My Reality

Drinking the big-12 Kool-Aid

2009-01-05T21:05:00.000-08:00

Texas should be voted number 1. Nobody in the country can beat them right now. Can there be any doubt?

Those are the sentiments just expressed on national television by Texas coach Mack Brown and quarterback Colt McCoy. And, no doubt, are the feelings of the big-12 Kool-Aid drinkers who actually believe their conference is worth a crap.

Let's take a quick look at the big-12's bowl results so far. Missouri, with its supposed high-powered offense, needs overtime to squeak by mighty Big-10 powerhouse Northwestern. (1-0). Oklahoma State, which many Cowboy fans believed was good enough to win any other conference, got physically taken behind the woodshed by Oregon. (1-1). Kansas doubles up on Minnesota, which managed to go 3-5 in the laughing stock that is currently the Big-10. (2-1). Nebraska eeks out a win over Clemson, a .500 finisher in the ACC - a basketball conference. (3-1). Mississippi, an at-best mediocre SEC team, puts a beat down on Texas Tech. (3-2).

Not exactly the stuff of dominance, and about as far from impressive as you can get without joining the MAC (0-4 so far).

And tonight, Mighty Texas manages to squeak by on a last-second TD, aided by lucky break via the zebras, against what can only be described as the second-best team in the worst major conference in the country, having gone a 1-6 this bowl season. Let's face it, Ohio State's star-in-the-squandering-QB Terelle Pryor couldn't hit the ground if the threw up, much less hit a receiver if he threw a pass.

Texas could beat anybody? Dudes, right now you couldn't beat Stanford if the Trees spotted you seven.

Nonetheless, now we have to hear about big-12 superiority over all mortal football teams because they squeaked out a lucky break on national TV. Worse, the east-coast media echo chamber will now be touting how a great Texas team gutted it out against national powerhouse Ohio State.

All I can say is "Jeebus."

Oregon 42 - Okie State 31

2008-12-30T22:35:00.000-08:00

Well, I missed that one. I expected Oregon to dominate OSU for an entire game, rather than just a half. At least it was during the second half, when it counted.

Over on the OSU boards, they're whining about the officials (who apparently scored 42 points on them, while beating the snot out of their quarterback and holding them to 31 points) and claiming (and I'm not making this up) that "the better team lost." Seriously. Blaming the officials is the last refuge of the genuine loser. You're not good enough to win. You're not good enough to even be on the same field. So it must be the refs' fault.

This game wasn't even close. Okie State lacked the athletes to compete with Oregon for four quarters. They lacked the coaching to overcome the absence of their one playmaker. They lacked the conditioning to stand up to a brand of speed and physicallity that is virtually unknown in the big-12 (little "b" intentional).

I have said it all year long - the only team that can stop Oregon is Oregon. The first half was evidence of this as Oregon was unable to capitalize on big plays - not because of OSU's defense, but because of misfires on offense. OSU's defense didn't change in the second half. Rather, Oregon's execution simply improved. Truly (and I know it's politically incorrect to say this about any opponent, but ...) OSU did not belong on the same field as Oregon.

I would have so preferred to see Oregon v. Oklahoma, and Florida v. Texas. Oh well.

Good win by Oregon. Nice to see Masoli lower the boom on defenders who think they're gonna make an easy pop on a QB. I always get worried when Blount hurdles somebody - he's gonna break his ankle doing that someday - but damn it makes for good highlights. Next year looks promising. (And to think, we've all been whining about how un-good Oregon's been this year. We suck).

Go Ducks!!

Oregon v. Oklahoma State

2008-12-30T09:51:00.000-08:00

Today's the day, finally, for the Pac-10 to demonstrate to the Big-12 what real football is all about. Or, today is the day that the Big-10 punches the Pac-10 square in the mouth. My hunch is that it will be the former.

Oregon faces off against Okalahoma State in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl tonight at 5:00 PM (PST) (ESPN). Almost universally the prognosticators are calling for a shootout, apparently believing that neither team will bother to field a defense.

