tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40160622024-03-08T19:18:42.639-05:00Lies, Damn Lies, and StatisticsPossibly the last non-group blog in the wildDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comBlogger1137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1091370979888402002004-08-01T10:31:00.000-04:002004-08-01T10:36:19.886-04:00Rather hopefully, I looked at this morning's <i>Washington Post</i> and saw <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30619-2004Jul31.html">this article</a>, which is headlined "Accord Reached On Global Trade," in reference to the Doha Round of the WTO talks.
<br />
<br />I was hopeful, until I read down to the middle of the second paragraph, and found that "...representatives of the WTO's 147 member nations agreed on a framework setting the parameters for completing the Doha Round of negotiations."
<br />
<br />It's too bad that they couldn't quite agree on a framework for setting the parameters of agreeing on a framework for setting the parameters of the Doha Round of negotiations. Then they might have been making some real progress, after all.
<br />Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1090896321613757872004-07-26T22:44:00.000-04:002004-07-26T22:45:21.613-04:00Bill Clinton, on the other hand sounds great.
<br />
<br />Damn term limits.
<br />Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1090896005863102242004-07-26T22:38:00.000-04:002004-07-26T22:40:05.863-04:00I just caught the end of Hillary Clinton's speech at the convo (still, very, very busy with work stuff).
<br />
<br />Uh, the last few minutes were not particularly impressive. Not that there was anything wrong with it, just that it sounded like a State of the Union speech, listing 'we need to do X better, we need to do Y better, and we need to do Z better,' rather than actually saying specifically why nor how the Democrats would do things better. Not bad, but not what it could've been.
<br />Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1089938303711885532004-07-15T20:37:00.000-04:002004-07-15T20:38:23.710-04:00Serious internet problems, combined with being extremely busy at work.
<br />Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1089126169538751132004-07-06T11:02:00.000-04:002004-07-06T11:02:49.566-04:00Yet another <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/arts/06WHIT.html">sign o' the apocalypse</a>:
<br />
<br />"We're going to make this election the hottest, most sexiest thing ever." - Sean "P. Diddy" CombsDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1089126077851682252004-07-06T10:59:00.000-04:002004-07-06T11:27:15.316-04:00I can't seem to find it anywhere on the website, but I have a copy of today's <i>New York Post</i>.
<br />
<br />The banner headline reads:
<br />
<br />"KERRY'S CHOICE: Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate"
<br />
<br />Er, so much for that one. Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1089118026695062862004-07-06T08:42:00.000-04:002004-07-06T08:47:06.696-04:00<strong>Oh, Thank God it's not Gephardt</strong>
<br />
<br />John Kerry <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/kerry.vp/index.html">has chosen John Edwards</a> to be his running mate.
<br />
<br />The announcement e-mail:
<br />
<br />Dear Friend,
<br />
<br />In just a few minutes, I will announce that Senator John Edwards will join me as my running-mate on the Democratic ticket as a candidate for vice president of the United States. Teresa and I could not be more excited that John and Elizabeth Edwards will be our partners in our journey to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.
<br />
<br />You are the heart and soul of our campaign. You've shattered records and expectations every step of the way. Every time someone said you couldn't do it, you proved them wrong. Because of your incredible grassroots energy and commitment, I wanted to make the first official announcement of my decision to you -- more than one million online supporters at johnkerry.com.
<br />
<br />I want you to know why I'm excited about running for president with John Edwards by my side. John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class. In the Senate, he worked to reform our intelligence, to combat bioterrorism, and keep our military strong. John reaches across party lines and speaks to the heart of America -- hope and optimism. Throughout his own campaign for President, John spoke about the great divide in this country -- the "Two Americas" -- that exist between those who are doing well today and those that are struggling to make it from day to day. And I am so proud that we're going to build one America together.
<br />
<br />In the next 120 days and in the administration that follows, John Edwards and I will be fighting for the America we love. We'll be fighting to give the middle class a voice by providing good paying jobs and affordable health care. We'll be fighting to make America energy independent. We'll be fighting to build a strong military and lead strong alliances, so young Americans are never put in harm's way because we insisted on going it alone.
<br />
<br />I can't tell you how proud I am to have John Edwards on my team, or how eager I am for the day this fall when he stands up for our vision and goes toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney.
<br />
<br />This is the most important election of our lifetime, and a defining moment in our history. With you by our side every day of this campaign, John and I will lead the most spirited presidential campaign America has ever seen and fight to lead our nation in a new and better direction.
