If you don't know the legend of Ron Mexico, here's how it goes...

Michael Vick was sued by a former girlfriend last month for knowingly giving her herpes.  According to the suit, she contracted the disease back in 2003, and found evidence showing that he knew he had it way before then.

According to the court documents, Michael Vick used the alias "Ron Mexico" in order to check into a clinic.  And the name has stuck.  People are getting into the Ron Mexico craze so much that the NFL banned the name from being used in their online Pro Shop.  No matter; because someone created RonMexico.com, and I'm sure they're making a killing through selling t-shirts and all kinds of merch via CafePress.

OkayPlayer found a "Ron Mexico" name generator that's pretty cool too.  Put your full name in the box and let it rip.

My name was Rock Nauru.  Good.  This might come in handy if I ever need to go to the clinic.  Well, you know; to go witness to the heathens and stuff. ;-D

Starting in 2006, the football tradition known as Monday Night Football will move to ESPN after 35 seasons on ABC.  ESPN, ABC's sister station, will pay $1.1 billion to the NFL over the next eight years.  Meanwhile, NBC brought the rights to Sunday Night Football, which will keep a feature football game on broadcast television and brings football back to NBC.

<sarcasm> This was brilliant.  After all, it worked for the NBA, right? </sarcasm>

Personally I am sick of ESPN, and I'm sure others are as well.  While it may get a decent booster at first, I bet the ratings after a year or two won't be any better than Sunday Night Football's ratings are now.  I understand ABC was losing serious money on the game every year, but it could have been saved.  I guess nobody's ever heard of signing a lower contract.  I'd rather have the show moved to CBS or NBC on Monday nights rather than to cable.

So, will Theisman, McGwire, and Patrick move to NBC, or be out of a job? (I'm sure Michaels and Madden will move to ESPN).  My guess is they'll be out of a job.  It's unfortunate, because I find them entertaining.  NBC shouldn't be TOO bad, or at least they can't do a worse job than CBS is doing right now.  It should be interesting to see if they keep the tried and true method they had before they gave up their NFL rights to CBS.  And I'm sure Dick Enberg has already gotten the phone call and is ready to go into the booth.

(Photo:  Yahoo's The Contender Page)

After Juan De la Rosa pulled out the very sloppy victory against Tarick Salmaci last week, we start with Juan in the ring worried about the cut over his eye.  Sugar Ray told him it wasn't a deep cut, but Juan was coming up with excuses, saying he was a slow healer, and he didn't think he'd be able to continue in the Contender. 

When Juan returned to the training house, he was saying the same things to the guys, and they could tell he was exposed and worried after the Salmaci fight.  When Juan woke up the next morning, he complained about everything hurting.  When Juan received his boxing glove pendant at the reward ceremony, he admitted he was frustrated at some of the things Tarick threw at him and had to change his style a bit.

We already knew the next fight, which were the remaining two who haven't fought yet, Jimmy Lang vs. Joey Gilbert.  This was experience vs. heart matchup, as Jimmy had fought 24 pro fights while Joey had only fought eight times.  Both are roughly the same age, as Jimmy was 29 and Joey was 28.  Joey is a lawyer from Reno, NV (well, not all these guys have the Rocky stories).  Jimmy is a family man, with wife Katie, and children Angelo, Jack, and Talia, and he lives off of his boxing earnings.

We got a chance to see both fighters' families, as Joey was able to see his father for the first time since he returned from serving in Afghanistan.  Jimmy talked a little about his wife and family, and how he was worried about the fight because everyone figured he would walk through Joey because they felt Joey was not mentally prepared as well as inexperienced.

Fight time came pretty early in the show, as they usually show it at the end.  In the first round Jimmy started out well, staying busy and working the combinations.  For a while it seemed as if he may be frustrating Joey, and Joey seemed to get more and more agitated as the round went on.

Then it happened.  Joey unleashed with a flurry of punches that got Jimmy in trouble, and once Joey started, he didn't stop until the bell.  He looked as if he hurt Jimmy pretty good with a lot of those shots.  No doubt Joey's flurry gave him the first round.

The second round went almost the same way.  Joey threw a couple of jabs at the start of the round.  Jimmy threw what he had, but then Joey threw some back and they were hurting Jimmy.  Jimmy didn't look good at this point, and Joey seemed too strong and was imposing his will on Jimmy when he wanted.  Second round went to Joey as well.

