Gee...does this make me a South Park Conservative now?

Heh.  Something tells me I'd fit right in.

Anyway, if you want to make your own South Park character, go here.

I wonder if I should put this on my sidebar?

Oh, and if you're wondering why it doesn't fit my current sidebar picture, it's because I grow my hair out in the winter.  That picture was taken last summer.

I've noticed there hasn't been too many people talking about Tom DeLay this morning, despite the fact that a judge threw out his original conspiracy charge yesterday.

That's not surprising, because there were a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum that were ready and willing to throw DeLay under the bus once he was indicted.  Anyone with an objective mind, however, could see that the charge was bogus on its face, and that there was a serious chance that the charge wouldn't even make it to trial.  I was one of those who suspected that was the case, and I was right.

However, the judge allowed the bogus money laundering charge to stand, which was a fast-track indictment charge persued by Ronnie Earle after only four hours of deliberation by a newly formed grand jury.  Earle wanted to get that indictment in because he knew the conspiracy charge had no chance of making the charge stick.

Yesterday's ruling is here (Acrobat Reader req.).  It would be one thing if the prosecution had hard evidence that there was an explicit intent and action to shuffle money, that would be one thing, but now Earle has admitted that he didn't have the supposed note that points to the money going to several individuals.  Considering this was part of his indictment evidence, this charge should have been thrown out too.

There is still one more chance, though:  the charges by the defense of jury shopping are looming over Earle as well.  We could get a decision out of that one anytime now, and if the jury is thrown out for that, the Democrats will have a total embarrassment on their hands.

I watched the fight, and I thought it lived up to the hype.  No, it wasn't great boxing at times, but both fighters were really aggressive and you can tell they didn't like each other.

Taylor really did his homework in preparation of this fight.  He went after Hopkins, and right at the bell he showed he was not going to allow Hopkins to intimidate and bully him.  Dirty boxing is a Hopkins signature, but Taylor was never afraid to mix it up with him.

Taylor worked the jab in more in this fight, doubling up on it at times to where the only thing Hopkins could do to stay away from it was simply bend over and keep his head low.  However, I was frustrated by both fighters that they weren't following up on their punches.  There was also a lot of holding, which came into play in the later rounds.

It seemed to me that Hopkins thought he could do the same thing he did in the last fight and squeak out a win.  I didn't see anything different from Hopkins than I saw in the first fight.  However, Taylor learned a few things, and while it was still a close fight, the rounds Hopkins won were closer than the rounds he won in the first fight.

I'm glad I wasn't a judge, because that had to be the hardest fight to ever call.  There was so much going on and so little to accurately score that it was hard to judge that fight round-by-round.  And just to tell you how hard it was, Liederman had the fight for Taylor, Merchant had the fight a draw, and Jones said Hopkins was leading.  That's probably the most disputed I've seen that HBO crew.

To be perfectly honest, I would love to see Taylor/Hopkins III, and I don't recall ever wanting to see a trifecta between any two fighters.  I doubt if it will happen, but it should.  However, Taylor now has to look towards Winky Wright and a handfull of other fighters.

Atlanta Falcons' qaurterback Michael Vick (7) is sacked by Carolina Panthers players Will Witherspoon (54) and Michael Rucker (93) during the second quarter in Charlotte, N.C., Sunday Dec. 4, 2005. (AP/Rick Hayner)

We'll finish the job on New Years Day.

I've been slacking on this as of late, but let me try to get this in...

As a Panther fan, today is a very big day.  Today's game with Atlanta could decide whether the Panthers lock in their spot to the playoffs.  Not technically, but I can't see them losing the rest of their games after winning this one. 

Vick's passing game has indeed improved of late, mainly because he was forced to through that knee injury.  He ran a bit on Detroit on Thanksgiving, but really....who can't?  The Lions were in total disarray in that game.

Last year, we allowed Allen Rossum to get a ton of special teams yards which set up short yardage drives for Atlanta.  We can't have that happen again.  Warrick Dunn is the key to the game.  Keep him contained and that Falcons offense rests on one leg, dependent on any kind of production Vick, Crumpler, and Finnerman can give them.

On the offensive end, whatever funk Jake Delhomme has had in the last month or so needs to cease.  He needs to step up and play a mistake-free game.  It's a crying shame that Carolina scored only 16 points in the last two games, and that's because the offense has been poorly ran as of late. 

I've also have been very disappointed in the running game.  It's obvious that Stephen Davis is a shell of his former self; thus, put him third on the depth chart.  Foster and Goings should be starting the game along with Hoover.  However, lets scrap that ridiculous three back offense - especially since the only back that can block halfway decent is Hoover - and place a tight end on the line to help block.

If we do these things, I think Carolina will win.  But we know how the Falcons pull plays out of their asses, so anything's possible.

Here's this week's picks:

- Carolina over Atlanta

- Buffalo over Miami

- Cincinnati over Pittsburgh

- Giants over Dallas

- Chicago over Green Bay

- Baltimore over Houston (Billick...your job is on the line today)

- Cleveland over Jacksonville

- Minnesota over Detroit

- Tampa Bay over New Orleans

- Indy over Tennessee

- Arizona over San Francisco

- Washington over St. Louis

- Kansas City over Denver (upset special)

- New England over the Jets

- San Diego over Oakland

and Monday Night:

- Seattle over Philadelphia

Key games are divisional games:  Carolina/Atlanta, Dallas/Giants, Bengals/Steelers, and Denver/KC.  With the exception of Denver/KC, all of them determine who leads their respective division, and might determine who actually wins it.

Have fun.

Pardon me folks, as I sit both sports and politics aside and talk about something that's really important:

Holiday cartoons.

Not just any holiday cartoon, but THE holiday cartoon.  The greatest holiday cartoon of all time even.

Wassup with CBS airing Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer in November?  Back in the day, I was expecting to watch that in like, mid-December...but every year CBS keeps airing it earlier and earlier.  It's not as if CBS has anything else that's interesting to place on tv between now and Christmas.

Look, CBS is only good for two things:  football and Rudolph.  Everything else on that network sucks (CSI lovers, I'm talking to you too).  It's bad enough that they torture us with the NFL Today crew on Sunday mornings, but now they're screwing with Rudolph.  This SHALT not stand.

I didn't even know it was coming on last night.  I mean, who watches a Christmas show on November 30th?  I was too busy doing a paper and writing some other things.  And CBS only airs Rudolph once.  That's garbage.

I mean, I can still WATCH the show...I could either buy it at Walmart or simply download it online, but there's nothing like watching it old school on CBS.  If you watched it as a kid, you know what I mean.  Part of enjoying certain holidays was to wait in anticipation for the holiday cartoon specials.

- Easter:  It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown!

- Halloween:  It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown! and a Garfield Halloween

- Thanksgiving:  Daffy Duck's Thanks-for-Giving Special, and a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving

- Christmas:  Frosty The Snowman, A Charlie Brown Christmas, Twas the Mouse Before Christmas, When the Grinch Stole Christmas, and of course, Rudolph.

Good luck finding any of them on tv anymore.  If CBS or ABC still does, they never announce it.  I've seen the Rudolph-like promo that CBS has done for Christmas, but it never said when Rudolph was coming on.  They keep hyping it as a Christmas tradition, but they never really give it the time and attention it deserves.  It aint right.

Unlike most people, I wasn't surprised to hear about Steve Mariucci's firing after the Lions went out there and laid a complete egg on Thanksgiving.  It was the second straight embarrassment for the Lions on Thanksgiving (the Colts went airbourne on them last year) and it was done in a season where I thought the Lions would eventually win the terrible NFC North.  After that game, you had to wonder how terrible the four teams they had beaten had been this year.

Did Mariucci actually deserve the blame?  He deserves some, but not full blame.  The fact is, it was his responsibility to get those guys ready to play each week.  He failed.  He was to utilize the talent that was given to him and enhance it.  He failed.  We can talk about how good of a coach Mariucci is, and all of that, but the bottom line is, that team is too talented to be in the doldrums that they are.  The axe had to fall on someone, and as long as the Fords allowed Matt Millen to make the decisions, it was going to fall on Mariucci's neck, and not his own.

Maybe Mariucci and Millen stuck with Harrington way too long.  I don't think so, because there were times where Harrington showed he could be a competent quarterback.  Thanksgiving wasn't one of those days, but still, he's showed some promise at times. 

On Monday, Garcia and Bly both called out Harrington and blamed him for Marriucci's firing.  That's unfair to Harrington, because there's definitely more that's wrong with that team other than the passing game.  Where's the running game?  They've never found a suitable replacement to Barry Sanders.  Where's the offensive line?  Harrington's been sacked 22 times so far this season; sacked 36 times last season.  And while Bly has been an All-Pro cornerback, his boys on defense hasn't been carrying their share of the load either.

It seems as if Mariucci's firing actually placed the Lions in more chaos than it helped.  It's one thing for Terrell Owens to blast his team; after all, that's expected of him.  But when Jeff Garcia does it, something is really wrong with that team, and there is little to no respect or confidence for Matt Millen.  Dick Jauron, the interim coach, definitely has his hands full this weekend.

While on their tour of Europe yesterday, Vince McMahon announced a new drug/health policy to take effect "soon".

How soon?  We don't know.  But according to Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer, both the testing and the punishments will be done by an independent arbitor.  All performance-enhancing drugs along with recreational drugs will be banned, along with routine cardio health exams and tests for high drug levels that could indicate addictions.

Considering the problems the WWE has faced over the last month; their transition to the USA Network not going quite as successful as they wanted, the strength of both TNA and UFC providing reasonable competition on Monday night, the injury of Batista, and the failure of Taboo Tuesday for the second straight year, the last thing WWE needed was the death of Eddie Guerrero.  To make things worse, wrestler Nick "Eugene" Dinsmore passed out in a hotel lobby after taking some somas and was taken to the hospital.  The WWE, which is a public trading company now, has their quarterly conference with shareholders coming up in the next few days, so that makes things worse.  Linda McMahon will have a time trying to explain the goings on as well as the financial outlook, as WWE is expected to report a loss for last quarter.

All of these things make the new drug policy a very tender subject, one that will be very difficult to get off of the ground without pissing at least one party off.  The WWE had a drug policy in effect before, in 1991, after Vince was acquitted in the federal steroid trial.  But once the company went into a complete downturn, shortcuts were used, wrestlers figured out how to get around the testing, and the WWE ended up scrapping the plan in 1996.

But the WWE of 1996 is a lot different than the one of 2005.  First, WWE was still privately owned by the McMahon family in 1996.  Now, the WWE is publicly traded, and they are accountable to shareholders.  If times get tough, it's going to be a lot harder to scrap this plan - nearly impossible even - and difficult for McMahon to personally maneuver around in order to keep his depth chart intact.  For example, Batista has a back injury right now, which by all accounts is a torn muscle (OUCH).  By all accounts, not only will Batista be out until his injury is fully healed, but he could be out until the drugs have passed his body.  That could change a 4 month rehab into 7, and three months is a long time in professional wrestling. 

Think this won't hurt the roster?  Here's what Meltzer said about it in a fair and informative essay about the current situation, and he cited what happened in 1992:

Using 1991 as an example, McMahon made a similar announcement to talent in July, after a damaging steroid trial. In November, months after everyone was told to get off steroids, 50% of the wrestlers in the company (and that percentage included both male and female talent) tested positive on the first test. The company policy became that those wrestlers had to show decreasing levels of steroids in future tests or be suspended. That policy was criticized at the time by some leading steroid doctors who stated to us that levels of steroids when it comes to being in tests fluctuate up and down, and levels themselves could increase even upon cessation of usage, but still, there were not a lot of policy violations, although numerous big stars, both in terms of bulk and stature in the industry, quit that year.

Now it was a good thing, and really a smart one, to allow these guys to have time to wean themselves off of the drugs.  While I doubt that wrestling is on a bigger downturn than it was headed in 1991 (Hogan and Warrior eventually left within a year, and several other stars did as well), the fact is that Vince and Linda aren't the only bosses anymore, and they have to answer to stockholders.  Does anyone believe that, in the wake of Eddie Guerrero's death and the media following it, that stockholders will support anything less than no tolerance?  Are they willing to wait another quarter - or even longer in some cases - before Vince says the drug policy is in full effect?

I don't think so.  And I think that upcoming conference won't be a good one for Linda.  Seriously.

If Vince tries to delay the drug policy, it's going to piss off the shareholders, and possibly the media if they stay on the wrestler death beat.  If he doesn't, and he ends up punishing guys who have not been given adequate time to get rid of the drugs out of their system, he's going to suffer from an even-thinner roster as well as locker room morale. 

There are going to be wrestlers, just like in 91, that will lose their jobs over this policy, and I can think of a couple off the top of my head that are prime targets.  But as Meltzer mentions, this is only part of the problem:

The only true cure is this. Promoters can't push people based on physique, and judge talent for jobs based on physique. The public can't be impressed by talent with better physiques in thinking that helps make them bigger stars. The talent itself has to no longer care how their physique looks. All three are impossible in the business as we know it. There is no true cure, only an attempt to do the best possible on all accounts. The fact there is no cure does not mean steps shouldn't be taken to help, and this appears to be a giant step, as compared to two weeks ago.

And we pretty much know that's not going to happen; at least not anytime soon.  While there are a number of fans, particularly on the internet, that go to bat for some of the smaller wrestlers in the company, the bottom line is that size sells, and has been selling ever since Billy Graham was WWWF Champion.  We all like Jushin Liger, but does anyone really believe Sid should job to him?  We like Rey Mysterio, but who would really put the Smackdown title on him rather than Batista?

If you are sane and have any kind of business sense, very few would.

It was one thing to see Tazz beating Bam Bam Bigelow in ECW, but it was a lot different to see him looking like a dwarf in front of Triple H.  And then look at the guys that were specifically got over in wrestling because of their physiques:  Lex Luger, Scott Steiner, Ultimate Warrior, Davey Boy Smith (who McMahon fired for using growth hormone, but was rehired in 95 and became a main eventer), and currently, Chris Masters.  I like the guys that can fly and execute great matches, but the fact is that they are only looked at as midcarders or guys that you can pencil in to give you a great main event match.  They aren't guys that you can headline, at least not with a company as big as WWE.  That's not simply Vince's view; that's the view of the public.
I'll have more on this later this week.

Michelle Malkin was indeed asked whether her husband does any writing in her place at times.  How do I know?  Because I was listening to the interview, on the Brad and Britt Show, on Friday morning while in the car.

I wouldn't call Brad Krantz a "liberal".  First, I'd rather call them "leftists" because the word "liberal" implies they believe in liberty, and they are an offshoot ideologically with the men and women who participated in the American Revolution, which they are neither of these.  Second, Brad is more center that outright left.  But he has his times where he sounds really off kilter, and the Malkin interview was one of those times.  Half of the time he sounded really dumb, and Malkin shot most of his questions out of the water.

I'm surprised she singled that question out tonight, as she tends to ignore most of the personal attacks that come her way, other than to mention them as an example of the vitrol that her critics hurl at her.  I've seen those rumors, but have never paid any attention to them.  However, she did admit that her husband does help her as a research assistant for her books and has helped her with a "handful" of blog posts, among other things.

That's not good.  I'm not saying she should have kept her mouth shut about it, but she should have been more open about this before she was actually questioned about it.  I'm not sure if she mentioned this in any of her books, but did she state her husband helped her with research in the acknowledgements section?  If not, she should have.  I, for one, know that Thomas Sowell does this in every book, as he has a long-time assistant that gets acknowleged on almost every book he's done as of late.  And if her husband even wrote one blog post, it should have been attributed to him personally...not to her. 

By not doing this, she's opened herself up to criticism, regardless of if he was "converted" to conservatism by her or not.  She's right; it's not a right-wing conspiracy, as his political leanings of the past or present are irrelevant.  Her readers - whether it's her columns, books, or blog posts - expect her writings to come from her and her only, unless otherwise noted.  It's just as if her guest bloggers had blogged under her name.  If it's not her work, it shouldn't go under her name.  It's not hard for her to add another pen name; after all, she did it for her guest bloggers this week.

Penning it on marriage has nothing to do with it either.  Is her book authored by Michelle & Jesse Malkin?  No; it says Michelle Malkin.  Did Michelle receive a degree on the basis of that dissertation?  No; Jesse did.  Creators' Syndicate doesn't pay Jesse to write her articles, nor do trade papers expect Michelle to write his op-eds.  I'm not accusing them of doing this, or at least not entirely writing whole pieces of each others' work; I'm simply showing that people are expecting either one or the other, not a tag-team.

Does that take away from Malkin's work?  Only if you subscribe to the idea that she's only getting these ideas from her old man, which is demeaning and offensive (which is what most leftists intend to do anyway. *shrugs*).  But facts are facts, and at the most, this new revelation only means that you were proved wrong by both rather than just one.

I'm sure Brad will talk about this Monday Morning.

It's amazing what kinds of information goes completely under the radar.

From Byron York:

In case you don’t remember, “Boogie to Baghdad” is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.

Clarke’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.

It’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. “Boogie to Baghdad” is on Page 134.

Amazing, ain't it?  I wonder why this wasn't mentioned by the Washington Post?  Did Bob Woodward tell Walter Pincus not to report this too?

Oh, and about that "safe haven" thing that York brings up (via CNN from 1999):

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Do you know how many YEARS now I've been hearing leftists on television, radio, and the internet claim until they're blue in the face (no pun INITIALLY intended, but since it's there, I'll take it) that there has never been a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even going to the extreme of saying the two were sworn enemies? 

Why has CNN never recalled reporting these things when the Saddam and terrorism issue pops up?  And they aren't the only ones to report this, as the London Observer, The Herald UK, National Public Radio, and Newsweek.  If it wasn't for conservative voices like National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the logical side of the blogosphere, information like this would stay hidden from political discourse.