I will vote for Rick Perry in the general election if he is the Republican nominee for President.

I will vote for Newt Gingrich in the general election if he is the Republican nominee for President.

I will vote for Mitt Romney in the general election if he is the Republican nominee for President.

I will of course vote for Herman Cain in the general election if he is the Republican nominee for President.

I will even vote for Ron Paul in the general election if he is the Republican nominee for President, unless we have the extremely unlikely scenario where there is a 3rd party candidate that’s more conservative than Ron Paul and also getting more support, like with Doug Hoffman vs Dede Scozzfava.

Can you say the same?

In my opinion, if you can’t, then your opinion of who should be the Republican nominee should be completely ignored. If you’re not willing to support the party nominee, then you shouldn’t be involved in picking the party nominee. That’s the stakes of the game.

Who’s with me?

The Other McCain is reporting that Cesar Conda, Marco Rubio’s senatorial chief of staff who worked for the Mitt Romney 2008 campaign, was a “major force” in pushing for Florida to move up its 2012 Presidential primary to January 31. An earlier primary would shorten the campaign schedule and thus help the better-funded campaigns, of which Romney’s is certainly the best-funded.

This is some serious egg on the face for Marco Rubio if this is true. Rubio was a RedState and Tea Party favorite in 2010, and Romney, well, isn’t. The especially pernicious part of this is if this was done to help Rubio’s chances at being Romney’s VP, as is being rumored.

Yet while the moderate Republican faction in Tallahassee was immediately blamed for the primary date-switch, only insiders knew that a key factor was a push from inside the staff of the Tea Party’s own 2010 hero, Sen. Marco Rubio. GOP sources in Washington and Florida say that Rubio’s senatorial chief of staff, Cesar Conda, has been a major force in persuading Florida Republicans to move their primary to January.

“Cesar used to be with Romney’s campaign,” one informed source explained to me in an interview today, adding: “Conda used his contacts to push the primary to the 31st because they want Romney in.”

Conda’s loyalty to Romney was highlighted in a Politico story by Scott Wong last week: “At least six past and current Rubio Senate aides, including chief of staff Cesar Conda and his deputy, Terry Sullivan, worked for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid, establishing a direct link and a line of communication between the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination and the front-runner in the Republican veepstakes. There’s also a trail of fundraisers, donors and consultants who have overlapping relationships with Rubio and Romney.”

I apologize for the shortness of this diary, but I don’t really need to say any more than this:

It’s 10 years after 9/11, we’ve had no more attacks of any significance, and Osama bin Laden is dead.

We win.

I had a horrible thought tonight. It’s possible for Barack Obama to give the government an extra $2.67 trillion in debt limit space, while doing something that Republicans would not really be able to criticize him for doing.

Namely, breaking the Social Security lockbox and repudiating the IOUs the government wrote to itself.

Obama could say that the lockbox is a myth, that Social Security doesn’t really have a $2T surplus, that in reality that money was spent long ago. Sadly, he’d be right. Obama could announce that he’s repudiating the IOUs in order to free up debt limit space, and thereafter any underfunding of Social Security would be covered by the general fund.

Then Obama would have his debt limit space to get him through past the 2012 election, would annoy a lot of people about Social Security that either aren’t likely to vote for him anyways (old people) or wouldn’t think of voting for a Republican anyways (hard Left). In short, it wouldn’t significantly damage his election chances.

I can’t see Obama being this imaginative and daring, but I could be mistaken.

Or as The Other McCain put it: They Told Me If I Voted For McCain, Minorities Would Be Thrashed And Denied Justice, And They Were Right!

Despite there being video evidence of Kenneth Gladney being beaten viciously by SEIU goons, and the fact that they admitted to beating him up in open court, a jury took only 40 minutes to declare them Not Guilty.

I am beyond disgusted by this. If the political affiliations were reversed, there would be riots in the street and the national media would be setting up camp there.

Gateway Pundit has the whole story, including an interview with Kenneth Gladney, who said afterwards: “I couldn’t beat them; I didn’t have the resources they had. They had all the money in the world and the backing… I’m just an average man.”