After some lame and probably ill-informed analysis, I have determined that Oregon will win this going away. It will won't be a shootout - it'll be a turkey shoot. But only IF Oregon's defense shows up. When it does (see, first half of the Arizona game), it's like the Terminator, getting the opposing offense in its sights and then brutally, methodically, dismembering it. The Oregon defense is faster and stronger than the Oklahoma State D. Oregon D-lineman Nick Reed alone has more sacks than the entire Okalahoma State defense for the season.

On the other hand, if the Oregon D does NOT show up, (see, most of the second half of the Arizona game), then Okie State will run wild through the air. Oregon's weakness is, as always, its secondary, which plays a good two yards off every receiver. Oregon has a defensive philosophy that it's okay for the opposing team to catch the ball, it's just not okay for the receiver to gain yards after the catch. Thus, a smart offense can move on Oregon by playing toss-and-catch for 4-6 yards all day. You never need to run another play.

Fortunately, even if the Oregon secondary stinks, OK State will make the mistake that other offenses make by feeling an inexplicable need to "balance" the offense. In fact, the one "rave" I hear about the Cowboys' offense is how "balanced" it is. OSU will not run the ball against Oregon with any success, and that will put pressure on its passing game - unless they go for 4-6 yard short gains every play. Oregon gives those up like it was passing out Halloween candy.

My money is on the Oregon D, and in particular the secondary, showing up - they have a lot to atone for this season and with great seniors like Reed and Patrick Chung playing their last game, expect some bloodied-up Cowboy parts lying on the field by game's end.

On the other side of the ball, OSU can't stop Oregon's offense. It's just that simple.

I know OSU fans like to mention how their team's only losses came to teams ranked, at the time, #1, #2, and #3. But the rankings had those teams (except maybe Texas) ranked way, way too high. As if there was any question about that, see Missouri's need for overtime to beat Northwestern - yes, Northwestern, one of the Big-10's perennial doormats. I was unaware they even still played football at Northwestern.

Of course, Oklahoma is going to get butchered by Florida, while Texas manhandles an Ohio State team whose great accomplishment is to be a pretty good team in a very bad conference. (I would have preferred to see a Texas-Florida matchup - now THAT would be some football).

Anyhow, OSU, in those hideous orange-and-black Great Pumpkin costumes, is about to be brought back to reality. (Reality = Pac-10 > Big-12, even in a supposed "down" year).

Prediction: Oregon 62, OSU 27.

Because just losing the election was not enough.

2008-12-26T14:19:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to secure the final and complete alienation of the Republican party from mainstream American politics for at least a generation, Chip Saltzman, the former bumble-fuck of a campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, is now running for chairmanship of the RNC and trying to woo supporters by sending them a CD with the song "Barack the Magic Negro."

Apparently, Mr. Saltzman, who's sole credential seems to be that he comes from a rich Tennessee family, thought it would be funny, and that Republicans would get the joke.

It's precisely that insularity, that belief that GOP insiders think racism is funny and that the rest of the world simply hasn't caught on yet, that is responsible for its drubbing in the past two national elections. If the GOP fails to understand that the basis for its failure is not the lack of conservatism on the part of its candidates, but rather its dogged adherence to failed and rejected conservative principles, it will not only fail to regain the power it's lost, but may relegate itself to the margins of American politics for a generation.

Those who doubt the truth of this need only look to the Oregon Republican Party, and its failure to mount a credible major-office candidate state-wide in 20 years. The Oregon GOP went far right in the 80s, and has never recovered, deciding that it would rather field candiates that would remain true to far-right dogma and lose, than move to the governable center and win.

Clinton's Emolument (Non) Problem

2008-12-01T09:43:00.000-08:00

God help the internet but it creates such fodder for crazy people. The latest cyber-craze is the argument that Sen. Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State.

Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in pertinent part:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time[.]"

An "emolument" is basically the compensation paid to a public official. Thus, the argument goes, because Clinton voted on budgets that included pay increases for the office of the Secretary of State, she cannot now serve in that office.

CNN ran a little segment on this story, but even their legal analyst, Jeffery Toobin, misses the more fundamental point:

The clause in question applies to Senators and Representatives. If the drafters had intended the clause to apply to former Senators and Representatives, they would have said so. They did not. Consequently, the clause does nothing more than bar a sitting Senator or Representative from moving directly into an appointed office for which they have previously voted a pay increase, and then only during the current term.

