The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy has gotten himself in a bit of controversy.  WAPO's Metro columnist wrote Sunday about the appearance of President Bush at Howard University, and the corresponding protest that followed.  These are the first couple of paragraphs in the column:

It was Soul Food Thursday at Howard University last week, and many students were looking forward to their favorite meal: fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, collard greens and cornbread. At lunchtime, however, students discovered that much of the campus had been locked down and that the school's cafeteria was off limits.

Apparently, many of them did not know that President Bush and first lady Laura Bush had arrived for a "youth summit" at the Blackburn Center, where the dining hall is located. Stomachs began to growl, tempers flared, and, eventually, a student protest ensued.

Wow.  A very simplistic and demeaning piece, to say the least.  Hell; I'm surprised he didn't add watermelon to the menu.  I'm sure Howard students probably didn't know Bush was in there, but to say they were protesting because they were missing out on "Soul Food Thursday"?  Talk about no respect, nor a willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Milloy did everything but call them "coons".

The funny thing about this column is that the column was supposed to be a critical piece on President Bush, as Milloy is an unabashed leftist and Bush hater.  According to Milloy, Bush should have known there was going to be trouble, seeing that, well, he shut down the cafe during Soul Food Thursday.  He should have anticipated this reaction and changed the venue for a different day or time.  He actually had the nerve to compare this incident to the government's response to Katrina.

The comments at the end of the column is what really set Howard off:

Howard is not some hotbed of political activism. The biggest event of the year is homecoming, which features two fashion shows, a step show and lots of hip-hop celebrities. As the rapper Ludacris put it in his summer hit, "Pimpin' All Over the World":

Jump in the car and ride for hours,

Makin' sure I don't miss the homecoming at Howard.

To set off a student protest at this school, you'd have to be politically tone-deaf in the extreme, out of touch and flying blind. And yet, Bush did it.

However, Milloy is having his own Katrina moment, as the column pissed off a lot of people at Howard.  On Monday, Howard President H. Patrick Swygert (is he kin to Jimmy?  Jus askin) wrote a letter in response to Milloy's column:

I am writing in response to the outrageous and ill-founded comments made by Courtland Milloy in his Washington Post column on Sunday, October 30. One certainly would expect Mr. Milloy to know better than to form his opinions based on a second-hand source, the broadcast that he apparently saw on Fox 5 (WTTG-TV) news. Beyond that, the tone of his column with its appalling stereotyping of the more than 10,000 students at Howard University is quite shocking. And this at a time when the nation is honoring the memory of Rosa Parks, who 50 years ago stood up for the dignity of the African-American community.

It is quite ironic that even in the face of the student protest that ensued, Mr. Milloy would seek to characterize Howard University as a politically indifferent party school. Further, to suggest that the driving motivation behind the student protest was to “break through campus security to get to the cordoned-off cafeteria” was both inaccurate and a misrepresentation. Our students are extremely aware and continue, in the finest tradition of the University, to be at the forefront in the quest for social justice and equality for our community. In recent times, for example, they led the march to the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan in Grutter vs. Bollinger. They serve in great numbers as volunteers in the Washington, D.C., area; and they continue to rally to the aid of victims of Hurricane Katrina by welcoming and supporting the students from the disaster-area colleges.

Milloy wasn't done, though.  Here's his response:

You claim to be upset because I wrote that "Howard is not a hotbed of political activism," and you cite the school's legacy of social protest and political activism. But what have you done lately? A walk down to the Mall for the Millions More Movement, an AIDS Walk and participation in get-out-the-vote rallies does not make your heirs to Walter Rodney or Kwame Toure.

What about honoring the legacy of Roland Scott (chairman of pediatrics at Howard from 1949 to 1973 and the driving force behind the Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act of 1971)? Your school has the Center for Sickle Cell Disease, but the organizers of annual walks to find a cure for that dreadful disease can't get you to participate for the life of those hurting black babies.

