I agree with Muscles, too much glory (reward) for cheating. My solution is simple, if you test false, or can be proven to have taken, banned substances all your accomplishments/records/awards are erased, period. After you serve you're suspension you start again as a rookie. So if you cheat, all you did before that moment is gone.
Take the glory away, raise the stakes.
From The Guardian:
"If you read between the lines, it's evident as well that Superman Returns was cunningly conceived as a belated threequel to the first two Christopher Reeve outings of nearly 30 years ago. "
Looks like Tour de France winner Floyd Landis failed his drug test. To be fair, there will be another test done on his "B" sample, but I can't remember a time where the "B" sample didn't confirm the "A." But here's hoping.
Real quick, I'm of the opinion that all cyclists dope, as do most athletes. Still loved the race this year, but his historic ride was tainted by my thoughts that the only way he could have done that is if he's on steroids. Now it looks like he was.
Better still is his mother's reaction.
Arlene Landis, his mother, said Thursday that she wouldn't blame her son if he was taking medication to treat the pain in his injured hip, but "if it's something worse than that, then he doesn't deserve to win. [italics mine]"
"I didn't talk to him since that hit the fan, but I'm keeping things even keel until I know what the facts are," she said in a phone interview from her home in Farmersville, Pa. "I know that this is a temptation to every rider but I'm not going to jump to conclusions ... It disappoints me. [italics mine]"
Now that's hard-core. You could show my mom actual video footage of me injecting steroids into my ass and she would deny it. She'd also launch into a long rant about conspiracies, how everyone does it, and a solid 15 minutes of indecipherable (except for the cuss words-those you could make out clearly) screaming. Those menonites are a hard crew.
Here's a copy of the Anti-Signing Statement Bill intorduced by Arlen Specter. No one's giving it a chance. Makes sense, when party politics rule there's no room for Constitutional divisions of power, just mucks up the works.
Also, here's McCain telegraphing how he'll vote. Personally I think McCain is done. His strategy of hitching his wagon to the Bush anchor will probably backfire. He's hemmoraging the Democratic and Independent voters he had in 2000 and, increasingly, this maverick is looking like a lackey. W said the anti-torture bill doesn't apply if he doesn't think it does. This was a bill written by a former torture victim who worked to insure a veto proof majority only to see it completely eviscerated at the end, yet he does nothing. I backed McCain in 2000 but I just don't see voting for him in 2008. The good news for him, I guess, is that it looks like Gore's the top contender for the Dems.
Sometimes I feel like crying.
More information about the White House's plans for alleged terrorists, "The bill would also bar “statements obtained by the use of torture” from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coercion was used would be admissible unless a military judge found it 'unreliable.'"
CNN's version just had the first sentence but left the key clause about "coersion" out of the article.
Notice that the judge only rules if the information is "unreliable" not if the information was obtained through "torture" or "coersion." Also note that, according to the administration, waterboarding, a "coersive" technique that mimicks drowning-and can cause permanent injury or death, is not considered "torture."
"The senators have said they would support establishing a system based on the military's own court-martial practices and had been told the White House would support such a move. But senior officials from the Pentagon and Justice Department testified earlier this month that the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be too lenient on terror suspects and could expose classified information."
And here, note, "Rather than requiring a speedy trial for enemy combatants, the draft says they 'may be tried and punished at any time without limitations,'"
Unlimited detention without trial, how Amerikan.
Sort of.
The Senate passed a bill making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines so she can get an abortion. At least I think so, the article just references "girls"-great reporting.
While I think there's a minor -ha- point to be made here about the nature of laws in this country. If somethings not a crime in one state, how can it be a crime to travel to that state to do it? Using this logic, why isn't it a crime for a Texan to gamble in Nevada?
Anyway, what really sticks out about this bill is that once again, the girl is exempt from punishment. If a state feels that abortion is murder, and wants to reach out and punish a legal activity in another, then surely all involved must be punished. Punishing minors as adults for murder isn't a new concept, nor is reserved solely for murder, so why the carve-out? As it stands, the 16 year old boyfriend gets hit with fines and jail, but the girl doesn't. How's that make sense? Also, if states can hold bartenders liable for serving drinks to people who subsequently get a DUI, why not charge the parents? They raised the little harlot, why aren't they on the hook? Also, when W says "...and jeopardizes the lives of young women" is he referring to the likelihood of getting into a car accident? Because as near as I can tell, getting an abortion has a real low mortality rate.
I freely admit I'm adamantly pro-life, I'm just not stupid law pro-life.
I also love how the Senate refused to dole out more money for sex ed. If the goal is to reduce abortions (a great goal) then take the steps to do it. Don't hole up in a fantasy land where kids aren't having sex. If you want to save a life, take the steps to save a life. Don't make political pawns out of young girls , or more accurately their boyfriends, by punishing them without educating them.
