Coldheartedtruth

Apparently there was some sort of massive power outage yesterday that took down every server that the Webhoster had (other than the one that covers their own site!). Back up today.

I will be gone until Monday... consider this an open thread!

Not much of a surprise here. Coleman had an uphill battle from the start; based on the standpoint that he simply did not have tangible proof of the issues he was bringing up. I think everyone following this understands that there was different standards used in counting absentee ballots and in terms of the recounts, and that those difference probably swung this election. But unlike the more famous Bush/Gore case where the USSC pretty much stopped the process in it's tracks, there is not much a court can to to "undo" what was already done.

That being said, what Coleman was asking for was more votes to be counted (even if they did not comply completely with the law) because he believes they were counted elsewhere. Interestingly the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled that Absentee voting is an "optional" method of voting that having your vote tossed out on a technicality is basically just "tough luck". The expectation is that you must fill out your absentee ballot completely, correctly, and thoroughly in order for it to count. (unless of course you voted in Hennepin or St Louis county where those same votes had already been counted).

This sort of reasoning (had it been used to confirm a Coleman win) would have been pounced on by every liberal, minority, and equal rights group in the nation as patently unfair. I am pretty sure that these same people once argued that as long you could distinguish your "intent" then having your vote counted is a "right". To tell 4000 voters that their absentee ballots with clear intent would not be counted because of technicalities would have been deemed a crime against humanity if those voters might have tipped the scales for Franken. But since the ruling actually helped Franken in this case, I doubt there will be a peep.

What will be interesting in the next few days is whether or not lame duck and future Republican Presidential hopeful Tim "I have not had any affairs and have not raised taxes" Pawlenty will sign an election certificate. Franken had asked the court for an "order" for Pawlenty to sign (which is what Pawlenty has suggested he needs). However,the court offered in their ruling that Franken is "entiled" to the certification, while failing to specifically grant an order, which appears to leave the door open for Pawlenty to wait. I would offer that short of the USSC actually granting some sort of stay of this ruling that Pawlenty should probably just sign the certificate and get it over with. I don't see the USSC overturning this ruling if they even decide to hear it in the first place.

UPDATE: Coleman has decided "not" to appeal and has effectively conceded, saying that Franken had run a good, clean, honest, but mostly funny campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html

I posted this on open mic, but let's give it its own thread.

The two positions in a nutshell:

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

which do you think is correct?

As a Minnesotan I have been blessed with the opportunity to watch some of the most incredible front office blunders in the history of professional sports. Hershal Walker for 1/2 the Dallas Cowboy dynasty may have been the mother of all front office blunders, and trading Randy Moss for the draft rights to Troy Williamson was certainly a doozy. But terms of pure long term bumbling the Minnesota T-Wolves have lead the town in silly front office moves.

If one is keeping count, the T-Wolves have made such moves as trading future fall of famer Ray Allen for the moody Stephon Marbury who was traded for the emotionless Terrell Branden which led to the T-Wolves letting Chauncy Billups run off to Detroit. They traded rookie of the year and perenial All Star Brandon Roy for the oft hurt and inconsistent Randy Foye and "cash considerations". They passed over several NBA starters for Ndubi Ebi. They got caught making a secret deal with Joe Smith and lost like 5 number one draft choices. They traded a live human being for Ricky Davis. They traded Kevin Garnett for Al Jefferson and some slugs. They traded O.J. Mayo for Kevin Love (okay, the jury still out on that one but history suggests...).

Now, in their defense, the T-Wolves have not had much luck when it comes to the ping pong ball lottery system which may have forced them to get desperate. In the 18 years the T-Wolves have participated in the draft (a dozen or so in the lottery), they have "improved" their draft position through the luck of the bounce exactly zero times. That's correct. Never once have the T-Wolves drafted higher than they would have if the NBA used the more typical reverse draft order. In fact, only on a couple of occasions have they actually ended up even. Usually the slide seemed to be part of some mystic conspiracy to make sure the Wolves never got a top player. You could bet that if it was considered a 3 player draft, that they would get the 4th slot. If there was 4 players above everyone else, they would draft 5th. Only once did they defy the odds. That was when they took a chance and drafted a kid out of high school named Kevin Garnett.

So last year the T-Wolves decided to clean house. They demoted McHale from GM to coach, and then eventually fired him as coach. New Wolves GM Rich, Bob, (or is is David) Kahn was at best their 4th or 5th choice for the job, and probably the 2nd choice of people with the last name Kahn. They still don't have a coach, probably because they may have as much trouble finding one as finding the GM. Ex-player Mark Jackson (who has never coached at any level) and has-been Del Harris (who has never coached well at any level) appear to be the favorites, although I am pretty sure there is an NBA rule that requires that someone with the last name of Van Gundy get an interview for all coaching vacancies.

So Kahn's first big move was to trade Randy Foye and Mike Miller (2 of the T-Wolves top 6 players) for the 5th pick in what has been determined to be one of the weakest drafts in recent history. They very easily could have been left with one player who would have been no better than either of the players they trade away. But something odd along the way happened. Something very unusual in the world of the T-Wolves. One of the top players in the draft (and possibly one of the top players in the past several drafts) slipped into their laps at number 5. So here they were, with a chance to rebuild their team by picking the 18 year old Spanish phenom Ricky Rubio.

So of course they waste no time in picking the flambouant Point Guard who at the time of the selection was already likely talking to his agent about how to force a trade. Since the T-Wolves also owned the 6th pick, they made back to back picks. And with the second they made one of the most headscratching moves in recent NBA draft history by taking the guy most pundits believed was the second best PG in the draft. So you have the 5th and 6th pick in the draft, and you pick.... two point guards. Then the GM gets up that night and suggests two things. First, that neither player will be ready to play 35 minutes, and that he fully plans on playing two point guards in the same back-court. The first was patently stupid, since Rubio had stated that he applied for the draft for one reason... to play minutes in the NBA. The second was patently unbelievable. Btw... I might mention that they also drafted a Point Guard with the 18th pick of the draft, and then another one with one of their two second round draft choices... but I won't mention it, because nobody would believe it.

If you are not following this Rubio deal closely you probably would not know that he is under contract for two more seasons in Spain. The Spaniards are asking for a contract buyout somewhere in the range of $6 million dollars which may have led to his slippage. Rubio (in spite of making only about $100,000/year there) is saying that he might just hang around Spain a couple of years, since he never did "talk to" the T-Wolves and is really not obligated to go there. Of course not, after all, it's an NBA draft, not a military one. But according to the NBA rules, if he plays his next two years out in Spain, and the T-Wolves tender him his guaranteed NBA rookie contract based on his draft position, they will still own his rights for at least the first year (and possibly the second year) after he plays out his contract with his current Spanish team. So in order for him to "re-enter" the NBA draft, he would have to play out his $200,000 contract over two years in Spain, and then effectly sit out a year or two. When he did "re-enter" once again he would likely be a high draft choice, which means that he would be drafted by a team that loses alot, and in fact I wouldn't put it past the T-Wolves to still be one of those teams losing alot 3-4 years from now.

Apparently from people within the circle, Rubio is claiming that his main issue with the T-Wolves was their odd selection of another point guard and a concern that he might not get minutes because of it. He also claims he doesn't want to play for a cold weather team (need we remind him that unlike the NFL, the NBA plays it's games indoors). More likely is the fact that Mpls/St Paul is still considered a "small market" and Rubio and agent were hoping for some big endorsements to pay off the $6 million buyout. But make no mistake. Rubio is not happy about being drafted by the Timberwolves and possibly even less happy about slipping to number 5 (when originally everyone thought he would go 2 or 3) because it costs him several million over the life of the rookie deal. There is even some flak over the fact that the T-Wolves were not willing to "trade up" to get Rubio even when it came apparent that he might slip to 5. But why would the T-Wolves give away resources for the purposes of paying Rubio a bigger contract? Seems slightly counterproductive from a management perspective.

So... was the drafting of the biggest teen sensation who doesn't sing in a boy-band just a ploy? Are the T-Wolves looking to use his draft rights to secure a bona-fide NBA star of known quantity, a couple of up and comers, or possibly use the rights to move up in some future draft? Could be. The Press in New York is all over this, as there apparently is some assumption that if Ricky Rubio wants to play for the Knicks that the Timberwolves will have some moral obligation to bend over and take a bad trade to make 2/3 of the trading partners happy. I find the rumors to be startling silly, including names like Wilson Chandler (who may or may not break into the T-Wolves rotation) or David Lee (who would be the Wolves 3rd best Power forward) for the rights to Rubio. And no, not both, but actually just one or the other. Gee who could refuse that?

