Long and detailed obituary from Ay Pee at the link. But, because Ay Pee threatens to prosecute those who post their articles without permission, here's the summary: Senator Robert Byrd (D, West Virginia) died peacefully at about 3 a.m. Monday. He was 92.
May his memory bring comfort to those who loved him.
#1
The wikipedia site for Byrd already has been updated to show his death. It is more forthcoming than the AP article about the KKK issue.
However, neither the AP nor Wikipedia report the long list of named-for-Byrd projects in WVA. A good list of these is at the Citizens Against Govt Waste entry on Byrd.
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/28/2010 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I am reminded of the story of an old broadcaster who, back when he was just starting out, worked in an isolated radio station, just putting records on turntables.
He got a phone call to interrupt the music long enough to announce the death of FDR. After doing so, he played the next record on the pile, without looking at it. Shortly thereafter, his phone rang again.
He had put on "(I'll be glad when you're dead,) you rascal, you".
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
A vile, disgusting, and corrupt individual. He will not be missed.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/28/2010 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Too bad he couldn't have pulled this stunt in time to spare us from ObamaCare.
#8
WV law requires a special election be called if a vacancy occurs more then two and half years before a term expires. Byrd missed that date by a week. (July 3rd) The Democratic Governor has already indicated hes looking for loopholes to buck the law and make a special appointment. Rham was prolly on the blower before Byrd was cold. Got pass that Finacial reform yaknow.
Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving member of Congress, was admitted to a Washington-area hospital last week and is "seriously ill," according to a statement released by his office Sunday.
Byrd, 92, was admitted to the hospital for what was believed to be heat exhaustion and dehydration following recent high temperatures in Washington, D.C. In a statement, Byrd spokesman Jesse Jacobs said that "other conditions have developed which has resulted in his condition being described as 'serious.' "
First elected to the House in 1952 and the Senate six years later, the Democrat has been in frail health for years. Last summer, he was hospitalized for several weeks for an infection. He later returned to Capitol Hill and, in March, helped Democrats advance the final pieces of President Obama's health care law.
The statement from Byrd's office did not disclose which hospital is treating Byrd nor any specifics about his condition. His office did not return a call seeking further information.
Senate records show Byrd's most recent vote was cast June 17.
We wish him well and a speedy recovery, so that he can retire and spend his remaining days with his family.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If first elected in 1958, he must be up for re-election in 2012. Another pickup for the GOP.
#10
It would have been a lot more gratifying if the voters of West Virginia could have roused themselves to throw the bastard out of office before he died.
#12
Atomic Conspiracy -- there are a handful of Pharoahs whose names are lost. There are a couple of others who are known only because one or two undamaged carvings with their names have appeared.
All it takes is a chisel and some time, and we can erase his name from all his monuments. Or, for true humor's sake, his replacement can get money to repair the things Byrd built -- but only if Byrd's name is removed, and that of someone TRULY worthy put on it.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/28/2010 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON -- Former US vice president Dick Cheney, who has a long history of heart problems, may be released from hospital on Monday after a weekend stay over unspecified health complaints, his daughter said. Cheney, who checked into George Washington hospital Friday, is "feeling better and hopefully will be released tomorrow," his daughter Liz told Fox News Sunday.
We hope Mr. Cheney will remain healthy for a long, long time, his sheer vitality an irritant to those who deem themselves his political adversaries even though he has retired from the halls of power.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Death came for Cheney, but he stared it in the eyes and said "Get out before I kick your ass"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/28/2010 8:15 Comments ||
Top||
Soccer governing body FIFA acted immediately to provide officials Jorge Larrionda and Mauricio Espinosa with armed protection following the highest-profile mistake of this error-strewn World Cup.
Referee Larrionda refused to credit England's Frank Lampard with a game-tying goal against Germany on Sunday, even though television replays showed the ball bouncing nearly a yard over the goal line. Assistant referee Espinosa appeared to have a clear view from the sideline but did not flag for a goal. Tell me again why soccer doesn't have instant replay? Football has had instant replay since 1986. I was talking with some Euro fans and they said it would slow down the game and rob it of its purity. Game's not very pure when 50,000 people see the ball go in and only 1 person on the field doesn't see it.
