September 1-4, 2007
Sep 01 00:47 Nearly Perfect Sep 01 01:49 Where Are the Fact Checkers? Sep 01 15:52 Sen. Craig Announces Resignation Sep 02 04:07 Ellison Now Part of Anti-Semitism Task Force Sep 02 05:17 Earmark Abuser Chastises States' Misuse of Federal Funds Sep 04 01:02 On the Hill, All Iraq All the Time
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Nearly Perfect
I knew that Scott Baker had his best stuff tonight when he struck out 5 of the first 6 hitters. Although I told my nephew that Baker's slider was looking particularly nasty, little did I realize that I was watching Scott Baker pitch the game of his life.
Torii Hunter made 2 great catches to keep Baker's bid for perfection alive but the reality was that Baker wouldn't need much help in putting the Royals down. Time & again, Baker's slider would bite in on the lefties. KC third baseman Alex Gordon had a particularly rough night, striking out all three times on nasty, unhittable sliders. Each time, Gordon swung over the top of Baker's slider. Several times, Baker's slider started about belt high on the inner third of the plate. Each of those times, the ball landed in the dirt just to the inside of home plate.
Twins analyst Ron Coomer made a great point during the postgame show, saying that this was a throwback pitching performance, with Baker busting hitters up & in before striking them out on that nasty slider. He said it had been a few seasons since he saw a pitcher force hitters to change eye levels & eye angles. I totally agree with that. I didn't see a Royals hitter get a good swing off Baker. Most were tentative but some were downright defensive, please help me looking, swings.
A jam shot single from Royals captain Mike Sweeney broke up Mr. Baker's no-hitter in the ninth. Even that pitch was a tough pitch that Sweeney just muscled over the infield for a clean hit.
Baker has been one of the most consistent pitchers on the staff, with Johan Santana being the only Twins starter who's been more consistent than Baker. This bodes well for the Twins next year. Any rotation that starts off with Santana, Liriano & Baker is a pretty nice rotation. Filling it out with Matt Garza and either Boof Bonser or Glen Perkins sounds like a rock solid staff.
My hat's off to Scott Baker, who's had an incredibly memorable week, which started with the birth of his second son, Easton Timothy. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.
Posted Saturday, September 1, 2007 12:47 AM
No comments.
Where Are the Fact Checkers?
Abdi Aynte, one of Keith Ellison's biggest supporters, used Minnesota Monitor to deny Keith Ellison's being the Grand Marshal of the Sept. 9 Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Here's what Mr. Aynte said:
Contrary to reports circulating widely in conservative publications and blogs in recent days, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will not be the grand marshal of the Muslim parade in New York next month, according to his office.The first question I'd ask after reading Elliot's statement is which specific obligation within Rep. Ellison's district is preventing him from being the Grand Marshal at the Muslim Day Parade? Another question I'd ask is why this supposedly important obligation within his district isn't listed on his events calender. According to his events calendar, Rep. Ellison's next event is for Sunday, Sept. 23 on the subject of health care.
The freshman Democrat from Minneapolis was never scheduled to be there, said Brian Elliot, district director for Ellison.
Elliot said the congressman "was equally surprised" when he learned the buzz that he would be the grand marshal for the 22nd Annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City, which is scheduled for Sept. 9. Ellison "declined the offer to be the grand marshal a long time ago because he has other obligations in the district," said Elliot.
Mr. Elliot might want to contact the Muslim Foundation of America and find out why they posted this flyer on their website announcing Rep. Ellison as the Grand Marshal:
Aynte made a major mistake when he wrote this:
In her "Rogues Gallery of Radical Islam" column, Canada Free Press' Judi McCleod wrote that Ellison's alleged role in the parade would have been "totally ignored were it not for the courage of a single freelance journalist." Yet that journalist, FrontPage magazine writer Joe Kaufman, seems to have ignored a basic tenet of reporting: fact-checking.I've known Joe for almost two years now. Joe is nothing if not meticulous. Accusing Joe of not fact-checking his work is laughable at best. In light of the fact that we now have visual proof that MFA had created a flier stating that Keith Ellison would be the Grand Marshal of the Muslim Day Parade, I think it only fair that Minnesota Monitor, Keith Ellison and Abdi Aynte apologize to Joe.
