Newsweek: Grahm: Battling Bush

Every time one of these "War Against Bush" Democrats talks, I don't know weather to punch a kitten or put on a strait jacket. Here is a "Republican" doing the same.

Newsweek is talking here about Sen. Lindsey Grahm, who has:

Played a key role in opposing President Bush's plan to authorize military tribunals for terror suspects and reinterpret the Geneva Conventions to permit some aggressive interrogation techniques.

Okay, for one, just to point out how correct I am (cauz I'm a dick like that) Newsweek puts the word "President" in font of "Bush" because that is correct grammar, to use a person's title and all... so when someone says "Battling Bush" they should be saying "Battling President Bush" or you could say "Battling the President of the United States of America." I guess to shorten it, you could say "Battling the USA." interesting huh? (BTW, I'm not in agreement with the President's (correct English) whole Immigration thing, I just think when your blinded by choosing your actions that oppose someone else, you are a moron.)

Anyway... on with the show.

In this article, Newsweek asks some questions to Grahm, and of coarse, Grahm (can I just call him Cracker?) goes on and on about his opposition to President Bush and protecting America.

Lets take a look at some of the questions and his answers:

Newsweek:How do you see the military commission and torture issues playing out? Is the president going to get the legislation he wants?
Graham:
This idea of trying somebody where they don’t get [to see] the evidence against them, but the jury does—that’s dead. That’s going nowhere...

Okay, terrorists get the same rights as American citizens. Whatev.

Newsweek:Why are you so against it?
Grahm:Let me give you the best example. What if a CIA paramilitary guy is caught in Iran, trying to find out about the Iranian [nuclear] program? What would our response be if the Iranian government put them on trial as a war criminal? And had a procedure where the prosecutor could give to the jury or the judge a file marked “secret” and never provide that to the accused? We would scream bloody murder ... We would go crazy.

Grahm, I hate to brake it to you, but the Terrorists against us represent NO country. Which means the whole POW thing doesn't apply to them. Lets look at what the the Deffinition of POW by the Geneva Conventions.

A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured.

Holy Nutz. Terrorists may be excluded because... they must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of War. And Terrorists don't, this is WHY its called TERRORISM! By your own definition, Grahm, the Spy we sent it wouldn't count either. Any knowledge of his mission would be disavowed. Didn't you ever watch freak'in Mission Impossible?

Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of
achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare.

Just so everyone is clear on this. Terrorists are not POWs. Any Questions?

Newsweek:What do you make of the president’s comments at [last Friday’s] news conference [in which he threatened to terminate the CIA interrogation program if the White House legislation doesn’t pass.]
Grahm:He seemed pretty worked up about this. He’s probably frustrated. But how many people have died in Iraq over the last few days?

Okay. Grahm takes the topic of the conversation from the President's comments about CIA Interrogation to how many people die in Iraq. He is a democrat, I can understand that... perfectly clear link... right? No.
Yea, Cracker. Frustrated because people like YOU don't seam to understand stuff like the difference between "Terrorist" and "POW." Seriously! I can look this stuff up in 10 mn while watching an Episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!

Newsweek:
Every day, there are scores of people getting killed in Iraq.
Grahm:
Yeah, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about this. So the president is getting to talk about something other than Iraq. He’s getting good build-up from his base. He’s getting beat up by you guys [in the media] a bit. I’m getting hit from the right. The politics of this is a mixed bag.

SCREEEEEEEEEEACH! What? Um, we're not talking about... what were we talking about? Oh, we were talking about the CIA... no, people dieing in Iraq... no, something other then Iraq? Getting beat up? awha, WTF.

Newsweek:Another big issue is the use of aggressive interrogation techniques like water-boarding [a simulated drowning experience], sleep deprivation and other techniques that might be considered abusive.
Grahm:Have we gotten useful intelligence using these techniques? I don’t know. I’m not on [the Senate intelligence] committee. And I wouldn’t believe them if they told me .... I know the prosecutor at Gitmo believes that water-boarding inherently renders a statement involuntary. Water-boarding is a near drowning experience. It’s pretty hard to say that a person voluntarily gave you something there. It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary. So they don’t need to go down that road. They don’t need all that stuff ...

Let me refer again to the Geneva Conventions:

It is illegal to torture POWs.
Terrorists are not POWs.

Secondly, we DO need all that stuff. Look at what he said:

It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary.

Duha. I don't think any member of a terrorist organization that wants all US peoples killed... would have been captured voluntary. Neither would a criminal of any kind in the US. Well, crap. I guess we can't question someone who is suspected of a crime because based on his capture not being Voluntary, he has suffered some type of torture? NEXT!

Newsweek:
Are there no circumstances in which we should use them?
Grahm:Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it [then] we’re not a rule-of-law nation ... John [McCain] and I argue. We love “24.”

Holy crap. He actually took an opportunity to attack a Television show... which doesn't happen to endorse peace and love and roses and rainbows with terrorists... And a really good TV show at that. I bet he can credit blame President Bush's poll numbers going up on "24" somehow.
And for him to say "Either we do or we don't" is kind of like an open ended argument. Either killing a human is wrong or its not... Either a fetus is a human or not... then we walk right over to an abortion argument with two steps.

Newsweek:You mean the TV show?
Grahm:He memorizes it. That’s his favorite TV show. These guys going all around, shooting people in the kneecaps. And he won’t miss an episode. But he’ll come back the next day and say, we still have got to treat people right. ..What if the president of the United States were told there’s a terrorist somewhere and we believe he knows where lethal weapons are. If the president of the United States authorizes people—‘do whatever you have to do’—here’s what we’d be giving up: If we let our chief of state decide the law is getting in the way, what’s to prevent some other [foreign] chief of state from saying, ‘that American pilot we’ve captured, he knows where the next bomb wave is coming, do what you got to do.’ That’s what’s hard about being a democracy ... The enemy has no moral dilemma. They don’t sit around wondering, what do we do here? People tell me—hah! They’ll cut our heads off. I say, ‘I know that. So what do we do? Cut their heads off? What does that make us? It might make us feel better. But you’ll wake up one day and the next thing you know, you’ve lost your way.’

