Thursday, July 30, 2009

BTPC hits the Road

The BTPC is loading into the metallic pea Wagon Queen Family Truckster and headed to the water. I know, I think you hate it now, but just wait until you drive it.

So enjoy your weekend. And if you happen to be out on the water, be on the lookout for us. It shouldn't be hard to spot the pinko, commie with two jack russells.

Seinfeld Reunion!

Good news for Seinfeld fans...that long awaited reunion is coming. Just not quite as you thought. Alan Sepinwall reported today that this seasons Curb Your Enthusiasm will be built around David and the cast of Seinfeld working on a reuinion show.

As Sepinwall relays it:

"For years, I've been asked about a 'Seinfeld' reunion," David told
reporters at the Television Critics Association summer press tour in Pasadena.
He always refused, but, "Then I thought it might be very funny to do that on
'Curb.' And I kept thinking about it."

Seinfeld will appear in five episodes, sprinkled throughout the season, and
the others will appear in as many as four or five episodes, albeit not always

"We'll see writing, see aspects of the read-through, parts of rehearsal,
see the show being filmed, and see it on TV," David explained. "You won't see
the entire show. You'll see parts of the show. You'll get an idea of what
happened (to the 'Seinfeld' characters) 11 years later. Within the show, it will
be incorporated into regular 'Curb' episodes. "

So get your Kenny Roger's Roasters ready.

Round Two of Captain Kirk doing Palin

Seriously...has there ever been a national public figure who is so ridiculous, that the unintentional comedy from her very own words breathes life into sketch comedy across the nation? I think not. First, we had Tina Fey and SNL using Palin's exact answers during the VP Debate to mine comedic gold. Then we had Conan enlist Captain Kirk to make sense out of Palin's bizarre, disjointed farewell speech. Now, the Shat riffs off Palin's Tweets.

Please Republicans...we need this lady as a candidate in 2012.

Is Pete Sessions full of hot air?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) better watch out, or he could go down in flames. Ok...enough blimp humor. But seriously, how is Sessions going to explain this?

[Sessions] steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an
Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government
contracting, let alone in building blimps.

What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions
aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its

As Benen points out, it's par for the course for Congressmen to steer earmarks towards their district. Delivering the pork to the constituents is usually the only "accomplishment" most Congressmen can ever point to.

While lawmakers routinely support earmarks for their home district and/or
state, this particular measure has nothing to do with Sessions' Dallas-area
district. The company, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in a Chicago
suburb. It has an office in Texas, but it's 300 miles from Sessions'

What's more, when Sessions submitted the earmark, he used a Dallas
address for the company, but it was actually the address of a friend of one of
the company's executives.

It looks a little suspicious. The leaders of Jim G. Ferguson &
Associates admit they have no background in aviation or defense, and no
expertise in engineering or research. It's why it seems odd that Sessions would
direct $1.6 million to the company... got some explaining to do.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Shat does Palin

In case you missed Sarah Palin's rambling-ass, incoherent goodbye speech before she ran away from her office, don't worry. Conan O'Brien has got you covered. And better than watching the trainwreck that was her give the speech, Conan got Captain Kirk to deliver it as it was meant to be: poetry.


Florence gets a little love (and safety) from President Obama

Today, the White House and Attorney General Eric Holder announced some Recovery Act Funding for South Carolina to Support Law Enforcement. And luckily, the City of Florence got some love. To the tune of $667, 430.00.

The funds will allow the City of Florence to hire 5 new officers. These funds were applied for by the City quite a while ago, but the announcement by the White House was the first time the City was informed of whether or not they would received a grant and if so, for how much. Police Chief Anson Shells has asked City Council for 18 new officers. With funding already obtained through other grants for three officers, this news today still leaves it up to the City to provide the remaining 10 officers needed.

However, as you can see from the amount above, hiring cops ain't cheap, so every little bit helps. I believe some of the money allocated goes towards training and equipment, as well as funding for the positions for three years. The Federal government has now lent a hand on 8 of the 18 we need, but City Council will have to step up to finish the job.

According to the release:

The Recovery Act grants, which will be administered by the U.S. Department of
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) through the
federal agency’s COPS Hiring Recovery Program, provide much
needed financial support to state, local and tribal governments, and
will help the nation’s law enforcement agencies add and retain the manpower
needed to fight crime more effectively through community policing. The
Department of Justice received over 7,200 applications for more than 39,000
officer positions, representing a total of $8.3 billion in requested funding.

“These Recovery Act funds will pump much needed resources into
communities through a program with a proven track record,” said Attorney General
Holder. “The tremendous demand for these grants is indicative of both the tough
times our states, cities and tribes are facing, and the unyielding commitment by
law enforcement to making our communities safer.”

SC received $20,754,224 worth of grants to 45 different agencies. How did Florence do? Not to shabby. Only 4 others (N. Charleston-15, Charleston-19, Columbia-18 and Rock Hill-6) received funding for more cops than Florence did.

This funding coming right before the opening of the new police substation on Dargan Street (scheduled to open next week) brings Florence one step closer to solving our public safety issues.

So some good news for a Tuesday.

Jeffster Rules!

My favorite Indo-Retard band hands out a whole lotta love to all the fat-bottomed girls of the world. Enjoy.

Monday, July 27, 2009

How stupid is your elected Representative?

We posted the link to Jon Stewart eviscerating the whole birther thing and Lou Dobbs the other day. Now comes some great video from Huffington Post of Mike Stark trying to get some GOP Congressmen to comment. What. The. Fuck. Come on, these guys are supposed to be the grown ups running this country and not only can some of them not give an honest answer to what is a ridiculously easy question, but some of them actually run away or hide to keep from having to answer. What the hell is that about?

And by the way...there is no controversy. Obama has produced his birth certificate. And Liz Cheney's thoughts aside, he has provided all the documentation he CAN provide. While those batshit crazies want to argue that a "Certificate of Birth" is not the same thing as a birth certificate, guess what: It's all you can get if you were born a Hawaiian citizen. Why? Because Hawaii went electronic in 2001 and paper documents were destroyed.