I’m tired of people here (and throughout the political spectrum, for that matter) pushing the meme that Republican X “can’t defeat Obama”. So I’m going to go through several candidates and give reasons why each one can defeat Obama:

Mitt Romney can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, Romney gives up the natural Republican edge of hanging ObamaCare around his neck thanks to Massachusetts and RomneyCare. However, that does nothing to alleviate Obama’s other weaknesses. Obama has run the national debt up to an insane degree, and Romney can hammer him on that repeatedly, playing up his own managerial skills to good effect. In addition, Romney has a strong base dating back to 2008 that will do him well. Having already run a national campaign before in 2008 will also do Romney well; it’s no coincidence that most Republicans that won a Presidential election had already run for President previously (Bush Sr., Reagan twice, Nixon).

Tim Pawlenty can defeat Barack Obama.

Pawlenty has taken some problematic positions in the past, like cap and trade, however he’s done his best to distance himself from those; if Obama tries to use those against him, he can take the reasonable position that he’s learned from his mistakes, unlike Obama. Pawlenty’s biggest challenge at this stage is that he’s mostly unknown nationally, so he needs to define himself to the general public before the media and the Democrats do it for him. Having been governor in a blue-purple state means that he should already have at least one state in the bag for him that didn’t go for Republicans in the last three presidential elections, which could be the difference in a close race.

Jon Huntsman can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, he was Obama’s ambassador to China, but he can answer any negative criticisms by pointing out that ambassadorships aren’t political positions, and how he started out as a staff assistant in Reagan’s White House. Huntsman can point out his record of cutting taxes in Utah, and how Obama really hasn’t kept his tax pledge. As with Pawlenty, he’ll need to define himself before the Democrats do.

Sarah Palin can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, Palin doesn’t do very well amongst independents right now. But then again, neither does Obama. Independents that think poorly of both Palin and Obama are likely to not vote at all or vote for some third party, which reduces the election to an exercise in turning out the base. In that situation, you have Palin, who energizes the base better than anyone, against Obama, who has spent the last two and a half years disappointing his base. Republicans have got to like the odds in that situation.

Herman Cain can defeat Barack Obama.

Sure, Cain has never ran a national campaign, and he’s never held any significant political office before– but in an election like this, being an outsider has to be considered an advantage, and it’s not like he doesn’t have any executive experience, having been a CEO that turned a company around. Yes, he will make mistakes, novice mistakes even. But don’t discount the ‘black-on-black’ nature of an Obama vs. Cain race; there will be a significant number of independents that voted for Obama previously that are disappointed with him, and the idea of saying ‘I voted for the first and the second black President’ will appeal to them. Cain also has better rhetorical skills of anyone potentially running (save Palin), and that will work well to fire up the Republican base even more than they already are.

Ron Paul can defeat Barack Obama.

Okay, not all the current field of Republican candidates can defeat Obama. If by some fluke Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination, the media would very quickly destroy him by pulling out issues of the Ron Paul Newsletter that have racist content. The first black president running for re-election against a media-confirmed racist? It would make 1964 look like 2000. The only question would be, would Obama carry all 50 states or not.

So with the exception of Ron Paul, I think any candidate that’s good enough to win the Republican nomination is good enough to defeat Barack Obama. What we should be concerned about is choosing the best candidate, not trying to play strategic games that will only work to our disadvantage. Heck, if it hadn’t been for the financial meltdown, we likely would have dragged John McCain’s sorry carcass across the finish line and into the White House. Let’s worry about getting the best Republican possible to be our standard-bearer in 2012 and retire the ‘unelectable’ myth once and for all.

Rasmussen has released the results of polling Obama vs a list of Republicans for the 2012 election. What do those numbers say? Well, nothing terribly conclusive, but it depends on how you look at them.

First of all, the raw numbers, given with the R number first and Obama second:

Romney: 40-45, Palin: 38-48, Huckabee: 43-43, Gingrich: 37-49, Paul: 34-42, Pawlenty: 35-45, Daniels: 32-45, Cain: 25-43, Barbour: 34-42, Huntsman: 31-42.