The home of Carter G. Woodson, a Howard professor and father of Black History Month, almost fell to the ground before the federal government stepped in to save it. Where were you? And why weren't you at the Optimal Health for Black Men conference, held last month at Howard Hospital? A lot of outstanding black doctors, psychologists, scientists and educators gave presentations. You protest about not being invited to Laura Bush's "youth summit," but you are nowhere to be found when your elders hold a lifesaving summit just for you.

Milloy took them to task, and called them out on their reluctance to engage in activism.  To show Milloy's leftist credentials, in an interview with Howard's "The Hilltop" (free reg. required) he claimed he was hard on Howard because they were supposedly "The Talented Tenth", a throwback socialist ideal developed by W.E.B. DuBois that claimed only 10% of the black community possesses the skills and abilities to lead the other 90%. 

This little spat kind of reminds me of something Thomas Sowell said when he was asked why aren't there any great black leaders anymore; he replied if we still had over 100 black people being lynched every year, we'd have better leaders.  Youth are reluctant to get involved in activities like these because there isn't an underlying factor that compels them to come out and do so.  They weren't engaged to do so at home, they aren't compelled to do so at school, so they aren't going to do it voluntarily.

If Milloy wanted activism, he got it.  He mocked the idea that students were actually preparing a protest in the second column; the next day, there were approx. 100 Howard students protesting (Hilltop - free reg required) outside of the Washington Post.  Milloy wasn't there, though, as he was preparing for his son's 16th birthday.

Reading the reactions on the net to this incident, I've seen a lot of people compare Milloy's second column to comments made by Bill Cosby.  Sure; there's a comparison.  But then they inaccurately analyze this to mean that there's a conservative movement that will grow out of this.  Please.  As I said about Cosby, this has nothing to do with conservatism; it has to do with elitism.  Milloy sounds like a grumpy grandfather that always thinks things were better back in the day.  They are on the same side, just not on the same page.

While we should be appreciative of efforts spawned from political movements and activism gone by, to compare those days to the present is ridiculous, especially since those who are complaining laid the path to THESE DAYS.  After all; Howard's laxadaiscial students didn't get that way on their own; they were helped by the previous generation.  And that could be seen as a good thing and a bad thing, as they helped provide a better environment for them to live and thrive in, yet that comfort allowed contentment and laziness.  That's help to create a new span of problems no only at Howard, but within the black community as a whole.

You can't fix 2005 problems with 1955 solutions.  The simple fact that Milloy is so willing to talk about what used to happen and try to characterize Howard students in such an elitist and archaic way shows that neither Howard University nor Milloy truly has the answers as to why this happened or how it can be fixed.

Do we really need more evidence why the current black politicians and political figures do a disservice to black people across this nation?

Well check this out....Maryland black Democrats - not simply the rank and file, but in leadership positions - think it's okay to use racial slurs against Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele because he is a Republican:

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy." 

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. 

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

I'm sure black people in Maryland can puff up their chests with pride at the ignorance of two of their elected representatives, women minorities no less.  The fact is, they always resort to these types of attacks whenever they feel threatened by a black conservative.  This was their way of letting people know in advance.

 - Steele will offer some kind of policy, they will call him a lawn jockey.

 - Steele will call for safer neighborhoods, they will call him an Uncle Tom.

 - If Steele doesn't give them the answer they want to hear, they will doctor a photo and call him a Sambo.

See how this works?  This is all "fair game".

Some have gone so far as to suggest that this is just another measure of "dirty politics".  It's definitely dirty, no doubt, but this is more than just a simple smear campaign.  This goes to the heart of black politics and the problems with the community as a whole.  If you don't follow the script, you will be burned.

I hope Steele has a strong chin.  He's going to need it.

We Ready....fooooor waaaaarrrrr © Pastor Troy

Well, this little battle should have been decided over the summer, with the Republicans scrapping judicial filibusters during the appellate court nominations.  However, the Gang of 14 wanted to take the easy way out...through the back door.

However, thanks to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court this morning, we're back to square one.  If you think the appellate court fights were bad, you've seen nothing yet.  The big guns will be pulled out and ready to fire by tonight.