I have to point out two complete dipshits in this video. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) actually goes into what appears to be the Congressional Book Store (who knew they had one, just like middle school) and pretends to look at pens in an apparent attempt to wait out the camera crew. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) literally runs from the crew and calls the interviewer "the scum of the earth," but not before refusing to say who he is or what district he represents. Classy. And these people decide important shit, folks. Oh and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), the guy who wouldn't give an answer because he was "focused on health care issues." Well...he was actually focusing today on a resolution demanding President Obama apologize for calling the Gates arrest stupid (despite the fact that it was and despite the fact that Obama has already apologized).

I will give it Rep. Tom Franks (R-AZ), who apparently was the only one who would give Stark a straight answer admitting his office had gotten that info, looked into it and come to the conclusion that the President was in fact born in Hawaii. Congratulations, Arizona. You have a Congressman that is not a complete pussy.

The interesting thing about all this, is that House Democrats today presented a non-binding resolution to celebrate Hawaii, that also pretty clearly declared Hawaii as Obama's birthplace. It passed the House 378-0., with several prominent Birthers (including the Birther bill sponsors) voting Yea.

So is this a sign that this stupid shit is dead? Or is the vote/straight answer contradiction indicative of a party that increasingly appears to be nudge-nudge, wink-wink instigating this crap?

Live-Blogging The Bachelorette: The most emotional season ender yet? Really?

It's Monday night...that means it is The Bachelorette time. And tonight is the season ender, or as ABC likes to tell us: the most emotional season ending ever. This is of course the only way a season full of "the most dramatic rose ceremonies yet" could end. Keep in mind throughout this, no matter how much these two people are here for "the right reasons," the odds of them making it are slightly less than me winning the Powerball.

On with the trainwreck:

8:08 = Little late to post, but I have been watching. After hearing Ed lament not being able to "show Jillian how much her loved her" during their fantasy suite date (Read: not being able to get it up), Ed thinks his hometown date is big. After explaining to both of Jillian's parents, some old lady (grandma?) and a sister why he ran out on their Jillian, Ed get's called "terrifically good looking by Jillian's grandma.

8:10 = Jillian's mother, apparently not content with ruining her daughter's chances by asking Jason Mesnick 76 questions, decides to ask Ed 66. Great plan, Peggy. Giving someone a pop quiz. Great way to get to know someone. I have no idea why your daughter had to go on a tv show to find love. But apparently he gave "really good answers."

8:12 = Ed is asking Jillian's dad, Glen for her hand in marriage. At least it looks like the guy they identified as her dad. But it sounds an awful lot like Bob McKenzie, ay. No way, ay. He was in the crease...

8:13 = Ed passes the family test I suppose, because now he and her dad have coconut bras on and are hulaing. I have to say, I'm a little upset they don't show a little more of Jillian's sister, because I am kind of on the fence of whether or not Jillian is hot. Sometimes she looks great, other times, not so much. Perhaps a little more emphasis on the sister and I could have made the call based on genes.

8:17 = Kipton-time. Jillian tells us she is excited to see Kipton. She "got to that place she needed to be with him." Then she proceeds to say, "There's a definite physical chemistry that is through the roof. " Ruh-roh, Ed. I don't think Kipton has had any problems showing her the love and taking her to that place she needed to be. (Sidenote: What's the over-under on how long it will be after this show that Ed is in a Cialis commercial? A week? A month? A commercial before the final rose ceremony tonight? I'm going with immediately following this show if Jillian picks him. Something along the lines of "Hey...if it helped me overcome a blown fantasy suite date, it can work for you." ) And for a pair with definite chemistry, that kiss Jillian initiated there after telling him how her parents would grill him a little is a trainwreck. She leaned in too far, pulled back, jammed her face into his. Come on, sister...settle down. In the immortal reversed words of Rusty Griswold, I think she's gonna pork him.

8:22 = Mom thinks Kipton is more like Jillian. And while Jill, Grandma and her sister discuss Kipton, I have decided Jill's sister is hotter than her. Now that we've settled that, Dad asks Kipton straight out if he is in love with his daughter. Kipton gives a very long answer where he really does not answer the question. They do a confessional interview where Kipton explains that during the answer he realized that he really is falling in love, but he still is not really answering the question.

8:29 = Jill gathers the fam around to give their thoughts. The hot Harris sister explains that while Ed is good looking like Kipton, he's a little more professional and work "orientated" (sic -- whatever the hell that means), which is similar. Then she mentions something about Kipton balancing Jill's yin with his yang, which tells me the sisters like to talk about the bedroom (points off for Ed!). Mom, who blatantly liked Kipton more during her questioning (all she did with him was nod her head and say "yeah," while facing away from him --wtf was that about anyway), informs us what anyone paying attention knew: she liked Kipton. Dad sets 'em straight, because let's face it, Dad don't care so much about the pretty boy with the yang as much as he wants his daughter cared for, by telling them that Ed told him he loved Jillian and asked permission to marry his daughter. Dad thinks Ed is deeper, which Jill needs to know, because Ed sure didn't show her in the fantasy suite. Zing!

8:31 = Jill wants to talk privately with Torie for a girl to girl talk. Here's where Ed gets shot down. Geez...Ed is gonna have a TON of pressure on the last date.

8:37 = Ed's last date. Jill says ain't much he has to say. Yeah...we get it Jill. He's got to rock your world. You need to know if he can balance your Yin with his Yang. (Sidenote: Big ups to the producer who sent them to fly over a volcano seeing as how Ed's whole problem is there apparently was no eruption. Lunch by a waterfall is not bad either. I think the producers are trying to help Ed think about his yang).

8:43 = After talking about how much pressure he's under, Ed asks her back to his place. Jill admits he's got a lot of pressure on him. And apparently after popping several ED pills, Ed delivers. In fact, Jill says "It's a HUGE relief." Who knew? (You'd have thought we'd have all seen that relief in those gay ass green daisy duke swim trunks Ed wears). Producer cues the volcano erupting video. Classy.

8:49 = Kipton's date. Jill says he's the best catch she's ever had. You know...that kind of reminds me, it appeared Kipton's folks were loaded. So he's the better looking guy (at least it's pretty clear all the Harris women think so) and he's rich. Guess that's why he can "work to live, not live to work." They proceed to ride a surfboard together with Jill cowboying Kipton as he paddles.