(Ed.- emphasis mine)
I won't be holding my breath waiting for that apology, especially in light of the fact that it's been 87 days since Keith Ellison spoke at the Muslim American Society Annual Convention. At the time of Rep. Ellison's speech, the MAS-MN website contained these anti-semitic remarks:
- The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran; for nothing better could be expected from those who had forsaken their own Torah. He should deal with the Christians likewise, for they, too, had forsaken their Gospel. 41 - 50
- In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants. Likewise they should be on their guard against the evil designs of the hypocrites, the disbelievers and the like and should rely on the true Believers alone. The people of the Book have, in their turn been exhorted to give up their enmity and adopt the right attitude, for they cannot get salvation without this. 51 - 69
- The theme of the corruptions of the Jews and Christians has been resumed. The Christians especially have been reproved for their errors in regard to the doctrine of Tauhid. At the same time they have been preferred to the hard hearted Jews, for there are among them some who are more inclined towards the Truth. 70 - 86
Finally, I'd suggest to the people at Minnesota Monitor that they'd better do a more thorough job of fact checking. Let's hope that Friday's post is the exception, not the rule.
Posted Saturday, September 1, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment 1 by kb at 01-Sep-07 09:55 AM
What is the date on which your screen cap was taken? Since that's not the current copy, it would be good to know when it was changed.
Comment 2 by Commenter Z at 01-Sep-07 08:14 PM
One issue: Kaufman was not meticulous enough to do the reporter's job of confirming with either Ellison or the parade sponsors. That's basic journalism. He screwed up; Minnesota Monitor called him on it. End of story.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 02-Sep-07 11:22 AM
King, That screen capture was from Aug. 23, 2007.
Sen. Craig Announces Resignation
This morning, Sen. Larry Craig announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate. His resignation is effective Sept. 30, 2007.
"The people of Idaho deserve a senator who can devote 100 percent of his time and effort to the critical issues of our state and of our nation," said Craig, speaking under a clear blue sky at 10:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. ET) outside the historic Boise Depot in Idaho's capital city. "Therefore it is with sadness and deep regret that I announce that it is my intent to resign from the Senate, effective September 30th."I won't pretend that there haven't been corrupt GOP politicians. To do that would be to destroy my credibility. That said, it's interesting to note that Democrats do nothing when their politicians are exposed as corrupt.
When the FBI found $90,000 in marked bills in William Jefferson's freezer, the Black Caucus protected him. When John Murtha was caught up in Abscam, the Democrats protected him. After John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of cold-blooded murder, Nancy Pelosi endorsed him to be the House Majority Leader.
Republicans familiar with the situation told CNN that Otter supported Lt. Gov. Jim Risch to replace Craig but would wait to make an announcement.Craig's resignation makes it unlikely that Democrats would be able to win this seat in 2008. Had this come out a month before the election, a la Mark Foley, I wouldn't have been this confident. If Risch keeps his nose clean, then he's got a strong shot at winning in 2008.
Posted Saturday, September 1, 2007 3:53 PM
No comments.
Ellison Now Part of Anti-Semitism Task Force
According to Keith Ellison's website, Rep. Ellison was appointed to a task force on anti-semitism:
Congressman Keith Ellison has joined the bi-partisan Congressional Anti-Semitism Task Force (CASTF) for the 110th Congress. The Taskforce promotes religious tolerance throughout the world, and brings a strong voice in the United States Congress to those whose basic religious rights and freedoms have been persecuted.To say that I don't understand why Rep. Ellison is part of this task force is understatement. What unique qualifications and attributes does Rep. Ellison bring to this task force? I'd further ask why anyone would name Rep. Ellison to this task force after Rep. Ellison spoke at an anti-semitic organization's (MAS-MN) annual convention? Here's some of the things posted on MAS-MN's website on the day of Rep. Ellison's speech:
" I am honored to join the Congressional Anti-Semitism Task Force because it embodies the ideals and principles that have guided and shaped my life ," Ellison stated.
An additional charge of the Task Force will be to bring to light numerous acts of anti-Semitism occurring around the world. In doing so, members demonstrate their support for key principles of religious freedom and tolerance as codified in international covenants, but will also help bring attention to actions that are at the root of some of humanities gravest crimes.
The Congressional Anti-Semitism Task Force is co-chaired by Founding Member, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) , Congressmen Ron Klein (D-FL), and Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN).
- "The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran."
- "In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants."
- "If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them."
- "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
- "May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship."