"Punishment without Education!" That's my new catch-phrase for anti-sex ed/pro-life crowd.
Taking my advice that the legality of Signing Statements belongs in the courts, Arlen Spector is preparing to take W to court.
Maybe we should file a "friend of the court" document.
Tony Snow backed off his assertion that Bush vetoed the Stem Cell bill because he felt it was the Federal Government financing murder (to paraphrase). I guess they felt that "murder" was to radical a word.
Instead, Snow says, the President feels that its wrong for the Feds to finance something that results in the "destruction of human life."
I actually liked his first reason better. Mostly because I think it was the truth. Truthful radicalism is great, we need more of it. However, Snow's new wording is just goofy. Does anyone really not equate "destruction of human life" with murder? Did W really think to himself, "This will result in the destruction of human life, but it's not murder." Or is a sentence like "The Hutus just destroyed a bunch of human life in Rwanda" really any different than "The Hutus murdered 800,000 Tutsi's?" Furthermore, how can the guy who signed more death warrants than any other American in modern history have any qualms about using state money for the "destruction of human life?" And doesn't War destroy human life, often innocent human life at that?
I get that the scientific community reamed Bush for the veto and called him a simpleton, but let's be honest, they're not the first to call him that. I'm no Bush fan, but when he vetoed the stem cell bill, I thought he was at least being honest, I think he does think its murder, and that's fine. He should have stuck to his guns, kept the debate about when human life begins, societies responsibility to protect life and the applications to abortion going. Not only that, but his conservative base appreciated his wording, why backtrack?
All this, dare I say, Orwellian wordsmithing just hurts his credibility even more.
Sen. Inhofe's not a beliver in the Global Warming debate. What better way to debate the issue than to compare Greenies to Nazi's.
Pot's not a "gateway" drug, much like you can't get addicted to crack after just one use. Article also says is looks like smoking pot may not have the same link to cancer as cigarettes.
Lot's of wasted money and lot's of wasted lives in the wake of a largely innefectual anti-drug crusade.
Another respected conservative speaks out against Bush. This is on the heels of George Will's article blasting the administration.
Again, there's a real issue brewing between the traditional conservatives and the social conservatives.
The American Bar Association is after W for his use of signing statements. While I'm no legal scholar, I do agree with their point that it oversteps constitutional provision on three equal branches. The White House contends that W's siging statements clarify the constitutionality of congressional laws, a point clarified by Clinton during his days as the big P.
From a DOJ brief: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority"
So just so I'm clear with Stalin, I'm not saying W invented this, actually Monroe had the first, rather, like most things excess may ruin the fun for everyone.
What I don't understand about signing statements, at least the way I remember civics class, is Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial decides their constitutional legality. So if the Executive is concerned about a Congressional law infringing on it's power, then the Executive should take the law in question to the Court. Thus if the President feels that the anti-torture law passed by Congress infringes on his Commander-in-Chief powers, then he should take it to court. Not say,
"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
W can't decide the constitutionality of the law, he explicitly does not have the power, before he was "the decider," he was "the enforcer." He can't elevate himself above the courts, and doing so in reference to Congress places the Executive above both of those branches. Not how things work here, at least I hope not.
It's just a weird form of civil disobedience.
Colorado just passed a wave of immigration bill's all expected to be signed by the Guv. These merit attention as CO is concidered a preview of what state's may do nation-wide.
Most are harmless, "get money owed by feds," some that aren't exactly "look out for our fellow man" types with the potential to cause more harm than good, mandating that CO only provide those services that are federally mandated, one that officially complains to the feds for the immigration problem. All of these are boiler plate bills. I do like the ones that make it a crime to extort from illegals, or threaten documents that allow workers to be here. Nice touch, I hope these also serve as a model for other states.
There are a few that really rankle me. These are the the bill's that place the onus on business to prove that they don't have any illegals working for them, and to vet each employee for legal/illegal status. One, I'm no expert on any document. If someone hands me a forged doc, am I responsible? Do I have to hire extra people, or incur additional expense to insure legal status? Thanks for the new taxes guys. Especially because I already pay the tax that's supposed to enforce these laws. Why do I have to pay more because someone else isn't doing their job. What's next, mandatory employee drug testing at my expense? How about verifying that no employee commits a crime. Not only that, but I get peanalized if I hire someone who I think is legal. Why is it my business' duty to enforce the laws? Shouldn't I just be able to hire people and let the enforcement agencies do their job and tell me when someone's illegal? Actually, why must I presume guilt on all of my employees? Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" something of a cornerstone of our American society. As this law is written, if I hire Muscles for some rescue work, eventhough I've know him for decades, I have to verify his legal status.
I don't like this trend of pushing enforcement onto business. Government should do their job and leave me free to do mine. Hitting my profitability with a "back up the government's ineptitude" tax just adds insult to injury.