Sorting these by the difference gives:

Huckabee 0, Romney -5, Paul & Barbour -8, Palin & Pawlenty -10, Huntsman -11, Gingrich -12, Daniels -13, Cain -18.

What if we look at just the R numbers and sort them?

Huckabee 43, Romney 40, Palin 38, Gingrich 37, Pawlenty 35, Paul and Barbour 34, Daniels 32, Huntsman 31, Cain 25.

These numbers really shouldn’t surprise anyone; they’re roughly sorted by national prominence. What about if we sort by Obama’s numbers?

Gingrich 49, Palin 48, Romney & Pawlenty & Daniels 45, Huckabee & Cain 43, Paul & Barbour & Huntsman 42.

Doesn’t look good for Gingrich and Palin there, but consider that Paul ties for best in this. This ranking also suffers because these candidates were almost all polled against Obama at different times during the month of March. What if we take Obama’s approval numbers during the time of each polling (his approval varied from 49 to 42), and subtract Obama’s approval from Obama’s number against each candidate at the time? Then we get this:

Gingrich +3.5, Palin +2, Huckabee 0, Pawlenty & Daniels & Huntsman -1.5, Romney & Barbour -3, Cain -3.5, Paul -4.

This still doesn’t look good for Gingrich or Palin, but suddenly Huckabee doesn’t look nearly as good as he had been. Romney improves a bit, Cain looks good, but again Paul comes out the best in this comparison, so again we can’t read too much into this.

All of these numbers should of course be taken with a pinch of salt at this point in the campaign (especially since they seem to favor Ron Paul); Rasmussen’s margin of error is +/- 3 points, so about all we can really conclude is that Newt Gingrich matches up worse against Obama than Herman Cain or Ron Paul.

Meghan McCain has learned the hard way that tweets in Las Vegas don’t stay in Las Vegas:

Students at Juniata College got a lesson in dirty, sexy changes in plans.

Best-selling author Meghan McCain canceled her lecture there Friday “for several unforeseen professional responsibilities,” according to her publicist. Instead, the author of “Dirty Sexy Politics,” who is the daughter of Sen. John McCain, partied with her posse in Las Vegas.

“First real time off in months,” she tweeted on Twitter. “Was gonna rest up for phase two of my “Dirty Sexy Politics” book tour but headed to sin city with my favorite crew of sinners instead … Viva Las Vegas, baby.”

Needless to say, this didn’t go over too well with the students of Juniata College:

“Overall, the students are very upset that this happened — kind of like we weren’t good enough for her,” said student body President Travis Raup, 21, a senior from Danville in Montour County.

…

“I feel like we deserve an apology and a better explanation,” Raup said. “The situation would be different if the Twitter posts weren’t so revealing of her real intentions.”

Zach Gordon, 21, a senior from Wilmington, Del., is president of the College Democrats. Some members had planned to attend her talk.

“I understand things come up,” he said, “but a surprise trip to Las Vegas doesn’t sit with me as an adequate reason for ditching your obligation to a commitment.”

No better explanation seems to be forthcoming:

McCain’s agent, Kenny Rahtz, hung up when reached for a comment.

This seems par for the course for the spoiled brat that calls herself Meghan McCain. Why go speak at a small college in Pennsylvania when you can party in Las Vegas instead? If it hadn’t been for Twitter and her own foolishness, she might have gotten away with it.

Important safety tip: tweets in Las Vegas don’t stay in Las Vegas.

I hadn’t even realized that these two share a birthday until I saw them both in the wikipedia entry for July 6. President George W. Bush is 64 today, and First Lady Nancy Reagan is 89. Kudos to them both for their public service to our country, and may they both have many more birthdays to come.

Personally, I was shocked that ABC didn’t find a way to work their narrative into the first paragraph in this story:

The Secret Service is investigating two Twitter users who, apparently angered by the passage of the health care reform bill, took to the Internet Sunday to call for the assassination of President Obama.

