Mountain West Cleaning the Bowls

The Mountain West Conference is now 4 and 0 in bowl games. Meanwhile the PAC 10 is 2-4 and the Big 12 moves to 2-1.

If there were a playoff system the MWC wouldn't have a chance to shine as they do.
So for all those TCU fans who are complaining think of it this way. The current system gives the whole conference a chance to draw new fans.

College Bowl Status Update

Thus far, there have been 12 college bowl games played - about one third of the total. The conference comparisons, how each conference fared in the bowl games against another conference, may provide an insight as to how the remainder will go.

So here are the results for the first third of Bowlmania:

Mountain West Conference: 3-0 ( 2-0 vs the PAC 10 and 1-0 vs the WAC)

Big East Conference: 2-0 (1-0 vs ACC and 1-0 vs CUSA)

Sun Belt: 1-0

CUSA 2-2

PAC10 2-2

SEC 1-1

ACC 1-2

Big 12 0-1

MAC 0-2

Finally for all of you BSU fans out there who insist that the WAC is competitive-

WAC 0-2

Bowl Games I'd Like to See

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

The past several years there has been a proliferation of football bowl games with sponsors of one sort or another that lead to awkward sounding names. For example, the Menicke Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl or - my personal favorite- the GMAC Bowl ( shouldn't this really be called the Stimulus Bowl or the Bankrupt Bowl).

Since our esteemed Congress has assigned importance to these college football bowl games(ahem) and since they are in session today, I felt it appropriate to give them my Christmas wish list of college bowl games.

Here are some bowl games I would like to see. These would be sponsored by entities that would provide smoother sounding names:

The Kellogs'& General Mills Cereal Bowl - This would be limited to teams from Michigan and Minnesota

The Plumbers and Pipefitters Toilet Bowl - This would be reserved for the last place teams from the Western Athletic and Mountain West Conferences.

The Uncle Ben's Rice Bowl - This would be affiliated with a Lousiana team and, of course, Rice University.

The Wishbone Salad Bowl - Florida and California teams go to this one.

The Environmentalist Wacko Ice Bowl - For all of the global warming freaks. Alaska's North Slope would be the perfect location and Sarah Palin could be the Grand Marshal for the parade.

The Campbell Soup Bowl - Since Campbell's is just across the river in Camden, N.J., that would be the perfect place for this. Of course, being the USA's most dangerous city attendance could be a problem.

The Hand Surgeons Finger Bowl - This is a natural since the players could go right to the doctors watching the game from the corporate suites.

The Hormel Chili Bowl - This could be located in Mexico to balance out the International Bowl in Toronto. Like Camden, however, attendance could be a problem. After all, no one wants to see a Shotgun Formation with a real shotgun.

The STD Flower Bowl - San Francisco would be the obvious location for this one.

These are just some possibilities. I am sure you will have your own favorites. Just think of the combinations and permutations that could be added to the existing 34 bowl games.

Sen. Graham: " Sleazy" Deal Made to Get 60 Votes

Today, December 20,Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) said that a "sleazy" deal was made to get the 60th vote in the Senate to pass the health reform bill. Mr. Graham also described the estimates and accounting methods in the bill as "Enron" accounting.

Graham spoke during a Senate session with Senators John Cornyn (R. -Tx.), Saxy Chambliss (R.-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R.-Ga.).He was referring to the "backroom" arrangement made by the Senate Democratic leadership with Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-NE.) to get his vote for the reform bill.

Mr. Nelson was able to get more Medicaid funding for his state of Nebraska. This is necessary because the pending bill lowers the Medicaid eligibility. States will have to pay more for Medicaid which will include more people.Or as Mr. Graham said, "Every state except one" meaning Nebraska.

Sen. Nelson also obtained an exemption from the insurance tax for his home states insurance giant, Mutual of Omaha.

All the senators expressed their outrage how this deal - and other deals - such as the "Louisiana purchase" of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) and the federal money, given to the self-appointed spokesman for the average person, Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders, for his vote.

They noted how it was the polar opposite of what President Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership promised when they said there would be transparency in government.

Rep. Wolf: “Congress …Being Stonewalled by the Attorney General”

Also Mentions Judiciary Chairman Conyers, “Shameful Failure to Provide …Congressional Oversight”
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), issued a public statement December 17 saying that the President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s pledge for transparency in government.

“We understand that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas,” Mr. Wolf said. “ The nation’s chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general’s obstruction. At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.”

Mr. Wolf has written the attorney general six times seeking answers as to why the Justice Department (DOJ) dismissed a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving members of the New Black Panther Party. He also has written DOJ’s inspector general seeking answers.

He has yet to receive a response from him. The CRC has had a similar experience. They subsequently issued the aforementioned subpoenas for the information and to interview the career attorneys that handled the case.

Because of this Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.

Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.

“I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted,” Mr. Wolf said in a statement.

Mr. Wolf wants the House Judiciary Committee to demand the attorney general answer the questions surrounding this case. He believes that the protection of Americans right to vote without intimidation is paramount.

“This House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general’s obstruction,” Mr. Wolf concluded. “He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission.”

The commitment by Rep. Wolf towards insuring voting rights is substantiated by his past record. Many Republicans have been reluctant to pursue this issue because they are fearful of being labeled racist by liberal Democrats. Mr. Wolf’s record discredits such an accusation. He has over the years demonstrated a commitment to minority rights and is currently involved in an effort for human rights in Sudan.

Phillies-Mariners-Blue Jays Trade

Feast or Famine
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

A complicated three way trade was completed yesterday among the Seattle Mariners, Toronto Blue Jays and the National League Champion Philadelphia Phillies. Only the Phillies portion of this trade is of concern here.

The Phillies traded Cliff Lee to Seattle and received some talented minor league prospects. They traded their own minor leaguers to Toronto to obtain Roy Halladay.

Earlier, in July, Lee had been obtained by the Phillies from Cleveland. They traded some minor league prospects to the Indians for Lee and a reserve outfielder, Ben Francisco.

Needless to say there are a lot of talented minor league prospects being shuttled around - several of them from the Phillies farm system.

Lee performed magnificently. He was in large part responsible for the team winning a consecutive National League title for the first time in its 125 year history. He was almost soley responsible for the Phillies winning two World Series games against the Yankees for the first time in the teams history.

So, since July 2009, the Phillies have traded two five-star minor league prospects; pitchers Carlos Carrasco and Kyle Drabek, as well as pitcher Jason Knapp, catchers Lou Marson and Travis D'Arnaud, shortstop Jason Donald and another blue chipper in outfielder Michael Taylor.

They received Roy Halladay, reserve outfielder Ben Francisco, blue chip pitching prospect Phillipe Aumont, pitcher Juan Ramirez and blue chip outfielder Tyson Gillies. They also got Cliff Lee for one half of a season, which as previously stated, is not insignificant, since he was a major reason the team obtained their second consecutive NL pennant, and two World Series games against the Yankees,for the first time ever. They also obtained $6 mm - again not insignificant.

That's a net of -4 minor league prospects and +1 reserve OF, for one season and postseason of a Cy Young award pitcher, as well as 2 or 3 seasons of another Cy Young award winner plus $6mm.

Will the Phillies-Seattle-Toronto trade benefit the Phils or will it be another Von Hayes debacle?

It'll depend on how well the traded prospects produce and how steep the Phillies farm system is. Remember, Arbuckle, the guy who signed Utley, Howard, Rollins etc is no longer the scouting director for the Phillies. So the Phillies may not have the infrastructure to replace Drabek, Taylor et al.

Also, while the consensus opinion is that Halladay is a shade superior to Lee, one stat no one has mentioned is that Lee's flyball to home run ratio was second in the league. Halladay will be pitching in a home run friendly stadium half the time. He was not among the top ten in this category.

Will Halladay be plagued by home runs at Citizens Bank?