For the love of God. Again with the whole "terrorists are equal" crap. Besides, I don't think anyone wants the terrorist's heads cut off... if their dead, they won't learn nuth'in... and neither will we...

Newsweek:
Why do you care so much about this issue?
Grahm:
For the past 20 something years, I’ve been a military lawyer. Every military lawyer I’ve ever met believes that this is vital for the safety of our troops .... I can give you dozens of example of cases involving captured Americans where abuse stopped at a certain point because the people doing it were afraid of being prosecuted as a war criminal ... During the Somalia conflict, they had one of our helicopter pilots. We dropped leaflets all over Mogadishu telling everybody, all the militia people, that we were watching, and that anybody who abuses this person will be a war criminal and we will come after you ...

Damn, this guy doesn't stop. Captured Americans are just that: Americans. They are from America. These terrorists again, don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions because they do not claim to be Iraqi, or Saudi, or what have you. They claim to be Muslim, which is not a country. If they were Iraqi, they would be handled different when captured.

Newsweek:Did you deal with these issues as a military Judge Advocate General (JAG)?
Grahm:
What I’ve done, like every other JAG, is teach the law of armed conflict. There is a pretty famous case back in Vietnam where a downed pilot, I think it was a Navy guy, got shot down. And a couple of Vietcong guys came up to him, captured him. He raised his hands in surrender, they dropped their weapons. He lowered his hands, got his pistol out and shot both of them. He came back to the carrier and started bragging about it. He ended up getting prosecuted—because he feigned surrender. That’s a violation of the law of armed conflict. You know, people may think that’s silly. But I told that story to all the pilots, just to say: ‘Your country will be advocating there for you. But you have to do your part too’ .... I know Al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people, I know the Taliban [are], you know, animals. But every war in the future won’t be with them.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out.... the whole "al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people" thing. And the American who shot those guy should haven prosecuted, under the rules, that’s right... If people are willing to follow the rules... rules work great. Right, Al Qaeda?

Newsweek:What did you make of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s letter [opposing the president’s plan and stating that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”] How did that come about?
Grahm:
That was John [McCain] talking to Powell ... I know Powell is really committed to this.

Opposing the plan that I've been tearing apart just by reading the Geneva Convetions? Whatever. I know I'm no expert, but... I'm more of an expert then most of the people I talk to... Except you, Tony! (no realy, I'm smarter.) Just kidding Tony! ;)

Newsweek:One thing I’m hearing from defense lawyers is that you still have the language in there that’s going to deny habeas corpus rights, strip access to the federal courts for all the other detainees who are still locked up in Guantánamo.
Grahm:That’s absolutely right.

Well, if you swing with a blindfold on long enough, you'll eventually hit a baby seal... thats how the saying goes, isn't it? Anyway, you can read all about Habeaus Corpus here and its suspension in the War on Terror here. Liberals yelp that all this means is President Bush can come to your house, arrest you, and your cat, and hold you forever and ever and ever. Why don't you read about it (apparently unlike the liberals do) and come to your own conclusion... go ahead. I'll wait...

Newsweek:
What that means is there will be trials for the big 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but everybody else could be stuck in indefinite limbo with no access to the courts.
Grahm:
Bullshit. There are 400 and something lawsuits filed against our guys complaining about the food, the TV access, all kinds of crap. Prisoners of war don’t sue their captors .... Habeas rights came about because the Bush administration took such a hard line. What we did last year [in the Detainee Treatment Act] is say, dismiss those lawsuits about conditions of your imprisonment, replace that with a right to go to ... the D.C. Court of Appeals and you can appeal whether or not you were validly confined as an enemy combatant ... They’ll have their day in court to challenge whether or not the government has properly confined them ... But we’re not going to give them the ability to bring medical malpractice lawsuits.

President Bush takes a hard line. Gawd damn right. That’s why I voted for him... remember Kerry's hard lines (link is to CBS even!)?

Newsweek:
But the Guantánamo detainees have been declared enemy combatants at Pentagon hearings which were not real trials. They had the same flaws you just said you don’t want to see in these military commission trials. The detainees weren’t able to see the evidence against them.
Grahm:
They do get redacted versions of why they’re an enemy combatant. Under a law of armed conflict, you can have one person say, ‘OK, you’re an enemy combatant. This is a military decision.’

Yep... thats correct.

Newsweek:
But isn’t the practical effect of all this going to be the small fry—not the big September 11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—but the small fry will stay there indefinitely without having the right to challenge any of the evidence against them?
Grahm:
That was true of the Germans and the Japanese ... But here’s the practical effect. If you’re a small fry and you’re not dangerous, and we got all the intelligence we can get out of you, well, we’ve let 230 go. We don’t have a desire to keep these people in jail, we don’t want to be the world’s jailors... But if that person is truly a member of an enemy force that is committed to your destruction, you don’t have to let them go. And there’s no requirement to try him as a war criminal. That’s the way war works.

Thats correct to. This guy is pretty slimey, but he still has an R on his name, so some of the stuff is logical. The Libs wouldn't agree with this fact either... which points out that it's probably common sence.

Newsweek:
I’ve been hearing from all these defense lawyers who say the process is pretty unfair regardless.
Grahm:
Well, if I was a defense lawyer, I’d be bitching too.