On Monday, June 4th, the Chairman of Americans Against Hate (AAH), Joe Kaufman, phoned the local and Washington, D.C. offices of Congressman Ellison to demand that he denounce MAS. Kaufman has received no response from the Congressman or anyone in his offices.It's been 88 days since Joe Kaufman issued this press release demanding Rep. Ellison to denounce the anti-Semitic statements on MAS-MN's website. Rep. Ellison still hasn't chastised the Minnesota chapter of MAS for the anti-semitic remarks posted on their website. If he won't pass that minimum test, why should anyone think that he'll fight against anti-semitism while he's part of this task force?
Kaufman stated, "When Keith Ellison ran for office, he denounced the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI), a group that he was previously affiliated with. We demand that he do the same to the Muslim American Society. It is not only improper for a United States Representative to participate with such groups, but it is a danger to national security."
This is at least the second time Keith Ellison has spoken in front of the Muslim American Society. The other time was right after he was elected to office, in December of 2006. As well, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, Mahdi Bray, campaigned for Ellison.
Finally, I'd ask two simple questions: (a) Should Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, stay silent rather than ask Rep. Ellison why he hasn't denounced the Muslim American Society for the anti-semitic remarks posted on their website? and (b) Shouldn't Rep. Ellison be required to chastise the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society before being admitted to this task force?
Posted Sunday, September 2, 2007 5:12 AM
Comment 1 by Terror-Free Oil at 03-Sep-07 10:23 AM
Unfuckingbelievable! Who's Next? Byrd?
On the other hand, it makes sense. If there are some Jews there, we need some Nazis there too. For balance.
Comment 2 by Snooper at 04-Sep-07 12:30 AM
A sworn Islamist, getting sworn in to the CONgress with the Koran, associating/associated with CAIR which, espouses the replacement of the United States Constitution with THE KORAN, is on body for anti-semitism?
There is definitely something askew with someone's cerebral cortex someplace.
Earmark Abuser Chastises States' Misuse of Federal Funds
Believe it or not, Jim Oberstar is pointing the finger of blame at MnDOT for not using the federal highway funds properly. That's one of the most bizarre accusations I've ever heard. Here's what he said in 1987:
"Our national bridge program is in serious trouble," he testified then. "The safety of millions of Americans has been jeopardized by inept federal stewardship over our bridge inspection and rebuilding effort. States have misspent millions of federal aid bridge dollars."Here's what the Strib reported Saturday:
Oberstar is still largely inclined to blame state transportation authorities, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), for failing to make effective use of federal bridge dollars. Too frequently, he argues, they are converted into all-purpose transportation funds, to be used for everything from new streetlights to wider roads.Oberstar whining about MnDOT misusing federal bridge funds is laughable, especially considering how he's forced Minnesota to spend millions of dollars on bike trails. As King posted here, there's a "hidden cost" to earmarks:
The dirty little secret of earmarks is that they're not the true cost of the projects. In many, many cases it only partially funds a project. In most cases, and I certainly experienced this as a state administrator, we had to take more money out of the rest of our programs to supplement the earmark in order to build that project because the earmark was rarely, if ever, the total cost of the project.Rep. Oberstar often touted the fact that he had 'brought home the bacon' in the form of transportation earmarks. What he didn't say, though, was that those earmarks, sometimes for building bike trails, took money away from high priority items like bridges and road repairs.
What that did was usurp the other priorities, the priorities that were set by state departments of transportation and local governments that went out in the public process and established priorities based on trying to take care of the systems they had. And, instead, that whole process begins to get usurped by these earmarks. I would hazard to guess that maybe earmarks, at most, would give you about a third of the project costs, and that's on the high side. The fact is that the cost of earmarks is really understated in terms of what it really takes out of the program.
I'm not opposed to bike trails until federal highway trust fund monies are used to build them. Then I'm vehemently opposed to bike trails.
But Oberstar's critics say that he and his colleagues on the Transportation Committee have much to answer for themselves: His committee is widely seen as a one-stop shopping center for House members' pet projects, from Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" to Oberstar's vaunted bike paths.Let's be clear about this: Democrats and Republicans alike abuse the earmark system. Now that that's out of the way, let's admit that legislators' lust for earmarks is wasting tons of federal money and tons of state money. At a time when Oberstar wants to increase the federal gas tax and the DFL wants to jack up the Minnesota state gas tax, taxpayers should repeatedly tell legislators that their voting for tax increases before they corral their wasteful spending habits is all the justification taxpayers will need to boot them out of office.