There is a line of arguments being made online (here, for example) that the "during the time for which he was elected" means that the ban extends to a Senator or Representative who retires before the expiration of his or her term. The argument then goes, in order for those words to mean something, they have to mean that it extends the ban for the duration of a current-term retirement.

The rules of constitutional/statutory construction do not permit such a simplistic analysis. The goal of interpreting the constitution is to give full effect to the entire clause, without parsing, whenver possible. It is also to not insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.

Applying the clause to former members of congress necessarily inserts words that were not included by the drafters. Moreover, the "during the time" clause does not require an expansion of the ban to post-resignation periods. Rather, it recognizes the fact that members of congress are re-elected. Consequently, if during a Senator's first term he or she votes for a pay raise for the Secretary of State, then during the remainder of his or her term that Senator cannot move directly into that office. However, if that Senator is re-elected, then immediately upon the beginning of the new term of office, that Senator can then move into the Secretary of State office, because they have not voted for a pay raise during that term. Thus, the clause can be harmonized without expanding its scope by inserting new words.

Clinton has no emolument problem.

Newsflash: Sean Hannity Lies!

2008-11-03T18:33:00.000-08:00

Here's a surprise - Sean Hannity lies.

One of the most difficult things about listening to Sean Hannity is that he lies, fairly often. I have never blogged about it before because I usually hear the lie in the car or when I'm not near a computer, so I can't "prove" it happened.

Tonight, I am happy to say I can.

On tonight's Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity wanted to talk about comments made by Barack Obama back in January regarding energy policy and, in particular, coal. In the interview, Obama says: "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

What Sean Hannity says, over, and over, and over tonight, is that Barack Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that we will bankrupt them." (Emphasis added).

In a bizarre display of audacity (or desperation), Hannity repeated his knowing lie immediately after playing the clip of Obama's comment. What, does he think nobody listened to the Obama clip? Earlier in the program, Hannity kept holding up a copy of what he claimed was the Obama quote - "I've got it right here!" he yells. Except he doesn't, because certainly if he did, he would be able to differentiate betweent he words "it" and "we."

So I guess there is a potential second option from calling Hannity a liar. I guess you could blame it on illiteracy.

Democratic Carpetbagging in Oregon

2008-11-02T12:35:00.000-08:00

Thank You, Come Again.

Years ago, the people entering Oregon from California were greeted with the following sign: "Welcome to Oregon. Thank you for Visiting." The message was clear - we don't want you here (but we'll take your tourist dollars).

Oregonians have an almost pathalogical dislike of non-Oregonians, and if we could, we'd likely post the National Guard at the borders to keep people from moving here. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I am, by and large, one of those people. I like that Oregon is small, weird, and independent (relative to the national stage).

My dislike of foreigners (i.e. non-Oregonians) is only further magnified during election season, when out-of-state political action committees decide that they can contaminate my state's airwaves with their mindless drivel, which drivel is so distant from the realities of Oregon life and politics that my knee-jerk reaction is to dislike whatever and/or whomever they support, without regard to merit.

Oregon's senate race between Republican incumbent Gordon Smith and Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley has been the focal point of the bulk of the carpetbagging advertising this year. And although I have been generally equally off-put by ads in support (or more often against) both candidates, none has sufficiently pissed me off (and thus encouraged a blog entry) than this insult to my intelligence from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC):

DSCC Ad Calls Smith A "Hypocrite," Relies On Hack Journalism.

I don't even know where to begin with this. But let me start with a basic word of advice for any future carpetbaggers - calling somebody a "hypocrite" is an automtic turn-off, and automatically costs you my vote. This, regardless of the truth of the allegation or my prior support of your candidate. Feel free to point out hypocrisy, but leave the decision to label someone a hypocrite to me.

Second, if you're going to be misleading, at least do so in a manner that would require me to do some research in order to catch you. Saying that Smith Frozen Foods has been investigated by "newspapers" in Oregon, be prepared to cite more than one newspaper. Generally, the letter "s" at the end of a word indicates a plural of something (i.e. more than one, like, say, two).

