<....August 3, 2019, Tuberville told the Shoals Republican Club, “Yes, I am not an every-day resident of Alabama. That’s going to be brought up. I have been here for most of the last 20 years. I have property. So you’ll see that on TV. So he’s a carpetbagger? Yep. I’m a carpetbagger of this country.”

March 6, 2020: Former Alabama Senator and candidate for his old seat, Jeff Sessions, questioned Tuberville’s residency, calling him “Florida Man” in attack ads. However, Senate residency requirements allow officials to serve if they have lived in Alabama for one day before Election Day. Democratic incumbent Doug Jones continued this attack in the general election.

On April 30, 2020, in a livestreamed Alabama Republican Party forum, Tuberville told state GOP Chairwoman Terry Lathan that he owned an Alabama home on Lake Martin. Property records show he sold that house a year and half earlier, on August 29, 2018.

On Nov. 3, 2020, Tommy Tuberville won election to the U.S. Senate.

On Aug. 10, 2023, the Washington Post again questioned Tuberville’s residency. A Post investigation found that Tuberville had sold all Alabama property in his name, that Susanne Tuberville had continued to work as a real estate agent licensed in Florida but not Alabama, and that campaign records showed him spending extensive time on the Florida coast. Subsequent U.S. Senate records have shown Tuberville making frequent trips to the Florida panhandle.

On January 26, 2024, Tommy Tuberville and the Tuberville’s other son, Troy, bought a home in Madison, Ala., and put both their names on the deed. Property tax records show an H1 homestead exemption on the property.

On May 7, 2024, the Tubervilles filed a quit claim deed in Lee County, taking Tucker Tuberville’s name off the Auburn house and adding Tommy Tuberville to the new deed. Tommy and Suzanne Tuberville claimed an H4 homestead exemption on that house.

If a homestead exemption on a deed is proof of residence, then Tuberville now appears to be living in two places at the same time.

Tuberville’s homestead exemptions are less than proof of where he’s lived. They’re messy and contradictory, especially when paired with his voting record.

And even Tuberville seems less than sure that they’re enough.

Speaking to Alabama Daily News this week, Tuberville may have tipped his hand. In that interview, he claimed that the law requires him to live a total of seven years in Alabama, not all seven years leading up to the election.

“You can go back to, as long as you’ve had a seven year…I was at Auburn 10 years and so I lived there for 10 years in a row,” Tuberville said. “So it’s not your last seven years.”

There’s no reason for him to have said that unless he wasn’t sure he could prove he’s been in Alabama for the last seven years.

But the seven-years-total argument is flimsy, too.

The Alabama Constitution requires candidates for governor to be residents “at least seven years next before the date of their election.”

What does “next before” mean?

It’s not a typo. According to Alabama Code 1-1-1, which sets definitions of Alabama law, “next before” and “preceding” are synonymous things.

In making his case off the cuff, Tuberville seems to have told on himself again.

So what does that leave us?

It’s time for Tuberville to show, not tell.

If Tuberville believed he lived in Alabama in 2018, he should have state income tax records to show that, and the same for every year after.

Unless, of course, he was living in Florida, which doesn’t have state income taxes.

If he wants to show where he’s lived, he needs to show us his taxes. And while he’s at it, it wouldn’t hurt to show his utility bills, too. Where he flushes his toilet probably tells us more than his homestead exemption.

He can do it now. Or he can wait for a political challenger to take him to court.>

<The Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, announced a new education policy for the state on Thursday, which includes the allegation that there were “discrepancies” in the 2020 election, which President Donald Trump baselessly claims was stolen from him.

The new academic standards for social studies for the coming school year state that students should “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellweather county’ trends.”

This comes after the Oklahoma Senate declined to take action on a resolution that would reject the election denial language in the social studies standards, The Oklahoman noted earlier this week.

Walters lobbied against the resolution, and the far-right group Moms for Liberty issued a letter threatening to challenge any Republican lawmaker who voted for it.

Three new board members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education have said that Walters has been dishonest by making late changes to the standards without telling them or the public and by saying that the standards had to be approved during a meeting in late February, when they could have been put forward to the legislature for approval this week.

“Questions exist regarding the transparency of the subject matter standard adoption process,” the resolution states.

Last month, new board member Michael Tinney told The Oklahoman that there were differences in the standards he had downloaded from the website of the State Department of Education and what Walters had sent to him.