“ASSASSINATION! America, we survived the Assassinations and Lincoln & Kennedy. We’ll surely get over a bullet to Barrack Obama’s head,” wrote one Twitter user, who goes by the handle Solly Forell, and identifies himself as a conservative blogger . . .

Do I even need to quote any more of that to show the narrative they’re pushing?

Curiously, both of these idiots are black, so at least they couldn’t really call them racists.

For those of you that hadn’t heard, former VP Dick Cheney is in the hospital after having another mild heart attack.

My idea expressed in the subject is stolen directly from HillBuzz, so I’ll quote them here:

It would be great if you sent Dick Cheney a postcard today, wishing him a speedy recovery, and thanking him for standing up for America and speaking out so much. We’re sure he’d appreciate it. And we know it’s going to surprise him if he ever sees our cards, coming as they are from a bunch of gay guys in Chicago who love and respect this man, whom we’ve only recently come to appreciate.

This country owes Cheney a lot for his service, so while he’s dealing with his latest heart-related ailment, we think he’d get a kick out of it if his staff told him postcards from around the country were pouring in wishing him well.

Really blow his mind and tell him Hillary supporters in Boystown told you to write to him. We think that would make him smile, and after all he’s gone through, he sure could use some smiles.

Oh, and tell him his daughter Liz needs to run for President in 2020 or 2024. Tell him it’s his job now to get her ready to be our second or third female president.

Here’s the address we found for him:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney

4205 West Greens Pl. Wilson WY 83014

I’d ask to see if anyone knew the address of the hospital he’s staying at, but from the article it sounds like he’s going to be released in a day or two anyways.

Thanks for keeping us safe, Dick Cheney, and best wishes.

RS McCain put me onto this story originally. Cynthia Yockey has been leading the charge on this one, I’ll let her explain:

The Daily Kos and Democratic Underground have outed Kevin DuJan as the owner of the blog, Hill Buzz. They are smearing him with the false charge that that he is a racist. They are urging their readers to destroy his career and attack him physically. (I’m not linking them, but you can verify this by Googling. Instead, I suggest you read Hill Buzz here.)

The Right blogosphere should rally to the aid of DuJan and Hill Buzz, as he has tirelessly rallied to ours with dozens of posts teaching Republicans how to campaign effectively and supporting Republicans, including Gov. Sarah Palin and now Sen.-elect Scott Brown. If you are not familiar with Hill Buzz, here is a wonderful sample post — they are observing the first anniversary of Obama’s inauguration with the thank-you letter they wrote to Pres. George W. Bush last year.

…

Hill Buzz is written by a group of gay men in Chicago who began the blog in early 2008 as part of their efforts on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Thanks to experiencing the dirty tricks of the Obama campaign up close and personal during the primaries, as soon as the Democratic nomination was stolen from Hillary, they became supporters of John McCain. They blogged, campaigned, phonebanked and donated money for McCain/Palin with unbounded zeal and passion.

Now Kevin DuJan and Hill Buzz need our support. We MUST push back against FALSE charges of racism because Lefties will use it to destroy innocent people as long as it keeps working. Certainly if we do not hang together on this, we will hang separately.

While HillBuzz was being attacked previously, the attacks didn’t really ramp up until HillBuzz saw how Democrats were trying to cram health care ‘reform’ through Congress on Christmas eve, and decided to do something about it by going all-in to support Scott Brown (or as they call him, “Hottie McAwesome”). I’ll let them explain it in their own words, since (IMHO) they put it so eloquently:

Without getting into the ugly details and specifics, because we’re trying to cling to some semblance of privacy and a personal life here, we were warned two weeks ago to discontinue our support for Republican candidate Scott Brown or suffer consequences for backing him, at the expense of Martha Coakley. We were told, point blank, by Democrats in Chicago that people on the Left had “had enough with (us), and were going to come after (us), in a big way” if we didn’t stop rallying the troops for Scott Brown’s win over Coakley. We were given the ultimatum: either drop our support for Brown and the Left would leave us alone, or continue speaking out on Hottie McAwesome’s behalf and “just see what happens”.

Well, never let it be said that a hot and awesome guy needed help and we just sat there and did nothing, especially not when we felt America itself was at stake with what’s been going on in the Senate lately.

We told you previously that a main reason we aggressively backed Brown for the Senate seat was because of the way Democrats conducted themselves in the week before Christmas. Perhaps it was Christmas itself that really brought the fire out in us, since we were so disgusted Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and the current president were so shameless as to use CHRISTMAS, and the distraction it naturally causes, as cover to ram through an unconstitutional piece of legislation riddled with pork, graft, and corruption that few in this country seem to want. That repulsed us.

We were further sickened by the fact that Demcorats insisted on handling this legislation in the dead of night, behind closed, locked doors, with no cameras in sight, rushing to vote on it at breakneck speed before Christmas Eve.

This is not how legislation this complex and world-changing should be handled. This is not how the United States Senate should operate. Regardless of what you think about healthcare reform, as an American, we don’t know how you could support EITHER party behaving this way with legislation that has such a vast and unprecedented impact on our economy, at a time when so many we know are out of work, and so many Americans’ jobs are hanging by threads. This healthcare bill should have been written in sunlight, after spirited debate not only in the Senate, but in town halls across the country where Americans of all stripes could have come together and, after much thought and consideration, devised a plan that would work for this nation. Something we could afford. Something we could pay for. Something that would not bankrupt us and cross the unconstitutional line of forcing, for the first time in history, citizens to purchase products against their personal will and free choice.

But, that’s not how the 60 Democrats in the Senate chose to conduct themselves.

That’s when all 60 of these people lost our support.

It’s why we started rooting for whomever will oppose them in their next elections.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing; it tells how they were told that if they would just shut up, all these attacks would go away, but they stuck with it. They’ve personally lost jobs and have been falsely smeared as RAAAAACISTS as a result. This group of future ex-Democrats are fighting tooth and nail for the same cause that we are, and they very much deserve our full support.

If what the Liberals are selling is so wonderful, so chock full of unicorns and Hope-and-Changey delicious Kool-Aid, then why do they have to use Alinsky tactics and thuggery to advance their cause?

Why do these people have to behave like villains from books, TV, and movies if they are so enlightened and they really know what’s best for everyone?

They’ve asked for our help, and I think they are well-deserving of all the help we can possibly give them.

Since the above was written, they’ve found out some information about their attackers:

All of the attacks originated, from what we can tell, at a site called StupidPumas.com. We never heard of this site before this weekend, but it appears to be in business for the sole purpose of going after PUMA sites and people like Darragh Murphy and Will Bowers personally. We find it interesting that whoever runs StupidPumas does so anonymously, while simultaneously attacking people like Murphy, Bowers, and ourselves, libeling, defaming, and maligning us, but not stepping into the light and revealing who they are themselves.

We’d appreciate any information you can find revealing exactly who these people at StupidPumas.com are, so that we can begin legal proceedings against them. This site attacked one of us personally, called him a racist, and sought to destroy his livelihood here in Chicago. This site was picked up in a coordinated effort by Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Moveon.org, instanteously, with calls to commit physical violence against us. The Left used StupidPumas to launch its attack, then used the rest of the Leftist sphere to echo and amplify it.

Thanks for reading all this way, and keep these guys in your prayers, for they certainly need all the help they can get.

When I first ran across this story, I couldn’t help but not want either side to win:

A federal court in Philadelphia may make it legal for teens to send naked pictures of each other using cellphones.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will hear arguments today in Philadelphia from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania that would ban a district attorney from prosecuting underage teens involved in “sexting.”

…

On March 30, 2009, U.S. District Judge James Munley granted a temporary restraining order blocking the district attorney, George Skumanick, from bringing the charges, finding that the photographs were not child pornography under Pennsylvania law and were protected under the First Amendment.

The Wyoming County district attorney allegedly said he would charge the three high school girls with child pornography if they didn’t agree to be placed on probation, participate in a five-week re-education program and be subject to random drug testing.

First as an aside, what do random drug tests have to do with pornography? That alone to my mind is an overreach on the prosecutor’s part. But that’s only a side issue.

The problem with charging teens under child pornography laws is that those laws were written before current technology was even dreamed of; they’re intended to protect children by keeping dirty old men from exploiting them in order to make pornography. But charging teens with child pornography isn’t protecting them, it’s punishing them.

At the same time, as much as I support free speech, I cannot get on board with that argument. Child pornography shouldn’t be allowed whether it’s adults using kids to make it or kids making it themselves.

There needs to be something in between these two radical extremes.

It’s looking very likely that google.cn is going to shut down for good. From Google’s blog (bolding added):

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.

…

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

…

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

About time, Google. A leopard does not change its spots, and the government that mercilessly cracked down on its own people in June 1989 has not changed either. It’s a shame that it took Google over four years to realize this, but at least it finally looks like they’ve started to come to the realization that the Chinese government is unalterably opposed to the freedom of its citizens.

Recently I happened across this ridiculous article over at The Register, which had the ominous headline:

Thomas the Tank Engine drives ‘conservative political ideology’

The article begins:

Research by the University of Alberta has chillingly revealed that kids’ TV show Thomas and Friends may be engendering a “conservative political ideology” in future generations – a repressive mindset which “punishes individual initiative, opposes critique and change, and relegates females to supportive roles”.

Shauna Wilton and friends from the uni’s Department of Social Sciences analysed 23 episodes of the programme, and noted that while it “conveys a number of positive political values such as tolerance, listening, communicating with others and contributing to the community”, there is a dark side to Thomas the Tank Engine.

Dark side? Like what?

Wilton claimed that “storylines in several episodes that divided the characters into different social classes and punished those who tried to gain individual power”. She said: “Any change is seen as disrupting the natural order of things.”

Individual power– you know, like every single dictator for the last umpteen thousand years has tried to acquire. Why would we want to discourage people that want to gain power over others for their own purposes, after all? We might just put a dent in the plans of the next budding world conqueror, after all. And heaven forfend that we not worship change for change’s sake; it would be a heresy to say that ‘if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change’.

Furthermore, “of 49 main characters listed in the show, only eight were female, reflecting a general trend among children’s programming”.

I’d love to see her analysis of the Smurfs, which famously had only one female Smurf.

Wilton concluded: “We tend to think of children’s TV shows as neutral and safe, but they still carry messages. Eventually these children will attain full political citizenship, and the opinions and world outlook they develop now, partially influenced by shows like Thomas and Friends, are part of that process.”

In other words, if we don’t start hitting them with liberal propaganda when they’re young, they might not grow up to be teenage radicals that we can mobilize for the liberal cause du jour, wanting change purely for change’s sake without stopping to consider the consequences.

Wilton’s findings, presented earlier this year to the Canadian Political Science Association, will doubtless add to a growing sense of unease among parents following the news that Disney, among others, punts “strictly heterosexual values” to wide-eyed kiddies.

Again, heaven forfend that we not hit the kids with messages that are pro-GLBT before the kids are old enough to even start thinking about sex. That might be conservative, you know.

Strike a blow for the VRWC! Buy your kids Thomas the Tank Engine videos and toys today!

(Disclaimer: I’m not a paid spokesman for anyone or any company. Showing your kids Thomas videos may not have as positive effect in reinforcing conservative values as giving them good solid conservative literature to read.)

I’ve long been frustrated with companies that abuse the legal system and never suffer any consequences for it *cough*RIAA*cough*MPAA*cough*. But today comes the story of a New York City judge in Brooklyn, Noach Dear, who decided to do something about it. Backstory: a Mr. Hoyte was harassed by a collections agency that had the wrong Mr. Hoyte and instead of believing him that he wasn’t that Mr. Hoyte or asking for any written proof that he wasn’t that Mr. Hoyte, they simply sued him anyways:

In front of the judge, the lawyer, T. Andy Wang, announced that the parties had reached a stipulation dismissing this Mr. Hoyte from the suit.

Not so fast, said the judge, Noach Dear.

“Why didn’t you check these things out before you take out a summons and a complaint?” Judge Dear asked. “Why don’t you check out who you’re going after?”

Mr. Wang said that Pressler & Pressler used an online database called AnyWho to hunt for debtors.

“So you just shoot in the dark against names; if there’s 16 Mark Hoytes, you go after without exactly knowing who, what, when and where?” Judge Dear asked.

Mr. Wang replied, “That’s why the plaintiff is making an application to discontinue.”

The judge turned to Mr. Hoyte, who works as a building superintendent, and asked him how much a day of lost pay would cost. Mr. Hoyte said $115.

“Do you think that’s fair?” Judge Dear asked Mr. Wang. “That he should lose a day’s pay?”

“My personal opinion,” Mr. Wang said, “would not be relevant to the application being sought.”

The judge said he was prepared to dismiss the case and wanted Mr. Hoyte compensated for lost wages.

“Your honor,” Mr. Wang said, “I’m personally not willing to compensate him.”

No, the judge said; he meant that the law firm, Pressler & Pressler — one of the biggest in the collection industry — should pay the $115. He would hold a sanctions hearing, a formal process of penalizing the law firm for suing the wrong man.

About time. Companies that abuse the legal system and waste the time of judges and courts should bloody well have to pay for it, one way or another. Judge Dear has taken our legal system one step back towards sanity; as the old Chinese saying goes, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

Figured I’d get this one in a bit earlier this week.

Last week’s scores:

Erick Brockway: 10
Finrod: 9

Bye Week Teams: Dallas, Indianapolis, Miami, San Francisco

Sunday, October 18

Houston at Cincinnati
Detroit at Green Bay
Baltimore at Minnesota
NY Giants at New Orleans
Cleveland at Pittsburgh
Carolina at Tampa Bay
Kansas City at Washington
St. Louis at Jacksonville

Arizona at Seattle
Philadelphia at Oakland
Tennessee at New England
Buffalo at NY Jets

Chicago at Atlanta

Monday, October 19

Denver at San Diego

Last week’s results:

Husker 13
Finrod 11
Erick Brockway 10
Alberta 10

Bye Week: Chicago, Green Bay, New Orleans, San Diego

Sunday, October 11

Cleveland at Buffalo
Pittsburgh at Detroit
Dallas at Kansas City
Minnesota at St. Louis
Oakland at NY Giants
Tampa Bay at Philadelphia
Washington at Carolina
Cincinnati at Baltimore

Atlanta at San Francisco
Jacksonville at Seattle
Houston at Arizona
New England at Denver

Indianapolis at Tennessee

Monday, October 12

NY Jets at Miami

Getting this in at the last minute. We’re on an honor system so go ahead and post your picks even if the games have already started.

Bye week: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Arizona, Carolina

Sunday, October 4

Baltimore at New England
Tampa Bay at Washington
Tennessee at Jacksonville
Oakland at Houston
Detroit at Chicago
Cincinnati at Cleveland
Seattle at Indianapolis
NY Giants at Kansas City

NY Jets at New Orleans
Buffalo at Miami
Dallas at Denver
St. Louis at San Francisco

San Diego at Pittsburgh

Monday, October 5

Green Bay at Minnesota

Since I’m the only person that picked both weeks so far, it’s pretty pointless to post yearly summaries, so I’m not. Last week’s summary:

danasdaddy: 13
Finrod: 6

Week 3 games:

Sunday, September 27th

Washington at Detroit
Green Bay at St. Louis
San Francisco at Minnesota
Atlanta at New England
Tennessee at NY Jets
Kansas City at Philadelphia
NY Giants at Tampa Bay
Cleveland at Baltimore
Jacksonville at Houston

Chicago at Seattle
New Orleans at Buffalo
Pittsburgh at Cincinnati
Denver at Oakland
Miami at San Diego

Indianapolis at Arizona

Monday, September 28

Carolina at Dallas