Archive for November 1st, 2005

I Guess We Did Hear That Right…

For those of us who watched the Bills-Pats game on ESPN, or perhaps for those who didn’t, an assist from the NY Daily News:

Since NFL refs first used wireless microphones to broadcast penalty calls there have been some strange announcements. However, none more bizarre than the one voiced by Ron Winter Sunday night during the first quarter of ESPN’s Bills-Pats cablecast.

With 8:55 left, Winter, calling a penalty against New England, turned on his microphone and said: “Delay of game – defense. Performing an unnatural act, not common to the game, in an attempt to get the offense to false start.”

The next sound was laughter coming out of ESPN’s booth.

“That (Winter’s call) sounded obscene to me,” Paul Maguire said.

Too bad Winter wasn’t around to describe Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.

This easily eclipses my previous favorite, where a ref explained that a penalty was for “giving [another player] the business.”

How can anyone not love football???

4 comments November 1st, 2005 at 04:17pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Sports,Weirdness

Weirdy Allen

Not really a whole lot I can add to this. Just… wow.

Woody Allen may be Soon-Yi Previn’s husband, but he’s still her daddy. “It’s got a more paternal feeling to it,” the reclusive director tells Vanity Fair of his once-scandalous romance.

(snip)

Allen, soon to be 70 years old, now calls Farrow’s discovery of his nude pictures of Soon-Yi “one of the great pieces of luck in my life.”

“All the women I went out with were basically my age,” he says. “Now, here, it just works like magic. The very inequality of me being older and much more accomplished, much more experienced, takes away any real meaningful conflict.”

Umm… Okay, dude. Whatever turns you on. That’s one couple I would really hate to have dinner with. And I really like dinner.

5 comments November 1st, 2005 at 03:55pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Wankers,Weirdness

More Fitzbits

Just a couple of thoughts that occurred to me as I was talking to a coworker about the Plame investigation:

1) How is it that there doesn’t appear to be any criminal statute that simply covers revealing classified information, regardless of intent? Also, law aside, how many employees could avoid being fired for revealing confidential information with the excuse that they didn’t know it was confidential? I know if I tried that with my boss, the response would be, “You should have checked. Buh-bye.”

(Note: I don’t buy that that this is actually the case here. It seems highly unlikely that Libby did not know Plame was covert. I believe Josh Marshall pointed out that Libby knew that her counterproliferation group was under the Directorate Of Operations, which is Spyworld, plus if he was on that Air Force Two flight with the memo about her, there’s a good chance he saw the notation that explicitly stated that her identity was secret.)

2) What would have happened if Novak declined to report that Plame was CIA? Would Rove & Libby have just shrugged and said, “Oh well, we did our best to out a covert operative for cheap political payback, but it was just not to be,” or would they have just kept shopping it around to progressively less scrupulous “journalists” until a Drudge or Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity or Malkin (Phew! There sure are a lot of them, aren’t there?) took the bait? Would they trust them to display the same kind of *snort* journalistic integrity as Judy Miller? *snicker* Would they have paid Armstrong Williams or one of their fake news anchors to get the word out? Held a press conference? What?

Update: I talked to my coworker again, and he suggested that they simply would have searched for new ways to slander Wilson, once their first choice (treason is always the first option that comes to my mind, but I’m a liberal) fell through.

1 comment November 1st, 2005 at 11:55am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Cheney,Iraq,Libby/Plame,Media

Crazy As An Althouse Rat

So I see Ann Althouse, one of those phony “reasonable moderates,” has an op-ed piece in the New York Times today telling us crazy hysterical liberals not to get our panties in a bunch just because Alito has a teensy-weensy handful of oh-so-insignificant batshit insane court rulings under his belt. In fact, this whole “Scalito” nickname thing is just as terribly unfair as when Justices Burger and Blackmun were lumped together just because they were both from Minnesota (oh yes, this is just exactly like that, isn’t it…).

Her sole piece of evidence to “prove” that Alito is more liberal than Scalia is their interpretation of the First Amendment’s protections of religion. Scalia wrote the Employment Division v. Smith decision which ruled that “neutral, generally applicable” laws cannot be considered infringements on religious rights.

Ah, but Alito found loopholes that allowed him to rule in favor of Muslim policemen whose religion obligated them to grow beards, and “a Lakota Indian who claimed he derived spiritual powers from two black bears.” This is all very well and good, but does it really prove that he’s not a conservative extremist, or merely that he defers to religion wherever possible? It’s admirable that he would be so accommodating to non-Christians, but it’s not much of a stretch to believe that he was thinking of precedents for future cases where Christian spiritual practices are being infringed. I must admit, it’s hard for me to imagine any law infringing on Christians ever getting passed anywhere, but why take chances?

After getting her, ahem, substantive argument out of the way, she then proceeds to the real wanking:

Yes, chances are that a Justice Alito will please conservatives more often than liberals. Doubtless, many liberals will anguish over Judge Alito’s opinion, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that would have upheld a law requiring that husbands be notified when their wives seek abortions. Still, they should give serious study to his record; they may discover that there are varieties of judicial conservatives, just as there are varieties of political conservatives, and that Samuel Alito is not Antonin Scalia.

Well, that certainly puts my mind at ease.

In a more general sense, President Bush should be commended for nominating someone with so substantial a judicial record. In the decades since the defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination, presidents have unfortunately tended toward “stealth” nominees out of fear that actual evidence of the person’s jurisprudence would only give ammunition to his opponents.

Oh yeah, nominating an in-your-face nutzoid conservative is ever so much more noble than nominating a stealth nutzoid conservative. Huzzah.

Those Democrats who are already insisting that Judge Alito’s record on the bench makes him unacceptable should keep in mind that someday they, too, will have a president with a Supreme Court seat to fill, and it would serve the country well if that president wasn’t forced to choose only among candidates with no paper trail. To oppose Judge Alito because his record is conservative is to condemn us to a succession of bland nominees and to deprive future presidents of the opportunity to choose from the men and women who have dedicated long years to judicial work.

So, if I’m reading this correctly, Ann is advocating that both sides nominate only ideological extremists instead of boring, “bland” moderates? I guess it doesn’t trouble her that this would turn the Supreme Court into something resembling a nine-member Senate, except of course that it would wield absolute power over the other two branches of government, and all the members would be appointed for life rather than being periodically accountable to the voting public.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. At least we wouldn’t have any more of that annoying suspense about how the Supreme Court might rule in any given case, right?

2 comments November 1st, 2005 at 09:23am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Judiciary,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

November 2005
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *