text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Ron Reagan, Ron Christie, Thurbert Baker
HOST: Drill, baby, drill.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
Finding the sweet spot. President Obama made a big move today on energy.
His goal was to win over some Republicans on legislation that will end this
country's dependence on foreign oil, and oil period, by allowing some
offshore drilling. Did he find the sweet spot? Did he give enough to win
over enough of the Republican crowd to build a bill?
No one is surprised that some environmentalists are unhappy that Obama
is opening up a big stretch of America's coastlines to oil and gas
drilling, nor are we surprised, in the current political climate, that some
Republicans are complaining he's not giving enough. The good news for the
president is that based upon some comments by Republicans like Senator
Lindsey Graham and U.S. Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, a state
coastline that Obama is including in his pro-drilling move, are saying good
things about the president's plan.
Plus: Republican lawmakers in Georgia are calling for the impeachment
of that state's attorney general. Why? Because he refuses to file a
lawsuit claiming that the new health care overhaul is unconstitutional. So
I guess it's unconstitutional to not say the president's unconstitutional.
Is that the deal? The attorney general joins us tonight from Georgia.
Also, how's this for outrage? You've heard of that Kansas church
group that protested the funerals of Americans killed at war. They say
military deaths abroad are God's punishment for tolerance for gays here at
home. Now a father who's suing the group has been ordered to pay their
court costs. The dad's with us tonight. Talk about outrage.
And when someone wants to endorse you for U.S. Senate, make sure
they're not the sort to make you more enemies than friends. That's advice
that Florida governor Charlie Crist might have wished he'd followed.
That's in the "Sideshow."
Finally, we're going to talk about the widening scandal over child
molestation and cover-up in the Roman Catholic church. I tell you what I,
a layperson, thinks should be done to priests who abuse children.
Let's start with President Obama's decision to lift the offshore ban
on oil and gas drilling. Ron Reagan is a political commentator, and I have
no idea what he's going to say. And Ron Christie's a Republican
strategist, and tonight at least, I have no idea what he's going to say.
He's, of course, a former aide to the vice president we had recently called
Dick Chee-ney. And that's how it's pronounced properly.
Let's go to Ron Reagan on this. Ron, the president looks like he's
heading here for the sweet spot. He knows he has to sell this climate
bill. The only way he's figured I guess he can sell the climate bill that
came out of the House, get rid of cap-and-trade, bring in some offshore
drilling to bring in the developers, the Republicans aboard the ship. Is
this the sweet spot? Has he got it figured?
RON REAGAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, obviously, he hopes he has.
He hopes he can woo moderate Democrats and maybe even a few Republicans
about this. Look, we could look at this from an environmental standpoint,
we can look at it from an energy standpoint, or the political standpoint,
which is what you're doing here. From an environmental standpoint, "Drill,
baby, drill" means "Spill, baby, spill," so that's no good.
From an energy standpoint, even the Bush administration's Department
of Energy pointed out that if you opened up even more coastlines than
President Obama is figuring here to exploration, by 2030, when full
production actually—actually was under way, we might increase our oil
supply in this country by 1 percent.
So that leaves us with the politics. The jury is out on that. You
know, maybe some moderate Democrats will be wooed, maybe some Republicans,
although at the end of the day, I'm reluctant to imagine that they'll
actually get on board.
MATTHEWS: Ron Christie, it seems to me that a couple—well, a
couple of hours ago today, I thought that any chance of a climate bill was
dead, any chance of an energy bill was dead because the bill that came out
of the House is so detested by the Republicans, you'd never get 60 votes in
the Senate to pass the thing. Now I wonder if he's reshuffled the deck
enough to give a little to the developers, the people who want to drill
now, so that he can get what he wants, long-term—a meeting of this long-
term challenge of climate change and energy dependence on countries that
don't like us.
RON CHRISTIE, FMR. CHENEY AIDE: Look, it's smart politics. I agree
with Ron Reagan for once. This is a smart political move by the president.
You have people like Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, the senator from
Alaska, applauding what he did today. The devil's always going to be in
the details. What does this specifically mean? A hundred and twenty-five
miles off the coast of Florida? Well, is there really oil and gas out
there to be explored? But from a political...
MATTHEWS: Well, I assume there is. Why would he...
CHRISTIE: But again...
MATTHEWS: He's not going to a child about this.
CHRISTIE: But that's my point. My point is...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHRISTIE: ... let's take a look.
MATTHEWS: Let's see the specifics. Let's whether or not there's
energy out there (INAUDIBLE)
MATTHEWS: Do you think they're putting them far enough out so that
you can't see them from the beach, and yet they'll get the oil there,
CHRISTIE: I'm sure that is what he's hoping.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's go to Republican senator Lindsey Graham, who's
been trying to work together on putting in an energy bill. Here—he's a
Republican, of course, from South Carolina. Quote, "This is a good first
step. Drilling is an important piece to making our nation more energy-
independent. But I realize we can't simply drill our way to energy
independence. We need a comprehensive energy strategy for our nation that
breaks our addiction to foreign oil."
Ron Reagan, Lindsey Graham remains—I hope we don't get him in
trouble down there—one of the more thoughtful conservatives in the
country. He's trying to find something here. He's trying to find a way to
get us off the hook of depending on those countries in the Middle East we
know we're not going to have forever, and at the same time, deal with the
fossil fuel problem, which is we got to find alternative energy to—to
what we're doing to our environment.
REAGAN: Yes. The one problem we have here, of course, is that in
terms of the strategy to wean us from foreign oil—and that's a national
security issue, as well, of course—is that the longer we remain
dependent on any oil, the longer we will remain dependent on foreign oil
because we simply don't have enough oil here in this country to satisfy our
needs here. So if we're going to drill for oil here and encourage the use
of oil here, we're going to be depending on the Saudis to supply us with
There's one other factor that we might want to keep in mind here, and
that is that the leases won't be granted until 2012. Production won't
start, at the earliest, until 2017, full production until 2030. By that
REAGAN: ... one would hope that Americans will have decided that oil
"Drill, baby, drill"—just isn't the way to go...
MATTHEWS: President Obama is thinking of you, Ron Reagan, more than
Ron Christie now. Here he is talking to those who are on the environmental
side of this fight. He addressed them...
REAGAN: I'm glad he's thinking of me more than Ron.
MATTHEWS: I think it's personal.
MATTHEWS: Those who oppose the decision to drill. Let's listen to
the president trying to woo you back here. Here he is, President Obama.
MATTHEWS: Let's listen.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There will be those who
strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not
open any new areas to drilling. But what I want to emphasize is that this
announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an
economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more
on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will
succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long
run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.
MATTHEWS: Well, that's question. Do the Republicans want an energy
bill? Ron Christie, you come here sort of as a Republican, to put it
lightly. Do you think there is—nobody wants to say this president's
bacon (ph), if you're a partisan. But if you care about this country, are
those who are willing to say—Well, let's take a look. Here's John
Boehner, who said, "Keeping the Pacific coast in Alaska, as well as the
most promising resources in the Gulf of Mexico under lock and key makes no
sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking
where the jobs"—so he still thinks there's not enough. That's Boehner,
OK, Boehner, the golfer, the hard-ass Republican guy who won't give an inch
on anything, who has to pee on this guy's parade no matter what he says. I
don't care what he says sometimes.
CHRISTIE: Hey, careful. Boehner...
MATTHEWS: No, seriously...
CHRISTIE: Boehner's my friend.
MATTHEWS: Yes, but he's just playing partisan politics here. In the
interests of this country, everybody knows the same thing, basically.
There is a climate change problem. Anybody who reads the paper and thinks
knows, somewhere down the line. Number two, that man has something do with
it—number two. And number three, we got to stop depending on Arab oil
or we're crazy.
CHRISTIE: Well...
MATTHEWS: OK? So you got to do something about it, right?
CHRISTIE: Yes...
MATTHEWS: And is the president doing something?
CHRISTIE: He is doing something. You say everyone who knows anything
says that there's global climate change? I think there's serious
scientific disputes of whether or not that is actually viable. But let me
address your question...
MATTHEWS: Do you really challenge it?
CHRISTIE: Of course I really challenge it! I think you've had—
we've seen what happened in East Anglia over in England, where they
discredited the scientific research of these people. I think that it is a
MATTHEWS: There are people that question—there are people who
question evolution. That doesn't mean there isn't evolution.
CHRISTIE: Oh, Chris, wait a second. So we're supposed to take
scientists who have a fiduciary interest in this that could benefit...
MATTHEWS: This is party line.
CHRISTIE: Oh, no, this isn't party line. This is actually—I've
researched this. Why should we take hook, line and sinker what some of
these environmentalists have said about global climate change? Why don't
we have an honest debate? Why don't we have the conservative voices...
CHRISTIE: ... actually addressing this.
MATTHEWS: Because the weather in Boston right now over the last X
many years is the same as it used to be in Philadelphia.
CHRISTIE: Oh—oh, and let's...
MATTHEWS: It's getting warmer and warmer.
CHRISTIE: It was sure warm here on the East Coast. We had blizzards.
It was one of the—it was one of the coldest winters record!
