Thursday, January 19th, 2006
Did Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have staffers day-trading out of their offices, working on inside info from lobbyists and legislators?
Archive for January 19th, 2006
What happened to Basso?
Thursday, January 19th, 2006
Jan Ullrich will easily win the 2006 Tour de France, says seven-time champion Lance Armstrong.“I predict that he’ll win it by four to five minutes,” Armstrong was quoted as saying in Thursday’s Bild newspaper.
Hummm. So what happened to Ivan Basso? Armstrong had this to day last July on the podium at the finish of the Tour de France:
“Basso…has been a great rival. It’s tough to race against him, he’s too much of a friend. He’s perhaps the future of the Tour de France. So, Ivan: next year, this is your step; or Jan: this might be your step next year, I don’t know…”
If you watched it you would clearly infer from Armstrong’s body language that he was tipping Basso as the favorite for 2006.
In 2005 Ivan Basso beat Jan Ullrich in the Tour de France by 1:41.
This time was gained almost exclusively in the mountains. Basso put 2:54 into Ullrich during 7 mountain stages with 3 stages ending at the top of a climb. The time Basso got in the mountains was as a result of attempting to follow the pace set by Lance Armstrong, a pace that Ullrich was not able to match. Ullrich gained back 1:22 during the 3 time trial stages totaling 141.5km.
In 2006 there are 115km of time trial stages, 26.5km less than 2005. There are 5 mountain stages with again 3 stages ending at the top of a climb in 2006. Less time trials, almost as many mountains with the same number of tough finishes. So, at first glance, it looks like the 2006 Tour de France course is advantage Basso. However, it should be noted that:
• The day before the first stage of the 2005 Tour de France Jan Ullrich crashed into the back of his team car during a training ride, injuring his neck. The result of this crash may have prevented Ullrich from riding his best in the first stage time trial.• The 2005 Tour de France included a team time trial event. Ivan Basso’s CSC team included the time trial super talent, American Dave Zabriskie. Zabriskie raised the game for everyone on team CSC and, despite Zabriskie’s crash in the last 2km they put 0:28 into Ullrich’s T-Mobile team by the end of the day.
Basso does not have Armstrong to pace him up the mountains any longer. The 2006 Tour de France does not have a team time trial stage where Basso can take advantage of his team mate Zabriskie. Basso has also made it clear that he intends to race the 2006 Giro d’Italia (Tour of Italy) as he did in 2005. It is questionable, in the modern era of professional cycling, if it is possible to recover from the Giro in time to be at peak fitness for the Tour de France.
It remains to be seen if Ullrich really does have the advantage that Armstrong now says he has. Looking at details of the 2006 Tour I think it is to Ullrich’s advantage over Basso. But they’ll run the race to see for certain!
Thursday, January 19th, 2006
Today’s Anti-Strib question for Liberals: Does anyone have a right to welfare?
By “welfare” I am assuming that we are discussing Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Our rights are detailed in the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution and I can’t find anything in there about a right to welfare.
Like all government programs, you have to qualify. Those that qualify get the advantages of the programs. But the existence of these programs are subject to the political will of those in Washington and these programs can be eliminated if they so choose.
Does anyone have a right to welfare? No. As a matter fact, no one has a Constitutional right to welfare in the United States. Just like farmers do not have a Constitutional right to government farm subsidies.
But, so long as these programs are in existence, those that qualify for the programs will get the advantages that these programs provide.
Thursday, January 19th, 2006
Kevin Drum:
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we had pretty good intelligence telling us that a bunch of al-Qaeda leaders were in the house we bombed. And let’s also assume that we did indeed kill al-Masri and several other major al-Qaeda leaders. Finally, let’s assume that the 18 civilians killed in the attack were genuinely innocent bystanders with no connection to terrorists.Question: Under those assumptions, was the attack justified? I think the answer is pretty plainly yes, but I’d sure like to see the liberal blogosphere discuss it. And for those who answer no, I’m curious: under what circumstances would such an attack be justified?
Hell yea the attack was justified!
A few things do bother me however:
• This is the same type of attack that President Clinton was roundly criticized for by Republicans. Why the hypocrisy?
• Why are there not more attacks such as this?
• Why are we tolerating the gathering of any al Qaeda members in a country that is supposed to be our ally in the “War on Terror”?
• Why are we not more focused on defeating al Qaeda as opposed to being an afterthought only to be dealt with by sending over a missile?
Thursday, January 19th, 2006
Whether you agree with Gore’s conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush’s ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find…But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism…But the other cases Gore cited are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to ensure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.Similarly, the administration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after Sept. 11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain’s legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.Gore’s final example — on which he has lots of company among legal scholars — is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If — as the Justice Department and the White House insist — the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.
This has been the goal of the Bush/Cheney Administration from their first inauguration. To not only restore power to the office of the President that they believed was diminished during the Watergate scandal, but to greatly expand this power so that they could act without impediment from the other two branches of government.
What disturbs me is the implicit trust that so called “conservatives” place in this administration not to abuse executive power and to do the right thing. As opposed to keeping a suspect eye on government, they continue to defend every incompetent blunder and heavy handed power grab that this administration makes without seeming to realize that this President’s term will expire and he will be replaced by one that they may not have the same misplaced confidence in. They will then be forced to fight even harder to roll back all the rights and privileges that they worked so hard to assure the Bush Administration.
Thursday, January 19th, 2006
There should be some kind of award for this.
Four hours on the rollers.
Of course, he did take brakes between hours so he would not loose the ability to procreate.
