By now everyone has seen the video, or excerpts of the video, of University of Florida campus police arresting and tasering a student, Andrew Meyer, at an open mike Q&A with former presidential candidate and current Senator John Kerry.
Watching various television networks cover the event, and in particular MSNBC, there seems to be some idea that the police here used excessive force and were suppressing Meyer's right to free speech.
Before commenting further, I suggest you watch this video. It's about 4:30 long, but it provides much more coverage of the arrest and aftermath than I've seen anywhere else. Pay particular attention to his attempted escape about 28 seconds in, and the cop's explanation of why Meyer is being arrested near the very end.
This video doesn't cover Meyer's performance at the microphone, but it is fair to say that he was asking a legitimate question - one that, notably, Kerry wanted and tried to answer. (You can find other videos on Youtube that show that part if you must see it).
So the cops walk up to Meyer and drag him away. As you can see, when Meyer got to the top of the aisle, he tried to bolt and attempted to fight off officers who were removing him. That, all by itself, justified the use of the taser. However, police did not tase him then. Instead, they forced him to the ground, where he continued to fight back. Finally they tased him. Again - justifiably, albeit unpleasantly.
Here's the point that people seem to be missing - even if the cops are completely unjustified in their attempt to arrest you, you cannot resist that arrest. In otherwords, it is no defense to a charge of resisting arrest that the arrest itself was unlawful. If you resist, you get zapped. Or worse. If people don't like that, they can ask their legislators to change the law. But just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you don't have to follow it.
As for the initial intervention - that was complete crap. The cop at the end said Meyer was being arrested for inciting a riot. That is just laughable. He asked a question. The cops moved him off the microphone, without any cause to do so.
Had Meyer not reacted like a moron college student, his case would be solid. Unfortunately, like the child he apparently still is, he flipped out and resisted arrest - with violence, just as charged.
If the campus cops are going to be punished, it should be for their initial interference and failure to understand their role providing security at these kind of events. But they should not be punished for their use of the taser, and Meyer should be convicted of resisting arrest.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Clinton Campaign DOA
Mark it down - September 17, 2007 - the day Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign died.
The campaign doesn't know it yet - few do. But it's over. Done. She can never be elected President. Not after this.
As I noted yesterday, Clinton unveiled a mandatory health insurance plan that she plagerized from Mitt Romney, who created a similar plan when he was governor of Massachussets. I noted it was horrible, but thought to myself that between then and election day she would "clarify" the plan to reduce its draconian approach of penalizing the American worker.
I was wrong.
It was reported today that Clinton gave an interview to the Associated Press, wherein she went so far as to note that she could forsee the day when a person would be required to show proof of current health insurance before being allowed to work.
WTF!
On the radio today, her "economic advisor" tried to blabber something about taxes and how this will only be a percentage of someone's income. Newsflash dumbass - most people (myself included) cannot afford for the government to forcibly redistribute ANY percentage of my income.
Clearly it is not just Clinton who is completely oblivous to the real world, but she has apparently surrounded herself with others who are just as ignorant. This seems oddly similar to another completely detached president who surrounded himself with like(feeble)minded "yes" men.
It's over. Mark it down. September 17, 2007.
The campaign doesn't know it yet - few do. But it's over. Done. She can never be elected President. Not after this.
As I noted yesterday, Clinton unveiled a mandatory health insurance plan that she plagerized from Mitt Romney, who created a similar plan when he was governor of Massachussets. I noted it was horrible, but thought to myself that between then and election day she would "clarify" the plan to reduce its draconian approach of penalizing the American worker.
I was wrong.
It was reported today that Clinton gave an interview to the Associated Press, wherein she went so far as to note that she could forsee the day when a person would be required to show proof of current health insurance before being allowed to work.
WTF!
On the radio today, her "economic advisor" tried to blabber something about taxes and how this will only be a percentage of someone's income. Newsflash dumbass - most people (myself included) cannot afford for the government to forcibly redistribute ANY percentage of my income.
Clearly it is not just Clinton who is completely oblivous to the real world, but she has apparently surrounded herself with others who are just as ignorant. This seems oddly similar to another completely detached president who surrounded himself with like(feeble)minded "yes" men.
It's over. Mark it down. September 17, 2007.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Massachusetts Annexed by Europe
In today's news - Hillary Clinton makes love to the insurance lobby, Masschussets was annexed by Europe and nobody noticed, and Mitt Romney is a pot.