REAGAN: Now you're discrediting yourself, Ron! Come on!
CHRISTIE: Actually, Ron Reagan, I'm actually making my point. It was
one of the coldest winters we have on record...
REAGAN: ... making a point that is one that discredits you.
CHRISTIE: No, it doesn't discredit me.
MATTHEWS: Ron Reagan, your thoughts.
REAGAN: Well, listen, weather is not climate. So let's forget it.
REAGAN: Climate change doesn't even have to be part of the—it
isn't! It isn't, Ron, and you know it as well as I do.
CHRISTIE: Oh, OK.
MATTHEWS: ... one years. We're talking about a trend line.
REAGAN: But forget about climate change for the moment because we
don't have to even discuss climate change. We could discuss national
security here. Everybody knows—forget about climate change. Everyone
knows the future is in solar and wind and renewable, sustainable energy
sources. That's where we have to be going now, not to the past. We've got
to be going to the 21st century, not the 19th!
CHRISTIE: Now, Ron Reagan, here's where I agree with you. I agree
with all those, but you need to add one more component to that. You need
to add nuclear energy. France has over 80 percent of their domestic supply
supplied by nuclear energy.
MATTHEWS: How come the only thing you guys like about the French is
nuclear energy?
CHRISTIE: That's about (INAUDIBLE)
MATTHEWS: You never say one good thing about the French on any topic!
You won't eat their French fries! You make fun of their...
CHRISTIE: Freedom fries.
MATTHEWS: See?
MATTHEWS: You have this cherry-picking way of selecting your allies.
CHRISTIE: Hey, that's the...
MATTHEWS: You are like Sarkozy on one issue, nuclear!
CHRISTIE: That's it!
MATTHEWS: Oh, God. And everything else, you say they're cynical and
they'll do anything—they don't have any values, they don't have any
morality. But on this thing...
CHRISTIE: I agree.
CHRISTIE: ... common ground. I do applaud the president on this. I
think he's going to take a lot of heat from the left for his decision to
open these leases up. It's a good thing. And as Ron Reagan says that I
agree with, and as you've, this is a national security issue.
CHRISTIE: We need more domestic production. Let's do it together.
MATTHEWS: I like when you change hats, put on the American hat and
take off of the Republican hat. But your thoughts, Ron Reagan?
REAGAN: Well, listen...
MATTHEWS: Are you—the president wasn't very happy today, either.
You're not very happy. He's not very happy. Sometimes, the solution is
when everybody's moderately unhappy.
Here's President Obama. He wasn't exactly thrilled with the prospect
of doing this, of offshore (INAUDIBLE) when he was a candidate back in
2008. Let's listen to the old Obama because he's a critic, perhaps, of the
new Obama. Let's watch.
OBAMA: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would
not lower gas prices tomorrow. It would not lower gas prices this year.
It will not lower gas prices five years from now. In fact, President
Bush's own Energy Department says that we won't see a drop of oil from his
own proposal until 2017.
MATTHEWS: Well, now he's compromising.
REAGAN: He's backing up my earlier point there.
CHRISTIE: I welcome this compromise. Let's have this debate.
REAGAN: I—like Ron Christie, I'm a fan of nuclear power, but I
prefer fusion power. And you know what the biggest fusion power generator
we have is? The sun, and we ought to start using it.
MATTHEWS: Oh, you've tricked us again, Ron Reagan!
MATTHEWS: You've tricked your way to where you want to be.
REAGAN: I know. It was a little curveball there.
MATTHEWS: Ron Reagan, thank you, sir. Thank you, Rons—Ron
Christie and Ron Reagan.
Coming up: Attorney generals in 14 states are suing the government
over health care reform. They say it's unconstitutional. But the attorney
general in the state of Georgia—or people—they want him impeached for
not suing. I'm going to ask Georgia's attorney general himself why he's
holding his ground against the governor and a bunch of state legislators
down there. It's a conservative state. He's a Democrat. Is he the odd
man out? But could he be right?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We reported on the attorney
generals of 14 states who filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality
of the new Obama health care bill. Now one state attorney general is
defying his governor and says he won't join those 14 attorney generals.
Here's what happened.
Right after health care reform passed, Republican governor, Georgia
governor Sonny Perdue wrote to his attorney general requesting that he file
suit on behalf of Georgia. Two days later, Attorney General Thurbert Baker
of Georgia wrote back to the governor and said he, quote, "respectfully
declines the governor's request on both legal and fiscal grounds." He
didn't want to waste the taxpayers' money, he said.
Now Republicans, some of them, in the Georgia state legislature down
there are calling for the attorney general to be impeached.
Well, Georgia attorney general Thurbert Baker joins us now from
Atlanta. General, thank you so much for joining us. Is it impeachable? I
was looking at the law down there—"Whereas by failing and refusing to
perform his constitutional and statutory duties"—are your critics down
there saying that you failed to perform your constitutional duties by not
saying the president is unconstitutional? Is that their argument?
THURBERT BAKER (D), GEORGIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Chris, that seems to be
the argument. But you know, there's nothing in the Georgia constitution
and nothing in our statutory laws that requires the attorney general of
this state to file a frivolous lawsuit.
The governor asked me to consider filing a lawsuit against the federal
government to overturn the recently passed health care act. I took a hard
look at the constitution. I looked at every piece of law I could find on
the matter. I came away with the clear understanding that there was simply
no basis at all upon which to file a lawsuit, and if we were to proceed in
that direction, we'd simply be wasting taxpayers' money in doing so.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's cause some trouble. That's what I do here.
You know, back in '64, when we passed the Civil Rights bill in this
country, especially that key feature, the Public Accommodations Act, which
said you basically—if you open up a drug store, I don't care if you sell
tomatoes you grew out back, if you open up that store for business, you got
to serve people regardless of race, color, creed. That's the law of the
land using the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify
It seems to me if you can require a guy who opens up a store he has to
sell to somebody, you can use the interstate commerce clause to say
somebody's got to buy some insurance. If they're going to be in this
country and expect to get treated in a hospital for free, they better darn
well pay their fare.
Now, why does the governor of your state think that the Civil Rights
bill was constitutional using interstate commerce, or would he have said
that? Or would he be doing the same thing back then if he were governor,
calling it unconstitutional to demand the stores are open to everybody?
I'm asking a tough question. Is he playing the same game those people
played back then?
BAKER: I can't attribute any motives to this governor, but let me say
this. Since 1937, this country has been very clear through our U.S.
Supreme Court that Congress has a very, very expansive commerce clause
power and they can regulate both interstate and intrastate.
There's no question, as I've looked at that whole issue, that Congress
has the authority to pass the statute that they did. Now, there's a lot of
policy disagreements out there, there are a lot of budget policy
disagreements out there about the new act. But in my opinion, there's
absolutely no basis upon which to say Congress doesn't have the power to do
exactly what it's done in this case.
MATTHEWS: Well, do you think they're making the argument, the same
argument that was made against the Civil Rights bill, especially public
accommodations? Is it the same argument the governor's making?
BAKER: Well, you know the governor has not couched it in those terms.
You know, the governor simply asked me to go ahead and file a lawsuit in
this case. As I said, we've looked at a lot of different angles. As a
matter of fact, there was an interesting matter. You know, several years
ago, when then-governor Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, he
actually passed the same kind of statutory provision that required
residents in that state to have health insurance. Just this month, a court
has ruled in that state, an appellate court, that that act was totally
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BAKER: ... and dismissed the claim. It's the same thing we've got
going here now with the federal act.
MATTHEWS: And I think even Judge Scalia, who's a real strict
constructionist, whatever you want to call him, the first -- (INAUDIBLE)
what they call original intent kind of guy—he basically believes if you
pass a law, it's got to be given real credibility.
What do you make of Bill McCollum, your colleague down there in the
adjoining state of Florida, who is out saying that that this bill is—
quote—"an invasion" of the sovereignty of the state of Florida. I mean,
he uses the language of Lincoln in the Civil War. This is an invasion of
the sovereignty of the state of Florida.
And you say it's constitutional. Talk about different—different
BAKER: Yes, completely different strokes. And I—and I just
respectfully disagree with my colleague in the state of Florida.
Listen, we're all looking at the same set of laws. We understand that
commerce—has an expansive Commerce Clause power. We understand that the
Medicaid program that we're all engaged in at the state level, that it's a
voluntary program.
Right here in Georgia, almost 60 percent of the moneys that we get
come from the federal government. States can choose to opt in or to opt
out. So, we understand that. And there is something we call the supremacy
clause. Federal law does supersede state law.
So, I can't speak for my colleague Bill McCollum, but I can tell you,
from my perspective—I have been the attorney general here in this state
for 13 great years—I can find no legal basis upon which to engage such
litigation. And, in my opinion, if we go down that road, we're going to
waste hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
MATTHEWS: General, you're running for the governorship down there
against Roy Barnes, another—another Democrat in the primary. You're 20
points behind. Is this going to be an issue in the campaign, the fact that
you won't sue the federal government? Is Barnes saying he will? Is this
going to be a Democrat issue, as well as a Republican issue?
BAKER: I have no idea what former Governor Barnes would raise as an
issue in this campaign, but I'm clear on this point.