Will Happ continue his almost-2009-rookie-of-the-year pitching performance next season or will he be a one season wonder?

Will Cole Hamels regain his 2008 form - or is 2009 a typical season for him?

Can Ben Francisco produce more than a .263 BA next season?

The answers will determine Ruben Amaro Jr.'s future as the Phillies GM.

Sophisticated Sarah

Palin is Part Hepburn, Part Loren, Part Thatcher - Part Annie Oakley
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog

Watching the video of Sarah Palin’s appearance with William Shatner on the Conan O’Brien Show, the one word that came to mind was style. Yet, there was more to it than that.

After all, she entered the arena of late night television, a stage that has excoriated her routinely - the “enemy camp” as Chris Matthews might say. She has been scoffed at before by O’Brien. The show has featured William Shatner mocking Palin’s tweets by reading them as dramatic recitations.

Still, Palin handled her appearance with the aplomb of Beyonce at the Video Music Awards. She exuded the charm of Sophia Loren; the dignity of a Katharine Hepburn.

The blend of these qualities, with the feistiness and intellect of Margaret Thatcher and the forty-something feminine beauty of a Demi Moore, is what makes Palin so dangerous to the political establishments of both parties.

She has a certain manner, an allure, a je ne sais quoi, about her that has endeared her to a wide swath of the American public in a short period of time. She is upsetting a lot of apple carts and the entrenched politicos resent it. They have directed their fire at her.

Indeed, Palin has weathered a torrent of vitriol. While her primary critics are liberal Democrats, the bien-pensants of both parties fear and loathe her.

This was evinced recently by Michael Petrilli’s hortatory article in the December 14 Wall Street Journal. Petrilli’s haughty piece titled, “Whole Foods Republicans,” had this to say about Gov. Palin, “…there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.”

Petrilli’s remarks about Palin’s supporters echoed what liberals have said about military personnel in Iraq (Kerry: “you get stuck in Iraq”) and the audience of the Limbaugh show. It repeats what the left claims is a characteristic of conservative Christians (“uneducated and easily led”) or Middle America (“clinging to their guns and religion”).

It must be noted that Mr. Petrilli is a researcher at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Although he appears to be a Republican, he is obviously one who has been victimized by the Democrats’ tried and true class warfare propaganda. They have succeeded in dividing Republicans along cultural lines.

Yet, Gov. Palin has run the gauntlet of ridicule from David Letterman – moral icon that he is – to Michael Petrilli. Despite the scorn hurled at Palin’s intellect and that of her advocates, she continues to be poised. She exhibits the grace and sophistication of many famous women, past and present.

There is no denying it. Palin is part Hepburn, part Loren, part Moore, Thatcher, part Condoleeza Rice and a little Annie Oakley throw in for good measure.

The power elite compare Sarah Palin to a famous woman as well. However, the famous woman they think of when they think of Palin is Joan of Arc. If they have their way, Palin will end up burned at the stake – politically speaking that is – just like she did.

Will There Be a Special Prosecutor in Voter Intimidation Case

Members of Congress and the US Civil Rights Commission say Justice is Stalling
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

As I have reported since May,members of Congress and the US Civil Rights Commission have been asking for an explanation by the Holder Justice Department Civil Rights Division why they dropped a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt
http://tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/09/civil-service-commission-demands.html
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:_5uF9fMydAIJ:tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-holder-stonewalling-new-black.html+Tremoglie+new+black+panther+party+voter&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/11/15/top_stories/doc4b004bfa562e2430282949.txt

Despite repeated requests from Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.) and Gerald A. Reynolds the Chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission, Justice has not provided the information they reuqested.

Recently an official of the NBPP said the requests were merely a "political witch hunt" by Republicans.

This was followed by a report in the New York Times that Democrats were going to release some GAO report on December 10 that the Bush administration did not enforce civil rights laws. I have not yet been able to get a copy of this report.

However, the fact that the New Black Panther Party and the New York Times are acting as defenders for the Holder Justice Department is strange. The New York Times in particular has a credibility problem because they chose to withhold relevant information they had about communications between the Obama campaign and ACORN, according to Congressional testimony.

Furthermore, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation, wrote in the National Review Online that the DOJ attorneys who were investigating this case have been prohibited by DOJ's assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez of complying with the US Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.

He wrote, "Perez has even ordered them not to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite the fact that the authorizing statute for the Commission specifically directs all federal agencies to “cooperate fully with the Commission.”

This would be very disconcerting if true. It would lead one to conclude that an investigation of the investigators is in order.

Until now Congressional Republicans and the US Civil Rights Commission has been reluctant to call for a special prosecutor. If there is active resistance by the Justice Department commanders to resist lawful subpoenas then they have a duty to call for one.

Obama: "War is Necessary"

Rebukes the Antiwar Protestors of Two Generations
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

There has been no call by the leftists of the world protesting his war. No Code Pink, International ANSWER, Not In Our Name or other similarly reprehensible group calling President Obama a "chickenhawk," "war criminal," or "murderer," as they did President Bush.

No, on the contrary, President Obama received a prize for peace. Indeed he received the most famous such distinction - the Nobel Prize.

For his part, President Obama refuted the antiwar mob. Whether he did so knowingly or not, he provided those who went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those who ordered those wars - the intellectual and moral ammunition against those who opposed the war by engaging in the most outrageous and despicable conduct.

Their gratuitous slurs of President Bush, Colin Powell, John McCain and all those who served in the Bush administration, and who favored the war in Iraq, will always be remembered by Americans. This is particularly true of the members of the media who did so - especially those who characterized combat soldiers as cretins or failures.

President Obama refuted the anti-war crowd, the mean-spirited, hate-filled leftwing, during his acceptance speech in Oslo. He told the truth about war and presented a sophisticated rejoinder to those gullible, artless people who populate the left, those hypocrites.

First, Mr. Obama expressed the feeling of grave responsibility he feels,"I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed." Bush did too, the only difference is the absence of the liberal/leftist mainstream media vitriolic criticism.

He continued by recognizing the pragmatism of armed conflict, "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms."

He acknowledged America's role in preserving peace in the world despite the invective of his leftist/liberal brethren both here and abroad:

"I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower. Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world.”

He then rebuked the antiwar protestors of two generations. He said, “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."

Then Mr. Obama provided the most memorable quote of his speech. The one that should be enshrined in bumper stickers to counter those fatuous “War is not the answer" bumper stickers and peace signs one sees driving along any thoroughfare in the United States.

President Barack Obama, the antiwar candidate, said during his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Peace, "War is sometimes necessary."

Nobody likes this idea. Nobody wants it to happen. Americans would prefer it were not the case. However, the average American knows it to be true.

Only the callow and sciolistic, only the supercilious and sanctimonious among us believe that war is not the answer.

Just as the anticommunist Nixon validated the existence of Communist China, the antiwar Obama has validated the righteousness of America’s wars.

Ugly Americans Part II: Fox News, CBS News and Sen. Cantwell

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

The American liberal mainstream media, ordinarily lauding European culture, has been in overdrive trying to discredit the guilty verdict of Amanda Knox, a Seattle college convicted, by an Italian court, of murdering her British roommate in Perugia, Italy. They present the defense case in detail with only a cursory rendering of the prosecution's case - and then only in a negative light.

However, it is not only the liberal mainstream media defending the convicted killer. Conservative media icon Fox News Channel has entered the fray.

The December 7 edition of the Bill O’Reilly show featured Peter Van Sant, a CBS news reporter, who is most zealous in his desire to clear Knox.
Van Sant – who, coincidentally, is also a native of Seattle - said unqualifiedly that Knox was innocent.

Yet, his investigation, complete with private detective and DNA experts, is still nothing more than a recitation of the defense claims. What he told O’Reilly, who believed him completely, was that: the prosecutor is overzealous and corrupt; the DNA evidence was corrupted and the chain of custody broken; the circumstantial evidence is unreliable; the jury is prejudiced against his client; the interrogation by the Carabinieri was brutal and the confession coerced.

By the way, this last claim – about the Carabinieri - is inaccurate. Knox was not interrogated by the Carabinieri. She was interrogated by the police.
One has to wonder if O’Reilly and Van Sant know the difference between the police and Carabinieri.

Inaccuracies about the Italian criminal justice system have been routine in the reportage. Media keep referring to jurors. Italian courts do not have jurors, such as those used here in America. Indeed, with the exception in the Corte D’Assise, which was the one used in this case, there are no juries in Italy.
The Corte D’ Assise is more of a mixed tribunal. The “jurors” in the Knox case were the two judges and six “Giudici Popolari,” who are lay people. Together they decide the guilt or innocence – as opposed to America, where the jury determines guilt or innocence independent of the judge.
The Knox lawyers are simply practicing Criminal Defense Attorney Tactics 101. They are formulaic. They have been used before. For example:

1- The defense attorneys in the O.J. Simpson case said the DNA evidence was corrupted and unreliable – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
2- The defense attorneys in the Scott Peterson case said that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
3- The defense attorneys in the Mumia Abu Jamal said the prosecutor and the jury were bigoted against Abu Jamal – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
Not only is the American media trying to interfere in this case, so are liberal politicians.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, (D. –Wash.), is getting Hillary Clinton involved. She said, “The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Knox was guilty.”
When asked if she read the transcript, her press aide replied that they have been communicating with the Knox defense team. They also admitted they have not contacted the prosecution nor have they read the transcript.
Cantwell’s office did say they are pursuing this through the European Union. Their claim is that the “trial procedure did not follow the strictures of the European Union due process aspects - regarding jury sequestration.”

Professor Marco Ventoruzzo is member of the faculty of the Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law. He is a legal scholar in Italy and the United States.

“There is nothing about this trial that impressed me as being unfair,” he said.

Regarding the issue of sequestration he said, “Italian courts have sessions spread out over a period of time to lessen the heat of the moment, unlike American trials, which are done in a short period of time. Italian trials - because of their long duration, of sessions being months apart - incorporate safeguards against the effects of emotions. So sequestering is not that important.”
Cantwell’s intervention is unnecessary. Italian judges are required, unlike their American counterparts, to write their reasons for conviction. These reasons can be appealed. If the appeal is granted, the whole trial is redone – again different from an American appellate process.
By some metrics, the Italian system is vastly superior to the American. The Italian crime rate is a fraction of what America’s is. This is due, in part, to their criminal justice system – which contains mechanisms that we should consider adopting here.

The interference by American journalists and politicians in the Amanda Knox case is reprehensible.

Italy is a sovereign nation. Liberals have complained vociferously about American jingoism and cultural imperialism. They should not violate their own standards and impose American legal culture on Italy.

If the court erred, then the appeals process will determine that it did. The Italian system is perfectly capable of dispensing justice – for everyone including the victim.

Something we here in the United States have not quite figured out how to do.

Hillary Clinton and the Ugly Americans, Part I

Once Praised, Liberals Turn Against European Justice
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Hillary Clinton says she will confer with Sen. Maria Cantwell,(D- Wash.) about the conviction of American student Amanda Knox, of Seattle, for the murder of her roommate in Perugia, Italy. Cantwell believes the Italian justice system to be substandard.

Her ignorance of Italian criminal justice - and that of the American media, incapable of accurately reporting it - is most revealing. I have chronicled, in my Philadelphia Bulletin pieces, the factual errors about the Italian justice system, made by the Associated Press and the BBC, among others.

Two of the most common misperceptions were:

1- The media repeatedly referred to "jurors" in the news reports. There are no jurors in the American sense. There is a mixed tribunal more akin to an American military tribunal.