Willamette Week - Yellow Journalism At Its Best.

Third, and perhaps most important, have some awareness of the local reputation of the "newspaper" you cite for support. Now, I like Willamette Week. It's fun to read and is chock full of good info regarding what's going on in Portland each week (entertainment wise). But never, in even my most blue-jaded moment, would I consider WW a reliable, accurate, or honest source of news. At the very most, I would consider it a gateway source of information, from which I might look to real media for honest information. But WW is a typical extreme-left alternative weekly tabloid, the likes of which exist in virtually every metropolitan city of any consequence.

The WW stories, which are in four parts, can be found here: Senor Smith; Senor Smith , Part Dos; Tres Strikes; and "Four" The Record.

Thus, for the DSCC to base an ad on such an "investigation," much less to call Senator Smith a "hypocrite" based on that "investigation," reflects the grossest ineptitude and utter ignorance of Oregon media. Nobody but blind partisans believe WW is in any fashion a reliable source of information, meaning nobody outside of blind partisans will give any credence to the ad. As a result, the DSCC has lost not only its marginal credibility, but probably any undecided and independent voters.

In a column in the East Oregonian newspaper, the newspaper of record for eastern Oregon (where Smith's peas are packed), Phil Wright notes that the WW story relied entirely on uncorroborated anonymous sources. Wright calls is "questionable journalism at best." I think that's too generous. I call it baseless rumour mongering. In essence, it's a made-up story, and should be viewed as such unless and until WW adds to it with corroborated, on-the-record sources.

Don't F*ck With My Ducks.

Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, is that the DSCC has labeled its ad "Pick." All real Oregonians know that the capitalized word "Pick" is reserved exclusive for use in labeling "The Pick," which you can see here:

So, to the DSCC, remember this - we don't like outsiders, we don't like ignorant outsiders, and Kenny Wheaton's Gonna Score!.

Thank you for visiting.

Because, at the end of the day, it's really about the football

2008-10-29T18:41:00.000-07:00

Headlines from today's news:

Demonstrations Prompt Closure of U.S. Embassy in Syria.

U.S. Expected To Unveil Effort to Help Homeowners.

McCain Slams LA Times for Double Standard in Withholding Obama-Khalidi Tape.

Stocks Succumb to Bleak Fed Outlook.

US Dollar Posts Biggest Daily Fall in 23 Years.

Senators Want More NFL on TV.

Fed Trims Key ....

Wait a minute, what was that last one?

Oh. Apparently, in a bid to get the nation's economy moving again (for what else would they be working on?), 13 United States Senators have taken the time to draft a letter to the National Football League asking that more free games be shown on the NFL Network.

Thank God.

I already feel better.

Further proof that Fox News is not a real news organization.

2008-10-28T20:38:00.000-07:00

In this story, Fox News wonders aloud why the L.A. Times is refusing to release a video that was the basis for an April 2008 story regarding a 2003 videotaped event at which Obama was spoke highly of a guy who is a former "press secretary" (for lack of a better description) for the PLO while in exile in Syria.

It is a rule among the press that unpublished materials are NEVER made available. That sports photo you saw in the paper? The photographer took hundreds of shots, and chose to print one. You can't get copies of the other pictures - ever. You can order the one that was published.

TV news organizations will shoot an hour of footage, publish 20 seconds, and never, ever, ever release the balance.

This is true even in the face of a subpoena. Reporters will go to jail first (at least good ones will).

So it is astonishing that a purported news organization like Fox News would bat an eye at another news organizations' continuing to uphold that most basic of principles. No legitimate news organzation would ever consider producing unpublished material, and Fox knows this.

In reality, this is Fox News picking up the newest McCain talking point - Obama is a threat to the security of Israel, so Jews should vote for McCain. Sad, but not unexpected. But there is no question (as if there could have been) that Fox is "in the tank" (to borrow a phrase) for McCain.

I voted. Why isn't the election over?

2008-10-28T20:35:00.000-07:00

Like the title says. I dropped off my ballot today. Tonight I turn on CNN and they still act like the election isn't over. I don't understand. I voted. Why isn't the election over?

Just wondering.

Sometimes, even Factcheck.org gets it wrong (sort of)

2008-10-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

By and large, I tend to rely on the non-partisan website Factcheck.org to verify or debunk the various claims raised by both sides in the presidential election. And they tend to do a pretty good job of backing up their analyses.

However, in a recent posting analyzing the candidates' statements regarding the other's health insurance plan, Factcheck seems to miss the forest for the trees.

In its article, Factcheck tries to debunk the Obama campaign's assertion that the McCain health insurance plan will lead to the largest middle-class tax hike in history. Frankly, I have no idea (and Factcheck makes no effort to explain) what would constitute the largest middle-class tax hike in history.

In order to go further, a brief primer is required. John McCain's health insurance plan has two principal tax-related components. First, if your employer provides health insurance, you will be taxed on that amount. Currently, such employer-provided insurance is not considered taxable income. Under McCain, you will suddenly be hit with a higher tax withholding from your paycheck.

Second, McCain will provide a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals, and $5,000 for families (regardless of size or needs). Supposedly, you will be able to direct the government to send the credit directly to the insurer. How, exactly, that might work in the context of tax credit remains a mystery, since tax credits are offset by tax liabilities on your return. It seems possible that you could end up losing the benefit of the tax credit in the maw of other taxes, in which case you're SOL.

But in any event, follow this likely scenario: Health insurance costs, on average, about $12,000 per year for a family (and I've rounded down - it's actually a bit higher). Under McCain, you'll have to pay taxes on that. Assuming a low tax bracket of 25%, you'll owe $3,000 in taxes that you would not otherwise owe. Over 12 months, that $3,000 translates into taking home $250 less each month. Pause, and ask yourself, can you afford to reduce your monthly pay by $250 a month?

The tax credit, meanwhile, goes directly to the insurer. However, Factcheck does a calculation that would result in your having $2,000 left over to invest in a health savings plan or to spend on other health care. Of course, that's impossible, because the tax credit goes directly to the insurer. You will never see it, and thus will never be able to otherwise use the funds. (Presumably, Factcheck assumes that you will be entitled to a full refund and that the leftover credits will come to you on April 15).

However, if you end up owing taxes at year end, your owed taxes will be offset against the tax credit, resulting in a reduced (or potentially eliminated) tax credit. So at the end of the day, what are you left with? Less money, higher taxes, and the same health coverage you already have.

Even if you do get a full refund, you are still left with less money each month, higher taxes, and the same health coverage you already have, with the added bonus of having given the government a $2,000 interest-free loan for a year.

Lastly, bear in mind that this all assumes an employer does not discontinue providing health insurance. Because of the alterations the McCain proposal would cause to risk-pool insurance, experts note that within a handful of years after the plan is implemented, employers would begin dropping employee health coverage altogether.

What that would mean is you have to go into the market to buy your own insurance. At $12,000 a year, you will have to pay $1,000 per month out of pocket. Even deducting the $5,000 credit, you still pay $583 per month out of pocket. Again, do you have an extra $1,000 per month? How about an extra $583 per month?

What Factcheck then overlooks in its analysis is that, while the direct tax increase may not be the largest in history, the drain on middle-class disposable income may very well be, and may result in an economic disaster the likes of which (even today) we have never seen.

For another good take on the two health insurance plans being proposed by the candidates, this article at the Health Business Blog is a good read..

Seriously, where does Fox News find these people?

2008-10-13T17:07:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting here, right now, watching Bill O'Reilly. He has on this ignorant hack, Mary Katherine Ham, who is discussing Obama and his ties to "unreprentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers." In defending the guilt-by-association attacks, she says this:

"Anyone raise their hand if they think, uh, a Republican connected to a, an unreprentent abortion clinic bomber would be getting away with that association and not [be] questioned about it. It's insane! People are arguing for a different set of rules for Obama because going after these associations might cause people to have, you know, bad thoughts and be bad citizens."

Well, Ms. Ham, I guess you are insane. In 1993, John McCain attended a meeting of the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA). For non-Oregonians, the OCA represents one of the darkest chapters in modern Oregon history. The group was a virulent anti-gay, anti-choice, hate group that pretended to uphold conservative ideals while its leaders bilked scads of money from the group and its ignorant supporters (who, frankly, deserved to get ripped off). Eventually, the law caught up to the OCA, and it is no more.