The section regarding students identifying “discrepancies in 2020 elections results” was among the differences.

Chris VanDenhende, also a new member of the education board, requested during a board meeting on April 24 that Walters share “change documents” to show the changes he had made to the standards. Walters rejected the suggestion, saying, “That’s completely irrelevant.”

During the meeting, Walters said it was his decision what goes into the standards, even as new board members pushed back. They couldn’t stop him as he decides what appears on the meeting agendas for the board.

On April 29, after the Oklahoma Senate chose not to take action on the resolution, Walters wrote on X that “Today is a major victory for Oklahoma families and for the truth. After months of Democrats and the teachers unions lying and attacking, the most unapologetically conservative, pro-America social studies standards in the nation are moving forward.”

“For nearly a year, we engaged in a thoughtful, transparent process to deliver standards that teach students factual history, including the realities of the 2020 election, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the threat posed by Communist China,” he added. “These reforms will reset our classrooms back to educating our children without liberal indoctrination.”

Moms For Liberty shared a letter on X on April 28 opposing the possible rejection of the standards, which they said were “truth-filled, anti-woke, and unapologetically conservative.”

“This is not about flawed standards; it is about political interference and media manipulation,” the letter stated. “Oklahoma’s adoption process for academic standards has been consistent, legal, and transparent.”

Oklahoma City state Senate Democratic Minority Leader Julia Kirt said that the chamber “had an opportunity to check Superintendent Ryan Walters’ power, and our Republican colleagues would not step up to put our kids first,” according to The Oklahoman.

“Parents, teachers and bipartisan community members throughout Oklahoma have reached out to us, calling on the Senate to reject teaching children these politically divisive, inaccurate, and age-inappropriate topics,” she added.

Meanwhile, Democratic state Rep. Cyndi Munson argued that the standards “insert an extremist political agenda into our public education system that will only cost Oklahomans more taxpayer money.”>

<fredpigshit> would groove on this line....

<A progressive Texas Democrat raised some eyebrows late Friday on CNN, telling anchor Kaitlan Collins her Republican colleagues made "absolutely insane" moves behind closed doors this week.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) joined Collins on "The Source" late Friday to talk about the GOP's budget proposal.

"I just wonder what you make of how this is playing out among Republicans," Collins said, introducing her guest. "Because Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed this, he praised it. But we heard from several Republicans who said they didn't like it — Senator Roger Wicker said that the president's advisers were apparently not listening because of the Pentagon’s spending; Senator Mitch McConnell said it was 'material neglect.' Susan Collins called it late and expressed concern over those cuts as well. What do you think is going to happen here?"

Crockett bluntly replied she has "no idea" and said she feels lawmakers in both chambers aren't listening to their constituents, who she said are outspoken about their "pain."

She then made a notable statement about what's happening in those discussions.

"It's interesting — as we are going through reconciliation, we had a reconciliation markup in Oversight as well as Judiciary. So I had a very long night on Wednesday. And to listen to them — the things that they were not willing to say they were okay with cutting, or the things they were willing to cut — right? It's absolutely insane."

Democrats on the House Budget Committee are ensuring that every district is listed out with the number of people who will be impacted by any Medicaid cuts, as well as the number of people impacted by cuts to supplemental nutrition.

She also questioned why defense spending continues to rise despite failing the last seven audits, and as those most vulnerable are poised to get "hurt the most."

"It seems like they do whatever [Donald Trump] wants them to do at all times, right?" she later added. "Like, behind closed doors, they will talk about how these things are crazy. You can find plenty of Republicans that will tell you that these tariffs are a problem. They will tell you that. And they know that it's a problem."

Crockett asserted her Republican colleagues are actively avoiding town halls, knowing the MAGA agenda is deeply unpopular.

"This is exactly why, if you tune in and watch any of these hearings, when it comes down to marking up these bills where these cuts are supposed to be, you know who won't even defend them? The Republicans," she said.

Democrats listened for hours to amendments as they proceeded through markups. Every time, said Crockett, they called out specific Republicans and said, "'Congressman such and such, what do you think?'"

"They literally were silent. It was almost like they were told, 'Don't say anything because we can't win. We just have to vote down these common-sense amendments and get through this, because this is what we've been told to do,'" she added.>

Only time I recall seeing Jim play a King's Gambit, and matters did not go well for him:

<[Event "Pillsbury Memorial"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1975.01.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Thibault, James"]
[Black "Wood, Stephen"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C32"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Garber, Stanislav"]
[Black "Freeman, Michael Roy"]
[ECO "B87"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Welcome to this week’s edition of the Surge, a newsletter that has written 3,400 kilos of words about politics, saving 258 million American lives.

You will not believe how much politics happened this week. President Donald Trump pissed off Canada so much that they elected another lib, and Trump is delighted. Amazon had a chance to break Trump politically, but got scared. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has the chance to take a committee chairmanship at long last, but committee chairmanships are for pikers. And Mike Waltz is taking on the Big Apple!

Let’s begin with the fight over Medicaid cuts in the House, and what this big bill is really all about.

Congressional Republicans have reached the moment they’ve been waiting for—writing up their sprawling bill to enact Trump’s legislative agenda—and are, at this moment, stuck. They can’t settle on a way to enact hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts that doesn’t scare the crap out of both moderate members and Trump. On SNAP benefits, another major target for cutting, they’re running into the same issue. It raises the question: Why are they forcing themselves to spin their wheels like this? They could find a way to get their tax cuts through accounting tricks or less controversial cuts. That’s what the Senate will end up doing, anyway.

The thing is, there are varying interpretations of the purpose of the “one, big beautiful bill.” The popular understanding is that Republicans want to renew trillions in tax cuts, and they need to find some spending cuts to lessen the deficit impact. But for conservatives, like Texas Rep. Chip Roy and other deficit hawks, the purpose of the bill is to rein in mandatory federal spending programs. They see this moment as a generational opportunity—perhaps the last they’ll get before a debt crisis hits—to do so. In a letter to their colleagues on Thursday trying to salvage proposed Medicaid cuts, Roy and other conservatives wrote, “If the House budget reconciliation package does not include structural Medicaid reform that achieves desired Republican outcomes, we will be setting up massive tax increases and benefit cuts in the future.” There’s been an intraparty battle brewing between those who view tax cuts as the point and those who view spending cuts as the point, and now it’s reaching a crescendo. We’d observe that the path of least resistance almost always wins in the end, which is why Roy is so distraught in the first place.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney won a full term in the country’s election this week, completing a shocking turnaround for the country’s Liberal Party, which looked doomed as recently as a few months ago. He defeated Conservatives’ supposed PM-in-waiting, Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre represented the closest thing to major-party MAGAism in Canada, and until recently, he appeared to be cruising to power. In the end, Poilievre didn’t even hold on to his seat. What changed over the past few months was Donald Trump, who’s infuriated a nation of largely polite people with his strange efforts to destroy Canada economically and then annex it. This didn’t create a receptive electoral environment for Trumpian right-wing populism in the country.

Did Trump feel rebuked? Of course not. In an interview with the Atlantic published this week, Trump was bragging about his effect. “You know, until I came along, remember that the conservative was leading by 25 points,” he said. “Then I was disliked by enough of the Canadians that I’ve thrown the election into a close call, right? I don’t even know if it’s a close call.” He’s simply pleased with his ability to have shifted a race so quickly. The direction of the shift doesn’t matter.

Early in the week, Punchbowl News reported that Amazon “would soon show how much Trump’s tariffs are adding to the price of each product.” We don’t know that there’s a single more powerful move a private sector company could make to destroy Trump’s presidency right now than Amazon breaking out tariff costs at checkout. The White House would treat it as a declaration of war—and it did, at first, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately calling the move a “hostile and political act” while a “pissed” Trump called up Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos to complain.....>

<....But the report didn’t make sense. Don’t get us wrong—it would make great sense for Amazon to allow retailers to show consumers why their prices are up. But this is not the path Bezos has chosen. Instead, he’s chosen to protect his business interests and federal contracts by sucking up to Trump personally, whether that’s through Mar-a-Lago visits, inauguration appearances, donations, or muzzling the major newspaper he owns. He’s not going to abruptly change course while Trump still has years left in his term. The whole dustup ended quickly, with Amazon saying such a plan was never in consideration for its main site. One subsidiary had thought about making this change, but won’t, and will be imprisoned in CECOT for its thought crime. A decent pen simply costs $399 now, and there is no reason for it.

Late last fall, veteran Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly defeated New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a closely watched race to serve as top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. It left a bad taste in the mouths of those Democrats who felt the party needed a young, galvanizing face in this prominent position—which involves an equal mix of serious investigative work and flashy cable news appearances—rather than a septuagenarian in poor health. Connolly announced this week, though, that he would step aside from the post after a few months (and wouldn’t run for reelection) because his cancer had returned.

