The Onion — Men Explain Why They Could Outscore Caitlin Clark
- By Adam Jacobi
- The Press Box
- 0 Replies
A little bit of levity while we're waiting for the action to begin.
www.theonion.com
(You gotta click through the slideshow — a bit embarrassed at how long it took me to figure that out — but there's some true gems.)
Men Explain Why They Could Outscore Caitlin Clark
After the Iowa star became the all-time Division 1 scoring leader with 3,900 points this year, The Onion interviewed men who explained why they could outscore Caitlin Clark.
www.theonion.com
(You gotta click through the slideshow — a bit embarrassed at how long it took me to figure that out — but there's some true gems.)
Lajames Bron son, Brony, going through portal
- By Colonoscopy
- Off Topic
- 19 Replies
Interesting they blame it all on his cardiac arrest.
www.espn.com
Taking his talents: Bronny to enter draft, portal
Bronny James will enter the NBA draft as well as the transfer portal. The USC freshman and son of LeBron James averaged 4.8 points, 2.8 rebounds and 2.1 assists.
Karl Rove goes nuclear on Trump (and gives Biden campaign advice)
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 5 Replies
As the presidential campaign ramps up, Donald Trump’s strategy is to embrace the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, pledging to pardon all of them — including those convicted of the most violent crimes against Capitol police — on “the first day we get into office.”
Trump has opened his rallies with a recording of the national anthem sung by insurrectionists from their jail cells, and has posed with those who have been charged and convicted in connection with the attack.
As announcer asks the crowd to please rise “for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages,” and after the anthem, Trump often refers to them as “unbelievable patriots.”
It’s enough to offend even Karl Rove, a Republican campaign strategist and kingmaker. He ripped Trump, offered President Joe Biden advice on how to beat him, and hinted that even he would join the ranks of long-time Republicans who likely will vote for Biden in November.
“If [the Democrats] were smart, they take January 6 and go hard at it,” Rove said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ari Melber. “And they would say, ‘He wants to pardon these people who attacked our Capitol.’ I worked in that building as a young man. To me, the Congress of the United States is one of the great examples of the strength of our democracy and a jewel of the Constitution, and what those people did when they violently attacked the capitol in order to stop a constitutionally mandated meeting of the Congress to accept the results of the Electoral College is a stain on our history. And every one of those sons of bitches who did that, we ought to find them, try them and send them to jail.
“One of the critical mistakes made in this campaign is that Donald Trump has now said, ‘I’m going to pardon those people because they’re hostages.’ No, they’re not. They’re thugs. There were people who had automatic weapons in a hotel in Virginia, hoping to be able to be called up. We had people saying, ‘Where’s Nancy Pelosi?’ We had people who were … sitting at the desk of the Speaker of the House and attempting to find people in order to bring them to justice.
“[They were] yelling [to kill police] ... ‘Kill them! Kill them all!’ And so, what Trump has done this is beyond me. ... Now he’s appearing in a video with people who assaulted police officers with an intent to take the Capitol by force,” Rove added.
“Look, I’m a Republican, I don’t want to have a Democrat president. I want to have a Republican president, but we’re facing as a country that decision and everybody has to make it as to what kind of leadership we’re going to have.
“And to me, it’s is a mistake on the part of the Trump campaign to allow the President’s impulses to identify himself with the people who assaulted the Capitol rather than people who stand for law and order.”
Trump is facing a four-count federal indictment over Jan. 6 — charges he conspired to defraud Americans over his 2020 election defeat and obstructed the official proceeding in Congress to certify the vote for Biden. As the Supreme Court considers Trump’s claim that he should be immune from prosecution, it’s unclear when the case will go to trial, raising the possibility it might not be resolved until after the election.
Rove, 72, quarterbacked both winning presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, along with many other Congressional races, is considered one of the GOP’s iconic political strategists and advisors. He served in as Deputy Chief of Staff and advisor during the Bush administration.
www.nj.com
Trump has opened his rallies with a recording of the national anthem sung by insurrectionists from their jail cells, and has posed with those who have been charged and convicted in connection with the attack.
As announcer asks the crowd to please rise “for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages,” and after the anthem, Trump often refers to them as “unbelievable patriots.”
It’s enough to offend even Karl Rove, a Republican campaign strategist and kingmaker. He ripped Trump, offered President Joe Biden advice on how to beat him, and hinted that even he would join the ranks of long-time Republicans who likely will vote for Biden in November.