At the meeting, Marilyn Shannon, who is simply an embarrasment to Oregonians, as well as all humans, offered her support for Shelley Shannon. McCain reportedly sat idly while this "abortion clinic bomber" was praised right in front of him, by a group from whom McCain was seeking support and money.

Here is Shelley Shannon (from "Double Lives" - CBS News):

In August 1993, Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon of Grants Pass, Ore., was arrested for shooting a doctor outside a women's clinic in Wichita, Kan. Shannon shot physician George Tiller in both arms as he left his Wichita office.

Investigations revealed that Shannon had led a double life. In 1992, without the knowledge of her husband and children, she traveled throughout the west firebombing abortion clinics. Friends and family back in Oregon were shocked. Shannon was viewed as a deeply religious woman and peaceful protestor. No one believed that she could be capable of such vicious terrorist acts.

She was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the 1993 shooting and another 20 years for the firebomb attacks. Shannon remains in prison.

Here are the Oregonian's stories from 1993 on the McCain visit:

ARIZONA SENATOR SPEAKS ON TOLERANCE AT OCA DINNER
By Jeff Mapes
of the Oregonian Staff <
Source: THE OREGONIAN
Tuesday,August 31, 1993
Arizona Sen. John McCain walked a fine political line Monday when he appeared at a fund-raising dinner for the Oregon Citizens Alliance.

He gently admonished the group to observe the ``essence of tolerance.''

The Republican senator, under fire from gay activists back home for aiding the OCA, never directly addressed the group's sponsorship of several anti-gay-rights ballot measures.

But McCain made it clear that, while he is a conservative, he has a different perspective on the issue.
`
`We must be careful to prevent the false perception that Republicans have constituted themselves as the private advocacy group of only some Americans,'' McCain said, ``be they of one economic class, one race, one religion or of one particular character.''

About 30 gay-rights activists picketed McCain's appearance at the Portland Airport Holiday Inn.

``For a Republican like McCain to help an organization that is the most divisive in the state and the most divisive in the Republican Party is a real slap in the face,'' said protestor Lee Coleman, a member of Log Cabin Oregon, a group of gay Republicans.

McCain, who spoke to about 350 OCA activists at the $30-a-person dinner, turned aside any such criticism in brief interviews with reporters.

``I don't think I need to respond to that stupid question,'' McCain said to one reporter who asked if he feared he would be labeled as anti-gay by his appearance.

McCain told another reporter that the Republican Party should be open to anyone -- including homosexuals -- ``who share the principles and philosophy of Abraham Lincoln.''

McCain stuck to the text of a carefully written speech that seemed designed to avoid offending his hosts while answering critics who say the senator was aligning himself with the OCA's agenda.

``Tolerance does not require us to approve or adopt or support all the various forms which the pursuit of happiness will take in a diverse population,'' McCain said.

The senator was recently active in crafting the ``don't ask-don't tell'' policy in regard to gays in the military but has otherwise largely stayed away from the issue during his political career.

McCain also noted that he was in the opposition when the Arizona Republican Party several years ago endorsed a resolution declaring the United States to be a Christian nation.

``I am a Christian,'' McCain said, ``and devotion to my faith is integral to my own pursuit of happiness. But we are not only a Christian nation.''

OCA Chairman Lon Mabon said he didn't see any criticism -- veiled or otherwise -- in McCain's remarks.
``I took his comments as basic comments most American citizens would agree with,'' Mabon said.

Mabon, who said he hoped to raise at least $3,000 from the event, announced that the money would go toward strengthening the group's legal expertise so it can ``take on the ACLU whenever they attack our values.''

Mabon said the OCA would also focus next year on trying to elect more like-minded candidates to office.

``We are going to be prepared for the primaries in 1994,'' he said.

McCain's appearance came a year after he and other Senate Republican leaders met with OCA officials to discourage them from running a third-party candidate against Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore.

Mabon said no deal was struck but the senators agreed to ``work with'' the OCA.