I'm sure several leftist special interest group members had strokes once they found out about Bush's pick early this morning.  The next couple of months are going to be busy, and they will spend several millions on spreading propaganda about Alito.  Meanwhile, Bush and conservative Republican Senators will have to make sure their weak-kneed sistren that are called "moderates" won't back down and cower in the face of Democratic backlash.  If they do, they should be abandoned.

Now, first let's talk about Alito.  Looking at the AP's profile, this guy is just as qualified as Roberts, if not more:

Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," a play not only on his name but his opinions, Alito, 55, brings a hefty legal resume that belies his age. He has served on the federal appeals court for 15 years since President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990. Before that Alito was U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987 to 1990, where his first assistant was a lawyer by the name of Michael Chertoff, now the Homeland Security secretary.Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985.

His New Jersey ties run deep. Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, was born in Trenton and attended Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut to receive his law degree, graduating from Yale University in 1975. He served in the Army Reserves from 1972 until 1980, when he was discharged as a captain.

Needless to say, this guy knows his stuff.  Princeton undergrad, Yale law, assistant A.G., U.S. attorney, and finally a 15-year appellate judge.  Pretty impressive.

Right now, the focus is on the abortion issue.  It doesn't surprise me, yet it boggles my mind because there are so many important issues that need to be addressed other than Roe v. Wade.  Personally, I could care less about Roe v. Wade being overturned or upheld.  I'm more concerned about the Kelo decision, or Lawrence v. Texas, or the varied interpretations of the interstate commerce clause.

But most point to Alito's lone dissent in a case that struck down Pennsylvania statute that required married women to notify husbands before they have an abortion.  As Glenn Reynolds points out, there's more to that story than what they are saying:

I'm not sure what I think about this issue, but looking at the Pennsylvania statute I notice a lot of exceptions, one of which is this: "Her spouse is not the father of the child."

I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse -- even if he's not the father of the child -- would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn't want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn't force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response -- "he made his choice when he had sex without a condom" -- never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)

So where's the husband's procreational autonomy? Did he give it up by getting married? And, if he did, is it unthinkable that when they get married women might give some of their autonomy up, too?

The problem here is that you can say "my body, my choice" -- but when you say, "my body, my choice but our responsibility," well, it loses some of its punch.

I think women have been given too much strength by the courts to control the fate of the child anyway.   Almost everything - the decision of life, the wallets of the man, the manner in which the child is being brought up, etc - has been placed in the hands of women, making state and local courts take a completely sexist manner towards men.  As I heard Michael Savage say one night while driving home from work, it's as if men are nothing more than turkey basters.

Besides, conservatives point to another case in New Jersey, where Alito opposed a New Jersey law banning partial birth abortion.  Alito gave credence to the Supreme Court, and said a prior decision required that the "perservation of the health of the mother" had to be considered.

More here, from the Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr.

Most conservative bloggers and pundits think the Democrats will fall before the filibuster option is evoked due to Alito's creditials.  And via Malkin, Lindsay Graham, one of the "Gang of 14" and considered McCain's puppy, says any filibuster attempt will be nullified.

However, that means nothing.  Wait until McCain actually speaks; then we'll know what Graham will do.

More on this story later.

Well, we're in the middle of another NFL season.  God this one is moving so fast.

Most of the key games this week are divisional matchups.  In the NFL's version of college football's Big East, the NFC North, Detroit faces Chicago.  Now from a pure playoff perspective, this game matters.  However, if the division winner didn't get an automatic berth, none of the NFC North could look forward to the playoffs this year. 

Now I still have Detroit winning the NFC North.  However, they were blown out earlier this year by the Bears, and whether or not Garcia can provide enough offense to put them over the top this time is very questionable.

Another key divisional game is Washington and the Giants.  All four teams in the NFC East are crammed at the top, and while I dispute the belief that it is the toughest/best division in the league - the AFC West and NFC South are both a step above - it is highly competitive, and every game definitely counts.  I see the Giants continuing their winning ways, but just barely.  They'll be on top of the NFC East when it's all said and done.