“If [the Democrats] were smart, they take January 6 and go hard at it,” Rove said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ari Melber. “And they would say, ‘He wants to pardon these people who attacked our Capitol.’ I worked in that building as a young man. To me, the Congress of the United States is one of the great examples of the strength of our democracy and a jewel of the Constitution, and what those people did when they violently attacked the capitol in order to stop a constitutionally mandated meeting of the Congress to accept the results of the Electoral College is a stain on our history. And every one of those sons of bitches who did that, we ought to find them, try them and send them to jail.
“One of the critical mistakes made in this campaign is that Donald Trump has now said, ‘I’m going to pardon those people because they’re hostages.’ No, they’re not. They’re thugs. There were people who had automatic weapons in a hotel in Virginia, hoping to be able to be called up. We had people saying, ‘Where’s Nancy Pelosi?’ We had people who were … sitting at the desk of the Speaker of the House and attempting to find people in order to bring them to justice.
“[They were] yelling [to kill police] ... ‘Kill them! Kill them all!’ And so, what Trump has done this is beyond me. ... Now he’s appearing in a video with people who assaulted police officers with an intent to take the Capitol by force,” Rove added.
“Look, I’m a Republican, I don’t want to have a Democrat president. I want to have a Republican president, but we’re facing as a country that decision and everybody has to make it as to what kind of leadership we’re going to have.
“And to me, it’s is a mistake on the part of the Trump campaign to allow the President’s impulses to identify himself with the people who assaulted the Capitol rather than people who stand for law and order.”
Trump is facing a four-count federal indictment over Jan. 6 — charges he conspired to defraud Americans over his 2020 election defeat and obstructed the official proceeding in Congress to certify the vote for Biden. As the Supreme Court considers Trump’s claim that he should be immune from prosecution, it’s unclear when the case will go to trial, raising the possibility it might not be resolved until after the election.
Rove, 72, quarterbacked both winning presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, along with many other Congressional races, is considered one of the GOP’s iconic political strategists and advisors. He served in as Deputy Chief of Staff and advisor during the Bush administration.
Staunchest Republican of all goes nuclear on Trump (and gives Biden campaign advice)
Go at Jan. 6, he says
Legislative proposal would give Iowa governor more power over judicial selection
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 6 Replies
Senate Republican lawmakers revived an effort that would give the governor more power in the process of selecting Iowa district court judges.
The measure was included in a budget bill advanced by a Senate panel Thursday that also includes a modest pay raise for judges and changes to the Judicial Retirement System.
Senate Study Bill 3203 would remove the most senior judge in the district from the judicial nominating commission. Instead, the governor would be allowed to appoint an additional member. With the addition, the governor would be able to appoint six — or a majority — of the members to each judicial nominating commission.
Caitlin Jarzen with the Iowa Judicial Branch emphasized the importance of judges involved in the nominating process to ensure appropriate candidates are selected. She noted this concept is consistent with the other professional licensing or disciplinary boards in the state.
“We've stated before that the most senior judge does not need to be the judge to serve on the commission, but we would like a judge to serve on the commission,” Jarzen said. “... We think judges know best what it takes to be a judge, and certainly appreciate the opinion of the attorneys on the commission ... but we think a judge is essential to selecting qualified applicants.”
Each commission currently has 11 members: five appointed by the governor, five elected by resident lawyers of the district, and one district court judge — the longest-serving in the district. As it stands, district judicial nominating commissions are chaired by senior district court judges. The proposed legislation would instead have commissioners elect a chairperson from their own number.
District judicial nominating commissions are responsible for screening applicants and selecting nominees for district court judicial vacancies. Nominating commissions provide the governor with a slate of two nominees from which to make an appointment to the district court.
Each of Iowa's 14 judicial districts has an 11-member nominating commission, and there is a separate commission of 17 members at the state level for nominations to the Iowa Supreme Court and state appeals court.
Gov. Kim Reynolds and Republican state legislators have called for changes to district judicial nominating commissions after a northern Iowa judge was found to have acted improperly during the process of recommending new judges for gubernatorial appointment.
Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to change the system because of court rulings they disagreed with on abortion and other issues.
Reynolds vetoed a similar proposal in 2022 that would have had commissioners elect their chair, but with the senior judge still serving on the panel.