England fans here were left furious at the way their team had been shortchanged by the Uruguayan pair. According to a source familiar with FIFA's responses to controversial referee calls, additional security had been ordered for the officiating crew amid fears of reprisals.
The source confirmed that extra security personnel had been called for "within minutes" of the incorrect decision and was in place to escort the men back to the official, high-security referees' base near Pretoria.
Germany eventually won the match 4-1 and progressed to the quarterfinals. It would have turned out as a different game had it been 2-2 at one point. FIFA's official stand? "Let it be as it is and let's leave (soccer) with errors." Yes, they actually said this. Morons.
I watched the match. Yes, it was 4-1, but it wasn't as close as it sounds.
#1
4-1 in soccer is a blowout. Each goal has as much weight as, actually more weight than, a touchdown. More like a touchdown in overtime. The whole game is played as if it's overtime, with one goal enough to strike fear of losing in the opponent.
#2
Referees have far too much influence on the outcome of games. The same infraction will result in a game losing freekick/penaltykick/sending off or be ignored in different games. And this can happen many times in the same game.
The problem with off-field video referees is that the referee intervenes pretty much every minute of a soccer match. And reviews would slow down and make soccer even duller as a sporting contest.
And serious penalties (sending offs) are for 'intentional' infractions. How are you going tell if something was intentional, quiz the player involved?
The heavy influence of the referee results in a complete absence of sportsmanship in the game. In a cricket match, a player who knows he is out will walk off without waiting for the verdict of the video referee. In last nights game none of the Germany players indicated a goal had been scored even though many could clearly see it had.
#3
The US and England are the two least popular countries in the world. We spend our time going to war and vetoing any attempt to stop us in the UN.
The US had two perfectly good goals disallowed for no reason in this tournament. England had one, which was critical.
Neither the US or England were good enough, but it wouldn't matter if they were because there is not a chance in hell that the rest of the world would miss the once-in-four-year opportunity to cheat us and then give us the finger knowing there is nothing we can do.
I'm pretty sure Uruguay must have a warship to sink or some airplanes to shoot down?
#4
Watching the FIFA adverts on the tely is most interesting. None of them depicted white contestants. Bafana Bafana and all that Zulu chanting...more rubbish, along with Cup 'hip hop' theme song here.
There's a message in all of this, make no mistake.
#5
I'm against video evidence. Once you introduce it for checking up on goals there won't be any stopping, and this would kill the game. It would become boring (yes I know you U.S. guys find it boring anyway but for once your opinion doesn't count here).
I'm not saying this because England was robbed of a goal and Germany benefited. I would have preferred to have England awarded the goal.
Very often wrong referee decisions energize the faulted team and its supporters. A send off is often extremely dangerous.
Discussing wrong ref decisions is part of the fun. Losing teams have comforted themselves for ages blaming the ref.
I don't want the game to stop every two minutes for video evidence (guess who will plaster the screen with ads?).
Soccer (football for the rest of the world) is not baseball. You don't see people eating chicken wings and chatting when the game is on.
Once you introduce video evidence to decide whether the ball has crossed the line, the next step is to introduce it for offside situations that lead to goals.
Then it's over. Because an offside decided by a ref stops the attack all the time. No video evidence could reverse the situation. But an offside NOT given by the ref and then decided by video would.
Let's keep football "human". Introduce two refs who just watch the goal line. That should do it.
""Let it be as it is and let's leave (soccer) with errors." Yes, they actually said this. Morons."
I loathe FIFA officials with all my passion. But they have a point here.
And think about it: No video evidence would have solved the Wembley mystery. How long should we have waited for a decision? And how controversial would such a cold blood decision have been?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 5:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A workable system could be devised that only allows for the most egregious errors to be corrected. But, as they said above, FIFA officials think that mistakes are cool and part of the game, sort of like vuvuzelas. They're simply not interested to devise such a system.
A strange thought, a game with no referee mistakes considered 'boring'.
#7
Well that's not quite what I meant. Rather a game interrupted every 2 minutes in order to check up on ref mistakes.
"that only allows for the most egregious errors to be corrected"
Sounds reasonable BUT who gets to decide when such an error would qualify?
Certainly the English goal is one. But what about the Argentinian offside goal?
