Should the NFL have a team in Los Angeles? No.

This is courtesy of Sports Illustrated.com
By Jonah Freedman

The NFL and Los Angeles? After 10 years apart, those two things go together like Wal-Mart and Rodeo Drive. If storied franchises such as the Rams and Raiders couldn't succeed in the City of Angels, why would a moribund team such as the Saints, or worse, an expansion team?

Simple fact: The Raiders and Rams aren't missed in the least. When those teams called L.A. home, their respective stadiums were half-empty nearly every game day, so real fans who couldn't afford overpriced tickets were rewarded with TV blackouts.

It's not that we Angelenos aren't NFL fans. On the contrary, we learned to watch nationally televised games between competitive teams. Ratings in the Los Angeles area haven't suffered since Georgia Frontiere packed up the Scrams and moved to St. Louis, or since Al Davis took his hoodlums back to Oakland.

Think about it: After fighting traffic 10 commutes a week, why would we choose to do it again during the weekend? We have better things to do with our Sundays. Besides which, right about the time the rest of the country is hunkering down for lousy football-season weather, Southern Californians enjoy temperatures in the 60s and 70s. Why would we waste a beach day at the run-down L.A. Memorial Coliseum? Come to think of it, that rattrap's current occupants -- the USC Trojans -- probably could beat half of the teams in the NFL anyway.

Ultimately, if you ask Angelenos to recall their favorite L.A. football memories, they likely won't say the Rams' stifling defensive line of the 1970s, or Bo Jackson's explosive 90-yard scampers during the '90s. No, our greatest hit is the one former Rams QB Jim "Don't Call Me Chris" Everett laid on Jim Rome -- in a television studio.

I have to agree. As much as I would love to have an actual home town team to root for again I do not think it would be a good situation for the team to be in Los Angeles.

Should the NFL have a team in Los Angeles? Yes.

This is courtesy of Sports Illustrated.com
By Arash Markazi

Blame it on peer pressure or simple ignorance, but if you had asked me eight years ago what I thought about not having the NFL in Los Angeles I would have shrugged my shoulders and said, "Who cares?" That's basically what I did to Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke when he came to my high school and asked our fourth-period U.S. History class what we thought about a NFL-less L.A.

"It's really great being able to watch good games on Sunday, instead of always having to watch the Rams and the Raiders," I said.

Nice answer, kiddo, but a little too simplistic.

A decade has passed and a new generation of NFL fans is growing up in L.A. without a team of its own. Sure fans can watch the games on TV, but they aren't driving to the Big A or the Coliseum to watch the Rams or the Raiders. Some of the greatest memories I had growing up in L.A. were going to Raiders games with my dad and watching Marcus Allen and Bo Jackson run over helpless defenders. It's not that L.A. doesn't love football -- look at the attendance when the Raiders and Rams were contenders and the area's TV ratings last year -- it just doesn't support losing teams with crazy owners who constantly threaten to leave.

Los Angeles doesn't need the NFL, and the NFL doesn't need Los Angeles, but it's ridiculous the two have been apart for a decade. It's inexcusable that a region with two teams in every major sport doesn't have one team from the nation's most popular league. Angelenos may be laid back, but don't mistake our cool demeanor for apathy. Deep down, we want to be sunbathing in a new stadium watching our new team play the Patriots or the Eagles on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. So just build it NFL; trust me, we'll come.

Nice answer. I do not know if I buy it, though. That town belongs to the USC Trojans, Dodgers and Lakers. The rest just kind of exist and the NFL's blackout rules leave real NFL hometown fans out in the dark.

Dems already use extraordinary circumstances

In this CNN story it shows how far the 'good faith' of the Democrats lasted. Less than one week.

The Senate voted 56-42 for cloture, four votes shy of the necessary 60 votes to cut off debate. Frist entered a motion for the Senate to reconsider the vote when senators return next month after a weeklong Memorial Day holiday break.

Uh, I told you so. Now, I understand that this is not a judicial nominee, but I guarantee that the good will was over as soon as the 3 nominees got their votes earlier this week. There is no intention by the Democrats to allow any more votes on non-radical liberal nominees.

Frist reacted angrily to Thursday's outcome, saying he was "very, very disappointed" with Democrats after starting the week on a high note with a bipartisan agreement on judicial nominees, in which it was agreed filibusters would be used only for "extraordinary circumstances."

The agreement precluded filibusters on three of Bush's judicial nominees who had been held up during his first term. (Full story)

"What America has just seen is engagement of another period of obstruction by the other side of the aisle, and it looks like we have -- once again -- another filibuster," Frist said.

This is the trial baloon for the Democrats. They want to test how far they can push the 'extraordianry circumstances' without public opinion being affected. They may even allow a vote on Bolton to occur next week. They only want to see if the public will bitch about the Democrats abusing the language of Monday's stupid agreement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, noted it was the end of May and this was "the first filibuster of the year, and may be the last."

"I hope so," Reid said. "It isn't as if we're looking for things to have extended debate on. We need to work together and I think this week has established that. But how can we work together when information is not supplied? So, I hope that we'll all slow down the rhetoric during the break."

I put this quote because I have a feeling that Reid & Co. will turn up the rhetoric over the break...and I want this quote to refer to later.

At issue, supposedly, are requests for some "documents on Syria and 10 National Security Agency intercepts that Bolton, as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control, had once requested." Why? Of what relevance to Bolton's qualifications are these documents? So, while Bolton requested documents in his position for whatever reason suddenly the Senate wants them too?

They are fishing for reasons to filibuster Bolton while gaining access to other information. Considering Reid's indiscretions about FBI files I do not think any documents need to be handed over.

"They have the information they need. This is just about resorting back to a partisan approach," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Just 72 hours after all the good will and bipartisanship, it's a shame to see the Democratic leadership resort back to a partisan approach. This is a nominee who has majority support."

There is not any reason that these requested documents are needed by the Senate Democrats. Well, except to give an excuse to claim 'extraordinary circumstances' and begin the filibustering on all nominees that prior to Monday the Democrats already claimed were extraordinary circumstances.

Pathetic.

Are all Muslims bad?

(H/T: Anti-Strib)

Tracy at Anti-Strib had a posting about why he thinks Muslims suck. He has 10 very compelling reasons to justify war against the factions that are tied to the items in his list. But there is more that needs to be said regarding the "peaceful" members of the religion.

The best way to articulate this is to take another example in recent theocratic history. In recent years the Catholic church has had a scandal regarding the sexual abuse of children. Most of the members of Christian society were outraged. They called for changes in either the leadership or the entire religion. Many/Most called for actual charges and prosecutions.

In other words many people wanted the bad seeds rooted out of their "community" for lack of a better word.

There was no room for ambivalence on this issue. You either support the removal of the bad seeds that give your organization a bad reputation or you are not for their removal/punishment. You either want the badness to be stopped and you speak against it or you excuse it/ignore it tacitly giving approval.

There is no room for grey.

That is why I have been so critical of the College Republicans National Committee leaders that have been scandalous within the organizations and their affiliates. They give the Republicans in general a bad name and should be ousted.

That brings us to the Muslims. Not all Muslims are killing Americans or Westerners. Not all Muslims are burning bibles (notice no outcry by the liberals for this one either), threatening another 9/11 regularly, were responsible for Somalia, setting off car bombs, endorse honor killings or were supportive of 9/11.

But it is the very rare Muslim that does not try to rationalize this behavior. It is the very, very rare Muslim that does not try to blame the West for all of the violence perpetrated by the "extremists". It is the very, very, very, very rare Muslim that speaks out against all of this rogues.

And sadly none of my Muslim friends fall into these categories. All of them rationalize the violence, blame the West (specifically America) and do not denounce in any unqualified manner the violence.

If it is true that these extremists do not represent the views through their actions of Muslims in general then the Muslims in general should do two things for their own sakes. First they should denounce every single act of violence unequivocally. Second they must not just speak about but act to remove the "extremists" from their religion. That is the minimum that Muslims in general must do to prevent the justification of the idea that the Muslim religion is no longer a religion of peace.

To me it is becoming more clear that the Muslim extemists are extreme only because they perform the actions that the majority of Muslims in general want done: the annihiliation of the West. Extremists get that label from the Western media, not from the Muslims themselves. It is becoming more clear that the silence (or the equivocations) actually acknowledge the support of the so-called extremists.

Just as the Republicans who know the truth about Eric Hoplin, Paul Gourley and Brian Mezanec but say nothing are as guilty as Hoplin, Gourley and Mezanec so too are the quiet or excuse-making Muslims as guilty as the "extremists".

Just as the Catholics who said nothing about the baby-raping priests are guilty in their complicity so too are the quiet or excuse-making Muslimes as guilty as the "extremists".

Just as the Americans who justified the actions of Lyndie England are guilty in supporting abhorant acts so too the Muslims who justify the "extremists" actions are guilty in their tacit support of grisly acts against humanity.

So, does that answer the question of "Are all Muslims bad"?

Terri's husband cashes in same day she dies

(H/T: Conservative Princess)

I remember when Michael Schiavo went on Larry "Softball" King and said, "There's no money, there's no insurance, there's about $50,000 left in her estate. I will not receive a penny from this."

Many of the pull-the-tubers (or Nazis -in-training as I have justifiably called them) used the fact that he was not getting any money as proof that Michael had no motive except genuine care for his beloved wife's clearly stated, undisputed wishes.

Well, that rationale no longer holds water.

It seems to be the case that Michael "I love my wife while fathering 2 bastards with another woman" Schiavo cashed out her estate on the same day of her death.

Terri died just after 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the 31st and court papers filed with Circuit Court Judge George Greer show Michael's attorneys filed the estate request just hours later.

By 1:35 p.m., Greer had ruled in Michael's favor to receive Terri's estate.

Now, I have been hard on Judge Greer. (here and here). But he has been given laurels for his professionalism. But it seems that getting the name of the deceased right is not part of professionalism.

the Empire Journal newspaper reports that Greer's estate order had one major flaw. It erroneously declared Michael Schiavo, not Terri, died that day.

"Not only have the bar associations of West Pasco, Clearwater and St. Petersburg lauded Greer for his alleged professionalism in the case, but Greer claims to be a stickler for the law," the Empire Journal wrote regarding the matter.

"However, in the Schiavo case not only couldn't Greer get the name of the decedent right, but he had the wrong date of death too," the newspaper wrote. "So much for professionalism."

So how reliable is his bench? I mean, if he could so easily botch the name of the dead person on such a high profile case how out of the realm of reasonability is it that he misread data? Ignored data?

The above quoted article also mentions that Terri's wishes were actually uncertain. Remember that Michael claimed to have recalled a conversation after watching a movie where she mentioned as an aside that she would not "want to live like that".

But her friend recalled something absolutely different.

a good friend of Terri's vividly remembers watching a television program with Terri about a woman who was in a coma for years. Terri was upset when she told a joke about the woman and said there was no way doctors or lawyers could know the woman's wishes.

"Where there is life, there is hope," Terri told her friend.

The whole issue was that with so many questions surrounding her case (why she collapsed, where did the broken bones come from, what were here actual wishes, etc) she should have been given the benefit of the doubt until all questions were answered. And as Thor said, "[The doctors in his case] were wrong every time. So, don't make that decision [to end life] from what they say."

Rowley to run for Congress?

Coleen Rowley is considering a run for Congress against John Kline in the 2nd district.

We had the pleasure of interviewing Rowley while our radio show was on KYCR. My wife also knows her personally.

My thoughts on the news: She will be another Patty Wetterling. Patty had one area of knowledge in the grand world of politics. She was pummelled because of that (and her radical left-wing positions like wanting to fight the war on terror at home).

Rowley has one area of political knowledge: intelligence. Her background may be great in coming up with initial plans about how to effectively run the FBI/CIA/DHS, but what about education or tax implications? What about...well, you all can fill in the blanks.

I would advise Coleen, as a friend, to not run. Get involved in the community and work your way up. You will realize quickly how much there is to learn still. Follow more than just civil rights issues and you will see that a narrow spectrum of viewing the world does not make a good campaign platform. You will also need to have a driving philosophy.

Running as the anti-anything is a sure loser. Just ask Bob Dole (anti-Clinton) or John Kerry (anti-Bush) or Patty Wetterling (anti-reasonability).

Strib's Take On the Filibuster Deal: Ultra-Liberal

(H/T: Anti-Strib)

The Star Tribune (riduculed nationally for having all of its polls consistently 10% track to the left of the all other polls) has made it official. They love the filibuster deal which means that is sucks for the country, sucks for Republicans and is good only for ultra-liberal hacks...like the Strib's editorial board.

Here is the link to it.

Where we start for the critique is at the end of their pap.

In their anger at the compromise, some asserted that, for Democrats, any Republican judicial nominee was an "extraordinary circumstance." That's silly; more than 200 Bush nominees, most of them Republicans, have been confirmed by the Senate; only 10 were blocked.

Uh, nice job of trying to minimize the true deed of the Senate Dems. As readers here may recall I already pointed out the misleading nature of the 'only 10 of 200' talking point.

1) Most of those preside over trials and do not do Constitutional Review. Huge difference between a judge that sits over murder or drug cases (no need to block conservatives there, really) versus a judge that rules on appeals like they do in Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court.

2) Of the 51 nominated for Appeals Courts there have 45 to make it out of Committee...Of those 45, 22% have been blocked with a filibuster. That's right, almost a quarter of the nominees have been block by a filibuster.

3) ...In other words, these 10 nominees are the first in history to be filibustered by opponents.

Did I put the Media Bias logo up already? Maybe I should put two of them on this post.

OK, let's move to the beginning of their liberal mantra.

"There's something for everyone to love and hate in the compromise that preserved the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Overall, the Democrats should be the most relieved"

Just as I have been saying as have many other spine-owning non-liberals: the filibuster deal helped only the Democrats. These stalemates in any legislative body are a zero-sum game. What one side wins the other side loses.

