … I’m just not sure this is anything different than we always hear. I mean are these guys going to attack an event with such an overwhelming security presence?”

On the other hand, #5 then adds: “Or would they attack somewhere else in the country while everyone is focused there? Obviously the security force is always needed, at the very least as a deter[rent], but I think the FBI should be looking at the rest of the country too, if these ‘high chatter’ reports are of any real concern.” That seems right to me.

And then there’s this:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command on Thursday practiced its plan to protect Detroit’s Ford Field from an air attack on Super Bowl Sunday…

Hundreds of people, including controllers, fighter pilots, an E-3 Airborne Early Warning and Control System aircraft, several civilian aircraft and air refueling tankers took part in the exercise.

(Hat tip: A.W. Griffin.) Heightened concern about a possible attack, or same old, same old? We report, you decide.

P.P.S. Then there are the conspiracy theories.

She shoots, she scores! And scores! And scores! And scores!

Epiphanny Prince of Murry Bergtraum High School scored 113 points in a game Wednesday, breaking a national prep record previously held by Hall of Famer Cheryl Miller.

Prince, a 5-foot-9 senior guard, led her team to a 137-32 victory over Brandeis High School. …

Prince had 58 points at halftime for the Lady Blazers, ranked No. 2 in the nation by USA Today.

“At the half, we thought she had a chance to break the record so we just let her go,” coach Ed Grezinsky said.

Miller scored 105 points for Riverside Poly in California against Riverside Norte Vista in 1982. She went on to become an All-American at USC.

“It’s an amazing thing when an individual does that,” said Cavaliers star LeBron James, who was told about Prince’s performance Wednesday night after Cleveland beat New Jersey. “I don’t know who she is, but maybe we’ll see her in the WNBA. For that matter, the NBA.”

She’s going to Rutgers next year. Whether she is then drafted by the Nets, I guess we’ll just have to wait to find out. :)

“Mini Me, stop humping the laser. Maybe you and the laser should go get a freakin room.”

The West’s showdown with Iran seems to be intensifying with each passing day.

Capitol police have dropped all charges and apologized after kicking out two t-shirt-wearing State of the Union attendees last night.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was wearing a t-shirt that said, “2245 Dead. How many more?”; Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom.” Both were asked to leave. Sheehan was handcuffed and arrested after, according to some reports, she refused to leave. (She denies this.) Young left voluntarily, according to all the reports I’ve seen, though she had an argument with the police in the hallway after leaving the gallery.

The officers “were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,” Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley said of the Sheehan incident. “…[W]earing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested.”

Personally, I have no problem with the charges being dropped, but I’m somewhat disappointed in the apologies, because now that everybody knows it’s apparently okay to wear t-shirts to the State of the Union, I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, leading to a general decline in decorum. I’m inclined to agree with blogger Cam Edwards, who wrote before the police apologized:

Who the heck wears a t-shirt to the State of the Union address anyway? Isn’t there some sort of dress code? … [T]he State of the Union address was neither the time nor the place to do what [the shirt-wearers] did. Throw the t-shirt in your purse, and put it on after the speech is over and you’re outside mingling with the protestors.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

I don’t know about you, but I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my State of the Unions dignified. (Hat tip: Homer Simpson.) I’d rather not see the very serious and important event* of the president’s annual address to Congress devolve into a reality TV show where people compete for the cameras’ attention with ever more gaudy, controversial and/or inappropriate t-shirts.

“But this is America!” you protest. “Don’t we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?” Yes — but there are lots of good opportunities to do that, and even get media attention for it, as Cindy Sheehan has proven. You needn’t, and you shouldn’t, violate the basic rules of etiquette that govern events like the State of the Union. It’s unseemly, undignified, and unnecessary to get your point across.

“But what about the First Amendment?” you cry. Well, on its face, a content-neutral dress code for the State of the Union address — requiring business attire and/or barring shirts with printed messages on them — seems like a classic time, place and manner restriction, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. As Al Maviva says:

I’ll defend to the death your right to grow your white boy dreadlocks and march around in sloganed T-shirts and with signs on the Capitol steps, but your right to do that ends at the Capitol’s front door. Or the Supreme Court’s front door, for that matter. As much as I’d like to see Fred Phelps, Ralph Neas and Ralph Reed in a screaming and bloody Steel Cage Death Match (comple[te] with folding chairs and strippers) on the floor of the House during a SOTU, it’s not appropriate, and giving people the right to stage political theater would invite further disorder into the shambles of a legislative process we now have.

Heh.

I’m not certain whether Ms. Hanley’s statement that “wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery” is based on a court interpretation of the First Amendment or merely a policy decision by the Capitol police. If it’s the former, I’m predisposed to disagree with the ruling, but I’d have to read it to be sure; I certainly have an open mind on the issue, and perhaps I’m forgetting some key principle from Professor Garnett’s class that would change my opinion. If it’s the latter, a mere policy, then I for one would support a change of policy.

I’ll freely admit, however, that the Republic will not crumble to its foundations if my policy preference is not followed. It would be nice to see similar honesty coming from the other side, where phrases like “police state” and “Gestapo” are predictably, but reprehensibly, being thrown around. Riiight… the Capitol police ejected two people for wearing t-shirts — one pro-war and one anti-war — and therefore we’re living in a police state run by fascist Nazi pigs. Jeez.