Defence lawyers... Like the ones that worked for OJ Simpson? ehhh... thats a streach, but i'm trying to comment on everything he says... Next!

Newsweek:
So are we going to have a bill on this soon?
Grahm:Yeah, I think a bill will come out of committee [this] week. It’s going to be something we all can live with. I’ve got things that I think are just a bridge too far. I’m willing to give, but I can’t sit by and watch a guy be tried and, even though I may hate his guts, he never gets to see the evidence against him ... You know what I’ve learned from this? I can see how easy it was to put all the Japanese in jail [during World War II]. The temptations are great to lash out and fight back. But history tells us, in the long run, the way we’ve tried to live our life as a nation is the best way, that the higher purpose of our reason to exist as a nation always serves us better than going the low road ... The bottom line—why does Lindsey care about this—I don’t love the terrorists, I just love what Americans stand for.

A bill. Yes sir. The ACLU says "Legislation Upends the Rule of Law." You know what we here say about the ACLU? If they are against it, we are for it... If the ACLU is for it, we are against it.

What he says about the best way and higher purpose and all that... Bahm. Right on. His line about not loving terrorists, just what americans stand for... not quite sure what he means by that... he's been a couple of places in this little interview. I don't know, even with that great ending, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy from Sen. Lindsey Grahm.

St Paul to host GOP convention in 2008

I think the headline speaks for itself, but here is the story:

Republicans have chosen the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul _ in the politically pivotal Midwest _ for the 2008 presidential convention, GOP officials said Wednesday.

The selection was expected to be announced later in the day, said the Republican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The convention is slated for Sept. 1-4.

Losing out were New York City, Cleveland and a joint bid from Tampa and St. Petersburg, Fla., other cities that had sought the convention.

The four-day event will be held at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., home of the National Hockey League's Minnesota Wild.

By choosing the Twin Cities for 2008, the GOP will ensure plenty of news converge in media markets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa _ all battleground states in the 2004 election and ones expected to be competitive in the next presidential race.

I think this was the fairly obvious choice. The only other one was maybe the Mistake on the Lake (aka Cleveland) which would have given a lot of attention to another important segment of the 2008 electoral scene.

The Twin Cities, located along the Mississippi River, also are in the running for the 2008 Democratic convention. Democrats plan to hold their convention Aug. 25-28.

The Democrats, who last met in Boston, will announce a decision later this fall. A spokesman said 11 sites expressed interest in having the party's convention, but only four completed the proposals. New Orleans later withdrew its bid, leaving Denver, New York City and Minneapolis- St. Paul.
...
In Minnesota, the effort to woo a national political convention has been a bipartisan affair, with the two big-city mayors, both Democrats, joining forces with top Republicans. They argued that Minnesota is a critical part of an Upper Midwest region that combined offers 27 electoral votes.

I think the real decision for the DNC is do they want to be in Minneapolis to help neutralize the GOP advantage in the midwest or do they want to go elsewhere since the GOP is scheduled AFTER the DNC and that likely will give the GOP an advantage if both are in the same city.

State officials have predicted a national political convention would boost the Twin Cities economy by about $150 million.

So, what are the odds of a tax cut since there will be an extra $150 million? Given the candidates for this year's gubernatorial race I would say the chances are ZERO.

MLB Playoff update

The AL teams are known. All that is left is some positional jockeying. The four teams are Oakland (AL West winner), New York (AL East winner), Detroit and Minnesota (AL Central and Wild Card winners). Barring an 0-fer run by the Yankees, Tigers and Twins coupled with Oakland running the table on the rest of the season, Oakland will be the #3 seed. They will go against the AL Central winner. The AL Central winner will get home field advantage. The Yankees will get the AL Wild Card winner and home field advantage.

Before I add anything else to this picture I want to explain my thoughts on the Wild Card. The Wild Card is nothing more than a race for #4 (or in the NFL for #5 & #6). I believe the greatest races in baseball history are those where the fight for #1 was in the balance. This year in the AL is a great example.

I first read about what I call the "Costas Plan". Basically, no Wild Cards would exist and the Division winner with the best record would get a 1st round bye. I like it. It would restore a huge incentive to be #1. It would remove the end of season race being for 4th best. I know it is not a reality because it would mean fewer markets having interest at the end of the season, but it is what I believe would be best for baseball.

This year with the Costas Plan you would have TWO races in progress with large implications. First is the battle between the Twins and the Tigers. The loser would get to spend October at home watching the winner play. The other battle would be for the first round by. That battle, as of this moment, would be between the Yankees, the Twins and the Tigers. Much more exciting than what we have now...positional jockeying. And, with positional jockeying being the sole incentive the teams involved may be very inclined to play rookies and prospects a little more (blegh).

Back to the here and now.

TradeSports is leaning towards the Tigers finishing with the Division (76.5). The AL Pennant: Yankees (44.5%), Twins (21.5%), Tigers (19.0%) and Athletics (18.0%). Smart early money, of course, is on the Yankees, but beyond that 'premium' being added there is no clear favorite, and the Yankees are not even in the "very possible" 45-55 range.

Now to the National League.
The Mets have clinched the #1 seed in the NL. They will face the Wild Card winner unless the Phillies get the Wild Card. In that case the Mets will face the lower of the other Division winners (likely to be St Louis). The Mets will have home field advantage.

The Central appeared to be a lock this time last week. But then the Cardinals went on a seven game losing streak. In the meantime the Astros went on a seven game winning streak and picked up, well, seven games. It is a battle again! As the Astros are proving, never say never, but their chance of winning the Wild Card are slim (0.3%) as they need to make up 4 games on the Dodgers, 3 on the Phillies, while only having 5 left to play.

Anyway, if for some insane reason you last week shorted contracts for Cardinals to win the NL Central or bought Astros win the NL Central then you should be very pleased. The Cardinals have now fallen to 73.0% (still a very strong possibility) and the Astros have risen to 24.0% (an underdog but not a long, long shot).

The NL West is the big battle. The Padres own a two game lead and will very likely win the division (86.5%). The Dodgers are not completely out of it, being only 2 back, but I would not put money on them at this point (15.5%).

In the Wild Card race the Dodgers are being given the advantage on TradeSports (57.0%) over the Phillies (33.0%).

Again, under the Costas plan the big races would be even better because the loser of the Padres-Dodgers race would be out...no consolation prize of "Wild Card". All or nothing...much better race is the result.

Back to the NL...the odds for the pennant: Mets (40.0%), Cardinals (19.0%), Padres (17.4%), Dodgers (12.5%), Phillies (10.5%) and the Astros (5.0%).

Terrell Owens attempts suicide

I heard this first on the Glenn Beck program. The updates they have been getting I want to post but I cannot find corroborating sources. At this point I have found this:

According to a Dallas police report obtained by News 8, Dallas Cowboys star receiver Terrell Owens attempted suicide Tuesday night.

The report says Owens, 32, was depressed and reportedly took prescription pain pills. Owens broke his right hand in a Sept. 17 game against the Washington Redskins.

A woman companion stated that she observed Owens putting two pills in his mouth.

According to the police narrative, the woman said the prescription of 40 pills was filled on September 18 and—until Tuesday—Owens had taken only five pills.

The police report said Owens was asked if he had taken the rest of the prescription; Owens said, "Yes."

According to the report, police also asked if he was trying to harm himself. Owens answered, "Yes."

Owens was treated at Baylor University Medical Center.

A Dallas Cowboys spokesman told News 8 the team has no comment on the police report, nor is any news conference scheduled.

The player's publicist didn't immediately return calls for comment.

Someone called into the radio show and said that also in the police report is that Owens' publicist called an ambulance last night stating Owens was trying kill himself.

Now, while this is a personal tragedy there are some other things that this will have an impact on. Fantasy football leagues around the country had owners pick Owens for their teams as a gamble. Why?

There were plenty of reasons to doubt Owens was going to finish this season. What are those managers who took a chance on Owens thinking? Discussing his impact on fantasy football may seem a little cold-hearted but it is the same impact that may affect his career.

How?

Because of his exploits in Philadelphia and San Francisco teams are either unwilling to tender a contract to him or unwilling to offer a long-term or expensive contract. Now this latest development will likely scare off the remainder of the teams willing to take a chance on him making it through one season.

Talent pissed away like this is sad.

Skip the 6th

I have found very little reason to vote for anyone in the 6th. No, the more accurate statement is that I have no reason to vote for anyone in the 6th Congressional District race. I advocate to people that they skip the race (and seem to be making some significant progress).

Further evidence against Wetterling is being reported by King

there was a 6th CD debate downtown today. And sure enough there was supposed to be. But one candidate chose not to be there.

This is getting to be a habit. And it looks like Wetterling was not planning her daughter's wedding this time. She was getting endorsed by Wesley Clark.

I have been consistently saying that the disrespect shown by a candidate in accepting an appearance and then skipping, cancelling or missing it is evidence of a lack of character. The fact that people find it objectionable enough to criticize on one side of the aisle, but are willing to overlook it for their own is exactly the "Party Over Principles" mentality that is destroying confidence in our system and our public servants. Rewarding this behavior by supporting these candidates is simply letting the candidates know that the behavior is not objectionable.

I find the no-show sufficient to add to the growing list of reasons that Wetterling is not of high enough character to be elected to a public office. I guarantee this: The howling will be a one-sided selective-memory festival from the Right. However, they are ignoring (intentionally) the fact that their horse does the same thing.

Regardless, this missed debate is further proof that people in the 6th will be given a huge disservice regardless of who is (undeservedly) sent to Congress.

********** UPDATE **********
It seems that Wetterling's campaign never committed to the debate. So the question becomes this:
Is Wetterling covering her no-show tracks OR is Bachmann again creating character flaws of her opponent that equal her own? There is a track record of the latter already.

Now, the Right has been spending pixels bashing Eric Black. Yes, he is biased. Yes, he editorializes. No, he does report fiction. So when he says he talked to the debate organizers and he prints their conversation one has to gives some credence to the text.

Chamber Pres. Teresa Bonin: Sorry. Couldn’t take your calls. Middle of debate. What can I do for you?
Ink: Did Wetterling accept then cancel an hour before?
Bonin: Not exactly, but I really wish she had been here.
Ink: Yes, but had she ever promised or committed to be there.
Bonin: No, not really promised or committed. We’ve worked on it for four weeks. Wetterling didn’t say yes or no for three weeks. Then a week ago, scheduler called to say she probably couldn’t make it. So I asked them to reconsider. There’s been some back and forth since then. Not until this morning did I get a final answer that she wasn’t coming.

Hmm, Bachmann offering a bald-face lie about her opponent while ignoring that she is guilty of the same thing. Never would have seen that one coming.

Cheep Political Stunt of the Day

By this point... I should not be surprised. But I still am. Democrats made a claim that the Republican National Convention website isn't safe saying:

"If Republicans can't even secure their own website, how can the American people trust them to offer a new direction that keeps our own country secure," McMahon charged in the Sept. 25 letter to McCullough. The DNC released the letter to the public this morning.

Oh my God, give me a frick'in break. Tony, can we have a category with a photo of a monkey throwing his own feces? I think this would be an appropriate story for such a category. And for the record... If the RNC came out with a letter about how "un-secure" they believe a system that they have absolutely no control over is, I would be equally upset at the stupidly of said comment.