Some analysts say that White House opposition to a gas-tax increase in 2005 ensured a smaller national bridge and highway budget than many federal officials and members of Congress were calling for.Any way you slice it, that's alot of money wasted. That level of waste shouldn't be tolerated for any reason. Any congressman that tries rationalizing away this type of wasteful spending isn't the taxpayers' friend. That's all the justification I'd need to vote against them.
But Jeff Davis, editor and publisher of Transportation Weekly, points out that federal spending for core transportation projects nationwide, including bridges, was "significantly cut back" in 2005 to make room for a record 6,371 congressional earmarks, double the number in the last major road funding bill in 1998.
An analysis by Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington watchdog group, found that the 2005 transportation funding bill pared down money for bridge reconstruction by as much as $1 billion a year over the five-year life of the law in order to make room for $24 billion in special pork-barrel projects.
Posted Sunday, September 2, 2007 5:18 AM
Comment 1 by Carol Cooper at 02-Sep-07 11:25 AM
This is the hypocracy that needs more attention -- it costs lives.
On the Hill, All Iraq All the Time
That's the title of a particularly poorly researched article in US News & World Report written by Danielle Knight. One of the things she wrote in the article is that Harry Reid "is even worried that the White House will prevent Petraeus from testifying openly." The implication is that President Bush doesn't want the public to know what's happening in Iraq. The opposite is true; President Bush wants everyone to know what's happening in Iraq.
Ms. Knight shouldn't have let Sen. Reid get away with that statement, especially in light of this post on the Crypt:
The White House made clear today that the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Iraq will testify publicly before Congress next month, easing a brewing spat between the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the possibility of closed-door-only sessions.That post states clearly that the White House wants Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker to testify for all the world to hear. Reid suggesting that the White House will interfere with Gen. Petraeus' public testimony is pure showmanship on his behalf. When Sen. Reid tried starting this rumor, the Bush administration immediately made it known that they wanted Gen. Petraeus testifying in public. Here's the full paragraph from the Crypt's post:
Democrats are hoping this flood of new appraisals will be so bleak that congressional Republicans will be forced to change course. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is even worried that the White House will prevent Petraeus from testifying openly. If the president is going to continue to ask taxpayers to spend $10 billion monthly on the war, says Reid, "then those closest to the situation on the ground must give Congress...a frank and honest account of this war free of White House political spin." The Bush administration has denied that closed-door-only briefings were under consideration.The battle on whether we should extend the Surge is essentially finished. When asked by the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza what would happen if Gen. Petraeus' reported good news from Iraq, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told them that good news would be "a real big problem for us."
After hearing Clyburn's now-famous quote, reporters should take anyone talking about gloom and doom scenarios with a grain of salt. I certainly wouldn't take Sen. Reid seriously if he'd told me that he was worried about Gen. Petraeus not testifying in public. In fact, I would've likely responded by asking him why he was worried about that happening when it's Democrats that are worried about people catching on that there's lots of positive things happening in Iraq.
Here's another stunningly naive section of Ms. Knight's article:
Democrats will probably try to add amendments to the supplemental spending bill, including contentious proposals to withdraw troops. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, may propose an amendment that would require most troops to leave Iraq within six months. Murtha supports immediately ending operations in Iraq but acknowledges that it would very likely take a full year to withdraw most of the 159,000 troops now deployed.After reading the closing paragraphs to her article, I'm forced to ask what planet this woman's living on. If and when President Bush submits his next Iraq supplemental request, the Democratic presidential candidates will vote against it so they don't incur the wrath of the Nutroots gang. They'll be joined by true believers like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry & Robert Byrd. I'd be surprised if 30 Democrats will vote against cutting off funds to the troops. I don't expect a dramatically different result in the House.
The Senate will chime in with its own debate on the withdrawal of forces. Democrats, who hold a 51-to-49 majority there, must have Republican support to acquire the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. Whether such proposals would win approval-or face a prolonged veto fight with the White House-is unclear. But with GOP Sen. John Warner of Virginia, an influential Armed Services Committee member, now joining a small group of Republicans calling for troop withdrawals, Democrats are hopeful that they may be nearing the votes they need to at least begin the process of bringing U.S. troops home.
The bottom line is that the battle over war funding is essentially over because there's good news reports coming out of Iraq on a daily basis. Now that people see that we aren't spinning our wheels, they're supporting the war in greater numbers. The only question left at this point will be how Hillary will rationalize her changing her position on the war for the umpteenth time.
Posted Tuesday, September 4, 2007 1:03 AM
No comments.