Speaking of the AFC West, Philly faces Denver in the game of the week.  Denver has been decent as of late, beating the then-undefeated Redskins the defending world champion Patriots before stumbling against the Giants due to a last minute heave by Eli Manning.  However, they can make up for last week by beating the Eagles and putting their playoff hopes in jeopardy.

The sleeper matchup this weekend is Arizona/Dallas.  Dallas is at 4-3 and is on the outside looking in.  They've had problems covering receivers, and Arizona has some very good young ones.  It'll be interesting to see what kind of schemes Parcells comes up to try to negate them.

Here are my picks:

- Dallas over Arizona

- Cleveland over Houston

- Jacksonville over the Rams

- Carolina over Minnesota

- Giants over Washington

- Chicago over Detroit

- Cincinnati over Green Bay

- Oakland over Tennessee

- Miami over New Orleans (tossup)

- San Diego over Kansas City (they better win, or they won't catch Denver anytime soon)

- Denver over Philly

- Tampa Bay over the Niners

- New England over Buffalo

And Monday night....Pittsburgh over Baltimore.

No upsets this week.  I considered Arizona over Dallas, but wasn't comfortable enough in making that pick.  Besides, a lot of the matchups this week are fairly even, so if some of them go the other way, you really can't call it an upset.

Enjoy the games.

Because he definitely deserves one for sounding the alarm on one of the biggest idiots in the blogosphere.

First, let's explain:  black leftist blogger Steve Gilliard takes a picture of Michael Steele and doctors it by blackening his face and putting red lips on him in order to make him look like a minstrel.  The name of his blog post title was "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house".  The picture was named "Mantan" on his URL.

Robert George, who's often featured on the black news website "Booker Rising", was tipped off about the piece by a reader of his.  He rebuked Gilliard on his website, and then tipped Andrew Sullivan on it.  Sullivan, who has a huge readership, made a small post about it on his website.

Between Sullivan and George, Gilliard's post reached the campaign of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine.  The Kaine campaign had purchased an ad on Gilliard's website, and when they saw that, they sent this to Gilliard:

Mr. Gilliard:

Please remove all advertising for Kaine for Governor from News Blog (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/) immediately.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 202-465-4238 or at john@kaine2005.org.

John Rohrbach

Internet Director

Kaine for Governor

Ha. 

Needless to say, Gilliard's pissed.  He called Kaine a coward, said George has a yellow streak down his back, and referred to Sullivan as a racist.  He was also salty because the Kaine campaign never asked for an explanation (as if one was needed for that picture), but you can easily see the contact's name, phone number, and email address.  He could have explained it as soon as he got the email.

Now Gilliard says this was due to the fact that Steele, Maryland's current lieutenant governor, blew off the news that Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich had a fundraiser at an all-white country club.  The story broke back in July, over three months ago, and Gilliard didn't mention a word about it in his blog post.  Steele later apologized for being "flippant", and called on the club to include blacks.  And according to the Boston Globe, a few Democrats have fundraisers at that club as well, including a member of the Baltimore City Council.

This kind of bottomfeeding is normal for black leftists like Gilliard, however.  A black person can't be a conservative or a Republican simply due to rational thought; they must either sell out to the white man's dollar, want to be white, or cater to whites themselves.  They will be automatically branded a house nigger, or in this case, a minstrel. 

As Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Clarence Thomas have learned, chicken manure like this don't need excuses or incidents to hurl insults.  Thus, if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.  Of course, Gilliard doesn't see the big deal, thinking because he is black, it's alright to call another black a Sambo.  But it's incidents like these that will keep leftist bloggers on the back burner of the political spectrum, and Gilliard's antics don't help black bloggers, either.

This kind of reproach for black conservatives is obviously encouraging white leftists as well.  Gilliard asks, "What white progressive or liberal would feel free enough to make fun of a black man by putting him in blackface?"  Hey Gilliard; meet Ted Rall.  He didn't put Rice in blackface, per se, but he did everything but that.  Here are some other examples.

