A Progressive on the Prairie

Having spent hundreds on tickets and motel rooms and endured lots of windshield time in three trips between here and St. Paul in the course of 8 days, I figure I should make a couple observations on the World Cup of Hockey.

There can't be much like an international sporting event. You certainly don't get many chances around here to sit next to a group of Russians at the same time you're sitting just in front of a group of Canadians. Likewise, it was fun to see just how much national pride and enthusiasm a couple thousand Slovakians can display (although the whistling they do to show disagreement with something can feel like a hole being drilled in your head).

Classiest display: The moment of silence before the U.S.-Russia quarterfinal game for the victims of the school siege in Beslan.

Ugly American (or obnoxious fan) moment: A tie, both during Friday night's semi-final game against Finland. First, there was the slender gentleman in his late 50s or early 60s shown on the big screen waving his Finnish flags and enjoying the music, only to have some 200-pound+ muscle bound American come down and try to cover the guy's face with his American flags and then act like he was beating up the Finn. Then there was the 20-something numbskull in my row who threw food at a young Finn a few rows in front of us who was exalting after his team scored the winning goal with about four minutes left in the game.

Best line (even if somewhat sexist): We sat two rows in front of about a dozen people from Canada during the U.S.-Russia quarterfinal (even though Canada was playing in Toronto throughout the tournament, not St. Paul). The Canadians partied hard and loud during warm-ups, before the game and during intermissions. But once the puck hit the ice, it was another story. One guy said to his girlfriend/wife as she was chatting with another woman during play: "Shut up, woman. They're playing hockey." She did. And that's when their own team isn't even playing.

Priceless: Much like the Frozen Four or an NCAA regional tournament, attending top-notch hockey games where the focus is actually watching and enjoying the games, not seeing how much you can drink before beer sales stop.
0 comments

With plenty being written and aired about September 11, my thoughts are brief. I am at stage four (non-Repugnican, that is). The fact the Liar-in-Chief and crew continue to exploit September 11 epitomizes their moral bankruptcy. For some reason, the American public allows them to get away with it. Sadly, that speaks volumes for America.
0 comments

There's plenty of good op-ed columnists out there but Paul Krugman continues to outshine them all.

His Sept. 3 column on the Repugnican convention borders on a must read. It concludes:

Mr. Bush, it's now clear, intends to run a campaign based on fear. And for me, at least, it's working: thinking about what these people will do if they solidify their grip on power makes me very, very afraid.

Cheney's speech and Tom Ridge continuing to pound the terror drum whenever there's one piece of bad news are just the most recent examples that fear is the driving force behind the Misleader's campaign.

Then, here's the lede from today's column:

It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.

You'd think the column was about Bush being AWOL. But Krugman does what he does best. Uses this as a springboard for how Bush will also lie to us about taxes and spending.

Krugman's columns run in the NY Times every Tuesday and Friday and are archived here. If you're not reading them regularly, you should.
0 comments

Back for about 48 hours before another round of hockey. Too much happening, making my head spin from all the insanity and inanity. So, here's some quickies from the last day or so:

Pot or Kettle? Have to love Scotty McClellan's unmitigated gall after the Swift Boat crap in responding to questions about the recent stories on Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof): "I think you absolutely are seeing a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates on the President." Ever stop to think that maybe the media are finally their job some four years late?

A Flip-Flop By Any Other Name. Bush Now Backs Budget Powers in New Spy Post.

A Safer America. "The Bush administration’s 'war on terrorism' reflects a major failure of leadership and makes Americans more vulnerable rather than more secure." (Via Cursor).

"Mission Accomplished." "More U.S. troops have died since the turnover of power to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June than were killed during the U.S.-led invasion of the country in the spring of 2003. .... That trend is a grim indication that, 18 months after the invasion, the fighting appears to be intensifying rather than waning." (Via The War In Context).

Why Are We So Blind? "If the world could cast a vote in the United States presidential election, John Kerry would beat George W. Bush by a landslide, according to a poll released on Wednesday that is described as the largest sample of global opinion on the race." Actual poll here. (Also via The War In Context).

An American Nightmare. What If Bush Wins? (Also via Cursor).


0 comments

The Daily Show continues to excel. If you didn't catch it during the Repugnican hatefest, it now has available on the web the most accurate video about Bush and the war on terror. Go here and watch the video George W. Bush's Words. It's a shame a satirical program is the only one truly informing the American public.
0 comments

Whether it's inherent in the religious right, an outsider's lack of knowledge or both, there was a huge display of ignorance at the LifeLight christian music festival in Sioux Falls. The Argus Leader reports today that religious right broadcaster James Dobson urged attendees to vote against Amendment A on November's ballot because it will result in "unelected" judges who are behind a "civil war of values." Dobson is clueless.

Amendment A would change the method of selecting trial court level judges. Currently, they are elected. If Amendment A is approved, they would be appointed by the governor based on recommendations from the Judicial Qualifications Commission. That commission includes a non-lawyer from each party appointed by the governor. For Dobson or anyone to contend Amendment A will result in activist judges forcing values down our throats is asinine.

First, it ignores the fact that over 105 years of statehood, Republicans have held the governor's office for all but 22 years, including the last 25. Anyone who thinks a South Dakota governor, particularly one in the GOP, is going to put "activist judges" on the bench knows nothing about South Dakota.

Second, any ruling by a trial court is subject to review by the South Dakota Supreme Court. Amendment A does not change the manner in which Supreme Court justices are selected. And, as might be expected given our political history, every current member of the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican governor.

Finally, let's assume some governor puts an "activist" on the trial court or the Supreme Court. Based on the Argus article, Dobson -- inadvertently or intentionally -- failed to mention that every Supreme Court justice will be subject to a statewide retention election while every trial court judge will be subject to a retention election in the judicial circuit in which they sit. (The latter evidently being another radical plot for community-based control and decision-making.) The retention elections, held three years after initial appointment and every eight years thereafter, are simply up or down votes on whether to keep a particular judge. As a result, the electorate has full power to oust "activist judges" through the voting booth. Yet this is a system Dobson described as "tyranny."

I encourage intelligent debate on whether trial level judges should be selected initially by election or appointment. I've made some of my thoughts on that issue plain. But for Dobson to describe Amendment A as "tyranny" and a mechanism for activist judges to force moral values down our throats has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the proposal. It's just another example of the religious right's pattern of misleading and fear-mongering.
0 comments