Mickey

Unknown and a very loyal friend. I wonder if it is a good thing for the country to have a justice whose loyalty to the President is so strong it rivals their loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty isn't a universal good and can be anathema to a democracy.

Ahhhh....but she is a public figure my friend. Now if I wrote that you wore too much make-up than I should be censured. Seriously, had you ever heard of her before yesterday? I know I hadn't.

Maybe he can redistrict the jury so that only his immediate family is on the jury. Better yet, he could pull a Schiavo and pass a law allowing congress to steal jurisdiction over his case from the Texas courts. One could argue that his career is in a persistent vegetative state at the moment. Maybe we should put a camera on him and waive a red ballon in his face and see if he asks it to make a donation to his campaign. You know who I feel sorry for? The reporters who will have to cover this circus once the trial starts if it even gets that far. Most of them are still in hyperbaric chambers trying to de-Jackson-ify their calcified brains.

Its not just the blitzing in of itself that gets us in trouble, its that we have to blitz safeties and corners. If we were able to send on LB or maybe two and get the pressure we need, we would be much less vulnerable to big plays. Sending Milloy, Nate and Troy really gives the offense an opportunity if they read it right, especially with a nimble QB who can by a little time.

I remember that draft, Mike Golic was harping on how great Freeney would be for weeks after Freeney ran a 4.5 40 during Syracuse's pro day. I know lots of teams passed on Freeney but even without hindsight, you have to wonder why. The guy was a big time sack artist in college so he had huge production. He also tested strong and freakishly fast. Therefore he had the numbers and the production. No question he wan't highly valued but that is no excuse, he should have been and our scouts missed this opportunity.

Well, since I suggested it, it must be a raving partisan piece of drivel. Please stop this annoying habit of yours of addressing the merits of an idea rather than your personal opinions of its source. Seriously, she is another mystery candidate and despite her lack of reputation outside of Texas, for all we know she might have the makings of another Cardozo. I do hope that she resigns her membership in the Katherine Harris Church of Excessive Make-Up before the televised hearings to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

It is at least theoretically possible that the reason they do so is the threat that if they did not provide such an environment, their employees would unionize. I am no labor relations expert nor have I much experience in management as I usually outsource to legal sweatshops in Micronesia so I admit that I am speculating.

The document is simple, the infinite array of human experience to which it is applied is not. Compared to many Justices, it looks like she is a lightweight. Compared to others, she is not so bad. Right now I have little to go on besides her lack of reputation outside of Texas. Lets see how she does in the hearings and withhold judgments until then.

Riiiiight. I post that indictments are one way to deter political corruption, you apparently agree but elect to attack me as a partisan rather than to discuss the merits of this particular indictment or their effectiveness in general and I am the unreasonable one. Makes sense. I'll ask for the third time now, do you think that the attack on Earle's credibility would have occurred irrespective of the strength of the indictment? Actually indictments I believe is now the correct term as a second grand jury has issued another one against Delay. I made two points in that post, one was that indictments are one way to fight political corruption, a problem so often lamented hereabouts. The second point was that Earle was going to be subjected to the predictable and now familiar tactic of having his personal credibility attacked from the right. Apparently we agree that indictments can be a good way to fight corruption but you have doubts that this particular indictment is a very good one while I have pled ignorance as to its strength or weakness not having sat on the grand jury myself. If you agree that Earle would be attacked regardless of the quality of the indictments, then we end up with not really disagreeing with eachother all that much despite my alleged status as an unreasonable partisan.

Okay, so you think he is probably guilty "of something" while all I did was state that indictments are not a bad way to go after corrupt officials. Worlds apart aren't we? So if I was against the indictment of Delay I would be defending a corrupt politician and if I support the DA I am a partisan lap dog. Either way I get one of your nasty and personal replies. By the way, did you happen to read my first post in this thread: "I would point out that he is innocent until proven guilty and his family has all my sympathy in having to deal with the media frenzy that is certain to follow. I would also add that neither Tom Delay nor the Republican party invented the notion of corrupt politics and corrupt politicians. With all those caveats having been said, thank God and the law for Grand Juries and good riddance to a real #$!@#$@$." Clearly full of raving partisanship.