Also lets look very closely at what McMahon said here:

trust them to offer a new direction

I have spent a long time in sales. This is the same tactic sales people use all the time. It's called "seed planting." The tactic involves planting seeds, not really bringing up the topic (new direction=Leave Iraq) for which you want to sell (election) early, that way it can fester grow into the dreams and aspirations of a Democratic majority in power.

This is one of many Extended Warranties I wouldn't push recommend for anyone.
So look carefuly at what people say... espically when they want something from you (wether it be your money, or political vote).

From bad to worse

Just a quick update on one of the 4 political contracts being followed on this blog. This one is the Kennedy for Senate contract.

The news from the market is getting worse and worse. Now that the Klobuchar-Kennedy reactions to the "stolen" ad via a hacked password has had some time to enter the market the tealeaves show very little promise for Kennedy.

As of this moment the last contract traded at a 9% chance for Kennedy to win. There are no bids to buy "Kennedy wins" contracts (and there are no "Klobuchar wins" contracts for sale meaning those holding them expect the price to ride closer to 100% payoff).

I'm just the messenger.
********** UPDATE ********** 9/28/06
Finally, someone made a bid to buy "Kennedy wins" contracts...at 5%.

What is she hiding

I have left a message at the Michele Bachmann campaign and with the NRCC asking for proof that she voted in the 2004 Presidential Preference poll. Considering that the NRCC is expecting others to be able to prove the same then Bachmann ought be held to the same standard.

There has been no response.

What is Michele Bachmann hiding?

I'm just applying the candidates to the same threshold of standards that they try to hold their oppositioin to.

Coming Down the Home Stretch

With most of the playoff teams having just 10 games remaining now is a good time to look at the TradeSports markets.

NL WEST
The Dodgers and the Padres are locked in a battle for the lead. Currently there is 1/2 game seperate them. The Padres have 10 games left (and the lead), the Dodgers have 9 games left. The Giants are practically out of the race (10 games remaining). The Padres & Dodgers both have a magic number of 6 over San Francisco.

What is the market saying? 57.8% for Padres to win the division and 43.8% for the Dodgers. Both within the "toss-up" range, but leaning towards San Diego.

NL CENTRAL
Really, this is almost a waste of time to even write. The Cardinals (11 games remaining) have a magic number of 5 over the Reds (10 games remaining) & the Astros (10 games remaining).

The market has the Cardinals at a 99.4% chance of taking the division.

NL WILD CARD
The only three teams in contention for the Wild Card are the Dodgers, the Padres and the Phillies (10 games remaining). As of this moment the Dodgers have a 1/2 game lead over the Phillies and a magic number of 10. The market is giving the edge to Philadelphia (52.0%) over Los Angeles (26.9%) and San Diego (18.0%).

NL PLAYOFFS
So, using the current pricing the NL Playoff picture is shaping up as follows:
Philadelphia vs St Louis
San Diego vs New York Mets

According to the actual records if the playoffs started right at this moment is would look like this:
Los Angeles vs New York
San Diego vs St Louis

And to win the NL Pennant...
New York (40.5%)
St Louis (23.0%)
San Diego (13.2%)
Los Angeles (12.2%)
Philadelphia (11.0%)

AL WEST
Another division where the time to report is more wasted than useful. Oakland (10 games remaining) has a 7 game lead and a magic number of 4. The market also reflects this certainty giving the Athletics a 99.3% chance to win the division.

AL CENTRAL
This one is so close...it actually changed while I was getting the quotes (Twins down-ticked).

The Tigers (11 games remaining) hold a 1/2 game lead over the Twins (10 games remaining). That tranlates to a magic number of 10. The Tigers have been sliding and the Twins have been hot, but this may be neutralized by the Tigers easier schedule...marginally. (DET remaining: 7 vs KC, 3 vs Tor; MIN remaining 3 vs Bal, 4 vs KC, 4 vs Chg.)

The market also reflects this slight advantage giving Detroit a 54.2% chance to win the division compared to Minnesota's 46.2%.

AL WILD CARD
The Twins hold a 5 1/2 game lead over Chicago (9 games remaining) for the Wild Card. If between now & next Thursday Chicago can pick up 1 game on the Twins then they have a mathematical chance (requiring a sweep to end the season). The market does not think much of that happening. They have the Twins at a 55.5% chance to win the Wild Card, the White Sox are next on the list at 1.1%.

AL PLAYOFFS
So, using the current pricing the AL Playoff picture is shaping up as follows:
Minnesota vs New York Yankees
Oakland vs Detroit

According to the actual records if the playoffs started right at this moment the pairings would be the same.

And to win the AL Pennant...
New York (44.0%)
Minnesota (23.0%)
Oakland (18.2%)
Detroit (17.7%)
Chicago (1.1%)

WORLD SERIES WINNER
Yankees 30.0%
Mets 19.0%
Twins 12.7%
Athletics 10.0%
Tigers 8.6%
Cardinals 8.6%
Padres 4.9%
Dodgers 4.8%
Phillies 3.9%
White Sox 0.9%

The Weather Outside is Frightful

During this week of crappy weather here in the twin cities, it makes me think back to the last Twins game I went to (Twins vs. Tigers) at the dome. While Professional sports are cool, and bla bla bla… I, like many across this state, are not excited about having to pay taxes for a ‘company’ to build their building to make more money.

The last time I went to a game, the weather in the dome was perfect. In fact, judging by the barometer on my watch… it was still perfect weather inside the dome. Now, when I have to bring a blanket and an umbrella to a outside stadium… screw that.
If they are going to build a new stadium anyway, why not build one with a retractable roof or something. In this state, an outdoor stadium seams a little… dumb. Either way, I don't want to pay for a private organization to make money by forcing it out of the taxpayer's pockets.