<br />
<br />Thank you,
<br />
<br />John KerryDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1089077265813318952004-07-05T21:12:00.000-04:002004-07-05T21:27:45.813-04:00Scouring <a href="http://http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/05/kerry.vp/index.html">the scuttlebutt about the VP nod</a>, a couple of quick thoughts come to mind:
<br />
<br />1. Dear God, not Gephardt.
<br />
<br />I'm not strongly inclined to find myself fawning over any of the other potential candidates often named - Edwards may be too inexperienced, Vilsack has an Al Gore-like lack of charisma, Wes Clark doesn't seem to come across well on the stump, and Bob Graham ... well, there's the diary thing, for one. That said, I can't understand what the hell there is to like about Gephardt. Basically, the man has proven over and over again that he's capable of winning a politically moderate district in Missouri, and not capable of winning anything else.
<br />
<br />Gephardt probably would swing Missouri over to the Dems. Elsewhere in the Rust Belt, his draw isn't as strong, however. Michigan is likely to swing Democratic, as is Illinois, while Indiana will go Republican barring a landslide, and Pennsylvania, while more competitive, leans Dem - which leaves Ohio and Wisconsin, neither of which seems like Gep's stomping grounds.
<br />
<br />The man has zero charisma, and a mile-long voting record which seems certain to provide plenty of fodder for the Repubs.
<br />
<br />Which basically leaves us back at Edwards. Who, OK, is a bit inexperienced and has the trial lawyer tag. He, however, is a proven strong fundraiser and campaigner who truly excites the base. Realistically, to provide a real bounce, it has to either be him or someone whose name isn't being tossed around among the majors. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Rep, would seem to be the perfect cross between Gephardt - strong with the unions and the anti-free trade factions - and Edwards - still fairly young (though not quite as young-looking), and charismatic enough. Plus, he's probably the one Dem in Ohio who still has enough statewide name recognition and popularity to swing the state Democratic if he's on the ticket. There are plenty of other strong possibilities as well who aren't being considered too strongly - Gary Locke, Bill Nelson and maybe even Jim Jeffords.
<br />
<br />The vaunted ABC report last night that said that Kerry met with a possible running mate - probably Gephardt - last week at Madeleine Albright's house, of course, left out the possibility that Kerry might've just been meeting with Albright. Which would make for a rather interesting legal challenge, in all likelihood, since Albright is ineligible to run for the Presidency (she was born in Czechoslovakia) and might therefore be ineligible for the Vice-Presidency. She'd make one helluva candidate, certainly, and it would make the Republicans look anti-immigrant to challenge her. But it would seem rather unlikely, given that it might well not hold up.
<br />
<br />The other thought I find myself having is that it's probably beneficial to get Kerry more positive airtime for a few more days by dragging this thing out. After all, it is still fairly early by historical standards - the vice presidential nominee usually isn't announced until the week before the convention, which is still three weeks away. Just as the Democratic jostling during the primaries focused attention on them and their opposition to Bush, bringing the President downward, the current focus would seem to once again put some positive light on Kerry. Of course, Bush has been doing a pretty good job of bringing his own poll numbers down for a few weeks now, but Kerry has to step forward sooner or later. Then again, if this thing drags on for too long, it risks making Kerry look indecisive. A few more days, maybe even a full week, though, might well help.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1088733916031674832004-07-01T21:58:00.000-04:002004-07-01T22:05:16.033-04:00I've been doing a lot of driving lately, and a lot of parking in parking spots with relatively small spots. And, driving the cars of various relatives and friends to get things done, I haven't been driving an SUV (in other words, it's not a choice of my own). The largest car that I've been driving is a station wagon.
<br />
<br />And I'm damned fed up with having to park next to SUVs and minivans, and having a hell of a time pulling out of the spots, being unable to see if anything's coming or not. (this is a problem that tends to be worsened by the fact that many larger cars have darkened windows).
<br />
<br />So, I put forward the following idea:
<br />
<br />Separate parking lots. One for sedans, hatchbacks, sports cars and station wagons. And a separate parking lot for SUVs and minivans, ideally with slightly larger spaces. One would think that this would make things a lot easier, with the larger cars being able to see around each other, and the smaller cars being able to maneuver around each other. Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1088733497872779502004-07-01T21:57:00.000-04:002004-07-01T21:58:17.873-04:00Er, I was just flipping channels, and I swore I just saw an advertisement for an upcoming talk show on CNBC to be hosted by John McEnroe.