In the third round, the tide changed suddenly.  Joey has had problems with his hamstring, and after he took a lunging shot at Jimmy, that leg went out on him.  All of a sudden he was only hopping around on one leg and couldn't really move from the spot he was in.  Jimmy took advantage of it by bobbing and weaving away from Joey's punches and hitting him at will.  Although Joey tried to pretend as if Jimmy's punches weren't bothering him, it was easy to tell that he was in trouble.

Round 4 didn't get any better for Joey.  Jimmy was the wrong one to have as an opponent with this kind of injury.  Jimmy's technique was crisp, as he was bobbing under Joey's punches and hitting him with some huge shots that would have probably brought other men down.  On top of that, Joey seemed dejected before the round, as he kept telling his corner that he had no legs due to the injury.  This was easily Jimmy's round.

Stallone went over to Joey's corner and gave him some motivation.  It's real simple; the winner of this fight is the winner of the fifth round, and the winner of the fifth round was the one who wanted it the most.

Well, it was Joey who found the will to win.  Jimmy came out and worked the body again, but wasn't able to get off any big shots.  All of a sudden, Joey comes out of nowhere with a good counterpunch, and then just goes after Jimmy with everything he had.  Jimmy could do nothing but try to cover up, and Jimmy fell to his knees at the end of the round.

Joey won by unaminous decision, of course.  Every round had a clear winner, and I'd bet Joey got a 10-8 decision by the judges for the final round.  However, this is similar to the De la Rosa/Salmaci fight where the winner will not win their next fight.  Joey is hurt, and he reaggravated that injury in the fight.  If you don't have legs, you can't move.  If you can't move, you can't dodge punches nor can you go after your opponent.  In other words, you're no better than a punching bag.  Joey probably won't quit the show, but I don't think he'll be able to handle the remaining fighters.

A dejected Jimmy simply didn't have the punching power to stand in there and trade shots with Joey.  Joey is a natural athlete, and sometimes brute force will beat technique.  But Jimmy was much like Brent Cooper; good technique but couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag.  Nor did Jimmy know what to do in order to neutralize Joey's flurries.

After celebrating, Joey comes back to the training house, where all of the fighters welcome him back with open arms.  None of them really gave him a chance to beat Jimmy, and doing it while injured didn't help things either.  They gave him his props, and told him he showed true heart by pulling the upset in those circumstances.

The next morning, an examiner checked out Juan's "injuries" - the cut over his eye, the wrist, and his neck - and told him they wouldn't heal fast enough for the next fight.  Then the examiner asked Juan did he really want to fight.  It was apparent from Juan's attitude after his fight in the last episode that he didn't want to fight anymore, and he claimed he had to look out for his boxing future.  The examiner suspends him for 45 days, but it was apparent that he only did that so Juan could save face.

He went into the living room with the other fighters and informed him that he was pulling out due to injuries.  They didn't fall for it, particularly Sergio and Anthony.  Anthony straight up called him a coward for quitting, which is ironic because his teammates called him a coward for ducking Jimmy Lang and fighting Brent Cooper.  Sergio said if he's 18 years old and can't heal, there's a problem.  It was apparent to most of them that Juan knew he was going to lose his next fight no matter who it was, and so he took himself out of the competition to keep his undefeated streak.

After Joey received his boxing glove pendant, the boys took Stallone's charter fight to Las Vegas to Caesar's Palace, to see where the final bout would be held.  Two of them would make it there to fight for $1 million dollars.  And Sly actually showed them 1 million dollars in cash, protected by security guards.  Next, Sly allowed the boxers to each pick one card.  Someone drove up with a Toyota Tacoma pickup truck.  Whoever had the ace got the truck, and the winner was Sergio.  Afterwards the guys had a night on the town after being given a $1,000 each by Sly.

The next day was crucial. After getting back to the training house, they had to deal with Juan quitting the show.  That meant they had to vote on a replacement.  They only had five choices, however - Ahmed, Jonathan, Miguel, Tarick, and Jimmy.  The other four were not medically cleared to fight.  After what many from the West saw as a blunder by voting Peter back into the house, they definitely wanted to make sure they didn't bring back a potential threat.  They would cast their vote secretly, with no discussion.

So who did they bring back?  Well, you'll have to find out next week.  See ya then.

My Other Contender Posts:

1.  The Contender Quarterfinals:  Ishe vs. Sergio
2.  The Contender, Episode Eight:  Jimmy vs. Joey
3.  The Contender Episode Seven:  Juan vs. Tarick
4.  The Contender Episode Six:  Anthony vs. Brent
5.  The Contender Episode Three:  Ishe vs. Ahmed

From UFC 52 last night:



I couldn't believe it when I heard about it.  Although it's considered an upset, the fact is when you face a knockout artist like Liddell anything can happen.  I would have liked to seen this fight go longer than what it did to see if Couture could repeat his performance from the last fight, but one punch can change that entire outlook.

Check out Sherdog and The Wrestling Observer to see the full results from UFC 52.

After months of hearing the claims about the Education Department's payments to Armstrong Williams being illegal and unethical, a report cleared both Williams and Paige of any illegal mischief.  The report is online here, in both Acrobat and MS Word.  Considering that I checked the Washington Post early this morning, I haven't had a chance to read the report in full, so I'll hold off my opinion about it until this afternoon.

Most of the report criticized the Education Department for essentially wasting money.  HELLO, it's the government.  That's what governments do best.  There was no question that this money was wasted by the Education Department.  That isn't news, especially when Armstrong Williams has never been considered a big name media figure to promote anything by any means. 

For Higgins - the inspector general of the Ed Department who investigated this matter - and Spellings to lay the blame exclusively at the Education Department's feet might work for someone who doesn't keep up with the goings on within government.  This has never been a problem exclusive to the Education Department; it's widespread throughout the federal government.  It's not something that's exclusive to this administration; the administration is simply like all of the others.

Hopefully this will quiet the knee-jerk reactionaries that have been calling for the heads of both Paige and Williams, but I doubt it.  It'll be interesting to see who speaks up, and who doesn't.

And note:  this comes a day after Congressman George Miller accused the Bush Administration of "stonewalling" the investigation by not allowing White House officials to be interviewed by Higgins.  The problem with that is the inspector generals are only obligated to interview people within the respective department they are in, and White House officials are totally optional.  He was allowed to interview one official, which happened because he temporarily worked at the Education Department.

On Wednesday, I told you about the law that was proposed in the NC House that would give in-state tuition fees to illegal aliens.

Well the opposition to it came fast and hard.  In fact, I don't recall a time where people were more outraged and stirred up because of a bill in the state legislature.  And because of the open opposition to the bill, four legislators who had previously supported the bill pulled out.

Leading the charge is talk radio, particularly WPTF 680 AM in Raleigh.  Their two local talk show hosts, Bill LuMaye and Kevin Miller (who's also the news director), have received hundreds of emails and fielded several calls by people that can't believe their elected officials would pull a stunt like this.  I think this bill was the last straw, and there is a growing wave that's rising against illegal immigration taking shape not only in North Carolina, but all over the country.

And what's helping to make the opposition stronger and more active is the fact that we have a Republican president who doesn't seem interested in protecting this country's borders.  Quite the contrary; he wants to make it more accessible for illegal aliens to cross.  The fact that he is a Republican president makes it worse, because the conservatives that are against illegal immigration now feel they have to take matters into their own hands before change can happen.  Sooner or later, something's got to give.

I bet NC legislators will think twice before they try to pull a stunt like this again.  My bet is that this bill is DOA.  Very few legislators outside of the urban areas would dare vote for a bill like this.

I don't know why I like reading legal opinions, but I do.  And today I finished reading the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion that threw out 3,000 gay marriages and ruled them unconstitutional.

It was refreshing to finally see a court, federal or state, that actually made an opinion based on the limits provided by their state constitution.  More importantly, they didn't try to go above and beyond the constitutional amendment passed by Oregon in November 2004.

The court tackled this issue in several ways.  First, they discussed the original statute the state was arguing that deemed the marriages were illegal, which stated "Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150.".  The court covered their bases in making sure this statute barred gay marriages by citing two other statutes that were similar, as those used "husband and wife".  A simple look at the dictionary showed "husband" to be a married man and "wife" to be a married woman.  No need to look at legal jargon for that.

Next, the Supreme Court chastised the trial court over their Solomonic ruling that ordered the same benefits given to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples receive.  The plaintiffs were asking for the courts to recognize gay marriages were constitutional and legal altogether.  They never asked merely for equal benefits.  The courts can only make decisions based on claims of the plaintiffs, and nothing more.

The Court then clarified that marriage was a state concern, with the legislature having the power to regulate it.  In Heisler v. Heisler, the courts said:

"In the state of Oregon, 'marriage' is a civil contract entered into with the consent of the state, between a man and woman, competent to so contract, in the presence of two witnesses, solemnized by some one authorized by statute (Code 1930, § 33-104) for that purpose."

and just in case gay marriages in California and Massachusetts go through, the court also cited this:

Finally, the court underscored the scope of that dominion in Garrett v. Chapman, 252 Or 361, 449 P2d 856 (1969). There, the court acknowledged the rule that marriages deemed valid in the states where they are performed generally will be recognized in Oregon as well. When it did so, however, the court also expressly allowed for "exceptions to the general rule where the policy of this state dictates a different result than would be reached by the state where the marriage was performed." Id. at 364 (emphasis added).

So they won't be recognized in Oregon.  The court uses Garrett v. Chapman to say "If that power is broad enough to preempt other states' contrary marriage policies, it inescapably is broad enough to preempt similar policies generated by a political subdivision of this state, such as the county.

I'd say so.

So here's their summary opinion:

In summary, we conclude as follows. First, since the effective date of Measure 36, marriage in Oregon has been limited under the Oregon Constitution to opposite-sex couples. Second, Oregon statutory law in existence before the effective date of Measure 36 also limited, and continues to limit, the right to obtain marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples. Third, marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County before that date were issued without authority and were void at the time that they were issued, and we therefore need not consider the independent effect, if any, of Measure 36 on those marriage licenses. In short, none of plaintiffs' claims properly before the court is well taken. Finally, the abstract question whether ORS chapter 106 confers marriage benefits in violation of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution is not properly before the court.

I think this argument is air tight, at least in Oregon.  It'll be interesting to see what points from this opinion will other courts use as a prescedent.

I'm quite disappointed that the Volokh Conspiracy hasn't commented on this.  But I would think they'd have to agree with this as well.

The retailing giant Walmart has been famous - or infamous, however you want to see it - for it's hatred of unions.  The founder, Sam Walton, couldn't stand them, and Walmart has resisted the calls from the unions to allow their workers to organize.

However, in Jonquiere, Quebec in Canada the workers tried to call Walmart's bluff and organized themselves into a union.

So what did Walmart's executives decide to do?  They're shutting down the store.

The retailing behemoth, whose $10 billion annual profits are based on low prices, low expenses and its relentless pace of store openings, announced it will shut the doors here May 6 after workers voted to make this the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America.

The closure will leave 190 bitter employees out of work, the town uneasy over the future of unions, and the mayor angry at the company. Supporters of organized labor also say it serves as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who might contemplate defying founder Sam Walton's sharp distaste for unions.

"It's like we are digging our own grave," said store employee Nathalie Dubois, 38, a single mother with no other job to go to, as she helped pack up the store.

It's a shame that so many people are losing their jobs, but they placed it on themselves.  The biggest losers are the consumers of the town, who now have no one to keep prices low in order to get good deals on retail items.  Walmart's attitude towards unionization has morphed from a sound business practice to a corporate conviction. 

If you try to confront them on this issue, you'll lose.  After all; they have thousands of stores across North America.  Any losses from this store will be considered a drop in the bucket for this behemoth.  According to the company, they were losing money anyway, so the unions only gave them even more motive.

One group of workers already took the hint.  Workers in Broussard, a surburb south of Montreal, voted against unionizing after hearing about Jonquiere's fate.  Company execs dispute that, but the writing is on the wall.

Here's the stunt they tried to pull to "vote" the union in:

Those who did not want a union say organizers harassed them to join. "People signed the cards just to get some peace" from the union organizers, said Noella Langlois, 53, who works in the clothing department. "They thought they would vote against it in a secret vote."