Journalism hit an all time high as far as college majors (at least in 2005). I guess some people are a glutton for punishment.
From Comic Book Resources, Re: Cartoon Network's Hellboy cartoon premiering in February:
"A traditional Hellboy scenario, to be sure, but, disappointingly, the finished results are far from a traditional Hellboy experience. The entire look of the film, from the characters to the background, diverges greatly from [creator Mike] Mignola's comic style. Hellboy and Abe Sapien closely resemble their comic origins; there is no mistaking who's who, but they've been redrawn to reflect the styles of more typical American animation. Liz Sherman, however, has been radically modified, seen in 'Sword of Storms' as a petite, Lara Croftian type who looks as though she could be a guest star in Cartoon Network's 'Teen Titans.'"
Sight unseen, I say "What's the problem?" Yeah, Mignola has a signature style, but the live-action movie did more than right by the material, it being one of the best--and by far the most underrated--comic book adaptations. And DC seemed to get a lot of narrative mileage since the Batman cartoon out of an animation style far removed from their characters' current comic book looks. Also, as the Hellboy cartoon's producer says of the choice to create new stories for the cartoons: " . . . the fans have the comics. Why give it to them again?"
That said, I'd love to see a live-action sequel, which according to the article won't be anytime soon.
From ESPN.com's Bill Simmons:
"You're not allowed to complain about four things in life: nudity, free food, free drinks and fantasy football. So why would I want to tinker with the latter, a multibillion-dollar business that brings us so much joy? Because we screwed this up from the beginning, that's why.
You know how pro sports were totally messed up in the '40s and '50s, back when the NBA had no shot clock, hockey goalies didn't have masks and football players went all 60 minutes? Back then, fans thought everything was fine, right? That's where fantasy is: great concept, semisuccessful execution, tons of potential. It's not Kathy Griffin's face; we don't have to renovate everything, we just need to make some adjustments. And I'm more than willing to be the Winston Wolfe of the whole thing."
The Christian themed market is now more than $4 billion strong. I think its great, seriously. If you think losing a golfball helps spread the gospel then more power to you. But I do have some questions around just what a "Christian" product is. Is it like organic, where certain standards have to be met? For example, is something Christian if it's produced in athiest China? Can you just slap a bible quote on something for it to be considered Christian? Can you run a Christian product company if you're on your third marriage? What's the proper way to dispose of a Christian product? I assume tossing it in the trash doesn't show the proper respect, so what should one do, or, I guess, What Would Jesus Do?
Personally, I'm not sure merchandising Jesus is the best idea, but at least this shows that Christians are freer in the marketing of their beliefs than the Muslims. Score one for free markets.
Aside from being the right thing to do, allowing gay marriage also helps the economy. In MA, where the gays can marry, they can also separate (as the founding couple just announced), and get divorced. Think of all the extra legal, accounting, therapy, and other bills having a whole new class of folks who can divorce will generate. We all know that marriage is bad for the economy, instead of owning two houses, with two refrigerators, two big sreen tv's, etc, married coupes share one house, one refirgerator, one big screen tv, etc. All this sharing shrinks consumption, which shrinks revenue, which shrinks profits, which shrinks salaries and even jobs, all bad for the economy. In fact the only good thing, economically, about marriage is the divorce, which brings a flurry of spending (got to buy and furnish that new bachelor pad), and all the fees that surround the process. Now that the gays can get divorced think of the boom (we all know that a gay man spends more on his house than a striaght one) that is surely coming. Since they've already been living together the damage of sharing is already priced into the system, now it's all upside! Hooray the gay's, and their future divorces! Bye, bye, turns into buy, buy, which means buy, buy stocks.
This is what I picture when I think about the GOP. It's like they're desperate to get something to stick going into November, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with any real issue facing the nation. They're the party in power, they're the ones who are supposed to be getting things done, they're the ones constantly reminding us that "We're at War," and they're spending their time one this American Values drivel. Now we get an attempt to bar Judges from ruling on the legality of "Under God" in the Pledge. This is because a line that was added to the pledge in 1952 is apparantly needed to "defend America's founding principles." I guess if 1952 was when the nation was founded, and a purely political move to demonstrate how we're not like communist athiest USSR means anything, sure. But I'm just curious, what about the founding principles of the "three branches of government" and "checks and balances?"
We're at a time when Afganistan is deteriorating, and attacks in Iraq are on a dramatic increase ("Last throes" anyone?), Iran is gone completey antagonistic and is going nuclear, nuclear N. Korea is launching missiles, Japan is making noises about bombing N. Korea and altering it's constitution to allow a military (China will love that), Israel is moving towards all-out war and this is what the House GOP is spending it's time on? Seriously?
Again, everyone complains about "legislating from the bench," but I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the real danger is "judiciating from the chamber."
Posts
All Comments