What we have said in this case is absolutely correct. And, you know,
this effort to impeach me here in this state because I have told this state
what the law is, and really told the truth, is something that we will talk
about, I'm sure others will talk about as well.
But we have done it for all of the right reasons. We have given our
best legal advice. That's what the people of Georgia elected me to do.
That's what I'm going to continue to do. And I cannot be intimidated by
threats of impeachment here in Georgia. We have got to do the job that we
were elected to do.
MATTHEWS: So, you're not afraid of the governor? You're not afraid
of Governor Perdue? You're not afraid of Governor PERDUE?
BAKER: We're—we're—listen, we're going to do the jobs that we
have been asked to do. This is not a matter of being afraid of one person
or the other.
What I have been required do, as the attorney general, is to talk
about the law, to give my best legal opinion.
BAKER: That's what we have done here. And that's what we're going to
continue to do. I will not relent from my position.
MATTHEWS: Good for you.
You know, if you had you said were afraid, that would have been a hell
of a news story.
Thank you very much...
MATTHEWS: ... Attorney General Thurbert Baker of the state of
Up next—thanks for coming up HARDBALL.
Up next: The late-night comedians go on town on the Republican
Party's approval of a payment for that sex club out in L.A. I'm not sure
what kind of a club it was, but it's certainly not justified political
expenses. Well, it probably was in the past.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First, it's a story you have got to admit was made for late-night
comics. You guessed it, that Republican National Committee OK in picking
up the bill for a late-night visit to a sex-themed nightclub. Catch the
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO": I guess they
dropped over $2,000 for staffers at a topless bondage-themed nightclub
right here in Hollywood.
LENO: Apparently, this is the Republican version of a stimulus plan.
Usually, when Republicans find themselves in dark rooms with whips and
chains and bondage gear and stuff, it's in Dick Cheney's basement, not..
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": "The New York
Times" even took up the story under the headline, "GOP Opens Inquiry on
Club Expenditures."
STEWART: Here's a little hint to "The New York Times."
STEWART: You're wondering why print is dead.
STEWART: Perhaps you could have gone something with, "Right-Wing XXX-
STEWART: Or perhaps "Schwing-Nuts."
STEWART: Or "Log-Grabbin' Republicans."
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": Now that
they got caught, they have their excuses.
Republican National Committee excuses.
Number three: Hey, we're fat, dumb, rich guys. Nuff said?
LETTERMAN: Number two: If we can't spend donor money at a sex club,
the terrorists have won.
LETTERMAN: And the number-one Republican National Committee excuse:
research pending legislation, no stripper left behind.
LETTERMAN: There you go.
MATTHEWS: Well, they rose to the occasion. Bring it on.
Next: dangerous liaisons.
We know that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has an uphill battle to
win this year's Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. That, perhaps,
explains why he's touting the support of retired Colonel Bud Day, a hero of
sorts to conservatives for his appearance in those Swift Boat Veteran ads
for truth, supposedly, in 2004 that viciously smeared John Kerry's war
Well, Crist just got more than he bargained for. In an interview with
a Florida newspaper, Colonel Day tied together the skin color of President
Obama and that of Crist's Hispanic primary opponent, Marco Rubio.
He said—quote—"You know, we just got through electing a
politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have an
Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1. You look at their track records
and they're both pretty gritty."
Crist's reaction—quote—"Everyone has a right to their analysis
and how they think somebody performs in office."
Is this what you call analysis, analyzing people by race?
Charlie Crist, you got problems.
Time now for tonight's "Big Number."
So far, just over half of U.S. households have filled out and returned
their U.S. census forms, which are fun and easy to do, by the way, ahead of
tomorrow's official deadline. Which state has the top participation rate
so far? Well, as of yesterday's count, way out west, South Dakota, with 62
percent. And the Mount Rushmore State—didn't know that was the name of
it—does its homework. Sixty-two percent of their census forms are
already, tonight's very impressive "Big Number."
Get them in. They're easy to do.
Up next: Get ready to be outraged. The father of a fallen Marine who
sued a vulgar anti-gay church group that protested at his son's funeral has
been ordered to pay the church group's legal fees.
I don't get this. We're going to talk to the father next who was hit
with the legal fees. The courts, you wonder.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Julia Boorstin with your CNBC
"Market Wrap."
Stocks sliding in the final hour of trading, as the first quarter
winds to a close, the Dow Jones industrials falling 50 points, the S&P 500
shedding over three points, the Nasdaq slipping almost 13 points.
The major indices racking up their fourth straight winning quarter,
outperforming markets in Europe, Asia and South America. Banks and
biotechs were the biggest winners, but industrials, airlines and retailers
all finished higher for the start of 2010.
In economic news, some disappointing private payroll numbers
generating uncertainty about Friday's report from the Labor Department.
Employers cut 23,000 jobs in March. Analysts had been expecting them to
begin adding jobs.
In stocks, BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion shares are moving lower
after-hours after reporting earnings just shy of expectations. And oil
drilling companies like Diamond and Transocean seeing significant gains,
after President Obama announced plans to expand offshore drilling for oil
and natural gas.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
MATTHEWS: We're back.
Starting last week, "The New York Times" has spotlighted reports of
sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, including a horrific story about
a priest who molested hundreds of deaf boys in Wisconsin. It's becoming a
big American story again. "The Times"' reports, along with news stories of
abuse in Ireland and Germany, has the Vatican on a public relations
offensive to beat back charges that the pope himself was responsible for
the church's mishandling of some of these cases.
What's it all mean and what's it all going to come to?
Patrick Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst. And Joan Walsh is
editor in chief of Salon.
Pat and Joan, let's take a look at this new Gallup poll that finds
that Pope Benedict XVI's favorable numbers have dropped since he visited
the United States two years ago. Today, just 40 percent of Americans,
generally, have favorable views of the pope. It was 60 percent among
Catholics and 35 percent among non-Catholics.
It's gone down by about 20 points, on average, in those three
categories, Catholic, non-Catholic and across the board.
I want to go to Pat first and then to Joan right away.
What is the situation, as you see it, for the Roman Catholic Church?
I think that we're all members. Your thoughts?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the church has got a
real problem.
And what I were do if I were in the Vatican, Chris, is I would do what
we did in Iran/Contra with Ronald Reagan. We brought in a special fellow,
individual. He was totally to handle and get all the details and facts out
on that and answer all questions on that, and look into it, while the press
secretary, as it were, Larry Speakes, dealt with normal business.
I think they need an ombudsman in there to look at all this material,
and to handle their communications strategy.
MATTHEWS: Would you have them admit the worst?
BUCHANAN: Well, I mean, if the worst is there, I think you have to.
But let me take mention of this Milwaukee thing. That guy was
committing these horrendous acts against 200 deaf boys beginning in 1950,
up to 1974. Three archbishops knew about it. These boys went to priests.
The people, they went—their parents went to prosecutors and
attorneys. That whole scandal was unfolding. This guy was an old man
MATTHEWS: Yes. What you have done if you had been in the position of
the church hierarchy at the time?
BUCHANAN: Well, I mean, I would have...
MATTHEWS: Would you given him a break and said he's old and leave him
BUCHANAN: I mean, in 19 -- first, I would, the 1950s, for heaven's
sakes, you should have defrocked him and turned him into the police
JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: Right.
BUCHANAN: These are massive criminal actions.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BUCHANAN: This isn't somebody involved with a teenaged boy. This is
somebody dealing with little teeny kids.
MATTHEWS: And it's not a question of a proposition. I mean, it's a
question of abusing your authority over people who have no—no control
BUCHANAN: That is...
WALSH: In the confessional.
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts, Joan? I mean, I think a lot of these cases
are kids. It's not a question of whatever kind of relationship we might
say is out of order. We're talking about criminal acts here. Your
WALSH: They are criminal acts. And I'm glad Pat and I agree about
I think that, in this case of Father Murphy, this awful priest, this
sad, sad priest and sick priest, who molested the 200 boys, I'm sorry to
say—you guys know I'm a person of mercy. I'm a person who believes
people can change and repent, but I also believe in punishment as
And so for then-Father Ratzinger to look from the reports that—and
they were old reports—Pat was right—and essentially do nothing, and
then fall for a plea of mercy from the priest himself I think was
completely the wrong thing do.
BUCHANAN: Yes.
WALSH: What's happening now, I think, is a little bit beyond the
scope of an ombudsman, although I think that would be hopeful to get all
the information out, if that was possible.
I think the real—the real thing that's touching the pope right now
is that are there several of these instances where he personally was
informed of these horrible situations. And in the case, I believe, in
Munich, he actually sent the person—was part of a decision to send the
person for two weeks of therapy. They went back to another church, and
they re—they re-sin. They...
MATTHEWS: Why do you think they do that? Let's—let's be—let's
be thoughtful here. Why would a member of the church hierarchy, like
Cardinal Ratzinger at the time, or anyone else, the former—the pope,
when he was in that position, why would people show sympathy primarily for
the cleric and not primarily for the victims of a serious crime?
Why does their sympathy...
WALSH: Because...
MATTHEWS: ... go to the priest, and not to the kids?