In the deal the Dems lose a little (3 nominees guaranteed to have an up/down vote) and gain a lot (the actual ability to again use the filibuster to block judicial nominees like never before done AND the addition of the PR advantage of blaming the GOP for breaking the agreement down the road).

In the deal the GOP gain a little (3 qualified nominees get the chance to be confirmed without their ideology being used improperly against them) and lose a lot (the PR game when the Dems again block minority nominees or non-liberal nominees, frame them as extraordinary circumstances and claim the GOP reneged on this week's deal; they get no guarantee that all nominees will get an advise & consent vote for confirmation as required by the Constitution; the status quo that they entrenched themselves to undo remains).

The Marxist Strib Editors continue:

Many Democrats and their liberal supporters are upset at this compromise. But they should review the facts: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, with only 44 members in his caucus, had assembled 49 votes to stop Majority Leader Bill Frist's rule-breaking attempt to outlaw continue the practice of not having judicial filibusters. Reid didn't know if he could get the additional two votes he needed. If Reid had taken the gamble and lost, President Bush could have nominated even more extreme radicals non-liberals to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, without concerning himself about Democratic opposition with the expectation that the Constitutional requirement of advise & consent is performed, which would be as it always has been: majority rule. This way, Democrats retain their ability to defeat the worst extremists minorities or non-ultra liberals that are nominated.

Strikthroughs obviously are mine, but they are necessary to provide accuracy...something the MSM is not reliably producing.

Seriously, when did Michael Moore start running the editorial board at the Strib?

Look at that last quote, btw. Notice that they acknowledge that the Dems will filibuster in the future. The whole showdown is because there was never before a filibuster on judicial nominees by opponents of the nominees. History and tradition are only words that flow falsely from the Democrats. Their filibuster and the Strib's support this year of such filibusters are contrary to history and tradition.

Their inane bias continues.

This is why the fringe fundamentalists¹ are so incensed at the compromise. It means, as one wag said, that James Dobson of Focus on the Family won't get to name the next Supreme Court justice². And thank goodness for that. The radical Dobson and friends, and those in the Senate eager to do their bidding, went for broke on this, and they lost³. They sought absolute power restoring majority rule to do whatever they wanted, and seven Republican senators who care about the special character of their chamber wanted the power to impose their minority will said, "No we want 14% of the Senate to hold majority power instead of 50%." We note that Sen. Norm Coleman was not among them. He sided unequivocally with Dobson and his ultraconservative, sectarian fellow travelers¹.

The superscript numbers are what I want to point out here.
1. I'm not a fringe fundalmentalist. I am not one of Dobson's "sectarian fellow travelers". In fact, I am of no religion per se, I never have made a "sectarian" arguements, I am not a part of the Religious Right in any manner. It simply happens that because certain things may be universal truths my secular beliefs come to the same conclusions as sectarian conclusions. I do not appreciate the "open-minded" and "diversity seeking" leftists lumping me into such pigeonholes as "Religious Right" or "sectarian". It is no more fair for the Strib to make that comment as it is for me to say that all Democrats are homosexuals since they all are for gay marriage. Bastard hypocrites.
2. Here it is...unless the nominee is of like mind of the left then they should not be approved. In the left's America the people who agree with Focus on the Family should not be allowed to have representation in the judiciary. Actually, in America as the left wants it people who disagree with the left should not have a voice in the Executive or Judicial branches EVER.
3. See, here they finally admit that the deal was a victory for the Dems, not for the Senate on whole. I am vindicated from the left's claim that critics of the compromise don't understand the compromise.

They do not truly support Free Speech. They do not support Representation for those who do not agree with them. They do not have an intellectually honest position on these issues.

That is one of the fundamental issues with the left and their mouthpiece: the Main Stream Media.

Update on Kleis' record

Marty has been doing an awesome job following the MN Chamber of Commerce's erroneous letter to the St Cloud Times incorrectly attacking Sen Kleis' voting record on tax increases.

Just got a call from my source at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, and they said that the Chamber is going to buy an highly visible ad in the SCTimes newspaper that is supposed to show that Kleis is a tax cutter and the last person who would ever raise taxes. My source also said that the way the form letter are done involves a staffer putting together the letters, which are then given to Olson to approve. Olson actually caught the error at first, but later that same staffer put the Kleis letter back into the pile by mistake, and it got sent out. My source wouldn't be more specific, and my source would not give the name of the staffer. No matter, this error seems to have been cleaned up. Again, props to David Olson for being taking responsibility.

Newsweek...seditious?

Marty is also a columnist for the MN Daily. His latest article is about Newsweek and sedition. Highly recommended reading.

Here it is.

Highlight:

It’s now going around the blogosphere that Newsweek is also guilty of sedition against the United States abroad.

On February 2, in Japan, Newsweek published a cover article, “The day America died.” Accompanying the article was a picture of a soiled American flag in a trash can with its staff split in twain.

The English international version of the magazine had on the cover a picture of President George W. Bush, with the more innocuous title, “America leads, but is anyone following?”

Both versions had the article written by Andrew Moravcsik, titled, “Dream on, America.” The article was a rant about how the rest of the world is rejecting the U.S. way of life.

This would all be fine in my eyes, except Newsweek did not publish that article in its U.S. version. The article is completely missing, and the cover of that edition had on it a collection of actors — the Oscars being in the news at the time.

We will not renew our subscription (even though it was for entertainment value only).

What the hell is going on in FL?

(H/T: On Point)

Here is another story of a brutal murder (attempted this time) of a little child.

[F]rom the home of the latest woman to give him shelter, the teen took an 8-year-old girl out of bed early Sunday and led her to a nearby landfill. There, police say, he sexually attacked her, choked her and left her for dead in a trash bin, buried under a pile of rocks.

The 17-year-old confessed he intended to strangle her, to bury the shame of what he had done, according to court records. Only she wasn't quite dead when police unearthed her hours later.

Now, here is what seems to be the recurring quirk in the legal system...he tried to kill her but failed. That "failure" part will prevent him from being treated like the homicidal freak of nature that he is.

Worth watching this story.

Animal Personality Quiz

(H/T: Babylon And On)

I have the results of my Animal Personality Quiz...you should try it too. Post your results here on the comments!


What Is Your Animal Personality?

General College should go

Gone are the days where there were no community colleges in the state. Gone are the days where "underprivileged", or more accurately, poor students could not get into school. Gone are the days where race worked as an exclusionary factor (unless you are white or Asian, those exclusions still exist).

So that means that all of the handwringing that the poor, uninformed students at the University of Minnesota campus is all for naught.

The decision to get rid of the General College (GC) is not putting anyone at a disadvantage...except the ones who are not ready for college and want to say that they dropped out of a Big 10 school instead of a Comm Col.

The first thing is that you must consider the source of the protests.

