Friday, March 11, 2011

Say Goodbye To Professional Football

For some reason, I'm on this mailing list.  It appears that the 2011 National Football Season will not occur as planned:
Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.


Roger Goodell

Roger Goodell

Of course, some will attribute this to hostility to unions.  'Fact is, as far as I can tell, it's strictly an economic dispute ... one in which both sides could well be put to their proofs.

David Englin: Virginia's Dumbest Delegate?

Apparently, Delegate David Englin may be the dumbest member of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Either that, or he's simply a liar.

Give the guy credit: he's got the talking points down.  The Wisconsin situation is about "destroying public employee unions."  The budget was a "red herring."  "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves."

Nice soundbites, all.

Reality?  Not hardly.

Of course, repealing the special privileges possessed by labor unions --- monopoly (not collective) bargaining; government collection of their union dues --- is not about "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves."  After all, that sounds like a First-Amendment right that's being attacked, doesn't it?

Can little Davey Englin really not know the difference between the right to come together to petition government --- an actual right, one left unmolested by the Wisconsin bill --- and the special monopoly bargaining privilege which is being repealed?  If so, he may be too stupid to sit in the Virginia House of Delegates.

"The point of a Right to Work law is to end collective bargaining"?!?!?

No, Davey: the point of a Right to Work law is to deny a union the power to force nonmembers to pay union dues (to be fair, his debate opponent seems no more informed about what the law does).  The union still possesses monopoly bargaining power.  Unfortunately.

Apparently, Englin is so captured by his union contributors that he can't even get the facts right about what a Right to Work law does.

Either that, or he's simply channeling President TelePrompTer, mindlessly repeating the Talking Points.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

David Broder, RIP

The "dean of the Washington press corps, " David Broder, has died at age 81.

While decidedly a member of the "old media," everyone in the "new media" owes a debt of gratitude to Broder.

We will not see his like pass this way again.


Tuesday, March 08, 2011

I Guess Principles Had Nothing To Do With It

And now, a quick rundown on the response of Virginia's Moonbatosphere to President Barry's Executive Order to keep Guantanamo Bay's camp for terrorism suspects, and resume military tribunals to prosecute them:

Well, OK: there's one.

Waldo Jaquith's indispensable Virginia Political Blogroll is otherwise empty of commentary or criticism of President Barry's adoption of Bush 43 Administration policy.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Even When He's Right, It's For The Wrong Reasons

In my post yesterday, I noted that many on the far Left were due for a healthy serving of crow over the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011).  Our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he distinguished himself by being one of only two Attorneys General who refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses.  Of course, the Phelpses won.

A moonbat over at Blow Me, Vir... er, "Blue Virginia" is still trying to challenge Attorney General Cuccinelli's motives.  Amazing!  Apparently, according to "lowkell" (Lowell Feld?), the Attorney General is a "hypocrite" because he "assault[s] speech when he doesn't like it, defending it when it doesn't bother him so much (apparently)," and was right, though "not necessarily for the right reasons."  The meme is that the Attorney General likes the speech of the Phelps cult, but doesn't like the speech of Michael Mann, a globaloney ... er, "global warming," ... "anthropomorphic climate change" advocate whose work is subsidized by the tax dollars of hard-working Virginians.

On the one hand, it's nice to see that the far Left has learned its lesson about vilifying American servicemen, since it was only a few decades ago that they were spitting --- actually, not figuratively --- on returning soldiers who answered their country's call to fight Communist expansionism in Southeast Asia.  I'm not old enough to remember if so-called "anti-war activists" picketed the funerals of those who fell in battle in the Sixties and early Seventies, and I'm really not interested in researching it to find out, but you have to wonder whether today's moonbats would be upset if the picketing occurred in the Bush 43 Administration, as a protest of a policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which incidentally liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny.

It's really a damn shame that the far Left can't tell the difference between free speech (i.e., the Phelps cult) and subsidized speech (state university professors; state employees; government-subsidized "family-planning" clinics).

And, of course, government-subsidized speech is rightly subject to government oversight, because he who pays the piper always calls the tune.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Oh, Waiter? One Order Of Crow (with apologies to Jeff Greenfield)

ha.  Ha.  HA!

As most of the politically-aware know, the Supreme Court today issued its decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011).  As someone who's had the privilege of arguing a First-Amendment case before the Court, it's certainly an interesting case, from a professional perspective ... it demonstrates that any idiot can argue and win a case in the Supreme Court.

Snyder is about that vile and despicable little cult --- made up mostly of members of the same family, the Phelpses --- who spend their time protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and alienate those who otherwise agree that the radical homosexual agenda is anti-Christian, bad public policy, and bad for America.  The Supreme Court held today that the First Amendment protects their political demonstrations at funerals, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions generally applicable, and that they were not liable to Mr. Snyder, whose son's funeral sparked a distant protest a few years back.

But that's really not the point, at least for Virginians.  You see, our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses, who were defending their First-Amendment rights to be a**holes.

He was one of only two Attorneys General in the United States to refuse to do so.  The other was from Maine

And, oh MY!, Virginia's moonbatosphere went WILD!  Blow Me, Vir... er, "Blue Virginia."; Virginia Democrats; Moonhowlings (A Place for Civil Debate), said this:
The speech of WBC far exceeds any speech deemed tolerable by a civilized society. Their speech should be treated like yelling fire in a crowded theater or using the F word during prime time TV. The behavior of Westboro Baptist Church (sic) is totally unacceptable to conservatives, liberals, and moderates. What is Cuccinelli thinking? He should pay the political price, as father Albert Snyder states. Who ever thought the Cooch would be cozied up with the ACLU? I suppose politics makes real strange bedfellows in this case. Or…perhaps the Cooch agrees with WBC.
I've got to admit, I got a laugh out of that: the place that deems itself "A Place for Civil Debate" belittling one they loath.

Even some elected officials joined in the blast-fest: Delegate Ward Armstrong (D-Collinsville), House Minority Leader called it "inexcusable."

Even a homosexual website came up on Google saying that he didn't do so "Because Kenny boy hates him some fags just like Westboro, that's why!"

Or perhaps --- just maybe --- it's because he respects the First Amendment.  You know: just like those fag-haters on the Supreme Court, the ones who struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

Let's make sure we say this plainly: Cuccinelli, one other state Attorney General --- right, and in agreement with eight Justices of the Supreme Court, in a decision vindicating First Amendment freedom; Virginia moonbatosphere, 48 other state Attorneys General --- wrong, and in agreement with a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

More than a few of Virginia's sanctimonious far Left should be bellying up to the table for a healthy serving of crow tonight.