Health insurance and health care are expensive and not readily available to too many people. We all know this. Republicans try to ignore the problem by pandering to their insurance company donors and blaming "trial lawyers." The (mistaken) theory goes that trial lawyers and their gigantic fees from their frivolous lawsuits (you know, the ones that prevent gynocologists from practicing their love with women?) so run up the cost of medical care that, if only we could put a halt to those persnickity lawyers, medical care would be cheap and plentiful.
Nevermind that lawsuits (and verdicts) are trending down and that insurance companies are making record profits. Also nevermind that insurance companies don't make money by paying claims. Just stop the lawyers. (And, while you're at it, make sure that injured people quit suing, pick up their severed limbs, and get back to work - shiftless lazy good-for-nothings).
Meanwhile, the Democrats want to solve the problem by turning it over to the government. You know, the govenment that fabricated a war, created a Nazi-sounding "Homeland Security" department that doesn't actually do anything, and cannot repair just one major city that was flooded a couple years ago. Yet they can somehow effectively manage my health care.
Today, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a Democratic candidate for President, unveiled her new health care proposal to much fanfare. Unfortunately, it's not new. Rather, she stole it from Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who created a virtually identical plan in his state.
The Romney Plan, which went into effect July 1, 2007, requires all residents to have health insurance. If they do not, and cannot obtain a waiver, then in the first year they will be penalized by losing their individual deduction on their state tax returns. In subsequent years, they will be penalized on their taxes at one-half the lowest cost of available insurance.
What a great idea. Rather than face the insurance companies and their bullshit underwriting practices or their denial of coverage scams, and rather than face the medical lobby and their hyper-inflated charges (allowed only because the insurance companies will pay them), how much more convenient to simply penalize poor people for not buying insurance they already can't afford. So now the working poor, people with low-wage jobs and no health care, who can barely make ends meet as it is, must now pony up their non-existent cash to pay for health insurance instead of food, housing, utilities, gas, etc. Brilliant.
Hillary's plan appears to be identical, making health insurance mandatory. Her people try to equate it with states making automobile insurance mandatory. Big difference here - I don't HAVE to drive a car. I sort of HAVE to continue to breathe. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Staying alive is, I'm pretty certain, a right (although I suspect some folk such as Bill O'Reilly would suggest it is only a privilege).
Moreover, what if I don't want health insurance? What if I so hate the insurance companies that I do not ever want to see them get a dime? What if I don't believe in traditional medicine? Why should I have to have insurance that pays for treatment I don't want and would never seek? What if I just flat out don't like being told what to do? It's my money, dammit, and if I want to spend it on beer and potato chips instead of blood pressure medication, then that's what I'm gonna do.
Worse, the Clinton plan would, as I understand, prohibit insurers from assessing higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. That's just stupid. Now, I'm no fan of insurance companies - I downright loathe them. But they do have a place and they have to be able to run their business in a reasonable fashion. People with pre-existing conditions are going to cost more to treat - consequently it should cost more to insure them. Insurance is based on risk - a healthy person is cheaper because there is less risk of paying out a claim. Sick people are more expensive because there is more risk of paying out a claim. Duh. But if the insurance company cannot charge more for people who will cost more, then they will simply charge more for everybody.
Remember, insurance is not a public service - it is a for-profit business that makes money via taking premiums and investing them, then retaining the return on those investments. When they pay claims, they lose both their investing power and some of their return, which means they and their shareholders make less money. Because their incentive is to make a profit, not protect your health, they will act in a manner to maximize profits.
And now Clinton is playing right into their hands. Imagine a world where the government mandates that the public buy your product, whether they want to or not. The ironic part is that the large-scale implementation of this fiasco is being proposed by a Democrat and not a Republican. Apparently not all insurance company investments generate the expected returns after all.
But let me get to the best part - the killer funny twist of this whole mess. Romney, who created this very program when he was Governor of Massachussets, calls the Clinton plan something inspired by "European bureaucracies."
"Instead we should take our inspiration from the American people. Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families."
My score - Mitt=Pot, Hillary=Kettle, Massachussets=France, Insurance Industry=$$$$$$, American Working Family=Anally Raped (and without insurance to pay for the treatment).