8:52 = Kipton is selling her on coming to San Diego and live his amazing life. Certainly seems like she is all about the Kipton.

8:59 = Courtney Cox's new show: Cougar Town. No. Shit.

9:00 = "Even though Kipton has always been the dumper and not the dumpee, there's something I really trust about him." I am sure that statement won't come back to haunt Jillian Harris at all. Not. A. Chance.

9:03 = Rich Kipton picks the ring with almost 3 carats, Sappy Ed picks the one like a heart. How apropos.

9:06 = Kipton may be on his way to propose to a woman he marries, and he is rockin' the stubble beard. Classy, Kipton. Classy. BTW, based on the way he handled things last week on the Tell All and the way he acts with Jillian here before she goes out, I think our host Chris really cares for Jillian. Chris is the bomb.

9:12 = Uh-oh...Kipton is up first. Not a good sign for him.

9:15 = After Kipton finally tells Jill he loves her, she tells him she has fallen in love with someone else. Kipton tells her he's a man and he'll have to get through this. At least he didn't pull out the ring. In the car, Kipton is a little teary eyed, but that's about it. He looks upset, but not really. There's no doubt in my mind that if she had shot down Ed, he would have balled like a bitch. He says he's definitely heart broken. Personally, I think Kipton is making a play to be the next Bachelor.

9:25 = REID! I was about to bitch about how they had sold Ed short by giving him a minivan with no limo. And somewhere, Ed is yelling for Reid to stop sweating his game.

9:31 = Reid gets down on one knee and proposes. I wonder if he sprang for that ring all on his own. Jill says she needs to think about it. Reid wants to know what there is to think about. Uh...she was about to marry Ed, dipshit. She walks inside leaving Reid on the pool pier to think about it.

9:39 = We're back. Jill is thinking shit through in the house. Reid is waiting on the pier. Ed is riding there in the limo. But don't worry, comes Chris to help you sort it out. When asked how she is supposed to make this decision, Dr. Chris tells her because you know. Jill says she knows her heart is with Ed. Somewhere, probably Chihuahua MX, Wes is singing that they say love it don't come easy...And Reid walks right back out the door he came through.

9:48 = After saying that she was 110% sure it's Ed, Jill is standing on that podium with her hands on her hips and says he better not fucking disappoint her. And thus we get a glimpse of Jillian Harris: Wife. Good luck, Ed.

9:55 = Ed arrives. I must say, she looks pretty sure of herself as he walks up to her. Ed tells her he loves her then stops and says he has to know that she loves him before they go any further. After a pretty affirmative response to that question and a big kiss, Ed bends down as Jillian literally begins jumping for joy and shaking her hands. "Absolutely" is her answer (which is kind corny. How about just a yes). The way she is squeling and what not, it sure seems like she was never in doubt like the Kipton-Reid crap led us to believe. Then we get a video montage of their "journey" (minus the fantasy suite debacle of course). How funny is it that the song is "Everyone calls you amazing," since the word"amazing," along with "dramatic" is constantly overused on this show.

10:00 = And I'm spent. Looks like I was wrong about the Cialis commercial. Bad move, Ed. You lost millions.

The death of common courtesy on the road

In spending about 15 hours on the road this weekend I realized that as a society, we no longer exercise the long held courtesy of slower traffic keeping right.

On the way to Atlanta, on the 4 lane section of I-85, I had a silver Hyundai SUV in front of me in the left lane for over 30-minutes. This SUV was obviously not going as fast as me, but was going slightly faster than the traffic in the right-hand lane. We passed numerous gaps in the right lane, which were plenty big for said SUV to get over, let me by, then get back over in the left lane, without missing a beat. But the SUV refused. Before I had any gaps big enough for me to pass in the right lane, a nice line of traffic had formed behind me and the gaps got shorter. If I moved, I'd be back at the end of a very long line.

So we continued like this for another 30 minutes. Time and time again, cars would come flying up on the right and to try to pass, but they never could. Eventually, a Corolla behind me whipped into the right lane and passed me, trying to get around both me and the SUV. Of course he could not and I had to to slam on brakes to keep from running into him when he whipped in front of me. Undeterred at almost causing one pile up, the Corolla went after the SUV about 5 minutes later. He rode the car in the right hand lane's ass and tried to wedge his car over in front of said SUV. As he did this, the traffic in the left hand lane hit their brakes. The Corolla straddling the left and the right lanes when he had to hit the brakes. The SUV had to slam on his brakes and almost went into the median to avoid a wreck. this point, I has seen how ridiculous these guys were being and had dropped a good distance back. There is probably 30 cars lined up behind me and a tractor trailer to the right. The SUV guy rolls his window down and is now all over the Corolla's ass, doing about 85mph and he keeps swinging right to pass the Corolla but keeps having to get back over b/c of traffic. This goes on for at least 10 minutes. SUV finally gets a gap to pass the Corolla and does so, but only after speeding up considerably. When he gets beside the Corolla, he hangs there for a good 30-seconds, flipping the Corolla off and gesturing so wildly that his car is all over his own lane. Then he proceeds to go past the Corolla and throw his car back into the left lane right in front of the Corolla. Not content with his "revenge," said asshole proceeds to slow down and let the aforementioned 18-wheeler in the right lane get beside him, then he parallels that guys speed. So now, he has blocked that entire side of I-85 to get revenge on this Corolla. And that lasted about 25 minutes until we hit three lanes.

That was the trip TO ATLANTA.

On the way home, same story without the ridiculous hothead game of chicken as one minivan ahead of me eventually built up a mile long length of traffic, just because they refused to move over and let faster traffic through.

Listen, it's one thing to not get over because while the car behind you may be going a little faster, you both are obviously about to pass the traffic in the right. In those cases, the car or two behind you can slow down a little and wait until you pass the really slow right-lane traffic. But if you look in your rear-view mirror and see five or six cars all bumpered-up behind you, common courtesy demands you do one of two things:

1) Speed Up

2) Move Over to the right hand lane.

