415hawaiiboy

Members
  • Content count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 415hawaiiboy

  • Rank
    Beginner

Recent Profile Visitors

6,000 profile views
  1. Basketball gyms of the Big West (sans Hawaii) seem to be designed by the same architect.
  2. Am I only allowed to be proud of being in one conference? Could you be proud of your college but later in life proud of where you work? I'm more than happy to be in the MWC today. Isn't it better to show success at every level in a progression? If the MWC could be a P6 (or consistent BCS game participant) that would be great.
  3. I coined the term Trailer Park Conference for Warbow. TPC. I do agree that Mountain West Conference is pretty unimaginative. The AAC, despite their meteoric decline from a power conference, sounds more like a power conference. Until we stop trying to all exit for the P5, we should invest in our conference to make it better. My experience with the PAC-12: - equal revenue share from media contract (same $ for USC as with Wazzu). This is the biggest benefit by far. - management consulting for schools for sales and marketing - better branding (Conference of Champions) - better markets for our tourism industry (major MSAs that have fanbases who can afford to travel to Hawaii; advertising value which would better align UH athletics with our largest industry). I'm a Hawaii fan who thinks we could be a PAC school, but I'm very proud to be a MWC member. I want to make this conference better and if in another lifetime we go to another conference, so be it. But I think it is better to make the MWC a contender.
  4. In the 2000's we would go clubbing on Thursday, Friday and after the UH games on Saturday night (or pass out drunk by the 3rd quarter). Kids these days are just different. House music and everyone dancing facing the DJ. Junk.
  5. Con-Con getting crushed: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/25524-john-birch-society-sees-victories-in-stopping-con-con-applications After a fast start, looks like no Con-Con this year. That's a good thing.
  6. Kompromat galore. One day I'll learn how to pronounce that word.
  7. When a liberal-leaning, but open-minded centrist person such as myself finds myself agreeing with the Heritage Foundation and the John Birch Society, there is hope for this nation. I hope this bi-partisanship movement can be expanded.
  8. It seems to me, the Con-Con strategy is: Island Hopping: Engage in an state by state strategy to one-by-one pick off the most likely to flip states in roughly the following order: Idaho (29), Kentucky (30), Wyoming (31), Montana (32), Arizona (33), Wisconsin (34), South Carolina (might move up, but haven't heard much out of here), Maine, Washington. Overwhelming Force: Suppress national/regional media attention to maximize organizational advantages against dispersed opposition groups; result is mainly opinion articles in local newspapers; zero coverage on national news. A horde of trained volunteers to try to sway public opinion. Wolf-PAC (extreme Left) and ALEC (extreme Right) seem to have a common interest. Could this be why you never hear about this Con-Con in the national media? Intense Lobbying: especially in Republican-led legislatures and governorships; get some of these part-time politicians on the payroll (legally). Texas article this morning says that Con-Con contributions from super wealthy special interest groups increased 4X in the past 5 years. The Idaho defeat caught me as an outsider off guard, since Utah easily passed their new Con-Con bills (voting along party lines). The Idaho House overwhelmingly passed the Con-Con bill, but the bill narrowly passed the Senate Committee 5-4 after over 200 people protested and 25 citizen speakers spoke against the Con-Con. Local newspaper articles had the majority of opinion letters against Con-Con. Less than a week later, in the Idaho Senate the bill was defeated soundly. This same pattern of defense against Con-Con is likely to be repeated. Counterattack: States that were traditionally red states but are now purple/blue such as Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina have bills to rescind their state's decades old Con-Con applications. Maryland and New Mexico have the highest probability of rescinding. The fight is not over, and this is a multi-year battle to keep the Con-Con application below 30. The Idaho defeat was significant. Con-Con advocates do not have an answer to the following points: High Degree of Certainty: There are no official rules, no official case law; how can we be sure that this Convention will not runaway; nobody knows who will attend the convention and its most likely going to be the most extreme Left or Right advocates, and they are going their not merely to vote (like in an Electoral College) but to advocate and negotiate. Deceptive Assurance: The 3/4 states ratification can be state legislatures OR conventions ["state ratifying conventions"]. 