Health insurance and health care are expensive and not readily available to too many people. We all know this. Republicans try to ignore the problem by pandering to their insurance company donors and blaming "trial lawyers." The (mistaken) theory goes that trial lawyers and their gigantic fees from their frivolous lawsuits (you know, the ones that prevent gynocologists from practicing their love with women?) so run up the cost of medical care that, if only we could put a halt to those persnickity lawyers, medical care would be cheap and plentiful.
Nevermind that lawsuits (and verdicts) are trending down and that insurance companies are making record profits. Also nevermind that insurance companies don't make money by paying claims. Just stop the lawyers. (And, while you're at it, make sure that injured people quit suing, pick up their severed limbs, and get back to work - shiftless lazy good-for-nothings).
Meanwhile, the Democrats want to solve the problem by turning it over to the government. You know, the govenment that fabricated a war, created a Nazi-sounding "Homeland Security" department that doesn't actually do anything, and cannot repair just one major city that was flooded a couple years ago. Yet they can somehow effectively manage my health care.
Today, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a Democratic candidate for President, unveiled her new health care proposal to much fanfare. Unfortunately, it's not new. Rather, she stole it from Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who created a virtually identical plan in his state.
The Romney Plan, which went into effect July 1, 2007, requires all residents to have health insurance. If they do not, and cannot obtain a waiver, then in the first year they will be penalized by losing their individual deduction on their state tax returns. In subsequent years, they will be penalized on their taxes at one-half the lowest cost of available insurance.
What a great idea. Rather than face the insurance companies and their bullshit underwriting practices or their denial of coverage scams, and rather than face the medical lobby and their hyper-inflated charges (allowed only because the insurance companies will pay them), how much more convenient to simply penalize poor people for not buying insurance they already can't afford. So now the working poor, people with low-wage jobs and no health care, who can barely make ends meet as it is, must now pony up their non-existent cash to pay for health insurance instead of food, housing, utilities, gas, etc. Brilliant.
Hillary's plan appears to be identical, making health insurance mandatory. Her people try to equate it with states making automobile insurance mandatory. Big difference here - I don't HAVE to drive a car. I sort of HAVE to continue to breathe. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Staying alive is, I'm pretty certain, a right (although I suspect some folk such as Bill O'Reilly would suggest it is only a privilege).
Moreover, what if I don't want health insurance? What if I so hate the insurance companies that I do not ever want to see them get a dime? What if I don't believe in traditional medicine? Why should I have to have insurance that pays for treatment I don't want and would never seek? What if I just flat out don't like being told what to do? It's my money, dammit, and if I want to spend it on beer and potato chips instead of blood pressure medication, then that's what I'm gonna do.
Worse, the Clinton plan would, as I understand, prohibit insurers from assessing higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. That's just stupid. Now, I'm no fan of insurance companies - I downright loathe them. But they do have a place and they have to be able to run their business in a reasonable fashion. People with pre-existing conditions are going to cost more to treat - consequently it should cost more to insure them. Insurance is based on risk - a healthy person is cheaper because there is less risk of paying out a claim. Sick people are more expensive because there is more risk of paying out a claim. Duh. But if the insurance company cannot charge more for people who will cost more, then they will simply charge more for everybody.
Remember, insurance is not a public service - it is a for-profit business that makes money via taking premiums and investing them, then retaining the return on those investments. When they pay claims, they lose both their investing power and some of their return, which means they and their shareholders make less money. Because their incentive is to make a profit, not protect your health, they will act in a manner to maximize profits.
And now Clinton is playing right into their hands. Imagine a world where the government mandates that the public buy your product, whether they want to or not. The ironic part is that the large-scale implementation of this fiasco is being proposed by a Democrat and not a Republican. Apparently not all insurance company investments generate the expected returns after all.
But let me get to the best part - the killer funny twist of this whole mess. Romney, who created this very program when he was Governor of Massachussets, calls the Clinton plan something inspired by "European bureaucracies."
"Instead we should take our inspiration from the American people. Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families."
My score - Mitt=Pot, Hillary=Kettle, Massachussets=France, Insurance Industry=$$$$$$, American Working Family=Anally Raped (and without insurance to pay for the treatment).
Pac-10 week three - oh well
So I was off in my predictions last week. I knew UCLA was overrated and Arizona was still a distant threat to be consistent, but come on - Utah was 0-2 and throttled by OSU, while New Mexico had only beaten a Pac-10 team one other time in its history.