(1) AFSCME Clerical Union has taken up the non-labor related cause. (I have said it before, I will say it again...this is improper if not illegal use of union resources.) They can't be trusted for any information on any topic. They proved that during the strike where they claimed everyday that the number of people on strike was "strong" and "growing" even though the payroll number told the contradicting truth.
(2) Student on campus have many causes and many views. Sadly they are rarely anything more than blind lemmings following anything that their instructors tell them. It is vogue to protest the "man". It is vogue to be radical liberal on campus. It is vogue to be anti-establishment. Even if they have no clue about what they speak they will parrot what has been told to them. They would rather drink and loaf than research their cause. They can memorize what they need to repeat (a skill they employ in the Marxist classes of the University) and that is the crux of their knowledge base.
(3) General College students specifically are unique from the rest of the student body in this aspect. They were not ready for University level learning. They may not even realize that. For whatever reason, be it laziness in high school (as would have been the case for me if I tried post-secondary education right out of high school) or whatever the case, they are not ready. This necessarily implies that they do not yet have the higher analytical skills that would normally be developed within the University structure.

With each of these groups their main weakness is causing them to be far off on this topic. General College as a college will be enveloped into a new College of Education and Human Development. This does not mean that current students will be booted out.

It does mean that an applicant that is not ready for University learning must accept the reality and either self-study to better their readiness (a difficult thing, I know from experience) or go to a Comm Col to get the preparation that is needed and then transfer to the University.

This works in the same sense as in secondary school. You cannot move into the 12th grade if you are not ready. There is a progression that must occur. You do not move into Medical School without being properly prepared through pre-med or other acceptable equivalents.

Race is NOT a relevant issue here either. Dr Robert Jones in an editorial in the MN Daily writes:

Contrary to many perceptions, General College isn’t the only destination for students of color on the Twin Cities campus, nor is it exclusively attended by students of color. Only 19 percent of the undergraduate students of color on the Twin Cities campus are enrolled in General College; the other 81 percent are in other colleges. This year, less than half, 48 percent, of the students in General College are students of color.

He also addresses the financial barriers questions:

Capacity limitations already are affecting admission to the University. This fall, for example, we’ll have the ability to welcome only approximately 5,300 of the 20,500 students who applied. That forces some tough choices. But financial barriers won’t be one of them. Scholarships are the University’s No. 1 fund-raising priority and that includes the new Founders Opportunity Scholarship, which makes up the difference between other financial aid and the cost of attendance for qualified low-income students.

Now why is it so damn important to restructure the colleges? Because the University is losing its standing as a World Class institution...that in effect harms the students coming out of the school.

When I first moved to Minnesota the U of MN ranked in the Top 20 of the US News & World Report rankings of the countries undergraduate schools. Included in the Top 20 today are schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Northwestern and Duke.

As of 2005 the ranking is 66th. That is behind schools such as Miami University of Ohio, Worcester Polytechnic Inst., Georgia Institute of Technology, Case Western Reserve Univ, U of California-San Diego and Yeshiva University That puts the U of MN in 9th among the Big 10 schools...ahead of U of Indiana and Michigan State only.

Something has to be done. This is one of the steps to do something.

Research money is also being lost. This is a big part of the oil that keeps the University running. Unless the U of MN improves its rankings the dollars as well as the top researchers will go elsewhere. Who wants to put money into a school that is sliding in stature? Who wants to teach at number 66 when they could got to a Top 50 school?

General Collge should go...and what is being proposed now is a good first step. It is necessary to restoring the pride that was the University of Minnesota.

Filibuster May Have Been Good?

I disagree with the conclusion that this deal helps teh GOP, but a very realistic scenario is presented by W. C. Varones.

What if the Republicans didn't have the votes in the first place?

It's not outside the realm of possibility.

The nuclear option was a pretty serious step to take. I would think many Republican senators, even if they despised the Democrats' obstructionist tactics, would be pretty reluctant to make a radical, and decorum-damaging, change to the rules. There's a reason Trent Lott called it the nuclear option in the first place.

Are we really so sure that Snow, Collins, Voinovich, Chafee, and several others were on board, and would have gone through with it? Maybe they just talked a good game so that the Democrats would compromise. That's easier for me to believe than the idea that 50 or 51 senators would have gone through with the nuclear option.

I wouldn't want to play poker with Frist... or with the Gang of Seven. They may have just pulled off the bluff of a lifetime. They may have just turned an embarassing defeat into the confirmation of Owens, Brown, and Pryor, as well as more restraint in Democratic filibusters in the future.

Interesting, but I still think that this was a bad deal.

Jabley.com hypothesizes that this was a Presidential run setup for John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

Throughout the process, both John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) were actively involved in negotiating deal terms. Of these two putative presidential candidates, only McCain appears to have signed the deal. Hagel, on the other hand, has been quoted by a Nebraska TV station as expressing disappointment over the deal terms.

While it is encouraging that both Hagel and McCain participated in the negotiations (they have cemented the respect of centrists from both parties), I believe that it clearly gives Hagel the upper hand in the 2008 primaries.

I do have to disagree...it is not nice that any Republican had a hand in the negotiations.

This story will have ramifications long down the road.

Stadium Balderdash Tabled

Good news! The stadium bill (SF 900) was tabled. That gives us fiscally responsible, small government types at least one more year to make it clear that no state money should be used for a private business structure.

Thanks Marty & Peter

Thank you very much to my good friends Marty and Peter for all of their help so far on repairing the previously mentioned water damage in our house.

With my wrist rehab taking a bad turn (did anyone notice that I added a month onto the rehab countdown) I could only sit and watch. Occassionally I could hold a flash light or something equally light (and able to be done with one hand). They put in a lot of sweat and labor and we've only just begun.

But I wanted to publicly thank them for their hard work.

NBA Conference Finals

And then there were four.
Both of these predictions are written even though Game 1 of each series has been played. My predictions have not changed at all because of the results of those games.

Let it be known that I am rooting against the Heat, and have been since Shaq become a member of that team. I think that the 3 other teams remaining can defeat the Heat, so I am not terribly worried.

The bottom line though is that all four teams have a good chance to win it all.

Heat vs Pistons
Shaq vs Detroit. This is a rematch of last year's Finals. The supporting cast for Shaq is different. Last year Larry Brown masterfully helf Shaq and his cast silent beating the piss out of my beloved Lakers in 5 games. I think the Pistons can beat Shaq and Company again.

Better coaching, experience and a deep bench to foul Shaq relentlessly gives the Pistons the advantage. Otherwise it would be a very evenly matched series. There is the potential for some very boring Eastern Conference style games (the kind with scores like 80-75).

Detroit advances in 6 games. (Yuck...as a Laker fan it is hard to root for Detroit.)


Suns vs Spurs
I like the Spurs as a team. I like the style of basketball the Suns play. I like the old school type of scores. 110-100 is a great game to watch. You will get those in this series. It won't be as fun as the Suns-Mavericks, but it will be close.

Both teams are very strong. I think that a 7-game series in the middle of this season would have seen the Suns win in 5. But the experience of the Spurs will give the Spurs a boost. I would not be surprised if this goes 7-games. I would not be surprised if the Suns win in 6...or if the Spurs win in 5...or it the Suns win in 5. But I started this prediction thing on the blog, and so I am committed to making one here.