Choosing the best sounds great but the law isn't like the 100 meter dash where only one person is the fastest. You have hundreds that are pretty much on the same level of having a great legal mind. I have no idea if this woman is among the hundreds or not but I'm sure you know what I mean. For good or ill, the Constitution makes it a political appointment first and foremost.

My post that indictments are one way to go after corruption and that the right was going to go after the DA for issuing one was met with a nasty response from you which made no argument that indictments aren't a good way to go after corruption nor that the right wasn't going to attack the DA. I assumed you didn't care for indictments as a way to treat corruption; why else would you respond so negatively to my post? Since you didn't address either point I made specifically, I presumed that you didn't think indictments were a good idea in fighting corruption. Now I see your point is that you don't think much of this indicement. Had you addressed the points I made originally rather than all that insulting personal stuff about the DNC etc., we might have had a reasonable discussion form the git go. The second issue is going after the DA for the indictments by attacking his credibility. Again, I am not making any assumption about the strength of the indictments since I wasn't on the grand jury. My point is that the DA will be swiftboated. I'll just ask the same question I asked before, do you really think that the right wouldn't be going after the DA's credibility regardless of the strength of the indictments? I think they would even if the indictments were issued by a panel of nuns who watched a video tape of Delay with panty hose on his head knocking over a liquor store. If you agree with my point that the DA would be attacked on the right irrespective of the strength of the indictments, I have to ask, why the nastiness when I said the same thing?

I never would have thought that I would vote for Hillary but you just gave me a good reason to.

Each one of them would have been hanged if the war had been lost. The Yankees among them were mostly the noveau riche of their day. Hancock was about the richest guy in Boston and he was mainly a smuggler. The Virginians were not technically aristocrats but they often acted that way. John Adams was a lawyer who simply worked his tail off. Sam was a failure at just about everything, especially as a tax collector.

The last two weeks where we played teams with QB's who have good feet has exposed this defense's achilles heel, it can't generate pressure with only 4 guys rushing and often don't get it with 5. We tried staying in coverage with 7 and rushing only 4 against Vick and Brooks but although the coverage was often good, the resulting delay did not result in a coverage sack. The QB was able to eventually find an open man or wait until all the DB's were downfield and then just run it with no one to get him but some d-lineman fully enganged with an offensive lineman. The result was that we didn't put him down until he got well into the secondary. We tried blitzing like crazy but these nimble QB's were able to buy just enough time with their feet to expose the lack of bodies in the secondary. Vick often didn't have to buy time as he was able to hit totally uncovered guys from the git go. Mobile QB's like that with mediocre arms can be beat but you have to have better play from your front 4. When you are keeping that many people in coverage, the extra time should result in some coverage sacks. We only get pressure when we bring a corner or safety, we rarely get it from just the front four or even from London or Spikes/Crowel. That is the problem, we have to dangerously overcommitt to get much pressure. It works against the David Carr's of the world but it doesn't work against guys like Vick.

I agree with you but that is not a reason to mourn this indictment as much as it is to mourn that there is only one. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to quadruple the amount of congressman and quarter their salaries. Imagine having to bribe 4 times as many congressman. Get rid of corruption by pricing it out of the market.

How would you suggest the rampant corruption in Washington get cleaned up since grand jury indictments aren't your cup of tea? Do you really think that as we speak, the Republican spin meisters aren't doing all they can to try and discredit the DA involved? Do you really think the effort to discredit the prosecutor depends on whether the indictments were warranted or not? I think that irrespective of the strength of the indictment of which neither of us can be sure, not having been one of the grand jurors, the party apparatus would be in full gear going after the credibility of the DA. That is the point I made. If I am so awfully wrong because I am such a partisan, please tell me why you think that if the indictments were validly issued by the grand jury, the right wouldn't be out to hang the DA anyway. By the way, since when were you voted non-partisan of the month? Hint: posting that other conservatives are not conservative enough is about as non-partisan as a lefty posting that Howard Dean should listen more to Cindy Sheehan.

If there were a thread on the indictment of a democratic leader of Delay's stature, I'd have commented in that thread but, there doesn't seem to be one. What's your point besides the self congratulatory one you make ad nauseum that everyone is partisan but you? Any chance you are interested in discussing the Delay indictment on its merits? Aren't you the one who is always telling us that all politicians are corrupt? Do you support, oppose or have no opinion on this indictment?