As for Steele's comments, he had nothing to apologize about.  Why should I be concerned - or want to be inclusive - in a private group where I nor any other black person isn't wanted?  I wouldn't have anything to do with that club either.  Now Steele should have had some reservations for Ehrich's fundraiser, but as news reports have shown, it isn't just Republicans visiting that club, and it's probably a normal thing for both Dems and Reps to attend fundraisers there.  No matter what, there was no justification whatsoever for Gillard to resort to those tactics to insult Steele.

Malkin also picked up on the story, and had some choice words.  Its time for conservatives - especially minority ones - to stand up and expose these fools as the idiots they are.

I heard the news on the radio while driving this morning.  It wasn't very surprising, as it was totally obvious from the start that Miers was in over her head.  Conservatives immediately questioned her qualifications and judicial philosophy, and once word came in from the bible-thumpers that she'd probably overturn Roe v. Wade, she didn't have any Democrats on her side either.

This is probably Bush's biggest screw-up to date.  Yes; we can talk about some of his bills and actions over the past five years but he had one side or the other supporting it at any given time.  None of them received the kind of opposition that we've seen with Miers.

There's over three years left in Bush's last term.  Maybe he needed something like this to wake him up and realize that he should be drawing from his conservative base, and not by simply talking about God either.  Bush never realized that the evangelical christians were only a difference maker.  They aren't his base, and it'll take more than Roe v. Wade to comfort their worries in the wake of several ridiculous Supreme Court decisions (Kelo, anyone?)  You cannot afford to tell conservatives to "trust you", especially when it comes to a Supreme Court pick.  We have to know that this is the right person for the bench, and Miers simply wasn't that person.

I would say Bush's next pick should be Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, and if it's one of those two I might cut a flip right inside the house.  However, something tells me that Brown was probably one of those nominees James Dobson was referring to, as a couple of potential nominees that were contacted before Miers refused to be nominated.  You can't really blame Brown if that's the case, as I'm sure she was burned out from all of the attention bestowed upon her and the other nominees, and I'm sure it was a strain on their families as well.  Bush should try very hard to find a prototype, however, of those two judges.

ADDENDUM:  As Matthew Franck of NRO's Bench Notes mentions, the biggest problem stemming from all of this is that this was a waste of time:

Three and a half weeks since the Miers nomination. Nearly eight weeks since the death of William Rehnquist. And we still don't have a nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her intention to retire on July 1.

Now I don't agree with the tone of Franck's post (which seems as if he's saying O'Connor was a bad justice and should be replaced immediately), the fact is that O'Connor is ready to retire, and everything should be done to allow her to do so.  It's possible that O'Connor will get tired of waiting and thus will either force the Court to be one justice short, or will force Bush to make a recess appointment until a justice can be confirmed to the bench.  Neither of those situations are adequate, so Bush needs to get to work.  He needs to get on the phone immediately and get someone nominated.

These are probably the most real comments you'll see this year:

Tuberville, whose team was shut out of the BCS national title game last season, was asked if he thought the same thing might happen to an SEC school again this year. That got him started on the Bowl Championship Series system and the national media, particularly ESPN.

"It's done," Tuberville said. "The national media, led by ESPN, wants to see Vince Young vs. Matt Leinart in the championship game. It's going to be those two teams unless Texas or USC get upset.

"Last year, they wanted to see the two Heisman Trophy quarterbacks, Jason White and Leinart. After six or seven games, we were out of it.

Tuberville wasn't done either.  Here's what he had to say about ESPN and notably Lou Holtz:

Tuberville spoke out sharply against ESPN and the influence it wields on the college game. He said the opinions ESPN hosts and analysts put out on the airwaves each week tend to shape the opinions of fans and media people around the country.

And he's not at all happy about that.

"ESPN has gotten so much power lately, it's kinda scary," Tuberville said. "And most of their analysts are coaches who haven't won any games. That's why they're there. I think you know who I'm talking about.