I am guessing the Spurs in 6.

CR vETS for "truth" dishonest again

WARNING: Very Harsh Criticisms and Words ahead.
And knowing how evil those I criticize are I do not doubt that my life is in danger for posting this. But truth is more important than life.

A funny thing happened yesterday. Dan "Ox" Ochsner, Marty Andrade, Tommy the Producer, and I were at lunch yesterday discussing our radio show among other things. Ox asked our opinions of the College Republicans and we had to be honest with him. We told him the reasons that they are thugs, thieves and tyrants. They are mostly liars and as an organization they are bringing the good name of the Republicans down. These CR issues, as well as the winged-monkeys behind some of the issues, are more important to the party as a whole than most people in the party realize. Dan proceded to tell us that he knows one of the people that we were talking about, to which I told him that it does not change what they are.

Then I read the CR vETS for "truth" blog today. I have not read their pap for some time. But there is a need for Republicans to be aware of the kind of "leaders" that will be making their way into the GOP ranks eventually (as Hoplin is now).

First item to be addressed: Elections
The headline reads "Davidson Partisans Divide New Mexico Federation -- Continue to Undermine Duly-Elected State Chairmen". Let us keep in mind that we are talking about an organization that rarely allows honest elections. Take the CRNC Chair race...this is a position that is generally handed to a selected successor by the outgoing chair. The election is a sham.

Also keep in mind the way that the MN CR continuously hold mock elections and freeze out competition through ever-changing rules. I speak on that from first hand knowledge...how a chair (Kristen) was told by the state CR board that Tyler will be the next Chair. She then held secret nominations, threw out the ones that posed a tangible threat, closed nominations and then revealed who the candidates were. Corrections due to her intentional "errors" were ruled out of order by her and upheld by the parliamentarian she appointed (her husband).

That is the method of "duly-electing" chairs within the College Republican organizations.

Second item to be addressed: John Plecnik
"CR wannabe-vets who lie" are attacking John Plecnik for wanting the RDI fundraising scandal to be a central topic of the CRNC Chair election.


Since you wannabe-vet idiots can't seem to see above Gourley's beltline where you spend most of your time Lewinsky-ing him you do not seem to see that a very real and recent fundraising scandal has occurred. The current crooks administration has been trying to sweep it under the rug, like Clinton tried with Lewinsky. The full issue of RDI, the millions stolen from the elderly, the union-like method of returning those monies, the denigrating seniors as "senile"...those all rightfully should be a front-and-center topic of the election. Only a criminal would want it hidden. Only Democrats would want a scandal to disappear (I'm sorry to my Democrat friends, that was not very fair to you.)

If you have done nothing wrong then why run away from it? Just as I asked Hoplin (which he evaded answering) if you're handling of RDI is so honorable then why not trumpet it as your own campaign issue.

Answer: because you were up to your eyes in the corruption...I have a hunch you had your own payola from the deal and that is why you are fighting so hard to make certain you maintain control of the chair's office.

They go on.

Plecnik has worked hand in hand to promote and bolster Michael Davidson’s candidacy for national chairman. John uses his e-mail list to support Michael Davidson and add weight to his campaign message and strategy.

It seems that the CR vETS for "truth" don't just have a monopoly on lying and theivery, but they also have the market cornered on hypocrisy. See, they put a negative light on "using his e-mail list" to help Davidson, but are suspiciously silent regarding the vast resources of the CRNC that Hoplin and Gourley use to advance Gourley's campaign.

Pathetic hypocrites. That particular piece of double standard was written and embraced by Brian Mazanec. The other authors of that pulp of lies are Mike Herbert and Bryan Shuy. These guys names should be marked down. The very methods that they have employed on Gourley's behalf should be an indicator of what they will be like when they try to move up. They already are a disgrace to the GOP...they need to be halted now.

Final thing to be addressed: Davidson's co-chair
In typical Dan Rather fashion Brian Mazanec reports of "sources" who told him that Davidson was going to select someone else for his co-chair.
1) Big frickin' deal, you putz.
2) What sources?
3) If you were an honorable person, fair and truthful (like a real Republican you would have reported why Davidson's first choice did not accept instead of saying "[she] refused"...implying negative feelings.
4) If you were an honest person you would not write falacious hypotheticals like, "It has not been determined when or if Davidson ever made this offer known to Sarah Floerke, or how she reacted to the news if she was indeed informed." Offering negative questions with the implication that they may be true is pretty devious.

In an unrelated story, it has not been determined how many or when the last gay lover had a rendevous with Brian Mazanec.

You see what I mean. I think for every one of those that you lob I will do the same.

There is one question that remains about Brian Mazanec. Is he so stupid that he does not understand the nuances of his words, or does he understand the nuances and uses them intentionally thus making him a very evil and malicious person. Either way he is not someone that should continue any leadership roles within the GOP. The GOP does not need someone who is so careless with their words nor someone so evil.

The list of counter-GOP (people whose actions or words are harmful to the overall cause of the GOP, typically for their own individual gains): Ron Eibenstiener, Paul Gourley, Eric Hoplin, Kristen Meyer and Brian Mazanec.

St Cloud Times prints factless letter

Here is an interesting story about a letter to the editor from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce that attacks Sen Kleis for voting for tax hikes. The catch: Sen Kleis voted against the hikes AND another article in the same printed edition had an article pointing out how Sen Kleis is trying to keep costs down.

The text of the letter can be found reproduced at Marty's blog. It was signed by David Olson.

Dan "Ox" Ochsner called David Olson who said he did not send the letter.

So who did?

Marty sent an e-mail to David Olson asking for clarification. Marty did receive a response where Olson takes full responsibility for the mistaken letter. (Kudos to him for (a) admitting the mistake, (b) not trying to explain it away, (c) accepting responsibility since his signature was on the letter, even though the mistake was not his. Eric Hoplin, slime-bag extrodinaire, should take notes.)

Olson's response to Marty:

Marty, thanks for the note. We made an honest mistake. I drafted the lettersand we worked off of the voting record of the Senate. No letter with mysignature on it ever leaves this office without me seeing it. How Senator Kleisended up on the list is beyond me but I take full responsibility for the mix-up. We had a least two opportunities to catch this mistake and we did not which isobviously unfortunate. In my defense I can tell you that this is the first timein my fifteen years at the Chamber that something like this happened. I can assure you it will not happen again

This is the letter I am sending to the Times -

TO THE EDITOR: Our sincere apologies to Sen. Dave Kleis (R-St. Cloud) for our letter which misstated his vote on the Senate tax bill ("Kleis' vote on taxes sends clear message," St. Cloud Times, May 22). He did not vote for the tax increase, and we know better. The mistake was ours, regardless how it happened. Kleis has been a longtime proponent of protecting the interests of the business community and has been a staunch advocate of holding down taxes. We know he'd never support the bill passed by the Senate on May 6 which would raise taxes by$1.2 billion over the next two years. We regret our error.