WALSH: I think that's a really excellent...
MATTHEWS: The victims of crime?
WALSH: It's an incredibly excellent question.
And it speaks to, you know, a really insular, hierarchical, I would
say patriarchal institution that is more about protecting its own power and
its own authority, and less about opening itself up to any kind of
criticism, let alone any kind of punishment. And I think another...
BUCHANAN: All right. But let me add something else here, Chris.
WALSH: Wait. Let me finish. May I—may I just finish? I would
like to make one more point, Pat. Then I will turn it over to you.
The other reason that this is hitting the pope right now, Chris, is
that, as—as Cardinal Ratzinger, as the person in charge of—of church
doctrine, he was implicated. He—he wrote a letter that urged bishops,
priests, archbishops to keep these matters a pontifical secret. And that
meant don't take them to the...
MATTHEWS: This was in '62. That is what is coming...
BUCHANAN: It couldn't be '62, because he wasn't even a cardinal.
WALSH: No, he—that's right. That's right.
MATTHEWS: I'm looking at the document which came out of the...
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the document that came out of the church in
'62 that talked about, as Joan was saying in this other regard, the Vatican
policy barring bishops from reporting abuse to priests.
WALSH: Then Cardinal Ratzinger...
MATTHEWS: Why does the church not think of this as criminal?
BUCHANAN: I don't know.
MATTHEWS: You used the term criminal.
MATTHEWS: Why don't they think of these as crimes?
BUCHANAN: Well, look, let me talk this—look...
WALSH: Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter.
BUCHANAN: Hold it, Joan.
WALSH: ... reinforcing that doctrine. That's—I—I just want to
get that fact out.
BUCHANAN: OK. Well, let me say this, Chris.
WALSH: I'm not talking about '62. I'm talking about the early '80s,
BUCHANAN: All right.
Well, look, there's no doubt this is criminal activity. If you're
dealing especially with children under 16 or something like that, it's rape
and everything else, Chris.
But let me say this. The pope made—wrote in letter, apparently let
this priest go in 1996. He began has predations in 1950. Rembert
Weakland, the cardinal—the archbishop of Milwaukee, knew about this for
three years. And then he writes the pope and says, should I defrock him?
Why is "The New York Times" not going after—Rembert Weakland is a
great liberal. Let me say this. This has dealt...
WALSH: Oh, please.
MATTHEWS: That's certainly the case and makes common sense to me.
But we're talking about friends of the church.
MATTHEWS: -- look to the church, who respect it, who are not members
of the Catholic church, right now watching this, who believe in an
institution of God. And they don't think of it as a bad place. They think
of it, potentially and usually, as a good place. But this is now a world
wide problem. Pat, what floors me—
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- I thought justice a problem of a particular of couple
generations perhaps, a priest that had this problem and they were getting
away with it, covered up for it in the United States and Ireland. And it
turns out that it's a world wide problem. It's getting everywhere and it's
not going away.
BUCHANAN: Well, let me say this.
MATTHEWS: That's what I—
BUCHANAN: As we say, Murphy was in the priesthood in 1950. But
clearly, Chris, after post-1960s, an enormous number of these predators and
others came into the priesthood, hid there, you know, preyed upon kids, a
great number of them. We mentioned Milwaukee. It was in New Orleans.
It's been in Washington, D.C. It's been in Boston. Cardinal Law had
trouble with it.
MATTHEWS: This is what disturbs me. Here's part of an Associate
Press report on the abuse case in Kentucky. Listen to this, Joan. Quote,
"court documents show that Vatican lawyers plan to argue that the Pope has
immunity as head of state," head of the Vatican, "that American bishops who
oversaw abuse of priests weren't employees of the Vatican, and that a 1962
document is not the smoking gun that provides proof of the cover-up."
So what do you make of the Vatican issuing, basically, a political—
a legal defense, saying the Pope can't be sued because the Pope's head of a
country, basically, the Vatican, and the Pope is not the employer,
technically, of bishops? That's their legal defense. What do you make of
WALSH: He has more than plausible deniability here. He's above the
law. No law can touch him. He's taking no responsibility for the bishops.
He can't be touched by the state because he's a head of state. He has no
responsibility to the bishops because he, quote, doesn't employ them. I've
never seen such a thorough-going shedding of responsibility in a moral or
criminal matter. It's disgusting.
BUCHANAN: Chris, not everyone, but dozens of diocese—take a look
at Los Angeles under Cardinal Mahoney—of diocese, even Washington, D.C.
And others have—
WALSH: It's everywhere.
BUCHANAN: -- have this problem. They—they've dealt with it.
They've dealt with it. And it's cost the church billions of dollars. By
the church what do I mean? I mean the women that go in there on every
weekday or every day and put a dollar into the basket. Those are the
peoples who's money is being lost and wasted. And a lot of people won't
contribute, Chris, to the church, won't contribute in the basket. because
they're afraid it's going to go to lawyers or it's going to go to pay
people off.
WALSH: It is and it should.
BUCHANAN: That's exactly what is happening. Why do you think that
these schools are shutting down?
MATTHEWS: What's the bigger problem here, Joan? Is it the mama
station of young boys, alter boys, kids in school, pre-pubescent kids, or
is it—or is it the cover-up?
WALSH: They're both problems. I can't—in this case, sometimes we
say the cover-up is worse than the crime. Not in this case. The cover-up
is terrible. The crimes are terrible. They seem to be related in a way.
I don't know why there was an inability to get these men help, to try to—
they've spent a lot of money. They've created facilities.
They create these facilities, Chris, and then the facilities are
really places where these guys can go and hide out, and then go back to
perish and back to molesting.
MATTHEWS: -- a serious problem. Do you think this problem of the
church looking out, primarily it looks like, for its own priests rather
than for it's people, the victims, the kids and their parents—do you
think that problem's gone? That problem is gone, the cover-up?
BUCHANAN: Well, the cover-up—I don't about the cover-up. I will
say this: priests have been cleaned out and thrown out. Billions of
dollars have been paid. New rules have been set down.
MATTHEWS: Is the problem gone?
BUCHANAN: Are there some people in the hierarchy who probably covered
up? Yeah, there may well be.
MATTHEWS: Is the pattern of wanting to cover up gone?
BUCHANAN: I think that is gone.
MATTHEWS: Do you really believe—
BUCHANAN: First, they've been burned horribly.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe their instinct to look out for priests
rather than the people in the perishes is not gone?
BUCHANAN: A lot of seminaries have been shut down. A lot of people
are cleaned out. Yeah, I think they're on the side of cleaning it up.
MATTHEWS: I feel for the good priests. I feel for so many of them.
These priests out there watching, by the way, I feel for you, because
you're getting tarred by this, good priests.
BUCHANAN: Ninety five percent of them are good men.
WALSH: The great majority are good men, and that's awful thing.
MATTHEWS: They give up marriage. They give up sex. They give up
freedom. They give up independence, all of their lives. They give it up
for god and the people, and they're blamed with this. We'll be right back
with more of this conversation. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Which sports have the most Republican fans and which have
the most Democratic fans? Well, a new study of American sports fans finds
that professional golf is the sport with the highest percentage of
Republicans. I can't believe that! I'm just kidding. That makes so much
sense. Followed by college football and Nascar, which may not surprise you
at all.
Now, take a look at the sports that Democrats like. The highest
percentage of Democratic fans—Democrats like basketball, the WNBA and
the NBA, top, followed by professional wrestling. Now that's a surprise.
What about America's pastime, baseball? Major League Baseball finished
smack in the middle, with roughly equal numbers of Republicans and
Democrats. It is American's pastime.
HARDBALL returns after this.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We're back with MSNBC political
analyst Pat Buchanan and "Salon's" Joan Walsh. Joan, what do you think
would have been the heat level if it had turned out the Democratic National
Committee had been spending money on a lesbian bondage-themed club, and had
dropped a couple K in the middle of the night with a bunch of you God knows
what staffers, who seemed to enjoy to spend somebody else's money on this
stuff. Is Michael Steele getting off easy or is this a big problem or
WALSH: Pat would never let me hear the end of it, if that was the
DNC, Chris. You know that.
MATTHEWS: He'd be blaming Nancy Pelosi for being from San Francisco.
They'd be dumping off—
WALSH: It would be my fault. It would be Nancy's fault. Look, not
to make light of the the church scandal, but the only person more protected
than the Pope, it seems to me, is Michael Steele. He cannot be fired. He
cannot be gotten rid of?
MATTHEWS: Why not? You've opened the trap door to yourself. You're
in the cage. Why can't he be fired?
WALSH: I'm in the cage. I'll give you the easy answer. You know,
they can't—it takes two-thirds votes. They're not going to have—
MATTHEWS: Give me the hard answers. They picked an African-American
guy to compete with the president and, therefore, they—
WALSH: He's been a disaster from day one. They can't turn on him.
He's been a disaster from day one. I think Pat is going to agree with me
on this. But he is protected. So this is going to go on and on.