And what if a ref robs a team of a clear goal because he wrongfully decides an offside? (This happens far more often than the goal situation we had yesterday.
No, introduce 2 extra refs who stay put at the goal line.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 5:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Btw God bless the English sense of humour:
"Don't mention the four" (The Sun)
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 5:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Tell me again why soccer doesn't have instant replay?
Because it allows the FIFA to decide who will win the World Cup.
#10
That's a fallacious "slippery slope" argument. There is a workable middle ground between the current "horribly flawed" system and a hypothetical "stop every ten seconds for video replay" system. In football, there are rules by which some calls are subject to challenge and some are not. For example, pass interference, a notorious judgment call, is not subject to challenge. The ref has 60 seconds to review the call and must overturn it if there is "incontrovertible visual evidence" - this would have worked in the England/Germany game. There are penalties to discourage abuse of the system. There is instant replay in Aussie rules football, too, and it works just fine. Instant replay could be made to work in soccer, if they wanted. They don't want to! FIFA likes the world-shattering mistakes and thinks that they are part of the tradition of the game. To my mind, this is totally fucking retarded, but whatever. It's just one of the many baffling things that I just don't get about soccer and soccer fans - it's right up there with deadly stadium stampedes and people running around in organized groups beating the shit out of each other.
We have the technology, we have had it for over twenty years and it works just fine, but the will to implement it is just not there. Contrast the view below with FIFA's stance:
"Our goal is to take advantage of advanced technology to create the most efficient replay system possible," said NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. "We believe we have developed that type of system. It uses advanced technology, but it is simple to operate."
#11
We don't need video decisions.
We need better referees for sure.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 6:27 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Because it allows the FIFA to decide who will win the World Cup."
No. This is nonsense. No FIFA official could know in advance what situations could arise and how they should be decided.
(I rather bet that FIFA would love the U.S. to win the Cup as this would give soccer a ,ost lucrative boost in the U.S. Yet ref decisions were clearly against the U.S. teams on several occasion).
The Uru ref actually did say thgat he was quite dismayed after watching the vid. No ref in his right mind would disallow a goal like that. Obviously he didn't see the first bounce for what reason ever and then got influenced by the second bounce (which was not behind the line). Shit happens.
What would we discuss without Wembley or Maradona's "hand of God"?
I see far more problems with video evidence which happens to be less clear than the one we saw yesterday.
As I said, you can't take back a wrong offside decision that robs the attacking party of a legit goal.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 6:35 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Soccer.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/28/2010 6:55 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"Let me remind you that sixty-five years ago, we defeated you in your favourite sport."
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
06/28/2010 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I agree with EC -- no video replay in soccer.
For all FIFA world level events, one should have a 'goal linesman' for each net, suitably positioned to judge whether the ball is completely in or not. That linesman would also help with the egregious fouls that occur in the penalty area on free kicks and corner kicks.
I don't think soccer needs video, but it does need a couple sets of eyeballs since the referee simply can't look at everything.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2010 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I was quite frankly embarassed by the over paid poncy twits . We got stuffed , and even if that goal was allowed , ze germans would still have beaten us . The English team performance was lack lustre , slow and weak . These prima donnas should just quit and let hungry young reckless youth play .
As regards the .... ooh never mind , they were just lame beyond comprehension .. I hope theres a group at Heathrow to eggs and cabbages at them .
Posted by: Bravo two ||
06/28/2010 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Sensors in the goal frame and something they can sense (a wire loop or three?) in the ball.
#20
Bullcrap. You can and should have video replay on all goals & ONLY FOR GOALS. Just like hockey. It wouldn't slow down the game that much and you already have additional time to account for that if it did. Couldn't be any worse than some of these "grown men" taking faux-dives on the field and waiting for a stretcher they don't need - totally gay & wastes everyone's time -- did you guys see the end of US/Ghana? Also, it's not just Americans that want replay - english footballer Steve McManaman and German legend Jurgen Klinsmann are both big advocates for electronic review of goals. I trust their opinion on this matter more than FIFAs. No one is advocating any replay system for corners, goalkicks or fouls etc - only on goals. This is a good middle ground, end of story.
#21
What does "only goal" mean? To decide whether a ball has crossed the line?