<br />
<br />This has gotta be one of the signs of the apocalypse.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1088567722955961642004-06-29T23:33:00.000-04:002004-06-29T23:58:45.630-04:00<b>Indulging in a little Canuck-o-philia</b>
<br />
<br />Looking at <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/06/29/canada.election/index.html">the results</a> from yesterday's general election in Canada, a few things are obvious.
<br />
<br />1. Paul Martin got punished for a variety of things. Part of this was his divisive struggle to take over the party, but a large part was the advertising scandal in Quebec inherited from Chretien.
<br />
<br />2. The minority government probably isn't likely to last too long. With a bare majority in hand when combined with the NDP, the government might hang on for a little while, but anything longer than two years seems rather unlikely.
<br />
<br />Less obvious, however, is the fact that the Conservatives didn't gain too much out of this. They clearly took on the Liberals at the latter's nadir, barring something spectacularly stupid (see McGuinty, Dalton, for ideas). They managed to pull in 99 seats, which looks like a rather impressive gain over the 72 they finished the last parliament with. What it ignores, however, is that the Parliament increased by seven seats due to (strictly non-partisan) redistricting. More importantly, the Tories didn't really finish with 72 - another 10 right-wing-leaning former members of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance refused to join the merged party. So the increase of 27 seats is something closer to half as large, in reality. Which looks a lot more impressive. Stephen Harper may be a fine politician, but the Tories will never get close to winning with the likes of Stockwell Day - who scares the bejeezus out of a large segment of the population - likely to take over a major Cabinet post after the voting.
<br />
<br />Indeed, about two-thirds of the seats lost by the Liberals were lost in Quebec, where they took a beating to the Bloc Quebecois. In no small part this was due to the sponsorship scandal, a one-off move. Still, it hurts nonetheless. And it will make governing a lot harder. A 55-seat Bloc is going to be a lot harder to deal with than a 32-seat Bloc. About the best thing that can be said is that at leas they're not the official opposition again.
<br />
<br />The results are likely to push the country towards using proportional representation voting over the first-past-the-post system that has been used since independence in 1867. The NDP is likely to push for the institution of the system as a condition of its support for major legislation. Proportional representation would have nearly doubled their number of seats in parliament (if a national list were used, which probably won't occur). The number of Liberal, Tory and Bloc seats would have been slightly cut in return. The Greens probably would've picked up a few seats, depending on the threshold. The Liberals aren't likely to be terribly opposed to the change, since they can no longer play off of a divided conservative opposition. The result of instituting PR voting would pretty much be to replace a long-term Liberal hold on 24 Sussex with long-term hold of a Liberal-NDP coalition (presumably, it would shift more towards a coalition system rather than the usual use of minority governments, though this is not certain).
<br />
<br />On one hand, I can't say I have a strong feeling on favoring one system over the other. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. FPTP voting distorts the voting results far more - as is regularly cited, Margaret Thatcher never won a popular majority, but won three large majorities in Parliament. On the other hand, PR voting can cause real problems if the entry threshold is set too high - see Turkey, where the 10% threshold in the election meant that only two parties, together not garnering anywhere near half of the votes, entered parliament - or too low - see Israel, where there are normally dozens of parties in the Knesset, producing a spectacularly chaotic and unwieldy form of government.
<br />
<br />On the other hand, I can say that I feel profoundly uneasy about the idea of getting rid of a voting system, a rather fundamental cog in the Rube Goldberg machine that is democracy - that has worked quite adequately over the past 137 years in favor of a new one just because it is politically favorable for the near future. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if it is broken but working, it might not be best to start swinging a monkey wrench at the thing.
<br />
<br />(bad, bad metaphor ... ugh)Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1087876035675125252004-06-21T23:40:00.000-04:002004-06-21T23:47:15.676-04:00John Rowland <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/21/rowland.profile.ap/index.html">has resigned</a>.
<br />
<br />Look, some of the charges laid against him were clearly not reason to remove him - I mean, whether the man was taking the spare change from a poker game is not exactly a high crime.
<br />
<br />Nor do I think it's a great idea to try and add up a bunch of small misdeeds into one big charge and lay it at the feet of the official, as is often done.
<br />
<br />On the other hand, Rowland had clearly committed a number of serious infractions of the law, in accepting cut-rate and free contracting work from politically-connected individuals, and in selling a Washington apartment at well above-market prices from a another friend. And such apparent influence trading is clearly unacceptable, and more than reason enough for his removal.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1087875519867760482004-06-21T23:34:00.000-04:002004-06-21T23:39:26.960-04:00Er ... don't look now ...
