Shot In The Dark: Now With 33% More Ineluctible Truth!

January 09, 2006

Now With 33% More Ineluctible Truth!

This Saturday, the Northern Alliance Radio Network expands to four solid hours, from 11AM to 3PM.

The Patriot may be announcing further changes to the Saturday lineup as the week progresses. Stay - literally and figuratively - tuned.

Posted by Mitch at January 9, 2006 07:05 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Why not...have re-plays of the NARN on Sundays? Most of us HATE listening to the Evil Empire's Car-crap-talk from 12-3. I'd rather listen to the NARN re-runs for parts I might have missed!

Posted by: Dave at January 9, 2006 08:32 AM

We are currently re-run from 9 to midnight on Sunday nights.

Feel free to send the Patriot's management any other suggestions: 651-289-4400.

Other options may be coming soon.

Posted by: mitch at January 9, 2006 08:58 AM

Is this a permanent thing? Is David getting pulled too thin timewise?

(not that I care one way or another, I'm usually busy doing things where I can't listen to the radio saturday afternoons)

Posted by: Bill C at January 9, 2006 10:34 AM

Your end of the year media review on Saturday was a hoot. You guys have a good time together, and it's contagious.

Posted by: walt at January 9, 2006 11:32 AM

Strom's rating were in the toilet and we couldn't tolerate such poor performance from the NARN's lead in. So we sent David to the minors (at an allegedly conservative talk station on the FM dial) to work on his chops. If he's able to work out the mechanics, I'd expect that we'd be ready to call him back up to the bigs in a year, two at the tops.

Posted by: the elder at January 9, 2006 12:46 PM

Wow, what I hope was sarcsm from the Elder.. I'm truly laughing..because it seems Chad is mocking the importance of 1280.

(note to those who may not have gotten it.. the FM station has about 100 times the transmit power of the hate-america-as-it-is err Patriot, and Strom weilds more power with his pinky toe than does the entire rest of NARN)

But then again, maybe it wasn't sarcasm, and the Elder really thinks Strom couldn't dictate his own timeslot. This doesn't mean Strom runs 1280, nor that he isn't dull as hell, he is, as well as being a moonbat, but the MTPL is probably the most effective lobby in the state at this point, and I suspect 1280 knows where their bread is buttered.

Having said that.. Mitch, perhaps you can address these questions next time on NARN's expanded hours...

1. Should the litigant be allowed to select his/her judge?

2. If not, then does Samual Alito have an obligation, given his past profession of granting additional power to the executive, does he have an obligation to recuse himself from the wiretapping case? (an adjunct, given he SAID he'd recuse himself in another case then didn't, why should we believe him if he says he would)

3. Does Judge Alito concur with the Texas court in determining that judges from opposition political parties cannot sit in judgement a defendent from another party? Further, does he then feel, and if so why, that in highly charged political cases, judges from the same political party will and should be assumed to act impartially? If the answer to #2 was "no" he will not recuse himself, and he feels that opposition parties cannot act impartially, how does he reconcile that he WOULD act impartially, as he is from and friendly to political interests of the President.

The point, boys and girls, moms and dads, is that you need an INDEPENDENT judiciary. From what I've read of Sam Alito, I actually think he will be, but the question is still valid, the recent wire-tap case points to a need for a correct check/balance and there is real question whether Alito could act independently. I don't think that should prevent his appointment, but he should stand aside in the case.

Sorry Mitch for hijacking your post to something meaningful, but this seemed as good as any of yoru recent posts to raise the question, Springsteen and your coolness just didn't seem the right arena.

Posted by: pb at January 9, 2006 02:37 PM

I have a better idea, PB; go and hijack yourself into something meaningful.

The judiciary needs to be independant; judges, especially at the Supreme Court level, should be chosen for their integrity (i.e., above partisan politics, capable of ruling on the *law* rather than agendae).

The executive has independence as well; the eavesdroping on people for whom there is probable cause that they're involved with terrorism (because their number was found on Ramsi Bin Al Shibh's sidekick, for example - is well within the rights of the executive.

There is no boogeyman here, Peeb. Now, either knock off the puerile hijacking, or start your own blog.

Posted by: mitch at January 9, 2006 03:09 PM

Ok, then start a topic worth a real discussion. You asked that I send you a response to constitutional challenges, I did, you didn't reply.. (shock)..

Probable cause involves PROVING something. I think Alito should be confirmed (so much for your party line crap), but think he needs to recuse himself from the wiretap discussion. I think it's a valid topic for your expanded time, and if that's only a minor point, given the fact that you consistently react to minor points in responses, take your own medicine.

Posted by: pb at January 9, 2006 04:01 PM

"Ok, then start a topic worth a real discussion. You asked that I send you a response to constitutional challenges, I did, you didn't reply.. (shock).."

I replied re the executive responsibilies re wiretapping some weeks ago.

"Probable cause involves PROVING something."

Er, no, it involves presenting a case. The executive has the right - obligation - to act on behalf of national security. I posted several legal experts, via Hugh Hewitt (himself a conlaw professor) that support the idea that the "wiretapping" is permissable for a variety of reasons.

There is no rational reason for Alito to recuse himself from cases involving the issue, as long as he is dealing with law and not a personal agenda. None.

"I think Alito should be confirmed (so much for your party line crap),"

Too much for it, since, if you take a breath and try to think for a moment, I've never said you were regurgitating anyone's party line. Do try to keep your rampant, unreasoning prejudice in check.

Posted by: mitch at January 9, 2006 04:08 PM

PB-

I'm sure David wishes he had 1/100th of the power and influence that you ascribe to him. For that matter, I do too.

I wasn't mocking the Patriot. I was mocking Strom. The fact that you didn't get it does not bother me in the slightest.

Posted by: the elder at January 9, 2006 09:50 PM

Posted by: lose-weight at October 29, 2006 03:56 PM