It amazes me how often I will be behind someone in the left lane and have to slow down. And I will follow that car waiting on them to get over, yet they never do. Hey...jackass, SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT! It's not just about courtesy, it's about safety. Take that example above with the SUV and the Corolla. Yes the Corolla was an irresponsible ass. But you know what...that never happens if the jackass in the SUV would have exercised the common courtesy of moving the f*ck over for faster traffic. They both wound up putting themselves and many others at risk by being jagoffs.

So cut it out. Be courteous and observe the common rules of proper driving. That is all.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

BTPC does a bad, bad thing

As is the summer ritual at the BTPC, we are taking the rest of the weekend off to take the little lady to Hotlanta to see the other man in her life: Chris Isaak. If you have never seen Isaak and his band Silvertone, you should head to the Chastain Ampitheater tonight. They are one hell of a tight band and they always put on a good show. In fact, this show is the first one Isaak has had in a while with a new album out, so that will be something a little different.

Enjoy the weekend.

This is always one of my favorite numbers and the one Isaak always recommends for a bootleg:

Is Jason Taylor a Hall of Famer?

Among my many flaws, is the fact that I am a diehard Miami Dolphin fan. In fact, it was Curt Fennell's wonderful Miami Dolphins Listserv that first drew me to a computer terminal back in 1993 or so. And it kept drawing me all through college and the rest of my life. Curt was one of the first fans to really put time and effort into making something for others on this crazy thing we call the internets. His has been around since before the 1994 season. Curt is truly one of the pioneers who drew people into online communities. And he did it without porn, which is impressive.

Anyway, one of the listserv's longtime subscribers, JP recently posted a question that was posed to him: Is Jason Taylor a Hall of Famer? JP did not think he would make it, After spending an hour pouring over stats and crafting my response, I realized I might as well make a post out of my answer and ask the BTPC's readers (yes...Reino and Danny) what they thought. So read my case for Mr. Taylor and let me know what you think.

JP I will accept the gauntlet you have laid down and will make the argument for Taylor being a complete player. I would agree that I'm not sure he makes it into the HOF, but that's only because I think people BEYOND Dolfans see him as you describe: not being a complete player. I think a majority of people who did not watch him all the time considered Taylor a one-dimensional pass rushing type defensive end. However, I have always felt the guy was way better as an every down end then people gave him credit for.

Jason Taylor (6-6, 255 lbs. 12 seasons, 6 Pro-Bowls and 3 All-Pros) has 120.5 sacks, 7 ints, 44 forced fumbles, 460 tackles and 8 TDs. 2006 AP Defensive MVP, 2007 Walter Payton Man of the Year.

Compare to two of the more recent players Pro Football Reference's site "compares" his career to:

Warren Sapp (6-2, 303 lbs 13 seasons, 7 PB and 4 APs) had 96.5, 4 ints, 19 FF and 438 tackles and 3 TDs.

John Randle (6-1 291 lbs. 14 seasons, 7 PB and 6 APs) 137.5, 1, 29, and 471 and 1 TD.

It's funny, that both of those guys are DTs and he's got more tackles than either of them. But, who was the other big name DEs during Taylor's era?

Michael Strahan (6-5 275 lbs. 15 seasons, 7 PB and 4 APs) 141.5 sacks, 4 ints, 24 FF and 667 tackles. 2001 AP Defensive MVP

Bruce Smith (6-4, 262 lbs. 19 seasons, 11 PB and 8 APs) 200 sacks, 2 ints, 43 FF, 1078 tackles and 1 TD. 1990 & '96 AP Def. MVP.

Reggie White (6-5, 291 lbs. 15 seasons, 13 PBs and 8 APs) 198 sacks, 3 ints, 33 FF, 1048 tackles and 2 TDs. 1987 and '98 AP Defensive MVP.

If Taylor has two more decent seasons in him, he should pass Strahan's sack total. While he may have played with both White and Smith, would you consider them his peers? Both White and Smith were done by the time Taylor came on (their careers ending late 90s, Taylor taking off in 2000). No...probably only Strahan could really truly be considered a peer as a DE. He was the lankiest, lightest guy on this list, yet he has more tackles than Sapp and Randle, the two who played true DT most of their careers in fewer seasons. No one comes close to the guys 8 TDs. His 7 ints are well out ahead of every one else and he also has more forced fumbles.

I mean, if Taylor was not a complete player at his position, who was? We've all watched his whole career and can anyone who has done that say they think teams ever beat us by running at Taylor? I can remember a few teams trying it and announcers making comments before about his size and how it was going to be the opposing teams strategy to deal with Taylor, but did it ever really work? The announcers would always say that was the opponents strategy, that they were going to keep going right at Taylor to tire him out, but they never stayed with it all game, because Taylor was hell to block and he would eventually start disrupting the plays.

Take a look at the rosters for the Pro Bowls through his career. Who are the other DEs you see?

Freeney, Peppers, Kearney, Smith, Ogunleye, Rice, Little, Pryce, Abraham, Douglas, Kearse, & Porcher. I mean...are any of these guys more "complete" than Taylor was? More importantly, were any of them the disruptive force Taylor was? Those 44 forced fumbles and 8 TDs mean something. Taylor changed games.

I remember sitting in the endzone in the Jungle in Cincinnati with my old roommate Catfish back on October 1, 2000. I remember it well, because the Gamecocks had beaten #10 Georgia at home the day before and during warm ups, when he was ignoring everyone else, I got Arturo Freeman to walk over to the wall and give us daps by yelling, " 'bout them Gamecocks?!" Anyway, we were taking all kinds of shit from Bengals fans, because the Bengals were spanking our ass the entire first half. But right before the half, down 13-3, Taylor blew by his guy, sacked the Qb, stripped the ball and took it 29 yards to the house. TD. Momentum completely changed. Dolphins go on to win 31-16. Catfish and I get removed from "our" seats to our real seats by a pissed off Bengal fan complaining to security that we were sitting in seats not ours. Our real seats happen to be right behind that guy, who is wearing a OSU hat, which leads to an second half full of the Michigan fight song being sung in said assholes ear every time the Dolphins made a play. Good times.

The point is, Taylor did that all the time. More so than I can remember any of his peers. Personally, I don't think he's done. I expect some big plays from him this year, even if he will be more of a situational player now. Remember, the guy is only one season removed from being the Defensive MVP of the league. But to respond to your gauntlet, I certainly believe the guy WAS a complete player. And yes, I think he's a Hall of Famer.

