It might not have been the greatest idea for the Opie and Anthony show to put Donald Rumsfeld and Louis C.K. on the air at the same time, but at very least, we've learned that anonymous people buy Donald Rumsfeld dinner sometimes, that he won't address the idea of trading France for the freedom of the world, he's never shot at someone, but he's been shot at, and that he is unwilling to deny that he's a baby eating lizard.

[Daily What]

Tessa Muggeridge of Cronkite News Service has details:

Following an hour of heated debate, the state House gave preliminary approval Monday to a bill that would ban abortions sought because of the fetus’ race or sex.

The measure, authored by Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, would require doctors performing abortions to sign affidavits stating that the reason for the abortion isn’t the fetus’ race or sex. It would allow the father, if married to the woman who gets an abortion, to sue the doctor if he believes the doctor knowingly performed it based on the race or sex. If the mother isn’t 18, the maternal grandparents would be able to sue.

Montenegro called race- and sex-selection abortions a violation of human rights, saying these abortions are often grisly, late-term surgeries. Democrats questioned whether such abortions are happening in the state, while Republicans said the measure would help end discrimination against unborn children.

So I realize America isn’t ready for breast-milk ice cream, but this quote about the London restaurant that serves it is pure gold:

"Some people will hear about it and go yuck - but actually it's pure organic, free-range and totally natural."

This bit from the mother who provides the milk isn't bad, either:

Mrs Hiley, who gets £15 for every 10 ounces of milk she donates to the company, said it was a great "recession beater."

"What's the harm in using my assets for a bit of extra cash?" she added

The fact that the ice cream is called “Baby Gaga” is also a stroke of comedic genius.

You can read the rest of the story here.

University presidents and the Arizona Board of Regents oppose SB 1467. TW intern Jazmine Woodberry tells The Range:

UA President Robert Shelton doesn’t want to see guns on campus.

“I get my information from UAPD (the University Of Arizona Police Department), TPD (Tucson Police Department) and talking with colleges around the country,” said Shelton. “All of them, to a person, man, woman or child, say this bill, this opportunity to carry firearms on campus would create some serious hazards.”

Shelton said the classroom doesn’t qualify as a proper venue for firearms.

Arizona State University President Michael Crow was blunt when he spoke before the Arizona Board of Regents at their February meeting: "There is no other function for those devices other than to kill the person who is at the other end of their use.”

Robert Rosinski, a civil-engineering sophomore and president of Students for the Second Amendment, says the administration is overreacting to the idea of guns on campus.

"They aren't evil dragons," he says. "They are hunks of metal that shoot bullets."

“We're not going to have people running around shooting people," Rosinski adds. "People are more comfortable having the opportunity to decide their own fate.”

Details on the legislation here.

• flickr

I'm not one for awards shows. They're long and self-important and they almost always fail to live up to hype. So, basically, they're like sports, which I do love. But with sports, you get people running around.

This year's Academy Awards seem bland on paper. The hosts are ubiquitous renaissance man James Franco and the perky breasts of Anne Hathaway. Everyone knows the Oscars are still the awards show, but how can those two possibly out-do Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes? Will Franco read one of his short stories? Please no. Will Anne Hathaway flash the camera? Not in a post-Janet Jackson world. As I see it, there are exactly two reasons to watch:

Owners Travis Reese and Nicole Flowers are revamping the patio behind 47 Scott and adding a patio to Scott and Co., the cocktail bar next door that specializes in interesting twists on pre-Prohibition cocktails.

Reese says the goal is to make the patio behind 47 Scott an extension of the indoor dining area by adding lighting and more shade. They’ve also leveled the space and will add more seating by the time the renovation is complete sometime this spring.

The outdoor area being added to Scott and Co. will have the same “hidden, speakeasy-ish” feel seen inside, said Reese. It will be a smoking patio, so they’re also working to increase the air flow through the area.

The only change that will take place as far as food and drink is that Scott and Co. will no longer serve coffee during off-cocktail hours. Those services wrap up tomorrow, Saturday, Feb. 26.

There’s more information about the restaurant and the cocktail bar here and here.

TPM reports the latest from Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, who apparently couldn't find it in him to condemn the idea of gunning down the president of the United States when a constituent asked him "Who's going to shot Obama?" at a town hall this week:

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said in a statement Friday that he was "stunned" when an elderly man asked what he called the "abhorrent question 'Who's going to shoot Obama?'"

"I deeply regret that this incident happened at all," Broun said in a statement. "Furthermore, I condemn all statements — made in sincerity or jest — that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated."

Broun also said his office "took action with the appropriate authorities."

Broun said that he "was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question."

But two witnesses told TPM that Broun chuckled along with the crowd when the elderly man asked the question. And a report said that Broun didn't immediately move on but rather responded to the question by stating that "there's a lot of frustration with this president."

Lauren Gambino with Cronkite News Service has more details at the East Valley Trib, including this argument from Clean Election's Todd Lang:

Lang argued against the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that seven of the eight committee members had used Clean Elections money to fund their campaigns at some point during their careers.

“The door was opened for you through Clean Elections. Don’t close the door for others,” Lang said in his testimony. “Allow other folks to run, allow other folks to get their ideas out there into the marketplace of ideas and allow other folks to join the Legislature.”

Senator Russell Pearce in the Arizona Republic on the Supreme Court's 1982 decision Plyler vs. Doe, which addressed a Texas statute that prohibited public education funding for illegal aliens:

"It's not the law of the land when a Supreme Court issues a bad decision," Pearce said. "It's to be challenged and overturned."

From Random Musings, just add this to a list of strange things that have happened in what will likely be seen as a historic and bizarre week in the Arizona Legislature. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, immigration bills proposed by Russell Pearce were having trouble getting out of committee because Sens. Adam Driggs and John McComish were siding with Democrats. So...

Given that the committee had eight members, that meant the best possible outcome for the measures was failure on a 4 - 4 tie vote. A measure needs five out of eight members to support it in order for it to go forward.

Note the use of the past tense "had" in the last sentence.

Pearce could have simply removed Driggs or McComish, or both, from the committee. That's his privilege as Senate President.

However, internal politics make such a peremptory move problematical - McComish and Driggs are both incredibly conservative and cannot be attacked as "RINOs". In addition, McComish was Pearce's chief rival for the Senate presidency, and arbitrarily removing him from a committee could smack of unwarranted retribution. Pearce's position atop the Senate pecking order, while not exactly "tenuous," is based in no small part on a promise to complete the budget before pushing through his pet anti-immigrant bills.

A promise that he has thoroughly broken.

So he has now done the next best thing - he has simply added another, more pliable, member to the committee, bringing its membership count to nine.

Wednesday, he added Sen. Scott Bundgaard to the committee without removing anyone else.

By handling things in this manner, Pearce kept the number of votes necessary to pass a bill at "five" but also was able to add a fifth reliable vote to the committee. He also was able to bring the committee back under control without appearing to be vindictive (he may, in fact, *be* vindictive, but this doesn't make him *look* that way).

So, maybe this is a little too optimistic, but at some point will the sane Republicans get sick of these tricks? What about the House? You'd think the Republican senators would be a little irritated that Pearce lied to get the President gig, but who knows?

[Random Musings/Blog for Arizona]