“I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go?” Cindy Sheehan asks. To which I would respond: your son’s death is indeed a tragedy, and you have my sincerest condolences for that. But as for America, it’s still here, as strong as ever, thanks in no small measure to the sacrifices of heroes like your son. And as for your First Amendment rights… you still have them, and are exercising them quite freely, so far as I can tell. For which I commend you, by the way, even though I disagree with practically everything you say. Were your free-speech rights actually threatened, I would defend them with every fibre of my being, you crazy moonbat. But time, place and manner restrictions, properly implemented and properly enforced, are not a legitimate threat to those rights.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s a reason I say “properly implemented and properly enforced.” I often agree with those who complain that protesters’ activities are unduly restricted by overzealous officials who confine them to “protest zones” miles away from the cameras and dignitaries. There is a real need for security restrictions, of course, but that legitimate justification is often used as an excuse to completely isolate protesters from the events they are protesting, a perversion of the First Amendment carried out under the guise of “time, place and manner.” I would like to see the courts step in and force the authorities to be more reasonable about such things.

But I draw the line at protesting inside the Capitol during a presidential address. I mean, c’mon. I realize it’s the “People’s House,” but there is, as Cam Edwards said, a time and a place to wear t-shirts with political slogans, and the State of the Union address is not it. I sincerely hope social opprobrium will step in where the law apparently fears to tread, and prevent t-shirt-wearing protesters from ruining the decorum of the State of the Union in future years.

*No comments from the peanut gallery, please, on the irony of me describing the State of the Union as a “very serious and important event” after playing a State of the Union drinking game last night. :)

P.S. One other thing. There’s been a good deal of debate over whether, even if the police had the right to ask Sheehan to leave, they overreacted by actually arresting and handcuffing her. The answer, in my view, depends on which account of Sheehan’s behavior is correct: Sheehan’s, or the police’s. Sheehan says she was “roughly” escorted out of the gallery, immediately after taking off her jacket, without being given an opportunity to leave voluntarily, let alone cover up her shirt. Capitol Police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider says, according to an AP paraphrase, that the officer(s) “warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond,” and then she was arrested.

If Sheehan is telling the truth, then the police’s actions were obviously unjustifiable; clearly, they should have given her the opportunity to “cover up” or leave voluntarily. If, however, the police’s account is correct, that’s a whole different matter. If a police officer asks you to do something and you don’t comply, of course you’re going to be arrested, and most likely handcuffed. That’s neither surprising nor outrageous. Now, the police say in retrospect that the officer didn’t have the right to ask her what he asked her, so apparently his whole action was unjustified no matter what. But the idea that it’s somehow doubly outrageous because they arrested her, rather than merely “escorting her out,” is only accurate if her account is correct, i.e., if she wasn’t being obstinate and non-compliant.

As far as I’m concerned, neither the police nor Cindy Sheehan (nor the AP, for that matter) are necessarily entitled to a presumption of verity on matters such as this, so I really don’t know who to believe. I’d love to hear from any eyewitnesses who saw what actually happened. I wonder if we will.

UPDATE: Here’s a photo, and analysis thereof, suggesting that Sheehan’s account may not be precisely accurate:

Yep, there’s her being “roughly hauled out of her seat” and “shov[ed] up the stairs” with “[her] hands behind [her] back,” with enough force to leave “bruises” and “spasms.” Except that, as you can see, the man leading her up the stairs has one hand on her upper arm. If you’ll notice closely, his thumb is not even wrapped around the front side of Saint Cindy’s arm, which it would have to be if he were applying any grip pressure at all. Oh yeah, and the only arm we can see? It’s in front of her. The other one’s holding her jacket. Also in front of her.

Of course, a photo only captures a single moment in time, so it’s possible Sheehan’s treatment was “rougher” before or after the photo was taken. It’s also possible she is exaggerating or fabricating portions of her story in order to make herself more of a martyr. Neither that, nor police overzealousness, are by any means inconceivable, IMHO.

Make that 1-7 in the Big East, with the seven losses by a combined 23 points. (That’s an average of just over three points per game.)

West Virginia 71, Notre Dame 70. Notre Dame’s 11-game winning streak over West Virginia ends, and the Mountaineers’ extend their Big East-leading conference record to 7-0.

The Notre Dame men’s basketball team, whose 1-6 conference record includes two losses in double-overtime and the other four by an average of four points, will try to dethrone Big East leader West Virginia, currently the conference’s only undefeated team at 6-0, tonight in Morgantown.

A win over the mighty Mountaineers could be just what Notre Dame needs to begin a colossal comeback and tranform themselves from “hard-luck team of the season” into a legitimate contender. Although, far from contending for an NCAA or even NIT bid at this point, the Fighting Irish are just trying to qualify for the Big East tournament. Only the top 12 finishers in the 16-team conference go to New York, and the Irish are presently in 14th place.

The ND women’s team, for its part, won yesterday, 67-55 over Syracuse. The Irish ladies are 10th in the Big East. (Syracuse is 14th.) Notre Dame hosts last-place Providence on Saturday at 1:00 PM at the Joyce Center.