Actually those situations are extremely rare, but if you can do it with sensors, ok, no biggie.
But most offside goal situations aren't that easy to decide as the one Argentina scored. Sure with replay you eliminate some real bad decisions.
But you open a can of worms.
Agree with Steve White on more linesmen who stay put and watch the penalty area.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Of course things get absurd when the public sees an instant replay in the stadium and the refs have to ignore it.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#23
How popular a country is influences the referees.
I thought this whole gathering for sport was supposed to be beyond that.
Better to not give the ref crew the tools it needs, whether replay or extra linesmen.
I guess we do not want to hurt the feelings of the beneficiaries of poor calls; how comforting for the other team. A bounce on the line or a shoelace on/off side is a judgement call, a bounce 1 meter in goal or that far offsides is an egregious error.
Poor officiating is a great comfort blanket for the losers.
Its one thing to gripe about calls. Its quite another to get screwed.
What would there be to talk about if there wasn't so many bad calls.
Charming. Guess the game does not stand on its own merits then?
US opinions do not matter in this case.
I see. Last I checked the US had a team in this tournement.
This is the pennicle of the game and there are not enough good crews to officiate all the games, or is it because of inclusiveness that some crews are turned down in favor of a crew from some other region. Sounds like rule by lowest common denomenator. Want to talk about deserve to win, I want to talk about all teams deserving to have a level field to play. An outmatched team playing their hearts out and winning is called an underdog story out this way. The US/Ghana game had great officials, where is my comfy blanket? Who gives a shit, Ghana won that game fair and square and no complaints other than the normal chair coach stuff.
But hey do not let this criticism by some, ugh american, damage the veneer of the pretty little game's appearance over outcome. Obviously my mindset of legitimate competition is well off the mark from the pagent reality.
#24
All I need to know about soccer I can figure out from which parts of the world it's popular in.
Yes, it's the most popular sport in the world, and the world wears it's ass as a hat. Therefore, it's not much of a sport.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
06/28/2010 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Re #21: The players would all have to wear those Invisi-Fence dog collars or something in order to do remote-sensed off sides. So it could be done, but...
If they DID do that, the referee might be able to issue a brief, but memorable "correction" in lieu of cards. I dunno... thinking outside the 18-yard box, I guess.
(Actually I wouldn't mind seeing another pair of assistants on the field: one behind each net to watch out for all the shirt grabbing.)
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
06/28/2010 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I thought this whole gathering for sport was supposed to be beyond that.
As Clauswitz said, soccer is the continuation of war by other means.
"(yes I know you U.S. guys find it boring anyway but for once your opinion doesn't count here)."
The idea was that U.S. guys who find soccer boring do not count here because the rest of the world definitely doesn't find it boring.
A debate about instant replay is totally legit. I happen to be against it, that's all. Because it would change the game.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Guess the game does not stand on its own merits then?
We finally have an American who understands soccer!
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/28/2010 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Soccer is not only a dull sport but the players are drama queens, faking getting hurt and all. I last about 30 seconds and then I have to change. As far as the discussion on videos go, find good refs, not camera's. Base ball has done a pretty good job of officials, some mistakes but over all good calls. Part of the game is the officials. My vote is to let EU have soccer, France, and the Euro. I will keep my base ball and beer.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
06/28/2010 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I have predicted that in 50 years soccer will be the most popular sport in the U.S. as well.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#31
" I have predicted that in 50 years soccer will be the most popular sport in the U.S. as wel"
Why is America going to go that stupid that quickly, and fall for a game where the Refs frequently determine the outcome for better or worse, acting is valuable because faking a fall gains you advantage (repeatedly), there is little scoring, hand eye coordination is not required (you play ONLY with your feet) and even the timekeeping isn't public or precise. Its 30 seconds of excitement packed into 90 minutes on the field.
Not going to happen. Its a children's game and will stay that way here.
Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar ||
06/28/2010 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#32
With all respect but you have no clue what you are talking about.
Of course some matches are boring but others are thrilling.
No eye coordination? Did you watch Germany against England? Didn't you notice how well players coordinated their moves, their passes?
Re drama queens. Sure they exist but most fouls are REAL fouls and hurt like hell. Just look at the injuries.