3/4 states under the convention route might not be as high a bar as initially thought because many states have their own state ratifying laws; most of which from the time of the 1933 21st Amendment to repeal Prohibition (first and last time this "convention" route was used to ratify). To figure out how the 3/4 states calculation works, one must review these 80 year old laws. Some states allow the governor to hand pick delegates; some states are by direct election from the population; and some are picked by the state leg. 3/4 states doesn't feel as reassuring unless the details are examined. When your chief strategy is to blindside the American public to get to your 34 states magic number, that does not instill confidence in the transparency of the future Convention process. You MWC folks make great points about how the Constitution is a masterpiece and this country is too diverse. I fear something like the Iraq debacle, where the Shiites usurped all the power from the Sunnis, when the Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis were all supposed to share power (Republicans/Democrats in the US). We are seeing the end result of this imbalance in Iraq. I remember there was an Iraqi constitutional convention of sorts and overnight the country changed, Shiites won big, everyone else lost big. That is a big fear I have of this. The cementing of one party rule, would lead to the eventual breakup of the United States. Brexit was not treated seriously (EU breakup); same with Trump's candidacy (anti-Globalist, but for how long, 4 - 8 years, particularly Executive Orders). Don't want to +++++ around with the Constitution which could be irrecoverable. Go Warriors!
  9. Idaho Senate defeats Con-Con! Come on Wyoming, you can do it too! http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/mar/01/senate-votes-down-call-article-v-convention-add-balanced-budget-amendment-us-constitution/
  10. My preciousss. Investigate!
  11. ^ unique and deep perspective. I agree. Thanks.
  12. Lots of horny folks with built up tension would make for a SPECTACULAR Convention. Seriously though, interesting perspective about the once a generation super election. I think the Supreme Court kind of has that with the appointed for life justices. Glacial movements but accepted more or less. In one generation, much has changed in society, I think for the better under the current system. There has only been one repeal amendment I believe and that was the 21st Amendment to abolish Prohibition. There is a mechanism just not used often.
  13. From my "Wolf's Lair" in the mountains of San Francisco, do I fear invasion from the West (ie China) or from the East, from my own countrymen? I hope neither but makes you wonder if the Constitution is hijacked.
  14. Bluesrules, that's interesting. Being from the "West Division" in MWC, we fear the combining of Church and State, loss of First Amendment Rights (Trumps war on the press), loss of Supreme Court power to check "right wing" Congress, state's rights and uneven civil rights laws where "you're kind are not welcomed in these parts". Fear of the other side is real. Still, we are together as one Nation (and one conference). A balance or great compromise. However, if the Constitution gets hijacked (even opening it up would lead to doubts of its legitimacy), states will be exiting the Union. Hope you Idahoans and Wyoming folks fight this Con-Con. But do a lot of people in your states care? I see very little news about this.
  15. MWC'ers, I don't live in Idaho or Wyoming obviously, but these are two of nine states targeted by proponents of the Constitutional Convention to be able to amend/rewrite the US Constitution under Article V. Normally, Congress proposes amendments and then the states ratify with 3/4 of the states needing to approve. That's how all 27 amendments have been ratified. There is a push to use the never before used part of Article V which allows states to propose amendments. Proponents say the states need to "reign in the power of the Federal Government" and force a balanced budget amendment. Opponents say that the only real example of a Constitutional Convention was the very first on in 1786, which resulted in a totally new Constitution. Opponents fear a "runaway" convention which special interests carving up the Constitution. A perceived illegitimate Constitution could lead to succession or even civil war. The bill to have Idaho become the 29th state to apply for a Convention (there needs to be 34 out of 50) will be voted on soon in the full Idaho state senate. Also, in Wyoming. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/feb/24/senate-panel-votes-5-4-favor-art-v-constitutional-convention-after-listening-25-people-testify-against-it/ http://kgab.com/wyoming-2017-legislative-deadlines-approaching/ Outside of the battleground states, there has been very little coverage of this Convention push. Meaning, potentially 90%+ of Americans have no clue what is going on in state legislatures such as Idaho, Kentucky, Arizona, Wisconsin, Montana, etc. While people argue about Executive Orders which can change with an election, changing the Constitution is pretty permanent. This is where focus should be, whether we want this. Wondering if this topic is a big one in your states and how you feel about it? I think a Con-Con is too risky because there is no case law, legal precedent, has run away before, and there are people who will push this beyond the scope of a balanced budget amendment (which economically is probably a bad idea anyway). Thank you.