Friday, July 24, 2009

LeBron Dunked on Video turns up

I posted about the infamous Jordan Crawford dunk on LeBron James back on July 8th. In case you did not see that, James reportedly got posterized at a camp game by Crawford. Immediately after the dunk, Nike reps confiscated the photographic evidence of the dunk. But of course, some video survived and TMZ released it. What's sad, is it doesn't even look that bad. LeBron came on help D, got there late and is off to the side a little. It's not like Crawford skied right over him. Much ado about nothing. And LeBron and Nike's reaction has made a mountain out of a molehill.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The most wicked-awesome wheelbarrow race ever

Ok...the one from this picture would probably be pretty sweet, but even those lovelies would most likely fail to top this teams transistion. Check it out. Shit is sweet.

Hattip, Club Trillion founder, Mark Titus.

Is Jon Stewart the new Walter Cronkite?

According to a new Time magazine poll, Jon Stewart is the most trusted newsperson in America. I had Morning Joe on this morning while I was getting ready for work, and I heard Willie Geist and Courtney Hazlett "reporting" on this poll. I found their discussion of this telling for two reasons.

First, the Morning Joe team obviously considers this "entertainment" news, since they had it in the Geist-Hazlett section of the show, which is Morning Joe's little pop culture segment (Hazlett is proudly proclaimed on MSNBC's website as the "gossip girl.") Second, they pooh-poohed the results of the poll, by offering up the caveat, "we knew where this was going, since it was an online poll."

Those two reasons pretty much sum up what is wrong with the MSM. Geist and Hazlett's qualification that the poll is somehow inferior because it's online is just silly. Back in March of last year, the NY Times did a story on campaign coverage and how times had changed as to how people got their coverage.

In the most striking finding, half of respondents over the age of 50 and 39
percent of 30- to 49-year-olds reported watching local television news regularly
for campaign news, while only 25 percent of people under 30 said they did.

People aren't watching the nightly news anymore. And why would they? Ever since FOX News was born and the MSM started getting hit everyday with accusations of bias, those very same MSM outlets have been scared shitless of doing the one thing we expect "real" journalism to do: call bullshit. Instead, they bend themselves over backward so hard to give the appearance of being "balanced" that they manufacture balance by elevating complete nonsense and putting it against the truth, as if having two separate sides automatically means you are balanced. How about just reporting the truth and facts. Be "balanced" that way. But God help them if they ever called bullshit.

You know who does call bullshit? Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. You need go no further than watching Stewart eviscerate Jim "Mad Money" Cramer and his networks complicity in the financial crisis to see why an entire generation thinks he is more trustworthy than anyone else on tv. Because while Stewart may just be a comedian, trolling for laughs, he does not try to peddle bullshit to his viewers. You can't say the same for the network and cable news shows.

So I think the poll is big news. It shows just how far the "profession" of journalism has fallen. This was the Fourth Estate, the most important of them all according to Sir Edmond Burke. Now, instead of following the money to unearth the Watergate conspiracy, they are sending emails to the Luv Guv's staff that are so sycophantic and disgusting, you would expect to see Chris Hansen and his production team waiting on the media people if they ever were to arrive on Arsenal Hill.

Jon Stewart is legitimately the most trusted "newsperson" in the country, despite the fact that he hosts a "fake news" show. And Willie, you and Courtney ought to kiss the ring, as he's got way more juice than you or your little morning show.

Late ad: A perfect example of Stewart calling bullshit.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJoke of the Day

Monday, July 20, 2009

RIP, Frank McCourt. Have a pint on me...

Is it just me or are famous people dropping like flies. Over the weekend, we had Cronkrite and now Pulitzer Prize winning author Frank McCourt.

McCourt's McCourt's award winning book, Angela's Ashes, has one of the best opening paragraphs I have ever read:
“When I look back on my childhood, I wonder how I survived at all,” begins the book’s second paragraph. “It was, of course, a miserable childhood: The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood."
That book stayed at the top of the bestseller for two years, selling over 4 million hardcovers. Despite his ability as an author, McCourt's best contribution was probably the lives he touched as a school teacher in New York City school system for over 30 years.
Rest in peace, Frank. Save a seat at the bar for the rest of us.


As if banging Pam Anderson and winning 5 Grammys wasn't enough to win the adulation of people everywhere, Kid Rock has added yet another feather in his cap: Brewmaster. Rock has his own beer now, appropriately named, "American Badass Beer." Rock describes it as "an easy to drink lager with no aftertaste."

So bawitdaba a bottle and let us know what you think.

DeMint Pwned!

Anyone want to take a guess when Sen. Jim DeMint will realize he hands people all the need to make him look like an ass, what with the very words that come out of his own mouth and all? Anyone?

And he ought to know better than to bring that weak "Waterloo" shit down the lane against POTUS. You just knew Obama was gonna smack that comment right back in his face.

Note to DeMint: Thanks for handing the President a great example of Republican opposition to health care reform really being about opposing the President for political purposes only. We couldn't do it without you. Really.

Michael Steele: The gift that keeps on giving

Democrats should seriously consider funding this guy's campaigns for RNC Chairman. I mean it. He is a complete joke. Check out his latest representin' of the party on healthcare:

In a Q&A at the National Press Club just now, Steele was asked if
Republicans support an individual requirement to get health care (also known as
an individual mandate).

"What do you mean by individual requirement?" he
asked the moderator. After she explained, he dodged the question.

it's one of those areas where there are different opinions...I don't do policy,"
he said. "My point in coming here was to set a tone, a theme if you will." set a tone and a theme, alright. I am seriously beginning to believe Michael Steele is in fact Shock G, and Digital Underground is doing the Humpty Dance all over the GOP. Think that's crazy? Well take a look at this:

BTW, I'm pretty sure Steele/Shock is doing the Teen Wolf dance in the pic above.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

How 'bout dem Cowboys!

In case you needed any other reasons to hate Jerry Jones, let me give you some more. As you can see from the pics, he apparently thinks Steve Urkel is cool and can get down. Second, he apparently thinks the power of God will be unleashed from his new football stadium and that the entire human race will benefit from his latest rich-man's indulgence.