MATTHEWS: I am a friend of Michael Steele's. I voted for him for the
Senate. There's trouble. I think he was—I've said it before and I'll
say it again, I think he's a delightful person to hang out with. He has
some of this problem of friskiness or—what do you call it—a tendency
to get in trouble on things that are not that big a deal, but become
BUCHANAN: Right. He's a little undisciplined, I think. But look,
let me say this, he should not be fired on this. He did not do anything
wrong here. This woman took these guys to the club.
WALSH: Oh, it's always the woman.
BUCHANAN: I think—
MATTHEWS: I didn't even know it was a woman—
BUCHANAN: She was mistreated. She didn't do anything terrible.
She's been fired. She got this other guy to pay for it, and then she
reimburses him, and foolishly puts down Voyeur Club, being honest. She has
been fired.
MATTHEWS: How about if she didn't know it was a Voyeur—I guess the
title should have—
BUCHANAN: She took them all there.
WALSH: She was there.
BUCHANAN: I don't think he should be fired for this. He knew nothing
about it. He wasn't there.
MATTHEWS: Give me a score on his performance. How is Michael Steele
doing as emblematic leader of the Republican National Committee these last
couple of years? How would you rate his service on a scale of one to five?
BUCHANAN: He's gotten to be too controversial in terms of him—
himself, rather than a figure for the party.
MATTHEWS: Would you prefer he was chairman of the Democratic National
BUCHANAN: I don't think it makes any difference. If they don't win
big—if they win big in November—but I still think—
MATTHEWS: They won Virginia. They won New Jersey. They won
Massachusetts. They have a winning streak like we've never seen, the
Republican party, this year. As Jack Kennedy once said, victory has a
hundred fathers. One of the fathers of the victories of this year,
shouldn't it be Chairman Steele?
WALSH: Not at all. Come on, he came in—this is what's really
going to get him in the end. He came in and they had 24 million dollars
cash on hand. They now have less than 10. They can't raise money. Also,
he likes to spend it. He's spending it really quickly.
He went out—he wrote a book and didn't tell them. He went out on a
book tour. He actually got money—he earned 20,000 dollars or so per
speech, when his job should be giving speeches for free for his salary.
The list of things Michael Steele has done wrong doesn't end.
MATTHEWS: Could it be that he's an offset to some of the nastier
ethnic language being used by the Tea Baggers, or Tea People at these
rallies, and the fact you have him up there offsets, to some extent, this
bad rap that the Republican party is getting earned for itself by the
crazies out there and the mobs?
BUCHANAN: Well, look, this is basically a nice guy and a good man
who's made—I find it astonishing that Joan Walsh is deeply concerned
about the Republicans spending too much money maybe for limousines and jets
and things like that. Those are problems inside our party, Joan.
WALSH: No, I'm happy. I'm happy they're over-spending. I'm happy
they're over-spending.
MATTHEWS: Isn't it great how this Ms. Independent American
occasionally rejoins the Republican party? Are you a Republican? Let's
make news tonight? Are you a Republican?
BUCHANAN: I'm an independent in Virginia.
MATTHEWS: Are you a republican?
BUCHANAN: No.
MATTHEWS: OK. But you just said our party. Was that a Freudian
BUCHANAN: I was one of those for a long, long time.
MATTHEWS: I want to know whether Pat is in or out, as we used to say.
As Bob Dornan used to say, in or out, buddy?
BUCHANAN: I was an independent, ran as an independent in 2000. I
have not rejoined the party. You don't rejoin the party because you're
independent in Virginia. There's no party registration. I can't say I'm a
Republican. Do I vote Republican? Almost every time.
MATTHEWS: So you feel in your soul you're Republican.
BUCHANAN: I am a Goldwater, Nixon, Agnew, Reagan Republican.
MATTHEWS: You kept Agnew there.
BUCHANAN: You bet.
MATTHEWS: In the pantheon. Joan, this is a remarkable development.
We started talking about the Roman Catholic Church and we've gone to
Michael Steele. Now we've gone to Pat Buchanan.
WALSH: And strip clubs.
MATTHEWS: In the meantime, but we've gone to this iconic member. It
is really—when I see you in old pictures, Pat, like in Houston, when you
gave the great speech, I'm amazed. You're a man of history. You're not
just a guy here on television with me.
BUCHANAN: I've been to a lot of places way back there, Chris. In
'67, I was at that march in Washington.
MATTHEWS: Were you one of the guys with the police?
BUCHANAN: No, I came down from New York with my press corps because I
wanted to see it. They said they were going to levitate the Pentagon. I
didn't think they could do it. If they did—yes, if they levitated it, I
wanted to see it. Lift it off the ground.
MATTHEWS: I was there in a protest capacity. Thank you, Pat Buchanan
as was Norman Mailer. Joan, you're too young to have been there, but
thank you for talking and listening as we talk about the old days.
When we return, I'm going to have thoughts about the molestation
scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, some serious thoughts from a layman.
That's me. I have no authority on this subject, except my membership in
the church. You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the thoughts of a layman on the
problem under which the Roman Catholic Church is now suffering. The
tragedy begins with the molestation of children. It does not end there.
Young boys who were sent to Catholic school, who will become alter boys,
serve under the authority of the church. They are subject to taking
orders. Every minute, they are in a school or in a sacristy.
This is more than a secular discipline. It is empowered by the
authority of god. Priests stand before these young boys as representatives
of god, with all the august authority that comes with it. In this case, to
a young child being brought up with the fullest belief in God, and what he
come to firmly believe is his church.
This is not a place for three strikes and you're out. It is not a
place where Christian sympathy should go to the adult abuser of this trust
between child and churchman. It's the place where the first, indeed
overwhelming claimant to our sympathy and to justice must be the child, the
vulnerable young boy who finds himself under the power of a priest of Jesus
Christ, an heir to the disciples, a servant in the tradition of the
If there was ever an easy moral question, it should have been what to
do with priests who molest children. You fight for the victim. Then you
remove the perpetrator. You end the occasion of sin, so the priest, in
this cane the moral felon, never has the opportunity to act again.
If this has been done, we would not have the problem we have today in
the Catholic Church. It's up to the church to explain it all, in all moral
humility, why this was not done. That is the question Catholics and others
who respect the church want answered, why it was not done, why we didn't
get the truth. Not whether the Pope could be sued or whether bishops are
his employers or not—or his employees or not.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. Right now it's
time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2010 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
I always love the look on layouts where people make the elements extra small, but I never remember to do it myself. So that's your challenge this week. Think small!
Important Details
Due Date: Aug 8, 2013, 9am (USA Pacific time)
Tag: challenge small aug 2013
Make sure you use this tag exactly, so we can browse easily through the gallery and see all the submissions, and so you can get your points. Please only tag one layout.
See basic challenge rules here.
Check out finished and entered layouts here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Free safety Charles Woodson is a man without a jersey number right now. However, he's always got something insightful to say. So, here's the transcript of a news conference with Woodson after Tuesday's practice in Alameda, his first time in a Raiders uniform since the 2005 season.
Q: How does it feel to be back with the Raiders?
A: "I almost feel important sitting up here. It feels good. It really does. It feels good to put the silver and black back on. It's been a long time. I look good in silver and black, so it feels good to be back."
Q: Are you more of a leader by example or are you more vocal?
A: "For the most part, I'm a lead-by-example type of guy. I'm always of the mind-set I don't want to go around any coaches and what they coach, what they do. But when there's an opportunity to step in and give some input on whatever that may be, then I'll do that and, like I said, not try to step on anybody's toes because that's not my intention, of course, to do that. Wherever there's a possibility to help a guy, whether he's young or old, it doesn't really matter, then absolutely."
Q: What's up with the blank jersey?
A: "I can't find a number, Man. Everything is taken. So, moving forward, we'll try to get that worked out but right now, I'm just Blank Man."
Q: Going to negotiate to get your No. 24 back?
A: "Yeah, I guess that's what I'm going to have to do. It wasn't waiting for me at my locker, so I'll have to negotiate that, for sure."
Q: Did you meet D.J. Hayden last week?
A: "No, I haven't had that opportunity yet. So, I'm really not sure what's going on. I look forward to getting a chance to meet him. So, hopefully that situation works itself out, and he can get back here and do what I know he loves to do."
Q: How can your confidence transfer to your teammates?
A: "Well, for me, it's all about my approach to the game, the way I play, the way I practice. That will really show itself, the way I prepare. I'll always prepare as if I'm the best player on the field. Once that's no longer the case, I'll see it, I'm sure everybody else will see it too. At that point, it's up to the next guy to move forward. I'm just going to come in and do what I know how to do, and that's be a great football player. So, I plan on doing that going forward."
Q: What can you tell folks about Matt Flynn?
A: "Yeah, Flynn had a chance to work around a great quarterback in Aaron Rodgers a bit, sit behind him, just kind of emulate some of the things that Aaron does without trying to be like Aaron. So, he'll bring some experience, even though he hasn't had a chance to lead a team. I know that I'm sure the coaches are excited to have him in here and giving him that opportunity to lead this team. I just look forward to seeing him grow. He'll have the opportunity to be the guy. At that point, it's what do you do with it. Hopefully he'll succeed."
Q: What feels different about being back here?