I have played in the highest German amateur league and I know what I'm talking about.
When I watch some fouls I rather find it amazing how fast a fouled player is able to get up again.
No, I stand by my prediction. Easy one. Just look back where soccer stood in the U.S. 20 years ago.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#33
EC may have a point there. The qualifier US vs. Mexico in Houston looked more like an away game for the US, minus the trash and flares thrown onto the field.
Getting kicked by someone who has spent 4+ years of their life doing nothing but learning how to kick hurts like a summbitch, anything short of grieves only helps. I have come back from some games looking like I lost a thai boxing match. Anyone who has learned the hard way that you must get completely over the hurdle knows that falling down at full sprint tickles a bit, even if on nice spongy grass.
Ya got a system which one ref and a handful of assistants try to keep track of a large field and 22 players with no overhead view, its not fair to the ref or the teams.
#34
HAND Eye coordination. Not feet. You know, hand-eye coordination, the thing that sets us humans and primates above the other species? The ability to grip, manipulate swing and throw? Soccer is so limited it CAN be played effectively with your arms tied round your back. Especially if you can fall down convincingly every time the ref is looking your way.
I can see how this is popular in Europe, You've been fooling yourselves for decades that Statism is good and wanted. No surprise that "Football is the greatest sport" is another delusion of yours as a continent. You just don't understand the alternatives.
We have a larger number of, and frankly better, more entertaining alternatives than Europeans.
Soccer is big there because you don't have really anything else. No NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, College basketball and football, and even no equivalent to the NHL except in a few cultures.
Its a children's game and will remain so, on the fringe, in the US as long as it continues to be the game that it is. Stupefyingly boring, paying off acting that would get you booted off a soap opera, inexactly timed, and ineptly refereed on a consistent basis. Nothing you said changes any of that. Its an inferior product that will not displace the others sports above it in the US.
Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar ||
06/28/2010 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Like religion, most people love what they grew up with. Therefore, most Americans will never be interested in watching professional soccer or cricket... and most of the rest of the world will find the baseball and ice hockey pointless. Let us resolve each to be amused by the other, and leave Clausewitz to his own devices. (Very well put, SteveS!)
European Conservative, thrilling is in the eye of the beholder. I promise you, based on my equal inability to see thrilling things in American football, basketball, baseball, ice hockey, cricket, and most popular music concerts, there is absolutely no way to translate that thrill to someone who did not previously grasp why he should care.
#36
Personally I think usenet / network / rantburg flamewars should be a recognized 'sport'.... that way even the geeks have a chance to win (and whine..).
I like ice hockey very much, I like American football somewhat (but watching a game with 50 interruptions spiked with advertising ruins it for me) and baseball leaves me totally cold.
Of course what you watch and play as a kid is most important. That's why I find it somewhat amazing that actually a lot of American youngster DO play soccer before they switch to baseball or American football.
"Soccer is big there because you don't have really anything else. No NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, College basketball and football, and even no equivalent to the NHL except in a few cultures."
Nonsense: At school we played handball, basketball, volleyball, but when the semester of soccer was declared we would joyfully storm out in winter to play on a frozen field at -15°C. (Must be our stubborn love for "statism")
And it's not just Europe. It's ALL Latin America (except Cuba and the Dominican Republic), it's all Africa, the Arabs love it, the Iranians, the Japanese, the Koreans.
To call soccer "static" is simply nonsense.
Another thing I found amazing. In Japan, in Brazil, in Argentina and in South Africa, but also in other countries, people could name at least 5 or 6 German players they admired (of course also Brazilian, Argentinian or Italian players).
How many U.S. baseball fans can name a Japanese or Korean player who does NOT play for an U.S. team?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Actually the real world series of baseball is literally Little League with winners from Mexico, Japan, Taipei, South Korea, Venezuela, and Curaçao.
#39
I have nothing negative to say about baseball. It just leaves me cold. But that's not a reason to put it down like many Americans chose to do with soccer.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/28/2010 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#40
I have nothing negative to say about soccer. It just leaves me cold. But that's not a reason to put it down like many Europeans chose to do with our national pastime, baseball.
Games are good exercise for the young in lieu of war. Adults should stay out of them.