Rather than the 7-1 outcome I predicted (with Stanford losing to San Jose State), UCLA chokes (not really), Arizona just can't quite get there, and Stanford rolls. So we went 6-2. Still not bad, but should've been better.
Most notable, however, was UCLA's tremendous beatdown at the hands (or hooves) of the Utes. But stop for a moment and think about UCLA. Sure, they had moved up to No. 11 in the polls. But did anybody stop to ask why? Two reasons - 1) they beat USC last year and 2) they have 20 returning starters.
So? Oregon State beat USC too. The Beavs are hardly worthy of a ranking. 20 returning starters? From what, a mediocre to poor team? UCLA wasn't anything to write home about last year (or the year before that) and there was no reason to think that had changed. They got lucky one game at the end of the season when USC was looking past them. UCLA has a not-very-good football team, a not-very-good coach, a not-very-good quarterback, and return 20 not-very-good starters. What's it mean? It means they're not very good.
But should they have got taken behind the woodshed at Utah? An 0-2 Mountain West team should not, EVER, lay the beatdown on a Pac-10 team - not even Stanford. It is thus only fitting that UCLA plummeted from number 11 to being unranked, ala Michigan post Appy State.
Anyhow, the Pac-1o improved its non-conference performance to 20-6 (.7692), although the Beavs' "big" win was against 1-AA Idaho State. As I predicted, the conference went 1-1 against the Big-10 and Big-12, with Washington losing to Ohio State and USC thumping Nebraska. Note to Nebraska - football doesn't live there anymore. It moved away years ago. Try competitive corn-shucking.
Meanwhile, the Big-12 went 27-9 (.75), the Big-10 went 26-7 (.7878), while the SEC went 15-3 (.8333). Oddly, the SEC played a bunch of confernce games, so it's tough to really evaluate it with the same view as the other conferences, who other than UCLA v. Stanford have yet to play within their own conferences.
So my predictions for the coming week:
Pac-10: Arizona at Cal - Cal, 52-10.
WSU at USC - USC, 32-17
UO at Stanford - UO, 49-3
OSU at ASU - ASU, 17-13
UW at UCLA - UW, 38-20
Rather than the 7-1 outcome I predicted (with Stanford losing to San Jose State), UCLA chokes (not really), Arizona just can't quite get there, and Stanford rolls. So we went 6-2. Still not bad, but should've been better.
Most notable, however, was UCLA's tremendous beatdown at the hands (or hooves) of the Utes. But stop for a moment and think about UCLA. Sure, they had moved up to No. 11 in the polls. But did anybody stop to ask why? Two reasons - 1) they beat USC last year and 2) they have 20 returning starters.
So? Oregon State beat USC too. The Beavs are hardly worthy of a ranking. 20 returning starters? From what, a mediocre to poor team? UCLA wasn't anything to write home about last year (or the year before that) and there was no reason to think that had changed. They got lucky one game at the end of the season when USC was looking past them. UCLA has a not-very-good football team, a not-very-good coach, a not-very-good quarterback, and return 20 not-very-good starters. What's it mean? It means they're not very good.
But should they have got taken behind the woodshed at Utah? An 0-2 Mountain West team should not, EVER, lay the beatdown on a Pac-10 team - not even Stanford. It is thus only fitting that UCLA plummeted from number 11 to being unranked, ala Michigan post Appy State.
Anyhow, the Pac-1o improved its non-conference performance to 20-6 (.7692), although the Beavs' "big" win was against 1-AA Idaho State. As I predicted, the conference went 1-1 against the Big-10 and Big-12, with Washington losing to Ohio State and USC thumping Nebraska. Note to Nebraska - football doesn't live there anymore. It moved away years ago. Try competitive corn-shucking.
Meanwhile, the Big-12 went 27-9 (.75), the Big-10 went 26-7 (.7878), while the SEC went 15-3 (.8333). Oddly, the SEC played a bunch of confernce games, so it's tough to really evaluate it with the same view as the other conferences, who other than UCLA v. Stanford have yet to play within their own conferences.
So my predictions for the coming week:
Pac-10: Arizona at Cal - Cal, 52-10.