Besides, what are they gunna call em instead of "Dome Dogs." I suggest "Topless Dogs." mmmm.... hot dogs...

BTW, folks... Better see your twins this year if you haven't already! This season is runn'in out!

Dirty campaigning

Details, accussations and questions will continue to pour out over the coming days/weeks. And, well, they should. Whatever details led to this happening are important.

Democrat Amy Klobuchar's U.S. Senate campaign has fired its chief spokeswoman, revealing Wednesday that she viewed an unreleased TV ad for Republican candidate Mark Kennedy that may have been illegally obtained.

...

Klobuchar campaign manager Ben Goldfarb said that communications director Tara McGuinness was contacted last Saturday by a local blogger who sent her a link to the ad. Goldfarb said the campaign had turned the matter over to the Minneapolis office of the FBI.

Hmm, how honorable [cynicism overflowing], you fired her.

Deplorable...and I have a hunch the conversation in the campaign went like this:
TARA MCGUINNESS: "Say, this blogger sent me a link to Kennedy's ads."
STAFFER #1: "Really, let's see. Is it a new ad?"
TARA MCGUINNESS: "It's newer than new...it is unreleased."
[they watch an ad]
STAFFER #1: "Say, Tara, I don't think we should be looking at that."
TARA MCGUINNESS: "Really? But there are 15 more ads."
STAFFER #1: "Are they all unreleased? If some of them are released already then we can keep them for our records."
TARA MCGUINNESS: "I don't know. We won't know unless we see them."
"You're right. Let's watch them."

[watch all the ads they have access to]
TARA MCGUINNESS: "Hmm, I don't remember seeing those before but I could be wrong. Let's ask the rest of the staff."
STAFFER #1: "I agree."
[Memo to entire staff:
"We need your help determining if some ads have been released yet. Please attend the mandatory meeting in the video viewing room in three hours to help us determine if these ads are public or not."]

[after the Kennedy Ad Viewing Meeting]
BEN GOLDFARB: "We should have a cover story in case it gets out that we viewed those already. We need a fall-guy."
TARA MCGUINNESS: "I'm getting a little burnt out with the hours and rigors of the campaign. Being a spinmeister at the Senate level is a gargantuan job. You can say you fired me and I can get some much needed rest."
BEN GOLDFARB: "Are you sure? OK. Hey, don't delete those video files...we need to send them to the strategy team."

Yeah, I know, that is a pretty cynical view. The truth is I would not put this past either of the campaigns. The reality is that the Klobuchar campaign is the one that is "coming clean". Somehow I think the "coming clean" part is a campaign ploy to bolster the image of upholding values. Don't let that fool you...Klobuchar's a politician. Values mean little to politicians unless it is the value of Power.

In her own prepared statement, Klobuchar apologized to Kennedy and his campaign.

"What happened here was wrong," said Klobuchar, the chief prosecutor for Hennepin County. "By reporting the blogger's activities and this incident to law enforcement, we are doing the right thing."

OK, so the chest puffing continues as this story unfolds.

Kennedy's campaign manager, Pat Shortridge, held a news conference late Tuesday to demand the Klobuchar campaign answer a list of questions about the incident. Chief among them, Shortridge said: Why was McGuinness's firing announced Wednesday if she viewed the ad Saturday?

"Why did it take them so long to notify us?" Shortridge said. That in turn raises other questions, he said, such as whether other Klobuchar staffers or supporters saw the ad; or if McGuinness used information in the ad in a way that benefited the Klobuchar campaign.

Fair questions...and I am betting that no matter what answers come out the Kennedy campaign will engage in the partisan ploy of selective hearing and claim the questions are unanswered...or leave it to their "independent" and mindless lemmings to act indignant. Welcome to the truth about politicians in 2006.

One of the questions has already been answered:

Goldfarb said he first found out about the ad on Saturday night but not the full scope of the problem until Monday, when he dismissed McGuinness. He said the campaign didn't announce her dismissal until Wednesday because it took that long to finish making the report to the FBI.

Even as cynical as I am I have to believe the fact of that.

Goldfarb said the Klobuchar campaign wouldn't answer any more questions about the matter while the FBI was investigating it. Goldfarb did say in his prepared statement that neither he nor Klobuchar watched the ad, and that "no campaign strategy or decisions will be changed because of it."

Let me translate that boldface part: "We reviewed the pending ads of our opponent and confirmed that our campaign strategy does not need any significant alterations."

As for the partisan outrage...if you are upset about the scum-bucket nature in this story then the intellectual honesty in you should voice the same outrage about this other scum-bucket campaign tactic.

Damn...Can it just be November 8 tomorrow?

California sues 6 auto makers over Global Warming

California is suing 6 auto makers (including: Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan. What, no BMW or VW?), charging that:

greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars

Wait... they have got to be kidding... maybe I haven't read far enough. Lets see what MSNBC is reporting here...

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.
Lockyer, a Democrat, said the complaint states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a “public nuisance” by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Woha, no, their not kidding. They actually believe this crap! Lets see... how is MSNBC reporting it:

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

Bull! How can they say this?? Linked to global warming?? According to the EPA, Carbon Dioxide isn't even a pollutant! I've asked questions on this before... questions, in fact, to other members of The Church of Global Warming while at All Gore's fantasy movie.