Two trial judges and six lay people, who are called "popular judges" vote on guilt or innocence. It is not determined independent of the judge.

2- The media also said Knox was denied bail. There is no bail in Italy.

Not only has the liberal mainstream media proven to be ignorant, they have revealed their hypocrisy – again.

Liberals love to point to Europe as the paradigm to use for reform of the American criminal justice system. Capital punishment abolitionists routinely mention “America is the only industrialized democracy (i.e. Europe) that uses capital punishment.”

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has referred to European law in his Constitutional rulings.

Now, suddenly, according to Hillary Clinton, Sen. Cantwell and others, European criminal justice is suspect. Why?

Because Knox has been convicted of murder by an Italian court and they do not like the idea of American college students being convicted of crimes in foreign countries.

Knox, an American student studying in Italy, was convicted for the gruesome murder of her British roommate. She, her Italian boyfriend and an African immigrant, brutally killed the woman after a night of sex and drugs.

Predictably, the mainstream American media - the same media that expressed concern about America's image in Europe during the entire Bush administration - criticized the Italian justice system. Numerous reports in American newspapers and magazines second-guessed how the Italians mete out justice.

The media presented Knox has being persecuted for being an American. They completely ignored the fact that the two others convicted for the crime were Italian.

Time magazine published, in June, what was effectively the defense attorney’s case. "Questions remain" about the prosecutions case they said rhetorically.

The implication being that there were no questions about the defense's statements.

Newsweek wrote in July, "It is not uncommon in Italy to give equal weight to circumstantial evidence." As if this is something unique to Italian courts.

Apparently, Newsweek forgot the Scott Peterson murder trial. He was convicted almost completely on circumstantial evidence.

The New York Times commentary piece called Knox an "Innocent Abroad." Is it not interesting how liberal journalists, who profess to believe in due process, always, pronounce guilt or innocence before a trial? They love to pronounce police guilty immediately.

The media is not alone. Liberals of all stripes have turned against Europe.

Academicians, quoted in the New York Times, have called the Italian criminal justice system “not among Europe’s most distinguished.” Hypocritically, some of these same academicians have praised Italy’s criminal justice system in the past because of its prohibition of capital punishment.

Liberals always criticize America for "cultural imperialism." What more egregious example of cultural imperialism is there than to interfere in the judicial process of a sovereign nation simply because one does not like the results of the verdict.

Annual BCS BS

Sportswriters Show They Are Not Bright Lights
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time

College football is a game -- a very profitable game - played by unpaid college kids. The kids play for pride and a chance to go onto the pros. The universities, the television networks like ESPN, the bowl organizations and others reap the profits by exploiting them.

So lets stop the annual whining about the necessity of a college football playoff system. The present one works just fine.

I found a 25 year old television guide piece about the approaching college football bowl games on television. The writer said there were too many bowl games (16 then as opposed to the 34 now). The author said then that there should be a playoff system.

Well, now there is a playoff system in major college football. It involves the top two seeded teams.

Still the sportswriters, politicians and those who are not taking in the bucks they think they ought to be, whine. They say this is not much of a playoff, that it is not fair. They say ask why it is not like the NCAA basketball tournament -- which provides 64 teams a chance at the championship.

OK fair enough, let's examine the "fairness" of the college basketball tournament. 64 teams are seeded -- just as the two major college football teams are.

Why should there be 64?

The lowest seeded college basketball team ever to be champion in the 70 years of the tournament was Villanova. This did not occur until 1985! Villanova was seeded #8 seed that year.

So why should there be 64 teams? Think about it -- -- only one team not seeded in the top seven has ever won the college basketball championship - in the seven decade history of the tournament.

Now some people (especially sportswriters many of whom are as clueless and doctrinaire leftist as their newsroom brethren) say the bowl games are about greed. They postulate the only reason there is no playoff is because the bowl games will lose money.

There is no greed in the NCAA basketball tournament? How ingenuous can you get!
If they believe this then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska they might want to buy.