So, is AOC now a lock to take control of the committee? The biggest issue is whether she’s still interested. Since the last committee election, AOC has been touring the country to packed audiences in the tens of thousands, serving as a primary face of the reawakening resistance to Donald Trump. Her star has arguably never been brighter. So does she really want to commit herself to serving atop a House committee, and all of the duties that entails, when she could be selling out the Superdome? Or laying the groundwork for … you know … a bigger job in a few short years?

Knives were out for national security adviser Mike Waltz well before he invited a journalist onto a group chat to discuss classified bombing plans in Yemen. Waltz always stuck out as too hawkish for the MAGA national security team; Signalgate, more than anything, provided his enemies an opportunity to push him out. But in the immediate aftermath, Waltz’s job was spared because Trump didn’t want to give the media a win so early in his administration. Now that it’s been more than a month since the episode, though, Trump can finally eject him from the building and argue that it was an independent decision. Trump did so on Thursday but gave Waltz a soft landing, announcing that he would nominate him to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. (That’s the job that was originally given to New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, before Trump decided to keep her voting in the House of Representatives for eternity.)....>

<....This works out all right for everyone involved: Trump gets to provide some accountability for Signalgate without fully giving in to the haters; his MAGA foreign policy team has taken out potentially the last Russia is bad buzzkill in the building; and Waltz gets a Senate-confirmed position and a nice apartment in Manhattan. Oh, and while we’re talking about his Senate confirmation? Democrats will get a lengthy, televised opportunity to run through Signalgate again.

Shri Thanedar is a second-term Congressman representing Detroit. He is a wealthy Indian American in a plurality Black district, and he is constantly getting primaried. He already has two primary challengers, one a former state senator and another a state representative. What this means, then, is that it’s time for Thanedar to attempt some stunts. On Monday, the same day that state Rep. Donavan McKinney announced his primary campaign in the district, Thanedar introduced seven articles of impeachment against Trump. This was a significant source of irritation to House Democratic leaders, who view it as a distraction, as well as to a few members who were surprised to see they’d been listed as co-sponsors. Thanedar has further used his official office budget (i.e., taxpayer money) to advertise his impeachment efforts on billboards in his district. That’s not a new tactic for him, either; he was by far the top spender of official office money on ads in 2024. In an interview with the Detroit News, Thanedar said of his impeachment articles that “my duty to my constituents is that I speak out when injustice happens and not wait for what is politically right or what’s the opportune time to do it.” We don’t know, it seems an awful lot like he waited for the opportune time to do it.

Senate Democrats had a troubling episode earlier this week. They were forcing a vote to kill the national emergency Trump invoked for his “Liberation Day” tariffs. This is something they had a majority for; a similar resolution addressing the Canada tariffs passed earlier this year with four Republican votes. This, time, though, it didn’t work. The vote failed in a 49–49 tie as two supporters missed the vote. Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was at a conference in South Korea—something Democratic leaders knew about—while Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell was out sick. Not only did that vote fail, but then Vice President J.D. Vance showed up to cast a tiebreaker on a subsequent vote to ensure the resolution couldn’t get a revote later on. Democrats tried to spin this afterward as a secret political win for them, because they’d forced Republicans to go on the record owning the tariffs. But losing a vote you were supposed to win looks an awful lot more like a screwup to us. The vote came a week after the Democratic whip, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, announced that he would retire at the end of the term. Well, how should we put this? Some of the quotes he gave after the vote—“I don’t think anything went wrong. We just needed more votes”—suggest that he may already have one foot in a Fort Myers timeshare.>

<Let’s start here today: Any Democrat who had a part in the Biden/Harris/Harris/Walz 2024 presidential campaign, is never allowed to work in politics again.

That might not be the brave decree it reads like, because that election might have been the last of its kind in American history, which makes the failings of the three-headed campaign so stark.

And if that made you snicker it wasn’t meant as a joke, because if you still somehow don’t think that the American-attacking Trump won’t do everything inhumanely possible to hold onto power in 2028, you need go stand in some corner for not paying attention.

He means to end us, folks.

What you have seen out of this stone-cold racist and his Christo-fascist cult of me-firsts during their first 100 days of this torture test has been but a small sampler of what is yet to be served. It has been the bothersome drizzle before the steady deluge.