A: "Oh, man, really the only difference is the big guy is not here. That's really it. Knowing that you're not going to see him coming out on to the field at any point in time this season is really the different feeling to this organization. But I know that the organization is in good hands with Mark taking over and bringing in Reggie to come in here and try to get the Raiders back on the right track. So, in that sense, it feels good and there's definitely a positive feel to it."
Q: What did they tell you about their vision that helped you re-sign here?
A: "Well, just talking to Reggie and coach D.A., I was really sold on the fact that they believe on the guys that they have here. Of course, you can always use more and as the years come up, they'll be able to do some more things. But they really have a lot of faith in the guys that they have on the roster right now. Who knows what this team will be at the end of the season, but I was convinced that this team will compete, this team will be in games, and we look forward to going out there and wearing the silver and black proudly. These guys, I'm looking forward to playing with them and trying to get back to where the Raiders should be."
Q: Know anything about Tyvon Branch when you were in Green Bay?
Woodson: Yeah, we always watch players around the league. He's a guy that, he always shows up somewhere. He's a tough, hard-nosed football player. A lot of speed. Can cover a lot of ground. He'll come up and stick his nose, stick his face in the play. He's a guy that I look forward to playing with, and a guy that I think is emerging as one of the leaders on the team, so I'm looking forward to getting more familiar with him and playing alongside of him. I think the sky's the limit for him.
Q: Terms of scheme, what it was like before, man-to-man corners, safeties normal role, four-man role . . . how different is that what looking at now?
Woodson: It's a lot different. I mean, you just stated it. I mean, we were to be man-to-man corners, and that's what it was. You went on the outside, the other corner went to the other side and you played man-to-man. You had a single high safety, and that's pretty much what you did. There wasn't a whole lot to it. This defense will give you some variations and give you some opportunities to make some plays, give you some different looks, and not just be in a single high safety look. That'll be fun, and for me, being a guy that I feel like I have a nose for the football, it'll be a lot of fun to go out there and be a part of this defense and try to make it click.
Q: Flynn 2-0 with Packers, did he make it easy for guys to have confidence in him?
Woodson: Yeah, I mean, we always felt he could do it. But the game of football is the same for everybody. You've got to get out there in a game, and you've got to get a feel for it. The opportunities that he got, he made the most of 'em, and he gave people a look at what he could do. That's the reason why he was picked up in Seattle, even though he wasn't the guy there, but people seen enough of him, that they brought him here, so I'm sure the staff has a lot of confidence in him that he'll emerge as the guy, and help lead this franchise.
Q: What about Jason Tarver as a defensive coordinator?
Woodson: Well, I mean, he's a young coach and he's just trying to implement his defense. And that'll take some time. He's got a lot of new faces, a lot of new guys. The most important thing about trying to implement your defense really is communication. It really won't matter as far as the talent level is concerned, but if you can communicate and guys know where they're supposed to be, a lot of the other stuff won't matter, because you'll be in position to make plays, make tackles, keep people out of the end zone and that sort of thing. The more and more we work together, I think the defense is a defense where it's not going to confuse you. Guys should pick it up fairly quickly and we should be able to hit the ground running.
Q: Did you get a chance to talk with Al Davis at any point?
Woodson: Man, I haven't talked to Al Davis since I left. That's one of the things I look back on, when I didn't do when I left, was really have a conversation with him when I left the Raiders. Didn't get a chance speak with him, and I wish I had.
Q: What kind of effort did Raiders make to keep you when you left here?
Woodson: Yeah, it was pretty much done. I know my agents talked to the organization a few times, but as far as me, there was really no communication. It was kind of, I guess, the writing on the wall that he's no longer going to be a Raider, and I went my way, and the Raiders of course went their way. It wasn't much at all.
Q: Did you ever think you'd be back?
Woodson: No, no. No, but I guess that's the way life works. I never thought I'd go to Green Bay and ended up in Green Bay and had an incredible run there, and free agency came around and I thought I would be somewhere else fairly quickly, and that didn't happen, and free agency just kind of rolled on, and found myself talking to myself and saying, regardless of where I play, I want to play football. I don't want to just be done playing the game. That's when the opportunity arose to come out here and play football, and that's what happened.
Q: How's your health?
A: I feel great. Other than having the collarbone and last year and then the Super Bowl year which were setbacks of course. Other than that I don't have any aches and pains anywhere or anything. My shoulder has healed up well now. I look forward to going out there and playing football the way I always have.
Q: What was it like with fans last week?
A: It was a great feeling. I was here eight years and we had some ups and downs but we had some great years. I know what it's like to have this fan base behind you. That's a big deal. There's a lot of energy here. A lot of these guys don't know that, they don't know that feeling to be that type of team here and have the fans behind you. To have the fans here at the facility last week welcoming me back meant a lot and I appreciate Raider Nation for that.
Q: Talk to Mark Davis yet?
A: I have not. I haven't seen Mark in years. I'm sure since I left in 05-06. It's been a long time. Haven't really been around him since that point. There's only one Al Davis though. I'm sure that it's probably a lot different in that respect.
Q: Thoughts on tuck rule gone?
A: What were they waiting on? That was a happy day. It was a happy day Finally they got it done. My thing is too bad it couldn't be retroactive.
Q: Where is this team at in the rebuilding process?
A: That's really hard to say. This is a fairly young team. When I came in we had Tim Brown and guys like that, some veterans that had been around for a while. Hadn't won a lot of games but then we got a new coach in Jon Gruden at that time and they brought in a new system so things slowly started to come together during those first couple of years. Here this is my first time going out there running around with the guys out there on the field. What I can say is there is a lot of energy out there just from the first initial practice. As far as defensively. The defense is one that guys will gravitate toward fairly quickly and pick it up to the point where when we go out there in games there's not a lot of indecision. We'll be able to go out there and play football and have fun doing it. If you're doing that then you'll win some games.
Q: Ever talk about going back to GB?
A: The conversation when it happened was fairly quick. It was 'we thank you for your time here. We feel like it's time for us to go our way and you go your way.' That was it. I really didn't have any thoughts of it. When free agency first started I thought I'd be on a team pretty quickly and wouldn't even have time to think about it. It really didn't cross my mind much I guess. I figured it was what it was. You got to move on.
Q: What do you say to those surprised you signed here?
A: I don't think they understood the fact that I spent more time here than anywhere else. If I got past Denver and didn't sign there that if I got here it was going to be pretty tough for me to leave being that this is like a second home to me as well. Drafted here, spent eight years here. I had great years here. We had a lot of ups and downs but I loved it here. I still have people I consider family here. It was going to be hard to come here, sit down with Reggie and DA. Just being in this building, seeing the fans at the gate coming in. It was going to be hard to leave I don't think people understood that.


text:
Dr. Jack A. LeCuyer
Colonel Jack A. LeCuyer, USA (Ret.), recently completed his tenure as the Minerva Chair at the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute in Carlisle, PA. Prior to that, he was a Distinguished Fellow with the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) with lead responsibility for efforts in design of the new National Security Staff and was a major contributor to key PNSR study efforts, including Forging a New Shield (November 2008), Turning Ideas into Action (September 2009), and The Power of People: Building an Integrated National Security Professional System for the 21st Century (December 2010). He was also an Adjunct Staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses and a principal developer of a simulation designed to teach market economics and democratic governance in post-conflict environments. Colonel LeCuyer served for 30 years in the United States Army and has 20 years of senior level leadership experience focused on strategic policy, organizational planning and effectiveness, doctrinal development, policy formulation, project advocacy and marketing, operational and fiscal management, and successful program execution. He has 9 years of experience in post-conflict reconstruction and development of market economies and parliamentary systems in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Iraq. His key assignments included strategic planner and Special Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, to the Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, and to two Army Chiefs of Staff. Colonel LeCuyer played a major role in the post-Vietnam transformation of the Army into today's preeminent organization, and he served as Chief of Force Integration in the 8th Infantry Division (Mechanized) for 3 years, where he was a major contributor to the development of Army doctrine for AirLand Battle and Leader Development. His Army command tours include the 7th Engineer Battalion, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), and the U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento; he served 26 months in Vietnam, to include TET 1969, with the 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Air Cavalry Division. Colonel LeCuyer was also an Olmsted Scholar in Florence, Italy; White House Fellow with duty in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs; Army Fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States; and, Senior Army Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1970 to 2011. Colonel LeCuyer is the co-author of Comprehensive Security and Western Prosperity, with Leonard Sullivan, Atlantic Council of the United States, 1988; editor of Certain Victory: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War, 1992, by Major General (Ret.) Robert Scales; "The National Security Staff: What's Missing in Whole of Government Approaches to National Security," in Conflict Management and "Whole of Government": Useful Tools for U.S. National Security Strategy? (Strategic Studies Institute, U.S, Army War College, 2012); and numerous articles published in the AUSA Green Book, Military Review, and Parameters. Colonel LeCuyer attended Tufts University for 2 years and holds a B.S. in engineering from the United States Military Academy, a Dottore di Scienze Polittiche from the Universita` degli Studies di Firenze, and an MPA from the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
*The above information may not be current. It was current at the time when the individual worked for SSI or was published by SSI.
SSI books and monographs by Dr. Jack A. LeCuyer
A National Security Staff for the 21st Century
December 13, 2012
Authored by Dr. Jack A. LeCuyer.