The governor, in a letter to the Iowa Secretary of State that accompanied her veto, wrote the proposal “does not resolve these serious concerns about the undue influence of judges on district court commissions. And I am unconvinced that (the proposal) would lead to any meaningful change.”
Reynolds added: “Judges would remain as members on each commission and would likely continue to be elected to serve as chair. Any other result would create an uncomfortable dynamic for all other commissioners — especially the elected lawyers who regularly practice in front of that judge and have a reasonable interest in fostering that relationship.”
Representatives for Iowa’s judicial branch, various attorneys groups, the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO and Iowa Judges Association spoke in opposition to the proposed measure. They worried the change could negatively impact the quality of judges appointed and hinder recruitment and retention amid dwindling numbers of individuals applying to be judges.
Doug Struyk, a lobbyist representing the Iowa State Bar Association, said judges provide valuable insights into applicants' temperament and demeanor and how they practice law.
Sen. Julian Garrett, a Republican from Indianola who serves as chair of the Iowa Senate’s judicial budget committee, expressed frustration with judges interpreting Iowa law.
“It is desirable to select judges who will follow the law as written rather than bringing up their own opinions, which we have seen in the past. I guess that's my concern,” Garrett said. “In my opinion, by doing this we will probably get judges who are more likely to follow the law as written. That's my opinion.”
Garrett noted lawmakers in 2019 changed Iowa’s decades-old judicial nominating system by giving the governor more control over the state commission that interviews and selects nominees for appointment to the Iowa Supreme Court and the Iowa Court of Appeals.
www.thegazette.com
The measure was included in a budget bill advanced by a Senate panel Thursday that also includes a modest pay raise for judges and changes to the Judicial Retirement System.
Senate Study Bill 3203 would remove the most senior judge in the district from the judicial nominating commission. Instead, the governor would be allowed to appoint an additional member. With the addition, the governor would be able to appoint six — or a majority — of the members to each judicial nominating commission.
Caitlin Jarzen with the Iowa Judicial Branch emphasized the importance of judges involved in the nominating process to ensure appropriate candidates are selected. She noted this concept is consistent with the other professional licensing or disciplinary boards in the state.
“We've stated before that the most senior judge does not need to be the judge to serve on the commission, but we would like a judge to serve on the commission,” Jarzen said. “... We think judges know best what it takes to be a judge, and certainly appreciate the opinion of the attorneys on the commission ... but we think a judge is essential to selecting qualified applicants.”
How are judges selected?
Each commission currently has 11 members: five appointed by the governor, five elected by resident lawyers of the district, and one district court judge — the longest-serving in the district. As it stands, district judicial nominating commissions are chaired by senior district court judges. The proposed legislation would instead have commissioners elect a chairperson from their own number.
District judicial nominating commissions are responsible for screening applicants and selecting nominees for district court judicial vacancies. Nominating commissions provide the governor with a slate of two nominees from which to make an appointment to the district court.
Each of Iowa's 14 judicial districts has an 11-member nominating commission, and there is a separate commission of 17 members at the state level for nominations to the Iowa Supreme Court and state appeals court.
Gov. Kim Reynolds and Republican state legislators have called for changes to district judicial nominating commissions after a northern Iowa judge was found to have acted improperly during the process of recommending new judges for gubernatorial appointment.
Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to change the system because of court rulings they disagreed with on abortion and other issues.
Reynolds vetoed a similar proposal in 2022 that would have had commissioners elect their chair, but with the senior judge still serving on the panel.
The governor, in a letter to the Iowa Secretary of State that accompanied her veto, wrote the proposal “does not resolve these serious concerns about the undue influence of judges on district court commissions. And I am unconvinced that (the proposal) would lead to any meaningful change.”
Reynolds added: “Judges would remain as members on each commission and would likely continue to be elected to serve as chair. Any other result would create an uncomfortable dynamic for all other commissioners — especially the elected lawyers who regularly practice in front of that judge and have a reasonable interest in fostering that relationship.”
Lawyers, judges voice opposition
Representatives for Iowa’s judicial branch, various attorneys groups, the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO and Iowa Judges Association spoke in opposition to the proposed measure. They worried the change could negatively impact the quality of judges appointed and hinder recruitment and retention amid dwindling numbers of individuals applying to be judges.
Doug Struyk, a lobbyist representing the Iowa State Bar Association, said judges provide valuable insights into applicants' temperament and demeanor and how they practice law.