In fact, there was a vote last April that rejected the union. But under Quebec labor laws, the organizers could try again. When they collected signed union cards from 51 percent of the employees, the law declared the Jonquiere Wal-Mart a union shop.

Pelletier, the Wal-Mart spokesman, says the Quebec laws are unfair, and only a secret ballot would show the true feelings of the workers.

"Signing a union card, when there's someone on your doorstep at night saying, 'Sign this card,' should not be the last word," he said. "A democratic, secret vote is the only way to avoid intimidation by either the union or an employer."

So it wasn't even a "vote".  All they had to do was pass out union cards and "encourage" people to sign them, which sound's like a stunt akin to Saddam's "elections" held in Iraq. 

I've been calling for the busting of unions for the longest, but this is the first time I've seen a company take such an active stance like this against unionization.  Unfortunately, this situation is simply unique for Walmart, since it's the largest retailer in the world and worth billions.  Other companies can't afford to close shop when being forced into unionization.

I'm sure the Canadians don't like this at all, especially with their far-left leanings.  However, I hope Walmart continues to stand up to these union goons who think they can muscle their way into a store and unionize it.

In my home state, North Carolina, a bill has been introduced in the N.C. House that would allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state status for lower college tuition.  The bill was introduced today by state representatives Rick Glacier of Fayetteville and John Sauls of Lee County and was supported by the former governor of the state, Jim Hunt.

I'm very disappointed in this bill in more ways than one.  I know of Glacier and Sauls both (in fact, I stay in the county right between theirs).  Of course, I would have never expected them to pander to the pro-immigration lobby and make the false statements that this would help education and improve the economy.

Taking a look at higher education today will tell you that isn't true.  Tuition has gone up at several 4-year and community colleges across the state since 2001, and a lot of schools are right at capacity.  North Carolina taxpayers spend more and more on education every year; in fact, the John Locke Foundation reports per-student spending rising 13 percent over the past 10 years.  This will be an added strain, particularly at the community college level, where the instructors are underpaid in comparison to the national average and most are having a hard time finding instructors as it is.

This isn't the first time North Carolina has had controversy over the illegal immigration issue.  North Carolina allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses since 1997.  That might explain why North Carolina has the second fastest rising illegal immigrant population in the country.  Jim Hunt was on hand to see that go through, and now he wants to add another stain to his legacy with this nonsense.

At the time, people like then-state senator and former gubernatorial candidate Fern Shubert and others stood up against him, but wasn't able to stop the bills from going through.  But after 9/11 along with a number of people, black and white, seeing the effects the illegal immigrants have placed on the state, there's a lot more voices this time around.  The Americans for Legal Immigration has already announced they will do six townhalls in order to spur opposition for this bill.  Some legislators have already said they will do everything it takes to kill this bill, and rightfully so.

The illegal immigration topic isn't going to die anytime soon.  Last month, Republican legislators introduced a bill that would restrict government services for illegal immigrants and would seek reimbursement for health costs from their employers.  Human smuggling has been a problem, as 12 illegal immigrants were detained at Raleigh-Durham Airport.   Out-of-state immigrants are traveling to NC from everywhere to get driver's licenses through black market operations.  So this isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  Hopefully I will be able to keep up with it all.

I told you that Mae Magourik, whom was being dehydrated and starved in a hospice under the instructions of her granddaughter, was sent to a Birmingham hospital receiving treatment.

Well, yesterday the family was barred from seeing Magourik at the hospital by the instructions of the granddaughter, Beth Gaddy.  According to the judge, Gaddy was made the temporary guardian of Magourik, and had made the order while the family was visiting her, which meant hospital officials made the family leave.  The family plans to petition the judge to allow visitation rights.

Wizbang notes the media is finally starting to pay attention to this story outside of LaGrange.  The AJC has an article, along with the Birmingham News.   Ken Mullinax, Magourik's nephew, was scheduled for Hannity and Colmes tonight, although I didn't see it because I don't have FNC.

Hopefully the judge will make the right decision, and that's to allow her to live and take guardian rights away from Gaddy.
UPDATE:  Here's some more information on Mullinax.  His appearance on Hannity and Colmes was postponed due to some arrest in Georgia that FNC was covering.  The motion to gain visitation rights will be given to the judge tomorrow.  I'm sure we will receive a response the same day.  Check it out on Blogs for Terri.