The NCAA basketball tournament started in 1939 (37 years after the first bowl game by the way). It consisted of only eight teams then. It expanded to 64 in 1985.

Why do you think that was? Money!

Before “March Madness” came along (the advertising moniker television networks gave the tournament) the public was not very concerned about who the college basketball champion was.

Indeed, most teams played in the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) until about the '70's.

Do you think the NCAA, the universities, the television networks - and yes even the sportswriters - make more or less money because of “March Madness?”

The same thing can be said about small college football. No one was interested whether Podunk State, Coal Cracker College or Sunset Beach U. was the number one small college team in the nation. However, make small college teams determine their champion by a playoff and now there is some suspense for a TV audience. Now networks can sell commercial airtime.

The major college teams do not need to generate interest. They do not need the gimmick of a “playoff.” They already have an audience.

If the small college football teams, college basketball teams or college baseball teams want a playoff that is their business. Just do not say it is for righteous reasons.

Let major college football alone.

If Widget Inc. -- maker of the best paper fasteners in the world -- wants to sponsor the Paper Clip Bowl; the city of Osh Kosh, Wisconsin wants to host it; Middle Tennessee State and North Dakota State want to play in it; ESPN wants to broadcast it; and a few million people want to watch it; why should the federal government, the courts, or the sportswriters of America complain?

The current system is fine. The games -- for the most part -- are fun to watch. Players get a chance to be on a national stage -- for most their only chance to do so.

Even the marching bands have an opportunity to showcase their talents. Their efforts work and their desire are seen by thousands of people. Normally they would not be.

The bowl games are a blast for these kids. It is the only compensation they get.

Leave them alone.

Pro-Iraq-war statements by Clinton and leading Democrats

Also Hans Blix and David Kay about Iraqi WMD's

(Liberals aren't very smart and need to be reminded again and again and again)

1. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Pres. Clinton quoted in the Washington Post 2-4-98

2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton 2-17-1998 Speech at the Pentagon

3. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat ?

Clinton administration Secy of State Madeline Albright Feb 1998

4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Clinton administration Nat. Sec Adviser Sandy Berger Feb 1998

5. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi Dec. 1998 (Currently Speaker of the House)

6. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions ? to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter signed by Sen John Kerry October 1998 ( Kerry was the Democratic Party’s antiwar presidential candidate in 2004)

7. 'Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance . . . the disarmament which was demanded' Report of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as reported by the Washington Post January 27, 2003

8. “Finally, despite damage inflicted by Operation DESERT FOX strikes, Iraq has not forgone its missile and WMD programs and continues to resist the reintroduction of United Nations arms inspectors.”

Feb. 2000 testimony of Gen Anthony Zinni before the US Senate Armed Services Committee (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229az.pdf) :

9. "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. ...I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

David Kay, Director of the Iraq Survey Group testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 2004

Political Science: Liberals Love Scandals Except..

Political Science: Liberals Love Scandals Except..
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

Liberals love scandals. When the institutions they despise, such as religion, capitalism and marriage are racked with scandal they are ecstatic. They cannot contain their joy.

For the past several years there have been many reasons for their rapture.
One by one, the great institutions of this country have been scandalized.

Molestation and infidelity were rampant in religious institutions. There were instances of abuse by Catholic priests. There were unfaithful, adulterous evangelists.

Financial institutions and formerly great manufacturers were led by charlatans and fools into economic turmoil. Wall Street became synonymous not with greed, worse, with incompetency and whining.

Conservative leadership was not spared. Limbaugh was addicted to drugs, Bennett the virtues czar was a gambler losing millions in Las Vegas. Miss California’s proclamation of Christian faith is at odds with her nude photographs.

Everytime the military, the police or anything else that represents or is admired by the bourgeoisie the liberals despise were scandalized they were gleeful.They were delighted that conservative institutions were falling one by one.

Now, however, one of their own institutions is engulfed in a scandal. One that makes the others tame by comparison.