<br />
<br />But, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/21/ryan.divorce.ap/index.html">divorce papers</a> indicate that the Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois apparently pressured his now ex-wife to perform a sex act on him in a public place on multiple occasions.
<br />
<br />OK, so he was already trailing in the polls. And it's probably wildly inappropriate for me to be taking any pleasure in this. Then again, with the conservative punditry looking at Bill Clinton's <i><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375414576/liesdamnliesa-20">My Life</A></i> as an excuse to dredge up old sex scandals, I'll have to take what I can get as this trickles out into the mainstream media.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1087591828576900482004-06-18T16:49:00.000-04:002004-06-18T16:50:33.183-04:00I haven't been here much lately, having been rather pre-occupied with other things - most notably with moving my stuff across a few states and trying to get things in order before I start work in a few weeks. Something resembling more regular posting should return at the beginning of next week, more or less.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1087591726971667342004-06-18T16:42:00.000-04:002004-06-18T16:48:46.970-04:00Looking at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18abus.html">Rumsfeld's admission</a> that he signed off on a plan to keep an prisoner in Iraq unregistered and thus keep the Red Cross from accessing him - apparently in violation of international law - I find myself struck by the lack of an outcry calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense by the Democratic leadership, John Kerry, and just about anyone else with any real standing.
<br />
<br />I suppose that, to a certain extent, this is just the result of fatigue with the willingness of members of the Bush administration to violate the legal codes that they are sworn to protect whenever it seems expedient.
<br />
<br />I suppose, what I'd ideally like to see, is a Democratic member of the House or Senate descend onto the floor and quote from Cromwell's speech dismissing the Long Parliament:
<br />
<br />"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
<br />
<br />Then again, it probably ain't gonna happen. Dramatic moments in American politics are all too few, it seems.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086813738629613002004-06-09T16:42:00.000-04:002004-06-10T12:43:45.136-04:00Also, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/middleeast/09KURD.html?hp">this</a> article, explaining that the Kurds are thinking of pulling out of the Iraqi constitution process out of a fear that the Shiites might limit their veto power is entirely frightening when you think about the possible consequences.
<br />
<br />UPDATE: Er, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10KURD.html">crisis apparently averted</a>.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086813730699188092004-06-09T16:40:00.000-04:002004-06-09T16:42:10.700-04:00Ashcroft is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html">refusing to release</a> the 2002 White House memo justifying torture. Er, how is he able to justify refusing to release the memo to Congress, and is there some FOIA-esque way of forcing it out?Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086813580850075202004-06-09T16:33:00.000-04:002004-06-09T16:39:40.850-04:00Robert Samuelson <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26544-2004Jun8.html">notes that</a> Ronald Reagan's (wait, didn't I say I wouldn't be writing about him ... er, oh well) popularity was in large part a result of the taming of high inflation during his time in office.
<br />
<br />The problem, as Samuelson finally notes in the ninth paragraph, is that most, if not all, of the credit belongs to Paul Volcker, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 (he was, incidentally, appointed by President Carter). Volcker's high interest rates were the primary culprit in bringing down high inflation rates (Volcker, incidentally, also deserves much of the credit for the early 1980's recession as well), beginning in the months before Reagan actually took office. Reagan's tax cuts did also play a role, but the deflationary impulse of the cuts was somewhat limited by the inflationary impulse of the resulting limited expansion (a good chunk of the tax cuts were rolled back in any eventuality later in Reagan's term when it became clear that such heavy borrowing was unsustainable - not that the remaining high borrowing was sustainable either, playing a large role in the first Bush recession.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086754340838194712004-06-09T00:11:00.000-04:002004-06-09T00:13:17.540-04:00<strong>More pointless sports questions</strong>:
<br />
<br />Doesn't it kinda <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/transactions?date=20040608">undermine the point </a>of the 15-day disabled list when a team (the Toronto Blue Jays) are allowed to put a player (Carlos Delgado) on the 15-day DL, retroactive by 10 days?
<br />
<br />(the rule is that a player may be placed on the DL retroactive to the day after the last time he played ... but there doesn't seem to be any limit to the retroactivityness)Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086722371162798662004-06-08T15:19:00.000-04:002004-06-08T15:19:31.163-04:00The good news:
<br />
<br />Only two weeks until Bill Clinton's <i><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375414576/liesdamnliesa-20">My Life</A></i> comes out.