WSU at USC - USC, 32-17
UO at Stanford - UO, 49-3
OSU at ASU - ASU, 17-13
UW at UCLA - UW, 38-20
Sunday, September 09, 2007
2007 VMAs - MTV Jumps The Shark
6:00 - Opening Act - Britney Spears. Britney apparently ate a stick or 50 of butter prior, then used the rest to squish herself into an outfit that might have fit her 3-4 years ago - before she exploded and her career died.
Is that Latoya Jackson up there?
Oh, and she can't lipsynch to save her pathetic life. Truely, deaf blind people lipsync better.
She can't dance anymore either. She walks like a drunk stripper - "anybody wanna dance?"
But I can't stop watching. Yes I can. No I can't. Yes I can. No I can't.
Yes I can, because it's over.
Sarah Silverman comes out. She's funny, right?
Not.
Nobody laughs at her slams on Britney. The hairless vagina joke falls flat - big surprise.
Nothing else she says is funny. Please leave now.
First award. Rhianna wins something. Does anybody care?
Cut to Kanye West singing on the balcony at the Palms in Vegas. Maybe he'll fall off. Then at least the show would be interesting.
Commercial break.
6:21 - Back from break. Some guy is singing a song that apparently requires the bleeping of every seven words.
Best new artist. Go pay a buck to text a vote. As if.
What is the "quadruple threat of the year?" Who makes this crap up?
Justin Timberlake is very happy winning an award nobody has ever heard of until 45 seconds ago. He calls out MTV to play videos. What's he thinkin?
Cut to Fall Out Boy. Could this be more random?
6:32 - Foo Fighters rock! But I can't figure out when the award part of the show starts.
Next up - the VMA for "Earth Shattering Collaberation." 50-Cent and Kanye West do a lame Frazier-Ali staredown. Kanye needs lifts.
Beyonce featuring Shakira wins. I remember when the categories made sense. Beyonce's about to have a wardrobe malfunction. Gee, I'd hate that.
6:36 - I assume this is Maroon 5. More commercials. Maybe they'll be watchable, 'cause this show is about one step away from bad public access.
6:43 - Chris Brown! Very First Time At The VMAs!
Who the hell is Chris Brown?
Oh - it's DJ Jazzy Jeff with Hitler's mustache.
And he's lipsyncing. Does anybody actually sing anymore?
Now he's impersonating Michael Jackson. That's really cool. If you watched this 15 years ago.
Yeah for commercials!
6:54 - Who the hell is this? Possibly cris-cross (or something) all growed up.
More stupid "don't vote for who you want to lose" in the Best New Artist category.
6:56 - Male Artist of the Year. I've never understood if these categories are based on music videos (i.e. the VIDEO music awards) or just the music.
Justin Timberlake wins. Probably due to his name recognition - and the fact that the other contenders sort of just, well, sucked.
JT says "play more videos." As if.
Foo Fighters are back! Rock on! I quit.
Is that Latoya Jackson up there?
Oh, and she can't lipsynch to save her pathetic life. Truely, deaf blind people lipsync better.
She can't dance anymore either. She walks like a drunk stripper - "anybody wanna dance?"
But I can't stop watching. Yes I can. No I can't. Yes I can. No I can't.
Yes I can, because it's over.
Sarah Silverman comes out. She's funny, right?
Not.
Nobody laughs at her slams on Britney. The hairless vagina joke falls flat - big surprise.
Nothing else she says is funny. Please leave now.
First award. Rhianna wins something. Does anybody care?
Cut to Kanye West singing on the balcony at the Palms in Vegas. Maybe he'll fall off. Then at least the show would be interesting.
Commercial break.
6:21 - Back from break. Some guy is singing a song that apparently requires the bleeping of every seven words.
Best new artist. Go pay a buck to text a vote. As if.
What is the "quadruple threat of the year?" Who makes this crap up?
Justin Timberlake is very happy winning an award nobody has ever heard of until 45 seconds ago. He calls out MTV to play videos. What's he thinkin?
Cut to Fall Out Boy. Could this be more random?
6:32 - Foo Fighters rock! But I can't figure out when the award part of the show starts.
Next up - the VMA for "Earth Shattering Collaberation." 50-Cent and Kanye West do a lame Frazier-Ali staredown. Kanye needs lifts.
Beyonce featuring Shakira wins. I remember when the categories made sense. Beyonce's about to have a wardrobe malfunction. Gee, I'd hate that.