And how come nobody talks about the fastest game on two feet, lacrosse?
#42
Badminton is a very popular sport worldwide. Personally, I enjoy table tennis and bowling. Billards and darts are great too. Motorcycle sidecar racing is AWESOME!
Soccer, baseball, basketball, etc., I can do without.
#43
I have nothing negative to say about baseball. It just leaves me cold. But that's not a reason to put it down like many Americans chose to do with soccer.
Posted by European Conservative
We put it down partly because of the way some poncy twits react. It's amusing. And, of course, we put it down because it is a girls game.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
06/28/2010 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#44
EC: " I have predicted that in 50 years soccer will be the most popular sport in the U.S."
EC: "I stand by my prediction. Easy one. Just look back where soccer stood in the U.S. 20 years ago."
well, i honestly don't think the pussification of our society that has happened in the last 20 years will be enough of a lasting trend to make soccer the #1 sport in 50 years as the massive dumbing down and indoctrination of "i am the universe" that the US education system has been putting out continues to gains steam, our primidonas who are too spoiled to share the field and play as a team and will not take time away from their self edification to watch someone else in a spotlight.
Of course, if we continue to allow the millions of illegals to flood in, that might balance out. but then it wouldn't be the US but rather a province of Mexico where your prediction came to pass.
on the Instant replay: The system in NHL hockey works great.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
06/28/2010 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#45
That made a funny thought, how long would it take to get the game going again if a futbol player was hit by an inside fastball?
Nimble, because few people are badass enough to play lacrosse. Watch, when basketball takes over Europe in 10 years. Whatever is wrong with the NBA happened to soccer 50 years ago so it should fit right in.
The goal sport genre from toughest to least IMHO:
Lacrosse
Hockey
Water Polo
Basketball
Soccer
Horse Polo
I find track and field boring, but every 4 years I look at my childhood medals again and flip on the olympics. Checkers has a good flow to it. Chess, all that starting and stopping, especially the Chinese version - wheres that cannon a goin' now?
Football, Baseball, Hockey, basketball, all have given their refs the tool of instant replay and it has nothing but helped the officiating crew and has not slowed those games down any noticable amount.
#46
EC could be correct based on immigration alone. If the lack of popularity increase that resulted from getting that Beckman guy is any indicator, immigration is the only way it will get big.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
06/28/2010 22:13 Comments ||
Top||
(Reuters) - Kyrgyzstan's leader said on Sunday the country had voted to create Central Asia's first parliamentary democracy, in a landmark referendum only two weeks after an explosion of ethnic bloodshed killed hundreds.
Roza Otunbayeva said Kyrgyzstan had embarked on a path to establishing a "true people's democracy" in contrast to previous presidential systems in the former Soviet republic. She made her comments before the release of preliminary official results.
"The new constitution of the Kyrgyz republic has been approved," Otunbayeva told a news conference in the capital Bishkek after earlier voting amid heavy security at a university in Osh, her home city and epicenter of the violent clashes.
"We are proud of our people. We are proud of our country, which made this choice at a difficult hour."
Clad uniformly in red jackets and hats, a group of people were rooting for the North Korean national football team during the World Cup in South Africa, waving the North Korean flag in perfect order.
The U.S. magazine Newsweek says about 100 men in their 40s and 50s "with uniformly dark and haggard faces" showed up at the grandstand for North Korea's matches against Brazil and Portugal.
Bet they weren't as glum as the Nork coach in that Portugal game ...
"The group consisted of migrant bronze workers who had arrived here from Namibia on a 24-hour-long bus ride," the weekly said. "Surrounded by overly exuberant, vuvuzela-blowing Portuguese fans adorned in bright green and yellow, this group appeared strangely out of place."
"Seated a few seats away from them were two younger men with healthier complexions who appeared to be their minders."
The North Korean supporters, who were "perfunctorily waving miniature flags with the restraint of soldiers," were quite incongruous at the festival.
They are workers of North Korea's Overseas Construction Company and overseas staff of Mansudae Creation Company who have been dispatched to Africa to earn foreign currency for the regime.