The great bastion of American liberalism is academia. The great bulwark of American liberalism is the mainstream media. The great sacred cow of American liberalism is environmentalism.The mother of all scandals has swallowed up all three.

Several days ago hackers gain access to emails from scientists at the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It is one of the preeminent institutions for global warming research. The emails revealed that the scientists had been, apparently, altering and falsifying information about global warming.

They cooked the books so that studies showed there was global warming when in fact there was not. Moreover they worked with other environmental scientists around the world to do this. They also tried to suppress dissenting opinions and doubts about global warming from appearing in academic and scientific journals.

Simply put, if the evidence presented is true, these environmentalists corrupted the scientific method for their own gain. Academicians, scientists, have breached ethics and morality to fraudulently further the cause of environmentalism.

Yet, the mainstream media, academic organizations and "green" groups act as if it never happened.

The corruption of the three great institutions of the American left; academia, environmentalism and the media have been exposed. Their hypocrisy is blatant.

If Climategate does nothing else it has accomplished this.

More Murdered Cops, Another Paroled Murderer, Another Government Failure

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog

For the past several years I have written extensively about the deadly problem of repeat violent offenders who are let loose from prison by our political representatives or the institutions for which they are responsible.

My articles have been met with approval and, in some instances, were responsible for motivating some action. I received communications from both police officers and parole agents who told me how the system is abused.

When I wrote for the Philadelphia Daily News in February 2006 how Philadelphia's "gun court" sentences 55 percent of those convicted to probation or how two thirds released from pre-trial custody never show for trial, there were expressions of outrage.

When I wrote in the November 2007 Philadelphia Bulletin that cops receive the death penalty while their killers get life sentences, many were similarly indignant.

My piece titled " Who Freed the Cop Killers" for the May 8, 2008 Philadelphia Daily News, spoke of the lenient parole and probation procedures that led to violent offenders being released who in turn killed police officers. This piece was referenced by nationally syndicated columnist Walter Williams. It generated many responses, from those within and outside of law enforcement, questioning why this has been allowed to continue.

"Patterns in Killings of Police Officers Ignored," an article which appeared in the Sept. 25, 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Bulletin, reiterated the abuses of the parole and probation that led to officers (and civilians) being murdered. Soon after this was published, the governor of Pennsylvania ordered a review of parole procedures. It was largely a whitewash.

Yet, these circumstances are not unique to Philadelphia. A murder spree of three Oakland California police officers last March was conducted by a parole violator.

Studies have confirmed this. According to data complied by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ):

"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. "

The amount of crimes these paroled felons were arrested for is staggering. According to the DOJ:

"The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide. "

These offenders wreak havoc and murder not long after being released from prison.

So it comes as no great revelation that this recent mass murderer of police officers in Seattle Washington was, allegedly, by a paroled violent offender, Maurice Clemmons. It may come as a shock that he was paroled by Republican governor and former, as well as possible future, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

It should not.

Huckabee possesses all the characteristics of politicians who are so anxious to redeem the guilty they forget to protect the innocent. He was very ambitious in letting as many out of prison as possible. The Clemmons case is not the first prisoner released by Huckabee who subsequently committed a horrendous crime. He actively promoted the release of a violent offender who went on to kill someone else on at least one other occasion that has been made public.

So this recent case brings to a total of five the number of people killed by violent offenders that Mike Huckabee was responsible for releasing from prison. For his part Huckabee has tried to distance himself from the results of his policies.

Instead, he should heed the words of former counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who said in his public apology to the family members of the victims of the 9-11 attack, "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."

These words should also be emblazoned on the doors of every parole and probation office in the United States.

During the next several months I will be working on a book about the deleterious effect of political correctness in law enforcement. A segment of this book will be written with a distant cousin who is a judge in Italy. The differences in recidivism between the Italy and the U.S. are stark.

I have yet to find a publisher, however, I guarantee that this book will be published - one way or the other. Because the problem of probation and parole - and more importantly the culture that fosters this problem needs to be revealed for all.