By the time this corrupt sicko is done with our federal government it will be completely unrecognizable, and geared around one mission and one mission only: keeping him in power until he has the decency to finally die on his two-ton throne.

Money, as always, is the biggest motivator for this psychopath and his fawning billionaires to kick us into the gutter, but sheer vindictiveness and a never-ending craving to completely wreck this county and turn it into a gas-powered dumpster fire is running a close second.

He is a sick and demented old man, the result of being the most inadequate, miserable person in every room he has ever stepped in the last 78 years.

He has the most powerful court, justice department and military in the history of the world at his greasy finger tips, and if you don’t think he won’t use them against us, I’d like to know what isolated island you have parked yourself on, so I can join you.

So back to the all these Democrats, who are still barraging us with fundraising messages, and think keeping lightweights like Chuck Schumer in the vicinity of power is helpful.

The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular, and it has never deserved it more. The more I have gotten to know about who is inside the 24/7 money-raising machine and making it tick, the more I have come to understand why it is now stalled on the side of the road after going bang.

On Monday, I unfortunately stumbled into a never-ending guest column in The New York Times penned by a guy named Rob Flaherty. Underneath the column, Flaherty is identified as “a deputy campaign manager on Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign and served as assistant to the president and director of digital strategy in the Biden White House.”

Wow. Either that’s a guy with a lot of responsibility, or is one of these Washington insiders, who wears those cheap suits and bargained harder for his title than his salary.

In his piece, I worked for Harris and Biden. Here’s the missing link for Democrats,Flaherty spent a lot of time talking about “opt-in” voters, allegedly us. And “opt-out” voters, allegedly them. Democrats are winning “opt-in” voters big-time, you see, but just can’t seem to reach those pesky “opt-out” types, who he described this way:

“At their core, opt-out voters generally don’t trust politicians or the mainstream media. Many assume the system is rigged, the media is biased and neither party is actually fighting for them.”

That’s funny, because that at least vaguely sounds like me, and I thought I was an “opt-inner.” It hurts to admit that, especially as a guy who gave his life to journalism. But let’s face it, we are all being suckered and rolled by billionaires who own our current-day corporate media and their clever messages of surrender disguised as news.

Before diving face first into his “opt-in” “opt-out” spiel, Flaherty, who’s 33, wanted us to know this important nugget:

“I’ve come up through a party that clings to TV ads and news releases, holding on to a media environment that stopped existing a decade ago.”

I played along and read the piece, but not before asking several times why if this guy was so damn smart and knew about some “missing link” and the fact he was part of an ancient media environment that “stopped existing,” he didn’t do something about it as the deputy campaign manager on Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign when it would have mattered — LIKE LAST F–––––G YEAR.

Except the truth is he wasn’t that smart last year, either, because here is what he said about the campaign just 75 days from the election:

<....Ummm …

No.

Actually if young voters had showed up for Democrats as they had in the past, Harris would have won going away, because here are the facts:

75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris by a whopping 14 points over 20-year-old white men in this election. Worse? Among all 18-year-olds, women of color are the ONLY group Harris won. Trump even won nonwhite men in this age group by a narrow margin.

That’s called a massive failure, and if we are to believe Flaherty and all his tens of years of expertise he’s dragging along, it’s a failure he most certainly should have seen coming, and acted on when he had the chance, instead of Monday morning quarterbacking in the NYT while this country burns.

Look, Flaherty seems like an earnest lad, who’s got a serious political addiction, but the nonsense he’s dealing to his “opt-inners” in the NYT right now isn’t helping. He is becoming highly skilled at making himself believe almost anything about anybody depending on who is paying him to do it.

Trust me on this: D.C. is just crammed full of these people, who are elbowing each other out of the way to get a rising politician’s attention.

Flaherty’s piece is just the latest from the gang of gung-ho, inadequate staffers in the Biden/Harris/Harris/Walz campaign who spent 2024 hiding how bad things were on the inside to the millions of donors on the outside.

They are falling all over themselves to explain how it all went wrong, despite all they were allegedly doing right.

Rather than reckon with their issues, they apparently just decided to roundly ignore them, and sent out 73 fund-raising messages an hour, so they could use that money to ensure that Harris reached as many critical “opt-in” voters as possible, and join the coveted billon-dollar campaign fundraising club.

For having reached that milestone, and then spent that money in all the wrong places, people like Flaherty still figure they will have jobs inside the party forever, and that is the damn problem right there.