I've shown graphs like this:



And still, dispite the fact that my Chevy Tahoe wasn't around with the dianasaurs... my Chevy Tahoe is causing it now? All Gore mentioned temps weren’t going up and down when he showed the graph going back 1000 years, but the graph he showed going back 600 thousand years wend up and down as well. New York Times has jumped around on the global warming topic:

Sept 18, 1924: "MacMillian reports signs of New Ice Age"

March 27 1933: "America in longest warm spell since 1776; Temperature line records a 25 year rise"

May 21, 1975: "Scientists ponder why world's climage is changing; A major cooling widley considered to be inevitable"

Time magazine has also been on this:

Sept 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recient years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age"

Jan 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

June 24, 1974: Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studing may be the harbinger of another ice age."

April 9, 2001; "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact hat humans are at least partly responsible."

So, the three questions I've posed:

1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our fault this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous periods?
2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)
3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.
   I don't doubt that the earth MAY be getting warmer, after all, from what I can tell, we're at a low now. But unless you can answer these questions, then there is no reason to believe that humans are causing global warming. I tried asking these questions at the viewing of All Gore's Fantasy movie, but after people stopped booing someone challenging them, the only answers I got involved Big Oil, and Hurricane Katrina.

To these questions, the normal responses are something like this guy here:

1. To my 1st Question: The Earth has natural temperature cycles and no scientist will claim differently. The way in which the earth can do that is through numerous and complex systems that help it to regulate temperature. Man is having an impact on those systems because of our activity - that is what the science shows. When enough of those systems get thrown out of whack it will have disastrous consequences.

2. The answer to my 2nd question: Think about a bathtub - if you draw a really hot bath the water is very hot when you first get in. But once you've been in there for a while you get used to it. Humans have no frame of reference for the past. Furthermore, the analogy of a frog in a beaker of boiling water in Gore's movie is a good one too. If you are in a system and it gets hotter gradually you don't notice.

3. The answer to my third quesiton: This is where all of the misinformation starts coming in. It is in fact true that we have only been physically recording temperatures for a short period of time. But it is also true that scientists have been able to determine temperatures for a much greater period of history based on things like ice core samples. If you watch the movie you'll see some of that data and you are welcome to explore it yourself. I have also seen a few programs on the Discovery channel on that subject.
---
"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly." John F. Kennedy
Raven – August 7, 2006 – 7:14pm

I can't make this up, folks. This guy babbles completly around 3 very good questions that shake the very foundation of the Church's belief. (When I say "The Church" i'm refering to the Church of Global Warming). I need to take a minute, these people form the Church of Global Warming anger me so much, I need to let out some stress... I know the perfect way. I'll go out and drive my Trans Am. More to this... when I get back.

********** Update: 10:30pm **********

Ahhh, there is nothing like the feeling of an American V8 engine running through a 6-speed transmission. Freek'in Orgasmic.
Anywhoo, back to the crazyness. So far, NO LIBERAL ARGUEMENT has been able to answer the questions I’ve asked. No one from the Church is able to tell my why the earth's temperature seams to now be lower then the norm (in the span of the Earth's history).
And this thing in California. What we have here, friends, is a horrible disgrace... an attack on industry, funded by the California nutball government. By suing these auto manufactures, they are FORCED (much like they auto industry is forced to do so many other things) to spend money to defend themselves. BIG money. The numbers are not out yet, but I bet you my left Chrome exhaust tip that the money spent on lawyers alone will be more then I can make in 20 years.
All for what? For some Treehuggers to try to stick it to the man? For some UofM student to feel better about their Hybrid?
No, I'll tell you what this is.
The number one reason this lawsuit is going on is for the Church to push the Global Warming issue into the spotlight and to put it through, in one final giant push, as Proof that this crap is happening, and that Humans Americans are causing it. And the American public is so caught up in this hysteria.
Now, watch me spin it like it was Vinyl.
When anyone tries to prove that humans are causing Global Warming, and I mean realy prove (none of this Katic Couric garbage), they are going to ask questions like I asked. Questions that can't be answered with the kind of answers the Church wants to hear. And when the dust settles, this rabbit hunt that the Democrats and their Church are playing, will turn in to a pot of gold. A pot of gold with a big huge sign that says "The Earth has warmed without Chevy Tahoes, and it will warm with Chevy Tahoes."
But you could easily burry this type of news in the "opinion" section of the StarFib and call it "the speak of Sock Puppets of the Administration, backed by the greed of Corporate America."
Man, I can read these guys like Dr. Seuss can lay down the rhymes.

Dishonest campaigning

Really, if you Republicans cannot see how offensive this kind of lying is then there really is no hope...and if you can understand how slime-laden this is then you understand why I refuse to vote for Bachmann.

The National Republican Congressional Committee claimed in a brochure sent to 6th District voters this week that Democratic candidate Patty Wetterling failed to vote in three big election years, including 2004.

The hitch? Wetterling voted in both the primary and general elections that year, when she made her first run for Congress in the suburban and exurban district.

NRCC Press Secretary Jonathan Collegio cited Wetterling's voting record from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, which shows no evidence of her voting in a March 2004 presidential preference ballot.

OK, so the NRCC is saying Wetterling did not vote in 2004 because there is no evidence of her participating in the March caucus' presidential preference ballot.

But that's because there are no official voting records on anyone from that ballot, which was conducted by the political parties at precinct caucuses, said Kent Kaiser, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office. News reports said scrap paper and Post-It notes were used as ballots in some busy precincts.

The reason I refuse to support Bachmann is, while her platform is very close to what I would want in a candidate, this kind of thing is indicative of her character. While normal people show a disdain for 'politics as usual' this kind of abject disregard for honesty or truth is the norm from those who support Bachmann (and from Bachmann herself).

Republicans should be ashamed that they are using their hair to wash the feet of this the person. They should be outraged that the NRCC would stoop to such a dispicible level. GOP members should also be insulted. Constantly (well, at least before 2006) it was said by GOP members that "we win on the issues, if only the issues were discussed" but doing this kind of campaigning shows people that you are not confident that your positions are winning positions.