David C. Olson, President
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

One final note: The St Cloud Times follows very closely the voting actions of the legislators from St Cloud as well as the surrounding areas. They were incredibly irresponsible for printing such a letter when it is very well known in St Cloud that Sen Kleis would be the last person in the St Cloud delegation to vote for a tax hike.

I guarantee if the letter were ripping a DFL member erroneously the St Cloud Times editors would have made a note at the beginning of the letter disclaiming the false information of the letter.

The St Cloud Times is earning their Newsweek/CBS/Rather/NYT award for Crappy Editor. Somehow I doubt that they will even mention the fact that they also erred in running the letter.

In the TV Guide Model: Cheers to David Olson for stepping up to the plate when something under his control went wrong. Jeers to the St Cloud Times editors for running the letter without doing any verifications of facts. Jeers to Eric Hoplin/Paul Gourley for not stepping up to the plate with regards to the fundraising swindling of the elderly the way Olson did for the erroneous letter which bore David's signature.

Moderate GOP Senators slice the GOP hamstring

Today 14 Senators made a deal to avert the big showdown over judicial nominees. Of course, leading the way on the solution that will kill the GOP later was John "I left my backbone in Vietnam" McCain ("R"-AZ).

"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority."

John, with all due respect (which is very little, to be honest) you are a hyperbole spewing moron. There was no "crisis in the United States Senate" to avoid. The instution was on the precipice of preventing the unprecedented (meaning never done before) filibustering of judicial nominees.

It gets 'deeper'.

"We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., "And we have signed this document....in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.

OK, you lying sack-of ****, at no time was freedom of speech even close to be threatened. At no time was the ability to debate being threatened. (Remember, a filibuster is ONLY endless debate.) At no time was the freedom to dissent (which is done by casting a NO vote) going to be curtailed...in fact it was on the 'precipice' of being required.

I hate Senators. They are slimy, lying, two-faced, forked-toungue assholes.

With that in mind let us know explore the Democrats side of the deal. They will not filibuster three of the nominees now (Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor), but they still are able to filibuster two others (Henry Saad and William Myers).

Wait, it gets even stupider (on the part of the Republicans that made this deal).

The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances." And guess who gets to decide when those "extraordianry circumstances" are. That's right, the same Democrats who already were blocking these nominees because the circumstances are extraordinary.

"Are you GOP Senators stupid or something?"
"Stupid is as stupid does."
"Then you must be extarordiarily stupid."

Here is what is going to happen. The Democrats will block any conservative that is appointed. I should say, they will filibuster any non-radical liberal that Bush appoints...especially if it is for the Supreme Court. Then the GOP Senators will say, "they breeched the agreement, we will change the filibuster rules." Then the Democrats will say, "these were extraordinary circumstances and therefore the deal was still in affect. The Republicans broke the deal." The media, in the pocket of the far left, will report the whole situation that way. The general public (moderates) will follow the pulp that the MSM prints on the issue and the GOP will lose twice: once in the public polls and once in losing their nominees in the long run.

Why will they change the rules and then still lose the nominees? Because of spineless Senators like McCain who will do anything they can to not lose favor of the MSM.

I don't know who to be more disgusted with. The Senate Democrats for being so slimy (this plan is so transparent that it is like a bad, predictable B-movie) or the Senate Republicans for being so retarded as to enter this deal.

*sigh* Someday there may be a real Republican majority. But those times aren't now.

Weekend project

As I have mentioned earlier we have a very unexpected but immediate project in our house.

That has taken up my entire Friday and Saturday. It looks like tomorrow will not be any different with the exception of a meeting that Marty and I have with the station manager regarding our upcoming radio show.

Otherwise I hope to get caught up on the blogging.

Please stay tuned.

I hate stupid made-up causes

This freak thinks that there is intentionally a swastika in the middle of the Metrodome roof.

First, Dude, you are a prime example of why natural selection should be allowed to thin out the part of the population that has no common sense.

I think it is fair to note the possibility that this guy's real motivation is a a new Vikings and Twins stadium. Boy, these pro-stadium people will try anything to get their way, huh? Even trying to swindle money from the Dome's architects, "This [Holocaust] memorial would be erected on the grounds of the new stadium that these companies would also provide monies for."

Now, I have been to the Dome many, many times in my 11 years in Minnesota and I contantly am looking at the structure. It fascinates me to look at the suites and realize that they are at ground level. I am amazed at the amount of weight supported above and how the roof itself is supported. I even stare at the jigsaw type of pattern that the roof appears to me. I never noticed the stupid swastika.

This freak makes a couple of outlandish claims that really should not be addressed (their folly speak for themselves and they have no supporting argumentation), but they should be pointed out.

"Is this the greatest hate crime in American history?" The way it reads the author is actually exercising piss-poor grammar and it was obviously intended to be a statement, not a question. This guy's lack of thought is all the more evident.

Digging around on this guy's website you find out that he has another crusade...he is anti-SUV. More on that later.

Star Wars economic effects

OK, so we all should know by now that the last Star Wars movie opened in theatres this morning at midnight. People across the country either skipped work or showed up "dog tired, boss."

According to this story these people will have a negative effect on the economy.

"There is a prediction that this movie will cost American businesses about $630 million in lost productivity."

Yikes. How does Alan Greenspan adjust the prime rate to counter that?

Ontario Smith excused from Vikings

(H/T to Jon J)

This story adds to the Ontario Smith saga.

Embattled Vikings running back Onterrio Smith missed his second developmental camp practice in three days today and has been excused from the team indefinitely because of a league matter, head coach Mike Tice said this afternoon.

"I really can't speak about any reasons why, or when he'll be back," Tice said after the last of this week's developmental practices at Winter Park. "It's in the league's hands, and we'll leave it at that."

Smith, a two-time offender of the league's substance abuse policy, was detained April 21 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a kit designed to circumvent drug tests. The league launched an investigation May 18 after news of Smith's possession of the Original Whizzinator broke in the Star Tribune.

The only question I have is would the Vikings have done this if they were hurting at the running back position?

Dems Threaten Shutdown

(H/T to Kennedy v Machine)

We know that they have been talking about it. Now that the filibuster of judicial nominees is nearing its overdue end I thought it would be good to talk about the Democrats response.

Tom Curry writes about Sen Reid's (D-NV) planned response to the merciful end of nominee-bustering:

Surrounded by 37 Democratic senators on the steps of the Capitol, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada threatened Tuesday to shut down the Senate over the issue of filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominations. Reid would exempt from his shut-down only national defense matters and spending needed to ensure ongoing federal operations.

Now, we have been hearing in conservative circles the glee in how the Democrats are imploding on themselves. The election of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the House Minority Leader, the choice of John Kerry to run as the Anti-Bush instead of as John Kerry, the election of Howard Dean as the DNC chair...these are all decisions the further entrench the Dems in a position of being contrary to the mainstream of America. These decisions simply push the Dems into further disfavor with the middle-of-the-road people.

With Reid's leadership the Dems will go from an obstructionist party without any agenda of their own (being anti-Bush is not one's own agenda) to a party that will have the shutting down of government essentially as their agenda.