Disclaimer: I worship at the altar that is The National Football League. Long before Darius Rucker put those lyrics to music, the Miami Dolphins were in fact making me cry. So as a die-hard, lifelong Dolfan...I hate the Cowboys. Better yet, I hate Jerry Jones. Having said that, I will admit that Jones may very well be what qualifies as a "genius" when it comes to NFL owners. How else can you explain his keeping the idea of his team being "America's Team" alive despite the fact that it has been 12 years, 6 months and 21 days since the 'Boys last won a playoff game. Hell...the Raiders won all the way to the Super Bowl in 2003. I suppose if Jerry can call his team "America's Team" after a 4586 day drought, then Al "Cryptkeeper" Davis has every right to argue his team has a "Tradition of Excellence," doesn't he?

But I digress. I promised another reason to hate Jerry and here it is: this NY Times piece on Jerry and his new stadium. Check out the size of Jerry's ego in talking about his $1.2 billion new baby, funded in part by a $325 million tax-increase on the locals.

Jones says Cowboys Stadium will be its own stimulus package that will help “the
country and this world” dig out of the recession. Meanwhile, most studies show
little economic impact from new stadiums.

We don't even need to point out that "most studies show little economic impact from new stadiums." We don't even need to argue over Jones' boastful statement that the stadium will help the country, to show what an idiot Jones is. Instead we can just focus on his ridiculous statement that his latest extravagance is going to save the world. What. An. Ass.

How big of an ass is Jones? Take a look the writer checking him on his assertion that "The landowners came out really well on eminent domain,” Jones said. He's leaves out the fact that they only came out good after hiring attorneys to fight over the amount of their land. He just glosses over that fact with a simple, "That's correct."

Listen, this is a big legal issue nowadays. Eminent Domain is supposed to be used by the government to obtain property, at just compensation, for public or civic use. In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that local governments may force property owners to sell out and to make way for private economic development, even if the property is not blighted. That has created a host of problems. A lot of people have a problem with the fact that their local city or county council can take their land if they decide a Wal-Mart would be nicer on the land than the landowner's home or business. In how many cases is that private landowner going to be on equal footing when it comes to fighting a battle like that against a Wal-Mart? How about against "America's Team?"

But Glenn Sodd, who represented property owners in legal challenges to the
city’s offers for their land, said the condemnation issue still resonates. “It’s
a misuse of the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “To say
we in this community need this stadium is a gross mischaracterization. We might
desire it. We might wish to have it. But no one’s condemning land to build
grocery stores.”

So when all that fanfare comes pouring out all over the broadcasts of the Cowboys Stadium unveiling this upcoming season, remember how we got to this point. And remember...this stadium is supposed to save the world.

And last but not least, one more reason to hate old tight-face: His butter-fingered QB, Tony Homo, just broke up with this...

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Saturday Night Rocking Out


Journalism 101: Whoring for access

I've ignored one story this week that I think is important in the grand scheme of things: the disgustingly, blatant whoring of numerous media outlets in the effort to secure an interview with our very own Luv Guv.

The State started releasing emails this week that they got from Sanford's administration and they act as a true indictment on the Fourth Estate. The Post and Courier has posted all 570 pages of emails. Read them yourself and see what has happened to the the "most important of them all" estate as Sir Edmond Burke once called journalists.

After Tim Russert's death, I remember being somewhat surprised during the week long Russert love fest that ensued over how hard-hitting and tough he was as a journalist. Russert was not tough. Sure, he'd bring after hearing a guest say one thing, he'd bring up the text of a comment he had made a month or two earlier showing the guest was full of shit. But then what? As Lewis Lapham noted in his obit hit-piece (a term I use with affection) of Russert, "Elegy of a Rubber Stamp," the guest was then left with three choices:

The important personage was free to choose from a menu offering three forms
of response—silence, spin, rancid lie. If silence, Russert moved on to another
topic; if spin, he nodded wisely; if rancid lie, he swallowed it. The highlight
reels for the most part show him in the act of swallowing.

November 7, 1993: Question for President Bill Clinton, “Will you allow
North Korea to build a nuclear bomb?”

A: “North Korea cannot be allowed to build a nuclear bomb.”

February 25, 2001: Question for Senator John Kerry, “John Kerry, you
going to run for President in 2004?”

A. “I’m running for reelection in 2002.”

Q. “How about ’04?”

A. “I’m not making any decisions beyond ’02.”

April 13, 1997: Question for Louis Farrakhan, supreme minister of the
Nation of Islam, “Would you be willing to retract or apologize for some of the
things you said?”

A: “If I can defend every word that I speak and every word that I speak
is truth, then I have nothing to apologize for.”

February 8, 2004: Question for President George W. Bush, “In light of
not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a
war of choice or a war of necessity?”

A. “That’s an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little
bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It’s a war of necessity.”

See...what good is asking the question, if you aren't going to hold their feet to the fire on the answer? I don't mean to be kicking the mud out of a dead guy, but remember, Russert was the "Dean of Journalism." We have been told by none other than colleague and interview foe alike how tough he was. This is tough? This is the same guy that allowed VP Dick Cheney to come on his show and "cite" a report in the NY Times, a report that was attributed to White House sources in answering a question. How the hell does a "tough" journalist not say, "Hold on there Mr. Vice-President...Are you really going to cite as proof of something, a leaked story from your own administration? How do we know it wasn't your office that leaked this, just so you could come onto my show this morning and offer it up as proof?" Russert always backed off, because Russert wanted the access. And the release of the Sanford ass-kissing emails shows Russert was not the exception, he was the rule.

The true story is there is no such thing now as independent media when it comes to MSM. Corporate consolidation has muddied the waters to the point that no major media outlet is completely free to question and criticize. Worse yet, is the MSM is wholly afflicted by a herd mentality. where they all feel the need to cover whatever the other MSM is covering. I remember how long Josh Marshall and TPM was banging out posts on the Attorney General firings case before any of the MSM even got involved. Why? Because they did not want to piss of the Bush WH and lose their access. TPM didn't care, they didn't care about the access so they were able to approach the story as journalism should: a search for the truth.