Sen. Julian Garrett, a Republican from Indianola who serves as chair of the Iowa Senate’s judicial budget committee, expressed frustration with judges interpreting Iowa law.
“It is desirable to select judges who will follow the law as written rather than bringing up their own opinions, which we have seen in the past. I guess that's my concern,” Garrett said. “In my opinion, by doing this we will probably get judges who are more likely to follow the law as written. That's my opinion.”
Garrett noted lawmakers in 2019 changed Iowa’s decades-old judicial nominating system by giving the governor more control over the state commission that interviews and selects nominees for appointment to the Iowa Supreme Court and the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Legislative proposal would give Iowa governor more power over judicial selection
The bill would remove the most senior judge in the district from the judicial nominating commission. Instead, the governor would be allowed to appoint an additional member. With the addition, the governor would be able to appoint six — or a majority — of the members to each judicial nominating...
www.thegazette.com
Final Four brings women’s basketball to one defining moment
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 0 Replies
There seems to be this belief that we are in a moment.
One that hasn’t ever been experienced before. Not like this. Women’s college basketball has taken over — for the moment — the sports world. It’s it. Caitlin Clark (solo) is Taylor Swift, Angel Reese (solo) is Bey. Together — dating back to last year’s NCAA final — they are this generation’s Bird vs. Magic. And, if old enough, you remember how their moment changed the game. Changed sports.
This weekend will be the beginning of the test to see the role sustainability has in this moment. The NCAA Women’s Final Four and championship games are now on-the-clock to carry-on the Telfar bag the Elite Eight (specifically the back half) brought on this G4 flight. The 12.3 million who decided to join the watch party for Monday’s “greatest night in basketball” powered the “Elite Four” between Iowa/LSU then USC/UConn to “where were you when this happened?” status.
The returns: More than the 2023 NBA Finals (all except one game), more than the World Series (any game), more than the Orange, Cotton and Peach Bowls of 2023, more than the football installments of the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC championship games, more than any regular season college football game in 2023 with the exception of (of course) Thee v. M (also known as Ohio State vs. Michigan).
More than any women’s or men’s college basketball game ever watched on ESPN. More than any women’s college basketball game in the history of basketball.
Now we enter into the moment’s moment. When everything that’s been happening to, with and because of what we’re watching reaches its crescendo. The games. The storylines. The dynamics interwoven into who will play for the championship and then who wins it. The beloved vs. the villain dynamic, the good girls vs. the evil empire dynamic, the Cinderella vs. the undefeated dynamic, the racial dynamic (first Black vs. Black, then white superstar vs. white megastar in the semifinals, then for the championship Black vs. white), Friday’s friendship dynamic (between Clark and Paige Bueckers), Sunday's “the now GOAT” vs. “the next GOAT” dynamic (between coaches Geno Auriemma and Dawn Staley if/when her South Carolina squad and his UConn squad end up squaring up).
It’s an NCAA — and WNBA — marketing, advertising and PR departments dream. It’s basketball’s dream scenario. It’s everything. And judging by the continued, year-over-year, week-over-week, round-over-round surge in public interest, we’ll all be here for it. (Almost all. There’s other millions-over-millions who will be under lock, key, hypnotism and hype of WWE’s WrestleMania 40 this weekend.)
There aren’t too many recent moments in sports where everything unfurls to perfection for the upliftment of the entire sport. Tiger’s entrance onto the PGA Tour comes to mind; having Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic all battling for Grand Slam tennis titles for years is another that jumps out along with Serena and Venus’ unapologetic impact and reign at the same time in the same sport; and up until a few weeks ago (maybe, there’s still time for the gambling incident with his interpreter to not be held against his legacy), Shohei Otani’s welcome to American baseball would be considered the latest to the list. But the time basketball is having now because of the women playing it can, at this very moment, be considered on par with all of the above.
Theirs, once this weekend is over, can be looked at as a symbol of permanence.
Whatever happens, whatever the outcome of this year’s NCAA Tournament, one thing is certain: The word “magnitude” will be tossed around and it will be attached to the words “of the moment” very often, only to emphasize what it is we are exactly in. It will then, after all of the confetti falls Sunday night, be purposely aligned with the words “women’s game.” It will be our responsibility to either reflect on that phrase and digest it “as is” or we can look at it as a reflection of ourselves and how we’ve found a way to shift an amazing sports conversation only to narrow it around gender. And how we all specifically attached “women” to any and most comments, commentary and feelings we had about what’s been happening with basketball recently and made it a gender-exclusive thing.