"One of the most repeated World Cup mottos is 'a time to make friends,' but what if a country has become so foul in its isolation that its government has forgotten how to be a part of the world and its people are never allowed to interact with those outside, even the casual attendees of a soccer match? That, certainly, was the question these silent North Koreans provoked in South Africa this year," the weekly concluded.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The supervisory board for France's Le Monde is meeting Monday to choose new owners for the iconic but debt-saddled newspaper owners who will take control out of the journalists' hands for the first time since 1951.
The journalists' committee that oversees strategic choices at Le Monde overwhelmingly backs a bid by a business trio formed by Internet billionaire Xavier Niel, Lazard banker Matthieu Pigasse and Pierre Berge, an arts patron and longtime partner of the late designer Yves Saint-Laurent.
A rival bidder, a group that includes the owner of Spain's El Pais and France's former state telecoms monopoly, said hours before the meeting that it would pull out.
Le Monde says it needs help to pay off debts and survive punishing times in the media industry and is looking for an estimated euro100 million ($124 million) capital increase. Le Monde needs the cash fast and would become bankrupt at the end of June if it doesn't receive new capital, spokeswoman Anne Hartenstein said.
France's telecoms giant, Orange, which made a joint bid with the French Nouvel Observateur magazine and the Spanish group Prisa, owner of El Pais, issued a statement Monday to announce the group would not maintain its offer after the journalists' committee favored the other bid by 90 percent.
The supervisory board meeting Monday is to choose to enter exclusive talks with a bidder, conditional on a deposit of euro10 million. It is widely expected to select the business trio, known by the acronyms of the three men's last names: BNP.
H/T Lucianne.com
Who would have thought the Gulf oil spill would make a 90-year-old law newsworthy? The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, was meant to save the merchant marine industry by requiring ships that plied American waters be built in the United States and manned by American crews. After the oil started gushing, lawmakers started demanding that the government waive the law to speed international assistance for the cleanup. What the White House can't waive, however, is the ongoing damage caused by the Jones Act. The policies it embodies are a remnant of a worldview that contributed to economic collapse and the Great Depression.
Like many protectionist policies, the premises of the Jones Act seem plausible: Require goods moving from one U.S. port to another to travel on U.S.-built ships, with U.S. crews, and you will protect U.S. maritime and shipbuilding jobs. Unfortunately, under closer scrutiny it turns out the idea isn't seaworthy. The history of the U.S. merchant marine since passage of the Jones Act has been a story of decline, interrupted only by a massive shipbuilding boom during World War II. In 1920, U.S.-flagged ships carried 52 percent of the nation's seaborne trade. By 1939, U.S.-flagged shipping tonnage had declined by 25 percent and American ships carried only 22 percent of our seaborne trade.
After World War II, the number of U.S.-flagged ships declined rapidly to 1,072 by 1955. By 2005, that number declined to 249. As of December 2007, the U.S. ocean-going merchant fleet consisted of 89 ships engaged in international trade and 100 ships in the ocean-going Jones Act trade.
So much for jobs saved. The last serious review of the Jones Act (from a series of congressional hearings in the 1990s) revealed that more than 40,000 American merchant seamen and 40,000 longshoremen have lost their jobs despite Jones Act protectionism. Over the first 76 years of the act, more than 60 U.S. shipyards had gone out of business, eliminating 200,000 jobs. If the intent of the Jones Act was to save U.S. jobs, it failed.
The Clinton administration asked the International Trade Commission to estimate the number of jobs that might be affected by repeal of the Jones Act. The answer? Repeal of the Jones Act would affect about 2,450 workers in the coastwise shipping trade. In the shipbuilding industry? Repeal would cost 36 jobs.
Who pays the cost of protecting these 2,486 workers? The American consumer, for a start. The commission estimates the annual costs of Jones Act protectionism at between $2.8 billion and $9.8 billion.
The real costs of Jones Act protectionism are even higher when you take into account the distortions of trade that cost American firms and workers the ability to compete fairly for American contracts. For example, U.S. scrap iron, a vital ingredient for American steel plants, is shipped from U.S. coastal areas to Turkey, or to Taiwan, or to China rather than to other U.S. ports, because the Jones Act makes such U.S.-to-U.S. shipping prohibitively expensive.