Great. That worked well in the public's opinion for the GOP in the 1990's.

Reid called on Americans to “oppose this arrogant abuse of power” and accused Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate of trying to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”

Look, you hyperbolic putz, the sepataion of powers is safe. The Executive still appoints the Judiciary appointees. The Judiciary appointees still have to be qualified as checked through the Legislative branch. In order for Reid to be accurate (a trait not generally linked to Senate Democrats) Frist would have to get rid of all advise & consent. Frist would have to remove the Legislative branch from the whole process.

And just to be sure that we understand this point I will spell this one out. The Democrats have been screaming that the "voice of the minority will be quieted" when the filibuster on judicial nominees (circa 2003) is ended. Considering that you babies are the minority voice and considering that Reid is being quoted more than Frist on this issue (on most issues really) I would say that the voice of the minority is under no threat.

Now the left has been trying to marginalize the impact of their filibustering. "only 10 of 214 nominations have been turned down." blah, blah, blah. Here is the fact.

1) Most of those preside over trials and do not do Constitutional Review. Huge difference between a judge that sits over murder or drug cases (no need to block conservatives there, really) versus a judge that rules on appeals like they do in Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court.

2) Of the 51 nominated for Appeals Courts there have 45 to make it out of Committee. (Killing a nominee in Committee has been a long practiced, though slimy, imho, method used by both parties for a long time.) Of those 45, 22% have been blocked with a filibuster. That's right, almost a quarter of the nominees have been block by a filibuster.

3) Those 10 are the first ones in history to be blocked by a filibuster even though they may have been confirmed. Abe Fortas had his nomination to be Chief Justice by FDR blocked by filibuster...but that was by supporters who did not want the vote to occur because Fortas was going to lose. In other words, these 10 nominees are the first in history to be filibustered by opponents.

So, in the end I say let them shut down the Senate. And let them do it as retaliation to the ending of nominee-bustering. Look at the following passage from the article:

Reacting to Reid’s threat, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas said, "When the American people realize that they are threatening to shut down government because we want to restore majority rule in the United States Senate, I think it’s going to backfire on them terribly.:

Cornyn said the 2004 election results, which gave the GOP a net gain of four Senate seats, were driven largely by voter opposition to Democratic filibustering of Bush’s judicial nominees.

"If we don’t do this (lower the filibuster threshold), I think those people who gave us the large majority and re-elected the president are going to think that we have been ineffective, and you know what happens to people who voters think are ineffective: They get unelected," he said.

Cornyn said he was confident there are enough Republican senators to get the 50 needed to approve the parliamentary move to lower the filibuster requirement.

This all bodes well for the GOP in 2008, methinks. That nuclear option...press the button!!!

Granholm v Heald

Granholm v Heald
5-4 decision. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which O’Connor joined. Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, Stevens and O’Connor.

This is the wine sales case that was decided on May 16, 2005. Classic states rights issue pitted against free market issues. (Too bad Marty & I are not back on the air yet...this would be a perfect Race to the Right issue.)

As I read the opinion I think I am in agreement in part and in disagreement in part.

The basic background is that there are small private wineries. In New York and Michigan the states have created laws that in essence (a) ban direct sales between winery and customer (Michigan had an outright ban) and (b) create onerous licensing requirements that essentially make it unfeasible for smaller wineries to sell any product in those states.

Without reading the decision I knew that the decision was based on the often misused Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Kennedy says basically "state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate "differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter".

Being a federalist first I think that any licensing structure made by the states deals with in state commerce. This is in the same manner that there are different levels of licensing for drivers based on state residency/citizenship.

If New York wants to tax the Holy Hell out of out-state products to the point that out-state products cannot be sold there then let them. Wine collectors can go to New Jersey or California to get their wine. Tsk, tsk, that will be lost revenue for New York. That is where the free market will be allowed to take over.

As for the direct sales ban I think that a state has the right to ban ALL direct sales of a product. But to ban direct sales strictly on out-of-state sales does fall under the Commerce Clause and warrants Equal Protection.

In essence, Michigan was out of line when they banned only out-of-state direct sales (winery to customer). The way I see it Michigan can ban all direct sales, both intra-state and inter-state, or allow them all direct sales.

So, I concur in part and dissent in part with the Court.

Memos reveal strategy behind judge filibusters

(H/T to Glenn Beck and American Princess)

Why do I let these kinds of stories surprise me? I keep hoping for some glimmer that there is some decency in the Senate Democrats, that the opposition is at least honorable if not constantly wrong. I keep being proven wrong.

The Washington Times story reports that the Democrats have had closed door sessions with "outside groups". I don't care about that. But this filibustering of Bush's Judicial nominees is not based on the nominees qualifications as a judge. It is not because of some higher principles to Senate tradition.

Nope, the filibusters have been a long-standing plan base 100% on ideology...the last reason to kill judicial nominations.

The "nuclear" showdown that is expected to begin unfolding in the Senate today has its origins in closed-door discussions more than three years ago between key Senate Democrats and outside interest groups as they huddled to plot strategies for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.

In a Nov. 7, 2001, internal memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who is now the minority whip, an aide described a meeting that the Illinois Democrat had missed between groups opposed to Mr. Bush's nominees and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee.

"Based on input from the groups, I would place the appellate nominees in the categories below," the staffer wrote, listing 19 nominees as "good," "bad" or "ugly."

Four of the 10 nominees who Democrats have since filibustered were deemed either "bad" or "ugly." None of those deemed "good" by the outside groups was filibustered.

So, the Democrats are ranking them based not on the qualifications as determined in the Committee hearings, but on input from special interest groups.

MN Lefty Liberal...are you upset about these games? Or is it just when the Republicans play political games?

Sorry, back on topic.

The strategery continues...still not based on judicial qualifications.

In a June 4, 2002, memo to Mr. Kennedy, staffers advised him that Justice Owen would be "our next big fight."

"We agree that she is the right choice -- she has a bad record on labor, personal injury and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her," the aides wrote.

Another nominee discussed often in the memos is Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer who became the first filibustered nominee and who withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after waiting two years for a final vote.

In the 2001 memo to Mr. Durbin, the staffer explained the concerns that the outside groups had about Mr. Estrada.

"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment," the aide wrote.

Whoa...did you catch that? The Senate Democrats were trying to keep a minority down. Now, as a Latino I take that memo as a compliment. They are saying that Latinos cannot be given a fair shake because we are especially dangerous as judges.

Maybe I'm wrong in that assessment. The only other way to read that is this way: Senate Democrats are racist. They are blocking a Latino and a Black from being judges.

Next question: Where the hell are the minority rights groups?

The filibuster has shown a couple of things (and these memos help bolster my point).