Everything anybody thinks they knew about politics died on November 5, 2024. Right now the survival of our country — forget the Democratic Party — is on the line.

We are officially at the “fight or die” stage of American democracy.

We need to be on wartime footing. We need new leaders with new ideas who understand this. I’m talking about RIGHT NOW.

They need to be leading from the front and everywhere.

We need to plan what it will look like when people take to the streets by the millions because this is most certainly coming. I’m not talking about these isolated marches that have been popping off in the last few months, I am talking about massive demonstrations of people power.

I am talking about the kinds of things that America has never seen before, because I am telling you that if you still do not believe Trump will do everything in his power to destroy us, before admitting he was wrong about anything, then you need to get out of our way, and quit wasting our time.

This is not some damn political game.

It terrifies me that too many Democrats on the inside still don’t seem to understand what the hell is going on on the outside.>

<The deference that judges have traditionally extended to lawyers representing the Department of Justice (DOJ) has quickly evaporated under Donald Trump and his Attorney General Pam Bondi.

According to a report from the Washington Post, it has become a common occurrence for DOJ lawyers to be admonished by judges over specious claims, "shoddy work" and their inability to answer simple questions from the bench.

As former federal Judge John E. Jones III, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, put it the “deference that judges would give to attorneys from Main Justice is evaporating,” and they have “lost a fair measure of their credibility.”

According to the Post's Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck, Lawyers defending Trump administration policies are "encountering mounting criticism and frustration from federal judges, a sign of deepening tension between the executive branch and courts weighing its aggressive uses of power," adding the example of U.S. District Judge John D. Bates berating a DOJ lawyer with "Oh, come on," during a hearing this past week.

Noting that Trump told ABC News this past week, “We’re not being treated fairly by all judges,” the Post report pointed out that "the pushback from the bench has come from judges appointed by Republican as well as Democratic presidents — including by Trump himself — suggesting the issue is more about the Justice Department’s evidence and court arguments than judicial activism."

The report goes on to note that frustrated judges "have criticized the statements and behavior of administration officials, accusing them of defying court orders, submitting flimsy evidence, providing inadequate answers to questions and even acting like toddlers.">

<....Typical boring, belittling, effortless post for the sake of posting just to raise perhidious' lame kibitz totals. Why waste time and space year after year striving for such a cheap, meaningless record? A long-time chess player should be wiser than this.>

This piece of rat turd should know that, if I had that aim in mind, catching <HMM> and <saffuna> would be, to put it mildly, a venture in dubious battle.

Of course, he would have to know how to count in order to understand that, which is well beyond his abilities.

This had to be one of the earliest meetings between these adversaries; John was then the strongest player in New England, while Bill had not yet turned into a certified monstah.

<[Event "Pillsbury Memorial"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1975.01.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Kelleher, William"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B22"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bf4 b6 5.e3 Bb7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.Nbd2 d6 8.h4 Nbd7 9.c3 c5 10.a4 Nd5 11.Bg3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 O-O 13.Qe2 Nc5 14.Bc2 Nf6 15.e4 a6 16.b4 Ncd7 17.f4 Rc8 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Rxc3 20.exf6 Bxf6 21.N2b3 Rxg3 22.O-O-O Rxg2 23.Qd3 Rxc2+ 24.Kxc2 Bxh1 25.Rxh1 Qa8 26.Rg1 Rc8+ 27.Kb1 Ne5 28.Qe3 Kh7 29.Nd2 Qd5 30.Ne4 Nc4 31.Nxf6+ gxf6 32.Qd3+ f5 33.Ka1 Qe4 34.Qc3 e5 35.Nf3 Qe3 36.Qxe3 Nxe3 37.Nxe5 Nc2+ 38.Kb2 Nxb4 39.Nxf7 f4 40.Nd6 Rc2+ 41.Kb3 a5 42.h5 Re2 43.Nb7 Re3+ 44.Kc4 Rg3 45.Re1 f3 46.Rf1 Rg4+ 47.Kb5 Rg5+ 48.Kxb6 Rf5 49.Nc5 f2 50.Ne4 Nd3 51.Kc6 Kg7 52.Kd7 Rxh5 53.Nxf2 Nxf2 54.Rxf2 Rh4 55.Kd6 Rxa4 56.Rg2+ Kh7 57.Ke5 Ra1 58.Rb2 Re1+ 0-1>