View the Executive Summary
This monograph offers a new model for the management of the national security system—at the strategic level—which is the first step in transforming our national security system to meet the challenges and opportunities of the global security environment of the 21st century. This monograph provides a proposed response to Section 1072 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which requires the President to report to Congress on the organizational changes required to implement the National Security Strategy of May 2010.


text:
La Liga: Mallorca looking for three wins to secure safety
Mallorca need to string three successive Primera Division victories together to help secure their top flight safety.
Last Updated: 24/05/13 9:51am
Mallorca currently sit second bottom of the overall standings, three points from safety with only two games remaining, and are preparing themselves to play Atletico Madrid on Sunday.
However, the lower part of the table is very congested and five teams - Celta Vigo, Real Zaragoza, Deportivo La Coruna, Osasuna and Granada - can still be relegated, along with Mallorca, come the final day of the season.
Luna, who is on loan at Mallorca from Sevilla, believes Monday's 1-0 win over Real Betis gave them the confidence needed to claim wins against Atletico and Real Valladolid and secure safety.
He told his club's official website: "I think the team needed it (the win against Betis), because it is true that in recent games, especially in Bilbao where the team made a great effort against a tough opponent with a man down, (we did not get anything).
"I think the win against Betis has given us quite a lot of strength.
"We cling to our own hope and desire and that of our people, the fans of RCD Mallorca - it is true that we have never done it (got nine points from three successive games), but hey, all spells can be broken."
Rock bottom Celta Vigo are four points adrift of safety and travel to Real Valladolid to play a must-win match.
Valladolid have moved clear of the battle for survival in 13th place but Celta have everything to play for as only a win would keep their hopes of staying in the Primera Division alive.
Fellow strugglers Zaragoza must bounce back from their demoralising 2-1 defeat at home to Athletic Bilbao, where Ibai Gomez's stoppage-time winner saw them miss out on a valuable point.
They face Betis in their penultimate game and Zaragoza right-back Jose Fernandez knows there is now little room for error.
"We have to recover," he told Marca.
"The match against Betis is key and you have to earn it and not think of anything else.
"I understand that the fans are angry because things are not working out."
Elsewhere, Osasuna will look to move closer to safety with a win over Sevilla while Barcelona travel to Espanyol and Real Sociedad look to keep their hopes of playing in next season's Champions League alive as they go in search of a win over Real Madrid.
Valencia, who are level on points with Sociedad but fifth on goal difference, will hope they fail to claim anything from Jose Mourinho's side while they aim to beat Granada, while in the other game, Getafe face Rayo Vallecano.


text:
Polaris Industries Sales Soar, but This Stock Is Still No Harley-Davidson
Fast sales growth can't make up for low quality of earnings and a high stock price.
One day after Harley-Davidson (NYSE:HOG) wowed Wall Street with its Q1 earnings report, up-and-coming rival Polaris Industries (NYSE:PII) came out with earnings of its own. Unfortunately for Polaris, its report wasn't nearly as good -- and its share price reflected that.
Running down the quarter's highlights:
- Sales at Polaris grew nearly twice as fast as Harley's did, roaring ahead 19% and hitting a new quarterly record for the Minneapolis-based motorcycle maker.
- Operating profit margins expanded by 60 basis points, rising to 14.3%.
- Net profit margins contracted by 100 basis points, largely due to a heavier tax burden.
- Net profits grew only 11%, to $1.19 per share.
Coincidentally, sales growth at Polaris' flagship off-road vehicles business mimicked the earnings growth number at 11% in Q1. Perversely, the company's tiny snowmobiles division posted its slowest growth rate (5%) during the snowy winter quarter.
As for the rest of the growth -- the businesses that drove Polaris' overall revenues up 19% -- this came from Polaris' motorcycles segment, where the Indian motorcycle brand is gaining steam (and posting 52% revenue growth), and from an 248% increase small vehicles revenue (Polaris' catchall category for Aixam quadricycles and GEM and Goupil small electric vehicles). Parts, garments, and accessories were also up a very respectable 20%.
So much for the good news. Now here's the bad.
Free cash flow at the company -- which didn't hold a candle to reported net income to begin with -- declined pretty dramatically in comparison to Q1 2013 levels. Whereas a year ago Polaris generated cash profits of $7.7 million in Q1, this time around the free cash flow tally came to just $5 million -- a 34% drop. This was mainly due to the company spending $63.2 million dollars on inventory compared to $26.8 million a year ago.
As a result, quality of earnings showed no improvement whatsoever in the quarter. Against trailing GAAP earnings of $383 million, Polaris has generated only $238 million in free cash flow, or put another way, for every $1 of GAAP profit the company reports, it's producing only $0.62 in real cash profits.
Analysts who follow Polaris project earnings to grow about 18% annually over the next five years. That's right in line, by the way, with the 17% to 19% that Polaris says it will grow earnings this year, working out to $6.30-$6.45 in per share profit. Yet priced today at 24 times GAAP earnings, Polaris shares already look pretty expensive relative to that growth rate.
When you consider, therefore, that free cash flow at the company isn't keeping pace with GAAP earnings, it's hard to make the case for buying Polaris shares at today's prices -- especially when, from the same perspective, Harley-Davidson shares are selling for so much cheaper.


text: In Goma, WFP sends out automated SMS surveys to student key informants to collect food prices in the local markets. The information is then recorded into an Interactive Voice Response system that beneficiaries can call to listen to information on food prices, WFP distribution dates, and phone survey dates free of charge. For more information on the project, please visit the VAM blog. http://mvam.org/


text:
|2013-02-16, 07:07
|Link #3021
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Let's assume Shizu has a supernatural ability, what is her ability?
The Fact:
1) Each character in Saki universe have different ability
2) She get ron'ned twice so far (in quarterfinal and 1st round captain match)
3) She never get baiman or more
4) Her win come from ron, not tsumo
5) She win on all last round
6) Awai doesn't win though she activate her ability
Now what do we speculate about her ability so far:
1) She has "imagine breaker", negating other supernatural ability
2) She has a good tenpai sense, never lost point much
3) She activate her ability if she get certain dice number
4) She get used to other playing style, then defeat them on the last round
I will bet at least one of the point above is Shizu supernatural ability
Personally, it will be great if her ability based around yaku. But all the unique yaku already claimed and so far character in Saki doesn't share same ability. (With Saki rinshan kaiho, Koromo haitei, Toki ippatsu and Awai double riichi). The remain yaku that most fit with Shizu's mountain image so far is chiihou (blessing of the earth) in my opinion
Last edited by morli; 2013-02-16 at 07:25.
|2013-02-16, 10:03
|Link #3022
likes cute things
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Searching for more imoutos
Age: 38
Time for my wild guess on Shizu's ability:
Harue made it obvious that she cares about what the sum of the dice roll is. My knowledge of mahjong is extremely limited (don't know all the rules, so I can't really play), but I had a strange theory about how Shizu's ability might work.
The theory of the dice needing to be pairs and how it affects the wall (or is it dead wall? ) is quite interesting (pairs = 1,1 , 2,2 , 3,3 , 4,4 , 5,5 , 6,6), but that makes it highly restrictive for Shizu. Now I know that in her previous game where Ryuuka was dealer and Shizu was trying to win against that orange hair girl (from Kentani school), the dice was 6,6. And the time where Shizu was against Awai the dice was 1,1. But let's ignore the dice being pairs for a sec and talk about my strange theory.
In the Kentani match, the seating was like this:
S=Shizu, R=Ryuuka, K=Kentai girl, O=other school
Now this is all going to fall flat on my face if my understanding of the dice count is completely wrong. I used this for reference... http://www.japanesemahjong.com/reach...break_wall.htm posted by eavein18.
The dice was a sum 12, Ryuuka was dealer. What if we were to count clockwise instead of the usual counter clockwise? 12 ends up on the Kentani girl. Could this possibly be who Shizu's target is? By ignoring that the dice has to be pairs, it would give Shizu much more flexibility for her ability.
In Shizu's battle with Awai, the seating was like this:
S=Shizu, R=Ryuuka, H=Himeko, A=Awai
Awai was dealer, she rolled snake eyes (a sum of 2), counting clockwise, that ends up on Shizu. But of course, Shizu can't target herself... So what happens? Maybe it goes back to who was the one that rolled the dice? That means her target was Awai.
Well.... It's just a strange theory I came up with... Don't mind me...
|2013-02-16, 16:52
|Link #3024
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
To make Shiratoudai more competitive, maybe they will "create" an "accident" and send Seiko to the hospital, so Shiratoudai can use a sixth member (I think Ryumonbuuchi stated briefly that if they can't find Koromo the maid is gonna be the substitute and Touka had registered the maid as the 6th person) and that sixth person, with a bizarre style, curbstorm Nodoka (Nodoka is the only one other than Saki in Kiyosumi team that hasn't been curbstormed). So Saki start with less than 10k point and we will see how she struggle to win in back.
|2013-02-16, 19:33
|Link #3026
Join Date: Nov 2012
I see Awai, Himeko and Ryuuka being to actually give Koromo a good match. Well, Himeko can only give Koromo a good match, depending on how well Touka would do against Mairu, and its perfectly within reason to awaken Touka's cold state, which would mean Himeko wouldn't really be able to give Koromo a challenge. Awai seems to be able to actually able to find Koromo's table control, after all her double riichi would be a real throne in Korom's side, who mainly aims for haitei rouyoue, and Awai usually wins at the corner of a wall.