But I have a hunch (and it has been supported by some leaked quotes) that Wolves owner Glen Taylor will get awful stubborn over this one if team Rubio tries to play hardball. At this point the T-Wolves would rather hold on to the rights to Ricky Rubio than make a bad trade... and as a fan I would support that. If that means Ricky Rubio plays out his contract and then signs for big $$ in Europe after two years, then so be it. But Ricky Rubio didn't apply for and enter the NBA draft because he wants to play in Europe. Like every elite athlete he wants to play in the biggest forums and become the biggest star that he can be. Of course it's not totally inconcievable that he would play out his current contract and then sit out a year or two in hopes of re-entering the draft, but also not very likely that he would give up 3-4 of his most marketable years for a draft day do-over with no guarantees of how it would turn out.

So, will Rubio play in the NBA this year and will it be for the T-Wolves? Time will tell, but in this case, we might find out that neither side has the negotiating power that they believed that they might when this whole thing came about. Perhaps Rubio's quick decision to talk about going back to Spain will chill the market on him for other teams. Certainly Rubio never thought he would be drafted by a team that also picked up the second best Point Guard in the draft, which makes his immediate presense less needed. If the T-Wolves can't get what they want, and Rubio cannot force the Wolves to make a bad trade, then it could end up being a marriage of inconvenience at the end of the day.

House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."

The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.

The legislation would impose limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on the impact on consumers.

Disagreed widely on the impact appears to be an understatement. According the CBO the cost of producing energy will increase by nearly $800 per household, although the same reports claims it would only increase the cost per household by about $175. How they bridge the $675 gap between the cost of creating the energy and the cost "to" the average household is somewhat of a mystery. The best guess is that this has something to do with the fact that the Government will provide assistance (now unavailable) to lower income Americans to help pay for the increase in cost. So it could very well be that the cost for many will actually decrease (based on government assistance) which would lower the overall average increase. But rest assured that the "typical" family will see much more than $175 increase in their energy costs.

On the high end the Heritage Foundation suggests that the cost to the average househole will be somewhere closer to $1500/year. They also see the bill actually costing somewhere between 800K to 2 million jobs and raising the national debt by about 29%. They also criticize the supposed environmental gains of the bill, stating (among other things) that unless China and other developing countries follow suit that our actions will result in little or no positive long term effects on the environment.

Middle of the road reality is that if you live somewhere in the midwest where you see significant seasonal weather changes including a snow covered winter, then you are going to be noticably effected by this bill. In Minnesota for instance we use significantly more natural gas to heat our homes in the winter than most. Hot, humid summers require AC to be on nearly full-time for 2-3 months out of the year. Even if the CBO is completely accurate, I would be downright foolish not to believe I will see a personal increase in my energy costs in the $200-$300 range per year. If (god forbid) the Heritage foundation is more right than wrong, then I could be looking at an increase of $200-$300 or more a month. The first would be mildly irritating, the second could be a game changer in battleground states like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Rust Belt coal-state Democrats who have been sitting on the fence worry about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home—and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

Republicans have been quick to exploit those concerns.

"Democratic leaders are poised to march many moderate Democrats over a cliff ... by forcing them to vote for a national energy tax that is unpopular throughout the heartland," Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

UPDATE

Sanford was ok to visit aregentina, he was in a failed marriage...

Sanford said Tuesday that he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than maria -- but never had sex with them, (nor did he inhale).

During an emotional interview at his statehouse office with the Associated Press on Tuesday, Mr. Sanford said Ms. Chapur is his soul mate, but he is trying to fall back in love with his wife.

He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.

Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to "blow off steam" with male friends.

The first meeting with Chapur was in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay.

His interview was the first disclosure of any liaisons with Ms. Chapur in the U.S. and contradicted a public confession last week during which he admitted to a total of five encounters over their eight-year relationship.

Now Mr. Sanford is attempting to salvage his personal and professional lives. He and wife Jenny, parents of four sons, say they are trying to reconcile their 20-year marriage but have not been sharing the same house for several weeks.

In early 2009, after Jenny Sanford discovered the affair, the couple went into counseling. She has told the Associated Press that he asked her several times to visit the mistress and she refused.

The married Gary Hart's bid to become the Democratic nominee in the Presidential election of 1988 was derailed after The Miami Herald printed photographs of him aboard a yacht—aptly named Monkey Business—with 29-year-old model Donna Rice.

Hart declined to run for reelection to the Senate in 1988 after seeing his Presidential ambitions torpedoed. He has had an active career since leaving public office, serving on the National Commission on Terrorism, earning a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford in 2001, and penning numerous articles and books.

Can Sanford recreate himself?