"And Lou Holtz gets on there and talks about what a team has to do win that game, and the guy couldn't beat anybody in our conference. These guys will come talk to you and look you straight in the eye and tell you something, then they'll get on the air and say something else.

"ESPN, I'll tell you, I don't have much to do with them anymore."

Tuberville, you've got another fan right here.

Consider me one of those that believe ESPN has gotten way too big and way too influential in how sports, both professional and amateur, have run.  The setup of college football today only makes it worse, because it's ultimately the media and coaches polls that decide who the national championship is.

A lot of people gave Texas's Mack Brown criticism after he appeared to be lobbying for one of the at-large BCS births after the last game of the regular season last season.  But people have to remember; each school receives $14 million dollars for a BCS invitation.  If you're in a conference that has a conference title game, you get approx. $7 million, and if you're in a major conference you might land $2 million for a regular bowl.

Brown can add.  The difference between $14 million and $2 million (Texas was not in the Big 12 title game) isn't chump change, and it could have been the difference on how Brown recruited in the next few years, whether his players stayed or entered the NFL draft, and ultimately if he would have a job a few years down the road.  This is serious business, folks.

The sports media doesn't simply report college football; they help decide who the top teams are.  The BCS uses a number of polls to help come up with the national championship.  There's the USA Today Coaches Poll, as a number of the top coaches cast votes every week; There was the Associated Press Poll, which was done by sportswriters (after last year's Texas debacle, the AP told the BCS to stop using their poll.  They were replaced by the Harris Interactive Poll, which has a mix of former coaches, players, and some sports journalists); and the rest are based largely on statistics and are done by computers, including strength of schedule, quality wins, etc. 

Thus, is there any question that Tuberville is absolutely right?  The national championship game has already been decided, given both teams don't choke.  It's possible that the SEC champion will be undefeated, which means another controversy.  Until it's decided on the field, in a playoff system, nothing will change.  But the NCAA won't fix it until they start losing money, continuing to place bandages on an exit wound.

Last year, I came up with an idea of a playoff system that could definitely allow more regional action within college football, allow an adequate amount of teams with a legitimate chance of winning the national championship without diluting interest in the sport.  Here are the provisions:

- 14 teams.  The top seven from the West, and the top seven from the East.

- Keep the BCS polling system, but change it to two polls ranking the top 15 from each region every week, instead of 25 within the nation.

- Give the top team from each region a bye from the first round.

- Allow the teams to have playoff games in their respective regions, using neutral bowl sites for the playoff games.

- The New NCAA Championship Game would pit the Western Regional Champion vs. the Eastern Regional Champion.

- Allow the individual bowl committees to organize and run the playoff games.

- The BCS committee could decide which bowl sites would host playoff games, as they do the BCS bowls now.

- The major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Orange...am I forgetting one?) get specific dibs on the Regional Championship games and Championship games.

- NO AUTOMATIC BIDS FOR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS.

If you want to know more about it, click here.  There's a full explanation into each and every provision I made.

It's a dream.  A very good dream for football, but a dream nevertheless.

Another great Sunday for some football. 

With the exception of the big game of the week, which is Pittsburgh vs. Cincinnatti, and possibly San Diego/Philly, most of these games aren't huge.  Some of them are what I'd call "toilet bowl" matchups, which means both teams are at the bottom of the barrel, or the game has a clear cut winner.

Amazing.

A federal judge Tuesday blocked Georgia from enforcing a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy said the law amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax because the state is not doing enough to make ID cards available to those who cannot afford them.

The requirement "is most likely to prevent Georgia's elderly, poor and African-American voters from voting," Murphy wrote. "For those citizens, the character and magnitude of their injury — the loss of their right to vote — is undeniably demoralizing and extreme."

Let's make this clear:  there isn't one person in Georgia that couldn't afford to buy a $20 ID card.  Not one.  If they can buy a television, if they can buy video games, or cookies and snacks at the grocery store, or any of these things, they can DEFINITELY buy an ID card in order to vote.  Considering most states issue Driver's Licenses and ID's that last from four to six years, it's not as if they are going to buy it every other month.