So what I'm saying is Awai is still a monster, its just case of, she's facing 3 people who are not scared of monster, like Kana, who got really scared of Koromo.
Why? Because Miyamori had Sae, who's able to seal hands, and if she's able to seal Nodoka's han would make for a good match were strain is put on Nodoka, or Esiui with Hatsumi who would force Nodoka into having to accept the occult aspect of the game. Esiui with Jindai and Kasumi would make things even more annoying for Yuuki and Saki, because Jindai would've had a stronger goddeses when fighting Yuuki, and Kasumi knows how to defend well against Saki. And with Toyone who apparently had other abilities we were unable to see.
Not Himemastu, who's only real credit is that their Sergeant got a single win over Mako, remember Hiroe taking on Hisa doesn't count, because of Hisa being nervous at the start of the match.
Kirame added nothing to the vanguard match? You honestly think that? Without Kirame Toki would have kept getting worse and worse moral, because she would not get the idea to play cooperatively play with the other teams, still Kirame being in the finals would mean squat, because Yuuki probably won't ever play cooperatively ever again after what Mihoko pulled on her.
1) No Shizu didn't win against Koromo, but she still did well enough to leave a lasting impression on Koromo.
2)She warned Saki about the potential of Shizu canceling out wins
3)No Saki isn't arrogant, she just needs to start playing at full power.
4)We don't want her to suffer, we want Saki to actually be at full strength and have to work for her wins.
I see Awai being wet for Shizu in the finals, only to realize she also has Teru's sister at the table, meaning Awai's going to cause herself to get a full orgasm while trying to destroy both.
Remember how Koromo also started having trouble after Kana changed her outlook? And how Yumi was able to break away Koromo's control for a while? Well Himeko, Shizu and Ryuuka are all able to do this without a monster helping them. Plus Ryuuka and Himeko have previous experience in the nationals, meaning that have faced dangerous players and wouldn't be able to be have their confidence destroyed like Kana did. Main point: Awai and Koromo are most probably the same in terms of monster strength, and the higher you get in the nationals the more likely you are to run into players who can deal with and stand on equal footing with monsters.
I wouldn't say Shiraitodai has lost any creditably, they are facing a team trained by a former pro, the 2nd ranked school in the entire country and team that has learned from past mistakes, by placing their aces at the end instead of the start. As Kuro said, the closer you get to the top, the harder things become.
Don't worry I'll eat her next time (with all the implications)
And pretty much if Achiga is going to win, Shizu must stop it.
Something that could happen before the finals is Yuuki finds Teru is Saki's sister, which I would feel would make Yuuki angry for Saki seeing as its possible Teru doesn't acknowledge Saki as her sister, which could actaully help lead into a flashback for Teru.
Yuu's ability is to attract warm/red tiles, I see this as something Mako can read, but would find challenging because Yuu's red tile magnet is something that cannot be stopped
Hisa has actually been shown to have been stopped by cheap hands in the quarter-finals by 2 people working together, and Ako who doesn't need help with her quick wins would be a challenge for Hisa to overcome.
Arata's style is still a logical one, with the pinzu's waits, Nodoka would be able to guess which tiles Arata is aiming for, its when we bring in the part where Arata mixes in Harue's style that I feel Nodoka would be shocked by, because Harue is someone Nodoka hasn't seen years and doesn't know is now coaching Achiga's mahjong club.
Shizu possible ability to negate wins is something that Saki would find an annoyance
All the things are the possible things for Shiuz's ability, or it could even be all of them.
I see Rinkai, or Uzusan being the ones to stop give Nodoka a hard time, it seems Megan knows how to read the flow of a game, so I see her possibly taking Nodoka out, by having Nodoka ignore the occult aspect of the game. Or my personal theory of Arata is the won to cause Nodoka trouble may making her be reminded about the children's mahjong club and her feel like she's playing Harue again.
Also something else, so will the Tokyo playing hall be able to survive through the finals? What we've Saki having caused an earthquake and Awai having made a giant thunderstorm happen when they got serious, lets hope no body else causes nature to be affected when they play in the finals, otherwise we won't be getting a winner, we'll have to deal with a disaster and the captains needing be rescued from the destroyed playing hall.
Unless in some weird twisted way Shizu is able to come the supernova and god before they destroy the hall.
Yeah which would mean the most hyperactive captain is the one who comes nature
|2013-02-16, 19:42
|Link #3027
El Psy Congroo
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Within the choice of Steins Gate...
But I think for Saki, playing her +/- zero is like a sanctuary for her where all is well... remember her story about playing majhong with her family? If she wins too much then her family gets angry at her but if she loses... well, she lose... I think having that passive ability or just being as one loved by the tiles, her hand naturally builds fast and big that when she wins she wins big time... being Saki, she doesn't want her family to be angry at her so she doesn't want win but also doesn't want to lose so she developed her +/- zero habit...
But as stated before, doing +/- zero every time is much more difficult than having yakuman hand every time... so Saki developed/improved her table control and signature rinshan for her +/- zero play style... from then, every time she plays majhong with her family she always neither win nor lose so no one gets angry and everything is well...
Well... I think Saki has a lot more abilities in her arsenal and I'm waiting for someone to make her show it all... Shizu, you're our girl... if you can't do it no one can...
|2013-02-16, 20:40
|Link #3028
Reader or Writer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Somewhere between first and last.
|2013-02-16, 20:58
|Link #3029
Critical fanboy
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere with anime and anime discussion is fine
To those who dislike Saki holding back and resort to +- 0, if you have to blame someone for that, blame her family. They were the ones holding their daughter back by punishing her both for winning and loosing. Can you imagine that? It would seem as though her family is trying to supress Saki full potential for some reason. Some of you may think her mother must be evil huh?
At the time when this series just started, I reckon that Saki is too good at mahjong that her family became sick of her winning, but then what does it have anything to do with the mysterious girl in Saki's dream. Also note that at the time of her dream, Saki should be able to do +- 0 since she start doing it when she was 6 years old.
Another thing I have been thinking, does Teru able to do +- 0? We never saw her did it but that doesn't mean she can't right? Maybe it's Miyanaga family tredition to raise their child that way so Teru should be receiving the same treatment as Saki if that's the case.
Last edited by teja208; 2013-02-16 at 21:12.
|2013-02-16, 21:28
|Link #3030
Join Date: Nov 2012
So Teru and Saki's parents: real assholes, they'd probably get on great with Touka's father who can't accept Koromo as his niece.
Teru probably can, but doesn't want to.
|2013-02-16, 22:26
|Link #3032
The Master of Turkeys
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Between Skyrim and Thedas
Age: 29
We'll find out what Shizu's ability is when the chapter comes out. Patience is key, so I'm going to busy myself until then.
Got around to watching Episode 14 last night. Funakyu is still Malygos in human skin and Seiko is definitely a student of famed angler Nat Pagle. Oh, and don't forget Arata with her SHINING FINGER~~~~
Kouko's already going Full Ham as it is during the semi-finals. Her body wouldn't be ready for a Saki/Teru/Awai/Koromo showdown because if a blackout/earthquake/thunderstorm won't take her out her Hamming It Up will.
I don't think there's been news as to when Episode 15 will be out, has there? I haven't seen anything on ANN as of late.
|2013-02-16, 22:53
|Link #3033
Reader or Writer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Somewhere between first and last.
It would be more on the level of crashing reality.
And I have now the image of Sukoya running trow a crashing city with Kouko still commenting on her back. Is it bad?
|2013-02-16, 23:17
|Link #3034
The slacking one
Join Date: Apr 2012
Oh, I forgot to mention how awesome it is that Awai and Seiko are the official comedic duo of Shiraitodai. Now let's just give Takami something to do and everyone will be likable and interesting.
And dear god, Kouko, you are one crazy lesbian.
|2013-02-17, 12:06
|Link #3035
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Besides, if anything, Senriyama is the most unlikely to go to the finals. Like with Himematsu, we already know much more about Senriyama. Shindouji and Shiraitodai are schools that doesn't have any sufficient flashbacks, so going by the more "interesting" teams, both of them are better since they hadn't had a proper flashback yet. (sans Kirame)
If you're talking about mahjong abilities, then both Shindouji and Senriyama is equals in terms of strengths. You're quick to dismiss Yoshiko and Hitomi as fodders but both of them are quite good. Yoshiko aside, coming up with a new strategy to disable Sumire, Hitomi is actually good. I think I posted before on how she came up with a 6 sided wait to stop Takami's yakuman hand. It's just that Sera and Ako dominated that round that it really couldn't be helped.
|2013-02-17, 15:21
|Link #3037
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|2013-02-17, 16:43
|Link #3038
Join Date: Nov 2012
|mahjong, nopan, seinen, sport, yuri
|Thread Tools