(1) The Democrats cannot get over the fact that they lost...the are the minority party and simply are sore losers. Sorry, just like the Philadelphia Eagles in this year's Super Bowl you have to suck it up and get ready for next year. The Eagles have no right calling themselves or acting like the Super Bowl Champs. The Democrats have no right expecting that their viewpoints should be treated like majority views, no standing expecting that their ideas become laws. We had to wait 40 years for our ideas to become laws...now you must wipe the tears from your eyes and wait til you are the majority again.
(2) The Senate Democrats are racist. They have been attacking Scalia (Italian), Thomas (Black), Estrada (Latino) and Owens (Black) for years. They hold as their champions Ginsburg (White), Souter (White), Stevens (White) and Breyer (White).
(3) Minority Rights Groups are hypocrites. They should be putting intense public pressure on the Senate Democrats for unfoundedly blocking Estrada and Owens. They are, sadly, silent on this issue. They were front and center to bash Bork (based on race-rights supposedly) and they were against Rehnquist's promotion (based on Minority Rights supposedly) but are AWOL now. The reason is that they are partisan hacks not crusaders against Minority oppression. The reason is that their leaders are hypocritical thugs whose allegiances are to money and Democrats (in that order) and racial equal opportunity is not on their priority list anymore.
(4) The media cannot be trusted for objective reporting. Still, I have to laugh at my debate coach, Eric Fuchs, who as recently as 2003 claimed that the New York Times specifically and the media in general were unbiased, fair, complete and objective. Poor kid, the wool was pulled over his eyes thanks to the brainwashing that occurs at schools across the country. But this filibuster ordeal is one more piece of evidence of the MSM's inability to report a story.

Filibuster: Let's Get Ready To Ruuummmmmbbbblllleee

This story claims that the filibuster showdown is going to occur next week (which they have been saying for a few weeks now).

Senate Republicans on Tuesday picked Texas judge Priscilla Owen to be the flashpoint of a historic battle between President Bush and Senate Democrats over shaping the federal judiciary, with a final showdown looming early next week.

Now here is a little note about all of the nominees. All of them have been given one of the two highest competency ratings from the American Bar Association. In other words they are all highly qualified.

The story blahs on and on about the moderates trying to build a compromise (which I hope fails) and the leaders of both parties are gearing up for their showdown. Neither side is certain they have enough votes.

One of the leading "candidates" for a compromise is just ripe for abuse.

Republicans would have to pledge no change through 2006 in the Senate's rules that allow filibusters against judicial nominees. For their part, Democrats would commit not to block votes on Bush's Supreme Court or appeals court nominees during the same period, except in extreme circumstances.

Each member would be free to determine what constituted an extreme circumstance, but Republicans would bind themselves to not changing the filibuster rule for the next two years.

Hmm, let's see. The Republicans will be held to a commitment that is easily defined...no changes for 2 years. The Democrats will be held to a subjective standard...not block votes except in extreme circumstances.

Hello. They claim that all of these nominees being blocked are extreme cases.

Look at the deal like this: one side has an objective standard while the other side has a subjective standard measured by themselves. Raw deal. Don't do it.

Forgive me if I seem a bit distrusting of Senate Democrats, but these are the same clowns that have for years claiming that all nominees without fail should have an up or down vote. These are the same clowns who thought that the appointments of radical liberal Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are the right of the sitting President (Clinton at the time) and as long as they are qualified the appointments should pass the Senate. When the President is on the other side of the ideological aisle they hypocritically change their tune. Now they say that it is the responsibility to block any nominee of the sitting President's unless they are moderate.

Can't have it both ways. And for the attempt I say that Senate Democrats cannot be trusted in any bargain.

Ditch the over-abused filibuster (this is the same tool that was used to kill Civil Rights for so long) and let the Senators be forced to answer to their votes for a change.

The Newsweek Fiasco

I have already discussed for a little bit the media bias behind the Newsweek fiasco. But I was thinking about some other aspects of the whole story: The abject hypocrisy of the rioters.

Let me see if I have the logic of the Muslim rioters correct.
1) A story says that the United States is desecrating the Koran in front of prisoners.
2) Muslims around the world riot because their artifacts/items should be respected.

Uh, are these the same groups that regularly burn American flags? And that would be long before any of those thugs were put into Gitmo.

Hypocrites!

OK, maybe there is the 'treatment of prisoners' angle. Let's analyze that.
1) A story says that the United States is desecrating the Koran in front of prisoners.
2) Muslims around the world riot because their artifacts/items should be respected.

Uh, are these the same people that have been decapitating Americans hostages? Beating and starving prisoners?

Damn Hypocrites

Here is something else to consider. I keep hearing about how the Muslim practice a religion of peace. Why are they so quick to riot? So quick to mistreat and kill prisoners? So unfathomably hyper-sensitive. I mean, these are the people who are upset because a flag of Isreal alledgedly touched them while they were captive.

Call Amnesty International...such abuses rank among the worst of all prison abuses in the history of modern civilization.

C'mon, give me a break. If you ask me these jerks are lucky that we don't treat their prisoners with the same "religion of peace" warmth that they treat ours.

Now here is the real laugher from these hypocrite rioters. They say that the American Media cannot be trusted (and they will do it again to marginalize the Newsweek retraction, just wait and see) but they killed people based on what the American Media reported.

They are ONLY looking for excuses/reasons to kill people that do not hold the same religious beliefs as them. I can't believe that the left embraces and enables and are apologists for such intolerant freaks of nature.

Damn Satan-like Hypocrites. That is the same kind of hypocrisy that the devil itself uses.

My head is going to explode trying to understand why we don't just bomb each one of those countries systematically.

Thanks Newsweek for providing another moment to point out why they are the evil side of this war...why we are again in the position of saving the world from evil just like with World War II.

CRNC Hypocrite liars at it again

The CR vETS for "truth" are at it again. "We attack you, but we say we are above it." These are the types of people that are wanting to continue leading the organization.

Here they claim that their opponents need not "expect the cheap ad hominem [attacks] from me". This would be in the same paragraph where they say, If we were to mock you we would do it like this, but we are not mocking you.

This is like saying to someone, "If I were to denigrate your character I would mention that you are a druggie. But I'm not going to do that."

Jerks.

Oh, as regular readers of this blog (or anyone interested in cruising the archives) know, the CR vETS for "truth" are among the leaders of ad hominem attacks, slander, lies, and all of that other stuff, which they so often attack others for engaging in.

They hold up Gourley's and Hoplin's tired claim that, "this administration, again, is the first to find a way out of the indefinite contract signed 12 years ago by people I doubt any of us really know." Yes, but that was only accomplished after their hand in swindling money from seniors was discovered.

Their success is like Gary Sinise's character in Ransom turning in the kidnappers, of which he was one.

Terrible...and worse is that they are giving the GOP a bad name through it. With CR vETS for "truth" backing the thugs they expand the bad name.

Jerks.

One last thing, vETS, just because someone misspells a name does not mean the statement is false. Try addressing the issues instead of engaging in disguised ad hominem attacks and nitpicking someone's spelling.

Jerks.

DFL MPLS Convention Is Chaos--Anyone Surprised?

(H/T to Minnesota Democrats Exposed)

I can hardly do justice if I take bits and pieces of the posting from MDE. So read it...it is comical. No wonder Minneapolis, run by the DFL and Greens, is going to hell in a handbasket.

Here it is.