The Jacksonville, Fla., electric authority has bought coal from Colombia rather than from U.S. mines because international transportation costs are so much cheaper. American livestock farmers find it cheaper to purchase feed grains from Canada or Argentina rather than from U.S. growers because the Jones Act makes shipping inside the United States so expensive. The salt used to clear frozen roads in Maryland and Virginia has been bought from Chile rather than from a U.S. mine in Ohio because transportation is so much cheaper.
On the flip side, these companies find themselves losing American sales to foreign competitors who enjoy cheaper transportation costs - costs that in many cases may be responsible for 50 percent or more of the final price of the product.
It's hard to make a national security argument for the Jones Act, either. Because U.S. warships are American made, and since Jones Act has helped gut the U.S. maritime industry, there is little domestic competition. We are left with very few yards, building very expensive ships. According to Robin Laird, a maritime expert, today it costs a third less to build an Aegis combat ship in Spain than in the United States. American industries thrive when they're exposed to the highest levels of competition. By any objective measure, the Jones Act is a failure and should be scuttled.
#1
When I was injured working in the Gulf of Mexico in 1995 the Jones Act was the only thing that made American Oilfield Divers Inc make me whole again. If I were working on a Petrobas drilling rig that was registered in Liberia I would have been screwed.
These imaginary numbers that we 'could' save mean nothing compared to protecting the tens of thousands of people who work on or near the water.
I don't think it is insane to require ships and companies that work our waters to register their equipment with the US, abide by our safety regulations and participate in workman compensation programs. Even if it does make salt more expensive in Virginia.
Without the Jones Act the jobs out on the water will go back to being the way they used to be; low paying and dangerous. If we enforced a single article from a single trade agreement with any of these countries in the article we might find that we are a lot more competitive than we thought.
#2
I don't think it is insane to require ships and companies that work our waters to register their equipment with the US, abide by our safety regulations and participate in workman compensation programs.
Makes some sense to me. If they were operating on land they would have to do so, right? And how different is operating on the Mississippi? But is enforcing regs on coastwise routes feasible, or will it just continue the current status? Are you saying that all foreign-owned vessels operating to US ports should meet our worker's compensation standards?
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."
The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban. BACKGROUND info at site Beavis notes this USA Today link.
#1
Wha...? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to apply to the entire country? Inconceivable!
Posted by: Dar ||
06/28/2010 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Chief Justice Roberts: "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Posted by: Dar ||
06/28/2010 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If the 14th Amendment incorporates the rest of the Bill of Rights at the state and local level, it surely does the same for the 2nd.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/28/2010 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Now if they would just enforce the 1965 Civil Rights act.
#8
If you get a chance, check out Justice Thomas's concurring opinion. Legally, it is a humdinger, and clear that Thomas equates gun control with slavery, and rather passionately. He also takes issue with the Supreme Court waffling on the issue of civil rights being universal in the past.
However, keep in mind that this is a "single heartbeat" decision, and the moment the court turns liberal, it could, and likely will all be overturned.
This is a major problem right now, and yet another reason to hold a constitutional convention. Civil rights should not rest on 5-4 decisions, and periodically need to be reinforced at the root level, to get rid of countless years of efforts to undermine and neutralize them.
#9
It really shouldn't have been that close of a vote.
There are 4 people on the highest court that read the bill of rights and somehow interpret that very simple statement WRONG. Sorry, there just isn't that much wiggle room in the 2nd Amendment.
#10
"There are 4 people on the highest court that read the bill of rights and somehow interpret that very simple statement WRONG."
More importantly, bigjim, there are 4 people on the Supreme Court who just said that they're fine with anti-gun laws, KNOWING that the laws are racist in origin and were specifically put in place to deprive our black citizens of the ability to defend themselves.
Makes ya' feel all warm and cozy, don't it? >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/28/2010 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.
Yup! Will San Francisco, New York, and all those other places please comply with the 2nd Amendment and quit interpreting the Constitution according to your own agenda.
#12
If we do have a next administration, this is the opening to keelhaul all those big politicos operating machines in the big cities by pressing civil rights violations of their citizens through their obstructions of this 'right'.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Soccer governing body FIFA acted immediately to provide officials Jorge Larrionda and Mauricio Espinosa with armed protection following the highest-profile mistake of this error-strewn World Cup.