The state forces stores to check ID's for alcohol.  The feds forces banks to check ID's - and often more - when you make withdrawals and other bank transactions.  Yet we are talking about a franchise where people have fought and died for for hundreds of years, and I'm just as able to pick any name, register, and vote under that name as I am with my own.

For a sitting federal judge to tell the nation that eliminating voter fraud is akin to a poll tax is morally and intellectually dishonest.  This is a shining example of the need for high qualifications and intellectual standards for presidential nominees: this judge has no business being on the bench.  This is more than a difference of opinion; it's a lack of common sense and a failure to interpret law.

Poll taxes were used to purposely keep poor people from voting, and they were issued at the time of registration or when you got to the precinct.  These were added with the grandfather clause, which was an exemption for anyone whose grandfather or ancestors had the right to vote.  Nevertheless, the poll tax was accessed on people in order to vote only.  An identification card, which almost everyone needs nowadays, isn't just to vote.  Even then, the Georgia Legislature has set up a program to allow people to get ID cards for free if they can't afford them.  Thus, that defeats the purpose of a supposed poll tax, correct?

I ran a little check on Harold Murphy...He's the cousin of long-time former Georgia Democratic House Speaker Tom Murphy, which could explain how he got the job in the first place.  An AJC writer wrote about how the Speaker was able to secure a reservoir onto their property, which overlapped against 1,000 acres of property that their family owned.  According to the article, the property value rose greatly, and the state would have to compensate the family if the property was ever flooded.  Murphy was defeated in 2002, and the Republicans took over the Legislature.

He presided over the infamous Georgia crematory case, where hundreds of bodies were exhumed and essentially left unburied behind the woods from the crematory by the owners instead of being cremated.  However, he approved a deal keeping the families from filing civil suits against the crematory's owners, and instead allowed them to sue the insurance company!  And get this one...Murphy also allowed a whites-only affirmative action plan to stand in Alabama, where white applicants were given preference at HBCUs, such as Alabama State. 

- You know what's the biggest slap in the mouth a football team could get?  Having your opponent spot you 17 points in the first quarter, and winning by 17 at the end of the game.  Martz had to love that while he was sitting in that hospital bed.

And please, I don't wanna hear the "if Martz was there/Bulger didn't get hurt" sorta references.  If Martz was there, they would have probably lost worse, because he wouldn't have let Stephen Jackson run the ball (which helped led them to two of those first quarter scores).  Bulger would have helped, but the comeback was inevitable.  Besides, it was Bulger's fault that he got hurt anyway.

- I suppose that makes Indy the best team in the league.  The question is, who's number 2?  This year is starting to look like a free for all, where everyone has a legit chance for a Super Bowl win.  Last year it was New England, Philly, Pittsburgh, Indy, and everyone else.

- Well, it looks like Phillip Rivers will get his wish.  I can't see the Chargers being stupid enough to trade Drew Brees at this moment in time.   My only gripe is that they went on and made a trade before the deadline.  At least he could have gotten to a team that might have needed him (Detroit, Jets, Bills, Ravens, etc).

- When you try to act like you're the biggest dog in the club, you better be able to back it up.  Else, you find yourself in the hospital slurping food through a straw.

I'mma expound on this in a post later this week, when I talk about the NBA's idiotic dress code.

- Shanahan deserves props.  Like I said last week, I didn't believe he'd coach Denver after this season, but the way he's stepped up and made that defense into a cohesive unit probably makes him the frontrunner for Coach of the Year.

- My frontrunner for MVP?  LaDamian Tomlinson.  I really can't think of anyone else more deserving, except possibly Shaun Alexander.

- Some funny shit I heard on Fox Sports Radio:  Jim Mora said Bill Bellichek was pissed after his son, Falcons coach Jim Jr. pulled a stunt in Week 5 by listing Michael Vick as probable all week before downgrading him to questionable on Saturday, which tricked the Patriots into preparing as if Vick was going to play.  So in retaliation, Bellichek listed all of his injured players as probable for Sunday against Denver.  Too bad it didn't work.