It will be our moment to check ourselves.
chicago.suntimes.com
One that hasn’t ever been experienced before. Not like this. Women’s college basketball has taken over — for the moment — the sports world. It’s it. Caitlin Clark (solo) is Taylor Swift, Angel Reese (solo) is Bey. Together — dating back to last year’s NCAA final — they are this generation’s Bird vs. Magic. And, if old enough, you remember how their moment changed the game. Changed sports.
This weekend will be the beginning of the test to see the role sustainability has in this moment. The NCAA Women’s Final Four and championship games are now on-the-clock to carry-on the Telfar bag the Elite Eight (specifically the back half) brought on this G4 flight. The 12.3 million who decided to join the watch party for Monday’s “greatest night in basketball” powered the “Elite Four” between Iowa/LSU then USC/UConn to “where were you when this happened?” status.
The returns: More than the 2023 NBA Finals (all except one game), more than the World Series (any game), more than the Orange, Cotton and Peach Bowls of 2023, more than the football installments of the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC championship games, more than any regular season college football game in 2023 with the exception of (of course) Thee v. M (also known as Ohio State vs. Michigan).
More than any women’s or men’s college basketball game ever watched on ESPN. More than any women’s college basketball game in the history of basketball.
Now we enter into the moment’s moment. When everything that’s been happening to, with and because of what we’re watching reaches its crescendo. The games. The storylines. The dynamics interwoven into who will play for the championship and then who wins it. The beloved vs. the villain dynamic, the good girls vs. the evil empire dynamic, the Cinderella vs. the undefeated dynamic, the racial dynamic (first Black vs. Black, then white superstar vs. white megastar in the semifinals, then for the championship Black vs. white), Friday’s friendship dynamic (between Clark and Paige Bueckers), Sunday's “the now GOAT” vs. “the next GOAT” dynamic (between coaches Geno Auriemma and Dawn Staley if/when her South Carolina squad and his UConn squad end up squaring up).
It’s an NCAA — and WNBA — marketing, advertising and PR departments dream. It’s basketball’s dream scenario. It’s everything. And judging by the continued, year-over-year, week-over-week, round-over-round surge in public interest, we’ll all be here for it. (Almost all. There’s other millions-over-millions who will be under lock, key, hypnotism and hype of WWE’s WrestleMania 40 this weekend.)
There aren’t too many recent moments in sports where everything unfurls to perfection for the upliftment of the entire sport. Tiger’s entrance onto the PGA Tour comes to mind; having Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic all battling for Grand Slam tennis titles for years is another that jumps out along with Serena and Venus’ unapologetic impact and reign at the same time in the same sport; and up until a few weeks ago (maybe, there’s still time for the gambling incident with his interpreter to not be held against his legacy), Shohei Otani’s welcome to American baseball would be considered the latest to the list. But the time basketball is having now because of the women playing it can, at this very moment, be considered on par with all of the above.
Theirs, once this weekend is over, can be looked at as a symbol of permanence.
Whatever happens, whatever the outcome of this year’s NCAA Tournament, one thing is certain: The word “magnitude” will be tossed around and it will be attached to the words “of the moment” very often, only to emphasize what it is we are exactly in. It will then, after all of the confetti falls Sunday night, be purposely aligned with the words “women’s game.” It will be our responsibility to either reflect on that phrase and digest it “as is” or we can look at it as a reflection of ourselves and how we’ve found a way to shift an amazing sports conversation only to narrow it around gender. And how we all specifically attached “women” to any and most comments, commentary and feelings we had about what’s been happening with basketball recently and made it a gender-exclusive thing.
It will be our moment to check ourselves.
Final Four brings women's basketball to one defining moment
Not since Magic vs. Bird has the sport been so redefined.
chicago.suntimes.com
Police investigation finds audio of racial slur used against Utah women's basketball team
- Off Topic
- 10 Replies
"We’ve identified an audio recording where the use of a racial slur was clearly audible. We’re working to determine the context and conduct associated with its use to determine if is a violation of the law. While we’re still reviewing evidence, it appears the use of a racial slur occurred more than one time."
sports.yahoo.com
Police investigation finds audio of racial slur used against Utah women's basketball team
Following the incident, the team moved to a different hotel closer to the host city.
sports.yahoo.com