As Lapham notes:

Speaking truth to power doesn’t make successful Sunday-morning television, leads
to “jealousy, upsets, persecution,” doesn’t draw a salary of $5 million a year.
The notion that journalists were once in the habit of doing so we borrow from
the medium of print, from writers in the tradition of Mark Twain, Upton
Sinclair, H. L. Mencken, I. F. Stone, Hunter Thompson, and Walter Karp, who
assumed that what was once known as “the press” received its accreditation as a
fourth estate on the theory that it represented the interests of the citizenry
as opposed to those of the government. Long ago in the days before journalists
became celebrities, their enterprise was reviled and poorly paid, and it was
understood by working newspapermen that the presence of more than two people at
their funeral could be taken as a sign that they had disgraced the

I suppose we should all hope the release of these emails shames the media involved into rethinking what their roles are. I am not holding my breath.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Sawyer jumps the USS Sanford

And so it begins... Quick: What do Mark Sanford's Presidential chances and his communications director have in common? They're both gone.

Joel Sawyer, who has worked for Sanford for 6.5 years, has announced that today is his last day on the job for the Luv Guv.
Sawyer, who is leaving for an unspecified private-sector job, had this to say, according to The State:
Sawyer said his decision to leave his $65,000-a-year job had nothing to do
with Sanford’s recent six-day disappearance and the Republican governor’s
subsequent disclosure of an affair with an Argentine woman.

“I want to be crystal clear that my departure is purely about what's
best for me and my family on a personal and financial level,” Sawyer said in a
statement. “I wish Mark and the rest of my talented and dedicated colleagues the
Nothing to do with that recent disaster? Uh...yeah...I guess Joel expects us to believe that he was really going to quit one the GOP's 2012 front-runners before all that came out because it was in his and his family's best interest back in early-June. Right. Hey, Joel...go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Confirmation hearings, round three: They're against it, except when they are for it

Maybe it's because I've actually cited the Canadian Constitution in a brief before. Or maybe it's because I think if we brought the "common law" over from England, we kind of have some foreign law in us...but I've never really understood the rights obsession with the evils of "foreign law." I also never realized it was a bad thing to empathize with someone. In fact, in my experience, most judges go out of their way to let the people who appear before them know how badly they feel for them, usually right before the say, "BUT...the law requires me to (insert ruling against person here)."

However, as with most of the stuff that seems to get the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world in a tiff...whatever.

It's hard to take the right's criticisms of Judge Sotomayor seriously when they so easily flip their positions on two of their key criticisms.

Yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) says:

"We don't want judges to consider legislation and foreign law that's developed
through bodies, elected bodies outside of this country."

Then today, after apparently coming to the river on the intelligence of foreigners overnight, Coburn says:

"What I was trying to draw out to you is, where do we stand in this country when
80% of the rest of the world allows abortion only before 12 weeks, only before
12 weeks? "And yet we allow it for any reason, at any time, for any
inconvenience under the health of the woman aspect."

Or you could focus on the GOP's big witnesses today being the firefighters from the Ricci case, who apparently, the GOP now wants America to empathize with, even thought they don't think that kind of stuff has any place in the courtroom.

Good stuff. Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. Hope you all enjoyed the dog and pony show.

PSAs from the future

Hattip, Sullivan.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Was David Broder watching today's confirmation hearings?

After dismissing the newest United States Senator as the "loud-mouthed former comedian," I wonder if David Broder caught Senator Franken's questioning during the Sotomayor hearings today. If he did, I wonder if he realized that Franken asked, probably, the most compelling and actually relevant-to-big-issues-the-court-will-face questions of the confirmation hearings to date.
As Daphne Eviatar of the Washington Independent notes:
In particular, asked by Franken whether she believes the Supreme Court’s
recent decision invalidating part of the Voting Rights Act was an “activist”
decision that overrode the intent of Congress and the language of the
Constitution, she declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s opinion, but
instead pointed out her own ruling in a previous case involving the Voting
Rights Act, strongly implying that she thought the Supreme Court had indeed gone
too far.

In the case she decided, “I suggested that issues of changes to the
Voting Rights Act should be left to Congress in the first instance,” she said.
That was one of the most direct answers on an issue likely to come before the
court that she’s given yet.

And Franken wins points for asking another roundabout question meant to
elicit her views on “judicial activism” — a phrase Sotomayor said she doesn’t
like to use.

“How often have you decided a case on an argument or a question that
the parties have not briefed?” asked Franken. This question goes to the
heart of the Ricci reverse discrimination case, where the Supreme Court on its
own set out a new standard for lower courts to follow, then refused to send the
case back to the courts to let the parties brief how it applied to the facts at

Sotomayor could not remember a single instance of doing that as a
Looks like Stuart Smalley may, as Paul Krugman predicted, RAISE the level of discourse.

Is "Minor in Possession" a thing of the past?*

*At least for high school seniors and up? In the criminal defense bar, there has long been an argument that two fairly common criminal violations leveled against persons 18-20 years old in the state of South Carolina were unconstitutional: possession of a pistol and possession/consumption of alcohol by a minor (when the minors were 18-20).

What's the argument? Well...

Article XVII, Sec. 14
Citizens deemed sui juris; restrictions as to sale of alcoholic beverages.

Every citizen who is eighteen years of age or older, not laboring under
disabilities prescribed in this Constitution or otherwise established by law,
shall be deemed sui juris and endowed with full legal rights and
responsibilities, provided, that the General Assembly may restrict the sale of
alcoholic beverages to persons until age twenty-one.

See the argument? First, The South Carolina constitution specifically states that once you reach 18 years of age, absent some disability, you are endowed with full legal rights. It further provides that the General Assembly may restrict THE SALE of alcoholic beverages to persons until the age of twenty-one, but it does not provide that the General Assembly may in any way restrict possession or consumption. There's nothing about pistols in there either, is there?

This has been an argument that the criminal bar has been pushing for years. Recently, Rock Hill attorney Leland Greeley finally got this argument before the South Carolina Supreme Court and won. (see State v. Bolin, Opinion #26494 (May 19, 2008)).