6:36 - I assume this is Maroon 5. More commercials. Maybe they'll be watchable, 'cause this show is about one step away from bad public access.
6:43 - Chris Brown! Very First Time At The VMAs!
Who the hell is Chris Brown?
Oh - it's DJ Jazzy Jeff with Hitler's mustache.
And he's lipsyncing. Does anybody actually sing anymore?
Now he's impersonating Michael Jackson. That's really cool. If you watched this 15 years ago.
Yeah for commercials!
6:54 - Who the hell is this? Possibly cris-cross (or something) all growed up.
More stupid "don't vote for who you want to lose" in the Best New Artist category.
6:56 - Male Artist of the Year. I've never understood if these categories are based on music videos (i.e. the VIDEO music awards) or just the music.
Justin Timberlake wins. Probably due to his name recognition - and the fact that the other contenders sort of just, well, sucked.
JT says "play more videos." As if.
Foo Fighters are back! Rock on! I quit.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Pac-10 Football - Better Than Advertised?
Week two of the college football season has come and (almost) gone. Pre-season predictions seem about what I'd expected - wrong. As usual, the Pac-10 was given no respect, essentially viewed as USC + 9, where the 9 were not good enough to be .500 teams in the "real" conferences - Big 10, Big 12, and, ugh, the SEC.
So Week Two is over and let us review the non-conference wins/losses. Pac-10 is 13-3 (.8125). Big-10 (which has 11 teams) is 18-4 (.8181). Big-12 is 17-5 (.7727). SEC is 13-3 (.8125).
In head-to-head matchups, the Pac-10 is 1-1 against the Big-10, 1-0 against the Big-12, and 1-0 against the SEC. The sole embarrasment was the Beavers' loss to Cincinnati of the Big East (which as a conference has gone 12-2 (.8571 - best of the bunch), and 1-1 against the Pac-10).
And the Pac-10 wins aren't squeakers, either. Washington waxed Syracuse 42-14, Cal handed it Tennessee 45-31 in a game that wasn't as close as the score indicates (although SEC/Tennessee fan seems to think otherwise - big surprise there), Arizona State unloaded on Colorado 33-14, and of course, Oregon bitch-slapped Michigan 39-7 (and actually took steps to avoid running it up on the Wolverines).
Anyhow, the point is that the Pac-10 is far, far better than the rest of the country expected, and is 4-2 against the supposed "power" conferences. Next week should see the Pac-10 go 1-1 against the Big-12 and Big-10, with USC walloping an overrated Nebraska squad while a much-improved and resurgent UW will be unable to maintain against The Ohio State University (but I wouldn't fall over dead either if UW surprised me - they're capable). The rest of the conference ought to go 7-1, the sole loss being Stanford to San Jose State.
One interesting thing to note when comparing conferences - the Pac-10 is the only conference where every team plays nine conference games - the rest play eight.
So Week Two is over and let us review the non-conference wins/losses. Pac-10 is 13-3 (.8125). Big-10 (which has 11 teams) is 18-4 (.8181). Big-12 is 17-5 (.7727). SEC is 13-3 (.8125).
In head-to-head matchups, the Pac-10 is 1-1 against the Big-10, 1-0 against the Big-12, and 1-0 against the SEC. The sole embarrasment was the Beavers' loss to Cincinnati of the Big East (which as a conference has gone 12-2 (.8571 - best of the bunch), and 1-1 against the Pac-10).
And the Pac-10 wins aren't squeakers, either. Washington waxed Syracuse 42-14, Cal handed it Tennessee 45-31 in a game that wasn't as close as the score indicates (although SEC/Tennessee fan seems to think otherwise - big surprise there), Arizona State unloaded on Colorado 33-14, and of course, Oregon bitch-slapped Michigan 39-7 (and actually took steps to avoid running it up on the Wolverines).
Anyhow, the point is that the Pac-10 is far, far better than the rest of the country expected, and is 4-2 against the supposed "power" conferences. Next week should see the Pac-10 go 1-1 against the Big-12 and Big-10, with USC walloping an overrated Nebraska squad while a much-improved and resurgent UW will be unable to maintain against The Ohio State University (but I wouldn't fall over dead either if UW surprised me - they're capable). The rest of the conference ought to go 7-1, the sole loss being Stanford to San Jose State.