Furthermore, this is supposed to be someone that is a "public servant". Maybe the partisans don't, but I expect more from those who wish to be public servants.

Collegio on Wednesday said the NRCC won't back off its claim. The record shows that Wetterling didn't vote in the 2000 or 2002 primary elections.

Really, so what! If this were worth making an issue of then it is the general elections people should be worried about. And from the viewpoint of the voter...90% will go, "Neither did I. So what." Then what light will the attacker be in? A bad one.

Ethically this is slimey at best. Factually this is misleading. Tactically it is stupid.

"If Patty Wetterling wants to produce documentation showing that she did in fact vote in the 2004 presidential preference ballot, then we will take a look at it," he said.

First, explain HOW that would be demonstrated. Second, explain why a sudden call for voting in a caucus is worthy of attack. Third, explain why you are wasting money on mailings about this instead of issues.

Hey, Bachmann, provide documentation that you have never no-showed to a scheduled appearance. Same burden of proof.

Wetterling (and her campaign) is inept and her platform objectionable to me, that can be attributed to incompetence, ill-informed and differences in opinions. My objections to Bachmann, on the other hand, are not induced by her incompetence. Her issues are from malice.

And isn't she the one who thumps her biblical beliefs at each turn?

Too bad the parties did not forward a worthy candidate. I will just have to continue going door-to-door advocating the "skip the race".

Gas prices and conspiracies

Bush and the Republicans are behind a global conspiracy to drive gas prices down! Well, that is the story being intimated by the Left.

This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report. In the segment, which aired at 4:40PM, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Schneider by noting that a form of smog reducing gasoline will be pulled "as we head into the fall and the November elections." Schneider then prefaced a sound bite from a "oil industry critic" by stating:

Schneider: "But this oil industry critic believes that what drove prices up was speculation and a report from a bipartisan congressional investigation may be having an impact."

The critic, Tyson Slocum, is a member of Public Citizen, a liberal consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. The group’s left-wing ideology is not mentioned, the only ID onscreen is of the organization’s name. At this point, Schneider asks the question: Do oil companies want prices down through the midterms? Slocum elaborated for him:

Slocum: "Eighty-one percent of their money goes to members of the Republican Party. I cannot say for sure whether or not they are influencing prices to assure that outcome, but it is, I think, more than just a coincidence that we're seeing an easing of prices at a time of running up to a very, very important election."

King implies a theory that people are capable of believing this conspiracy theory because they are, well, ignorant about economics. He points to a report on what people know about economics. The report is sad. Our schools are failing to TEACH the important stuff. I nearly aced the test questions...that means the test was easy!

Back to the conspiracy that too many of our fellow citizens are foolishly believing.

Why are the prices really going down? The nutshell, because of the fear of a supply interruption and the fear of outrageous prices in the future many companies went on a buying spree. Since the fears were put aside (Middle East calmed down, apocolyptic numbers of hurricanes did not occur, etc.) companies are now left with huge surpluses.

Brimming U.S. distillates fuel inventories rose more than expected on Wednesday to their highest level since January 1999.

Distillates, which include heating oil, rose 4.1 million barrels, compared to forecasts for a 1.9 million barrel rise among analysts polled by Reuters.

Yeah, you read that right. Inventories are 215% higher than forcast.

The conspiracy, if there must be one to pursue, is how the media and the Left perpetuated (for purely partisan purposes) the gas price fears to a point that huge overstocks became the reality. In otherwords the most plausible conspiracy is that the Left's fearmongering drove supplies too high.

The reality is that this is pure market correction. That is all. No one is to blame and no one is to get credit...as far as politicians go, that is.

********** Update: 9/21 4:00pm**********

Good Call, Tony. this reminds me of other Politicking done in 2004:

CBS 5/22/04:

Kerry, Bush Eye High Gas Prices

Mr. Bush devoted a portion of his weekly radio address Saturday to responding to the criticism that his administration is not doing enough to curb gasoline prices.

And a full 2 years later, Its still Bush's Fault that Gas Prices are high:

ConsumerAffairs.Com 5/4/06:

Consumers Blame Bush & Big Oil for Gas Prices

The most recent Gallup poll finds three in four Americans are angry with the recent increase in gasoline prices and they are blaming the oil companies and the Bush administration.

Three in 4 Americans. think its President Bush's fault. Oh, how quickely we forget:

USA Today 9/19/06:
Prices at the pump keep tumbling

A hefty 42% of Americans polled over the weekend said they think fuel prices are being manipulated by the Bush administration to help Republicans in an election year. The USA TODAY/Gallup Poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

What this means, friends, is we should believe that not only are High gas prices the fault of the Bush Administration, but Low gas prices are also the fault of the Bush Administration, but they're not good, mind you. Low gas prices, are not only just a ploy of the evil Bush Administration to buy your votes, but it also hurts the EnvironMental's whole "we're running out of Oil, SUVs should be Illegal, buy Hybrids" argument.

So, if Its President Bush's Fault that prices are going down (possibly as far as $1.15 for a gallon of regular), but then also President Bush's fault for gas prices going up... You can't have it both ways. Its either one or the other. Unless you, as a Left-Wing-Nutt-Job, are just LOOKING for reasons to Blame Bush for something. Which is what I think is happening here. It's like they aren't even trying any more. Lets just Blame Bush for Everything!

Come on people. If you blame me yesterday for dropping my cell phone, then blame me today for NOT dropping my cell phone because now, all of a sudden as of this morning, not dropping my cell phone is a bad thing, I would have to question your mental capacity.