After the Bolin case, everyone has been eager to take this argument in front of a judge in an alcohol possession case. Today, Columbia attorney Joe McCulloch got a signed Order finding S.C. Code 63-19-2450 unconstitutional. Here's that statute:

Alcoholic beverages purchase, consumption, possession.

It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one to purchase,
attempt to purchase, consume, or knowingly possess alcoholic liquors. Possession
is prima facie evidence that it was knowingly possessed. It is also unlawful for
a person to falsely represent his age for the purpose of procuring alcoholic
liquors. Notwithstanding another provision of law, if the law enforcement
officer has probable cause to believe that a person is under age twenty-one and
has consumed alcohol, the law enforcement officer or the person may request that
the person submit to any available alcohol screening test using a device
approved by the State Law Enforcement Division.

So...there you have it. That statute is in direct conflict with the specific language of the state constitution. Conflict between statute and constitution, constitution wins.

Is "minor in possession" no longer a worry for 18-20 year olds? If you're 18-20 years old, I would not be running out possessing and consuming alcohol with no fear just yet. McCulloch's Order was issued by a Magistrate. I have to think the Richland County Solicitor's office may move to appeal the issue. And I would bet a sizable amount of money (if that was legal!) that cops will continue to write tickets and charge this until the SC Supreme Court addresses the issue directly. But the law is the law. And given the Bolin decision and the specific language of the state constitution, it sure seems like it would be hard as hell for this "crime" to survive.

Late update (7/15/09 8:24 pm): WIS reporter Jack Kuenzie has a story including a video interview with McCulloch up on their website. According to Kuenzie's report, the Richland County Solicitor's office does intend to appeal the decision to Circuit Court.

Late, late update (August 3, 2009): There has now been a second court to issue a written Order finding a minor in possession of alcohol unconstitutional. It's not that criminal attys are just now making this argument, it's that these lower Courts are finally listening.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

FINALLY! The State on DVD!

It may have taken 15 years, but with the dvd release of MTV's The State today, one of the best sketch comedy series of my life is now available for a whole new generation.

Who can forget Barry and Levon with their $240 dollars of pudding or their loveseat (not a sofa in sight). How about "dipping your balls in it" or "watching the monkeys do it?" And we all know, "penguins ain't natural" and that Doug should "get a job." Damn. This show was good. So until I can pick up my copy tomorrow, I leave you with my two favorite videos: Barry and Levon's loveseat and the Cannonball Run outtakes. Good stuff.

Ninjas take over Sotomayor hearings!

I've had the Sotomayor confirmation hearings streaming as I work the last two days. And today, it was worth it, as I got to see Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) make his move to lock down the vote of every ninja in Utah. Hatch is smart enough to know that if he can win the ninja vote, who gives a shit about anything else. He could take over the whole state of Utah with just a few ninjas. Give him an army of them and he could take over the world!

Now that I think about it, nunchucks would probably not show up in metal detectors. Someone should alert the Capital police that on the Ultimate warrior show, the gladiator bested the ninja. It was a result I found personally offensive due to the fact that you would have to be ignorant to think a ninja would not just sneak up on a gladiator and kill them before they even knew the ninja was there. Come on.

Why Dick's lying matters

If you've been following the news, you know about the recent revelations coming out concerning the CIA withholding information from Congress at the order of former Vice President Dick Cheney. I posted about it last Thursday, wondering whether or not all those critics who blasted Nancy Pelosi back in May would apologize (Don't hold your breathe, Nancy).

Since that initial news broke, the Wall Street Journal has reported more details about what was going on. It now appears that the program Cheney did not want Congress to know about, was a program aimed at capturing or killing Al Queda operatives. The New York Times shed even more light onto the matter when their article documented the "myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles" CIA officials ran into in trying to implement the program.

How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and
might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if
American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an
operation? Would such activities violate international law or American
restrictions on assassinations overseas?

Read those "problems" folks. Now read daddy's little girl defending her father on this issue:

"There's this big piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning that says
that it was a number of different concepts for ways that we could capture or
kill al Qaeda leaders in the days after 9/11. I am really surprised that the
Democrats decide that that's what they want to fight over. I mean, if they want
to go to the American people and say that they disagree with the notion that we
ought to be capturing and killing al Qaeda leaders, I think it's just going to
prove to the American people one more time why they can't trust the Democrats
with our national security."

The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree does it? See how easily Liz ignores the real issue and makes it all about how Democrats won't keep you safe? Dad sure must be proud of you, sweetie. First off, who said we should not be going after Al Queda? No one. But Liz has to frame the argument like that, because if she doesn't, she can't win. Because she can read those "problems" the agency encountered and know what the CIA was looking at, was a program to have assassin or snatch teams that could go into any country and assassinate or snatch someone. That's serious shit. We could potentially being rolling into our allies backyards and breaking their laws. People tend to get a little pissed about that.

How big of a deal are those "problems?" Uh...pretty big deal. It's why Congressional Democrats are so pissed. As the Times' article notes:

The Senate and House oversight committees were created by law in the 1970s as a
direct response to disclosures of C.I.A. abuses, notably including assassination
plots against Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Fidel Castro in Cuba and other foreign

So you see...this is exactly the type of crap that took place that led to the law being changed so that the Executive branch and the intelligence agencies had to keep Congress informed. It's the whole point of oversight. Why is it so important? Because it was shit like this that led to us propping up a regime like the Shah of Iran (which has led to many of the ill-will towards the US in the middle east), to knocking off Allende (fueling anti-American resentment in Latin America) and making a hero out of someone like Castro. Richard Clarke was right when he talked about the idea of "blowback." This kind of cowboy diplomacy may seem great in the short run, but in the long run, it costs us dearly. (I think cowboy diplomacy is exactly what the Bush-Cheney WH gave us for the previous 8 years. All I can think of in summing them up is Sean Connery's classic line in "The Hunt for Red October:" "But if we get some kind of...buckaroo...").

But Liz can't say that. She knows if she tells the truth here, her dad's ass is going to be prosecuted. So she disingenuously frames the discussion just like dear old dad used to: Democrats are unpatriotic wimps who are putting your lives in danger. Classy, Liz. Real classy.

Oh yeah...just in case you were saying, "At least we're rid of Cheney..." don't count on it. Daddy's little girl is making noise about continuing the family business.