No doubt, the timing of this kind of choice is pretty weird. Maybe the thought is that of all the people George finds acceptable nominees, this is the one most likely to garner some democratic support despite so that any cronyism charges will be muted. If so that would fit the idea that at this point, he is too vulnerable to force a fight with republican moderates and democrats. Maybe he figured he didn't have the political capital to go with a controversial nominee beloved by the far right. It certainly is a head scratcher.

No sympathy here. I have had the same feeling since 2000, deal with it. If they ever play Hail to the Chief for Hillary, don't despair, I'll talk you through it.

Won't work. You have the patient dying in the parking lot for lack of insurance scenario again which ultimately, voters won't tolerate, especially if the guy who refused the coverage has a sick kid. You might think or hope that people would not crumble and instead reason that he got what he deserved but what if he had to make a choice between rent and coverage? What if it was a choice between food and insurance? This idea depends on people having free choices so that if they make a bad one, tough on them. However, depending on the numbers, there may not really be a choice for the low wage earner to make. Choosing between getting evicted today and maybe getting sick tommorow, is not exactly a free choice. The sympathy factor will still come down in favor of providing treatment which we then have to find a way to pay for.

I have no idea if this idea is workable or not but I do recongize that it is a legitimate attempt at addressing the problem rather than just pushing it off on to someone else or pretending that we can go on this way idefinitely. Frankly, as much as people carp about government, we really dump this problem in their laps leaving little choice but for government to step in. We don't want to endure any pain in trying to address the problem which means we don't want to pay for it nor do we want to read stories of people dying in ER parking lots because they had no insurance. With that reality, what in the world do people think will be the result? Either magic rabbits with medical degrees will pop out of holes to treat the uninsured for a handful of carrots or the only entity in the country with the ability to do something about it will do just that. I don't see any rabbits. Surprise, surprise, surprise, the government is paying for treatment of the uinsured and to protect us from the true cost, tax a little and borrow a lot. I use the phrase "tax a little" as a relative term. It always makes me laugh to see people claim to be against big government who adopt policies that make big government inevitable or, alternatively, adopt a policy that in theory would mean less government but that they know full well is a political impossibility.

It should be but it isn't.

He cullld aslo splel. You are almost as good a typist as my secretary. Almost.

I know you are not, that isn't what I was trying to say. What I am trying to focus on is that ultimatey we have a choice, either pay for the treatment some people can't afford or deny them treatment. If your answer is to pay for it, then you have to figure out a way. I am not saying anything at all about how that should be done or arguing for government involvment. You are automatically converting "if we are not going to deny treatment we must find a way to pay for it" into an argument for national health care or some other massive government involvement. If on the other hand you are going to deny treatment rather than find a way to pay for it then whether it is what you favor or not, the end result is that people will suffer and die for lack of treatment. If I am asking you to do anything here it is simply to make it clear what your choice is, do we deny treatment to people who can't afford treatment or adequate insurance or do we provide them treatment and find a way to pay for it? Once you make that choice, the argument shifts to discussing the best way to accomplish that goal. If you want to provide treatment then we should discuss not just what you think won't work (government) but what you think will work. If you want to deny treatment, then tell me how, from a political perspective, you convince enough voters to support denying treatment to people who have treatable conditions, even those that are potentially fatal. My own view based on political realism is that the notion that we will deny treatment would last about as long as the first front page story of some poor person who died from a treatable illness due to lack of insurance. A handful of such stories and the public would demand that something be done. Thus, I just don't see denying treatment as a realistic option in the current political landscape. Fact is, though I haven't researched it extensively, I believe that hospitals receiving federal and state funds have to provide treatment to the uninsured. To a large extent, the political decision to provide the treatment appears to have been made. The question is whether we have the political will to pay for the cost of our convictions and compassion. Will we pay for the treatment we mandate or simply push the costs off to hospitals who then raise the cost of everything else to cover it? The result being spiraling health care costs with more and more patients being priced right out of their insurance. Step by step this situation is getting worse and worse and the party that has no answer for constituents who have good jobs but no insurance is going to be in big trouble. Hell hath no fury like a soccer mom with no health insurance. New York has a child health plus plan that addresses the issue in its most compelling form, uninsured children. Most states, I'm guessing most red states anyway, do not. Those are the states where this issue could explode.