<br />
<br />The better news:
<br />
<br />By then, the NBA playoffs will be over, and I won't have to listen to that damn Black Eyed Peas song during the ABC promos over and over and over again.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086722304384125192004-06-08T15:12:00.000-04:002004-06-08T15:20:44.553-04:00The good news:
<br />
<br />Colorado Republicans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08colorado.html">have lost in their effort</a> to enact a mid-decade redistricting that would have remapped Congressional districts in favor of the Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the State Supreme Court's decision barring the intervention.
<br />
<br />The bad news:
<br />
<br />The ruling was based on the Colorado state constitution rather than the U.S. constitution.
<br />
<br />This country really needs non-partisan redistricting. Really.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086721791947624142004-06-08T14:58:00.000-04:002004-06-08T15:09:51.946-04:00There's going to be a backlash, I would suspect, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/international/asia/08KORE.html">against the plans announced today</a> to pull a third of the American troops (12,500 out of the 37,000 total) out of South Korea. One would think that such anger might come both from hawkish types and from Democrats looking to score a few points against the failure of Bush's policies on North Korea.
<br />
<br />And there are plenty of failings there. This isn't one of them, though.
<br />
<br />The American force in South Korea is famously referred to as a 'tripwire.' Which it pretty much is at this point.
<br />
<br />The American force is already pretty small, particularly in comparison with the South Korean force. The South Korean armed forces have about 2/3 as many soldiers as the North Koreans - but South Korea is much, much better armed than North Korea. Indeed, should fighting break out, the South Koreans would actually be doing the bulk of the fighting, particularly on the ground. The Americans would probably still be called upon to help in the air and sea, but each of these could just as easily be coordinated from Okinawa nowadays.*
<br />
<br />The American forces have been pulled back from forward areas and the Seoul metropolitan area in recent years (this was, in part, due to Korean outrage at misbehavior by American soldiers and a road accident during joint military exercizes). Thus, most of the American soldiers still in the country are now farther south, and not in harm's way. Only a very small part of the DMZ, indeed, is still patrolled by American soldiers rather than their South Korean counterparts.
<br />
<br />Basically, these soldiers aren't really needed in the Korean peninsula right now. Moreover, given the lack of popularity of the American soldiers in Korea right now, the pullback could probably actually help relations between the American and South Korean governments - though the conservative opposition won't like it - particularly at a time when the U.S. is trying to get the South Koreans to send troops to Iraq.
<br />
<br />*Of course, there are questions as to how long the Okinawa base will be around, for that matter.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086720755000439322004-06-08T14:46:00.000-04:002004-06-08T14:52:35.000-04:00I've been wondering about something lately -
<br />
<br />Who might win the Stanley Cup next year.
<br />
<br />Of course, this season <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/recap?gameId=240607020">just ended</a>. And the NHL is pretty damn likely to either go on strike or get locked out next year, and the possibility of there being no season whatsoever next year is a distinct possibility.
<br />
<br />The thing is, though, that Lord Stanley's Cup actually predates the NHL. For the first few decades, it was awarded in open competition between amateur and professional teams, more similar to the FA Cup in British football (soccer) than anything in American sport (Lord Stanley was, after all, British). For a little more than a decade in the 1910's and 1920's, it was awarded through a competition between the champions of a couple of professional leagues. All but the NHL went out of busines over time, and the cup ended up getting awarded to the NHL champion.
<br />
<br />So, of course, I'm left to wonder if there's some provision in Lord Stanley's trust - or any other body that has control of the cup above that of the NHL - that would decide if the cup can be awarded to some other champion next year. I dunno if minor league hockey teams, university teams, amateur teams, or anyone else can compete. It sure is one hell of a question mark, though.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086632062541587162004-06-07T14:12:00.000-04:002004-06-07T14:14:22.543-04:00<a href="http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_06_06_atrios_archive.html#108661877957287320">This</a> (with the usual, if true, caveat), is extremely disturbing, and just one more reason to vote for John Kerry in November.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4016062.post-1086631208665237132004-06-07T13:57:00.000-04:002004-06-07T14:00:08.666-04:00I'm seeming to have some problems viewing this site with a rather old version of Netscape, mostly in the sidebar (and particularly with anything that was italicized). Can someone please confirm if this is just my computer, or a broader problem that I need to figure out how to fix?
<br />
<br />Thanks.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12165978490765219198noreply@blogger.com