One interesting thing to note when comparing conferences - the Pac-10 is the only conference where every team plays nine conference games - the rest play eight.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Why Craig Should Resign.
By this point most people are aware of Senator Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) arrest and conviction in Minneapolis for trolling for sex in the men's bathroom at the airport there. A quick summary:
Craig was arrested for sitting in the stall in the men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport for sending "signals" to an undercover police officer in the next stall over. I have read the arrest report. As a municipal prosecutor, I can say with absolute certainty that I would have "no filed" this case had I read that report. That means I would not have allowed it go forward - it was that bad.
Nonetheless, Craig pleaded guilty. Some liberal radio talk-show hosts have claimed that Craig pleaded guilty the same day he was arrested, then flew to D.C. to cast some vote. They are lying. (As opposed to wrong - anybody who read the arrest report (dated June 12) and the guilty plea (signed August 1) would have immediately noticed they were a month apart).
In any event, Craig's claim that he didn't have enough time to contemplate the ramification of his decision, that he felt rushed, is complete crap. He mailed his freakin' plea petition, which he or an attorney drafted - there was no rush.
It is immaterial that Craig was arrested on this stupid, b.s. charge. It is also immaterial that he pleaded guilty. It is further immaterial whether he is gay or, if you believe his bizarre press conference, is not gay. None of that matters - yet it is all that the media are talking about. That, of course, is because the media are essentially a collective of idiots who pander to the lowest-common denominator.
No, the reason Craig should resign is quite simple - he is not qualified to be a United States Senator. Now, techinically speaking, he is qualified. The only requirements are age and residency. He meets both.
However, he is not intellectually qualified. He is claiming that he did not understand the ramifications of his guilty plea and that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered it. Aside from the rather explicit and detailed explanation found in the plea petition, this is not rocket science. I deal often with people of far lessor capacity (supposedly) who clearly understand the plea petition and what it means to plead guilty. So he can't understand the basics of the American criminal justice system, yet he is entrusted to understand and vote on the most complicated legislation this nation has to offer. Seriously?
Simply put, anybody who can't understand a simple misdemeanor guilty plea has no business being in the Senate. And why nobody has caught on to this yet is entirely beyond me - unless the reality is that EVERYBODY in the Senate (and most of the media) are also too stupid to grasp the significance of a misdemeanor guilty plea.
Craig was arrested for sitting in the stall in the men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport for sending "signals" to an undercover police officer in the next stall over. I have read the arrest report. As a municipal prosecutor, I can say with absolute certainty that I would have "no filed" this case had I read that report. That means I would not have allowed it go forward - it was that bad.
Nonetheless, Craig pleaded guilty. Some liberal radio talk-show hosts have claimed that Craig pleaded guilty the same day he was arrested, then flew to D.C. to cast some vote. They are lying. (As opposed to wrong - anybody who read the arrest report (dated June 12) and the guilty plea (signed August 1) would have immediately noticed they were a month apart).
In any event, Craig's claim that he didn't have enough time to contemplate the ramification of his decision, that he felt rushed, is complete crap. He mailed his freakin' plea petition, which he or an attorney drafted - there was no rush.
It is immaterial that Craig was arrested on this stupid, b.s. charge. It is also immaterial that he pleaded guilty. It is further immaterial whether he is gay or, if you believe his bizarre press conference, is not gay. None of that matters - yet it is all that the media are talking about. That, of course, is because the media are essentially a collective of idiots who pander to the lowest-common denominator.
No, the reason Craig should resign is quite simple - he is not qualified to be a United States Senator. Now, techinically speaking, he is qualified. The only requirements are age and residency. He meets both.
However, he is not intellectually qualified. He is claiming that he did not understand the ramifications of his guilty plea and that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered it. Aside from the rather explicit and detailed explanation found in the plea petition, this is not rocket science. I deal often with people of far lessor capacity (supposedly) who clearly understand the plea petition and what it means to plead guilty. So he can't understand the basics of the American criminal justice system, yet he is entrusted to understand and vote on the most complicated legislation this nation has to offer. Seriously?
Simply put, anybody who can't understand a simple misdemeanor guilty plea has no business being in the Senate. And why nobody has caught on to this yet is entirely beyond me - unless the reality is that EVERYBODY in the Senate (and most of the media) are also too stupid to grasp the significance of a misdemeanor guilty plea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