Mabon said McCain had told him during Monday's visit that Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, had sent ``his best wishes to the OCA'' and would be coming out at a future time to address the group.

* * *

MCCAIN MET OBLIGATION, LEFT QUICKLY
By Jeff Mapes
of The Oregonian staff
Source: THE OREGONIAN
Sunday,September 5, 1993

You know the old moral about what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive. The same is true in politics when you deliver on a deal that isn't supposed to be a deal.

Well, that's what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., must be thinking after his speech to the Oregon Citizens Alliance last week in Portland. From start to go, the whole thing wasn't any fun for for McCain. Privately, some of his staffers took to calling it the ``invitation from hell,'' according to one well-placed source. Of course, a lot of Republican politicians in Oregon have found that out when they've tried to accommodate the OCA.

McCain first met OCA Chairman Lon Mabon and one of his sidekicks, former gubernatorial candidate Al Mobley, a year ago in Washington.

Mabon and Mobley were given an audience with several GOP senators to talk about the OCA's threat to run a third-party candidate against Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood.

Who knows how serious Mabon was about a third-party race, but he managed to use his threat to wangle some serious face-time with a bevy of Republican senators.

Afterward, Mabon said the OCA would stay in the Republican Party but that no deal was cut. Of course, no signed-in-blood deal needed to be made. You can be more subtle than that in politics.

For their part, the senators promised that, sure, they'd be willing to help out after the election, come out to speak to your group. Heck, that's what politicians do, go around speaking to groups.

Of course, this meeting was before the OCA got its national reputation for last fall's anti-gay ballot measure. All of a sudden, the OCA was being demonized in no less than the pages of The New York Times.

According to one source who talked to McCain, the Arizona senator didn't realize the notoriety the OCA has attracted in the gay-rights community when he accepted the speaking invitation this spring.

Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., who is himself an open critic of the OCA, tried to talk McCain out of it, but McCain said he couldn't back out of it. Clearly, McCain felt bound by the signals the Republican senators sent Mabon and Mobley in their D.C. meeting.

When the pending speech hit the Arizona news media, McCain was pilloried by gay-rights activists. A McCain relative's business was threatened with a boycott and one Arizona Republic column on the affair was headlined: ``Hate group finds friend in McCain.''

The senator himself met with Arizona leaders of the NAACP and the American Jewish Committee to smooth things over and put out the word he would talk to the OCA about ``tolerance.''

Thus, we find McCain taking a 1,200-mile detour to Portland last Monday instead of going home to Phoenix after he had been with a U.S. delegation that met with Mexico's president over the weekend.

In Portland, McCain was greeted by protesters at the airport and at the front of the Airport Holiday Inn. When he reached the entrance, a reporter shoved a tape recorder at him and asked if he was concerned about speaking to a group with the OCA's reputation.

``No, are you?'' growled McCain as he race-walked into the drab ballroom ahead of OCA Chairman Lon Mabon.

From the head table, McCain grudgingly took a few more questions from reporters, although he clearly didn't want to say much directly about the gay-rights issue that has made the OCA's national reputation.

McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.''

Once McCain got into his speech, he stuck to the text like a Talmudic scholar. He told the OCA that Republicans have to be careful to not be seen as the ``private advocacy group of only some Americans'' and that they should observe the ``essence of tolerance.''

You could read it as a message that the OCA should change its focus and be more tolerant of gays. Or maybe not. Mabon was able to say plausibly he didn't see anything critical in McCain's remarks.

Instead, Mabon seemed as ebullient with reporters as McCain was testy. He used the evening to issue a stream of new marching orders for the OCA. He said the group would be a player in next year's legislative races and promised that if Hatfield ran again in 1996, ``I don't think he'll have a free and easy primary like he has had in the past.''

Maybe McCain can take that message back to Mark and his other Senate colleagues.

Of course, McCain didn't seem to want to learn too much about the OCA's varied projects.

While Mabon and McCain sat together at the head table, Mabon said they never did discuss the OCA's initiatives on homosexuality. They also apparently didn't talk about the OCA's attempts to recall several Republican legislators.

McCain himself wasn't available afterward. He rushed out of the banquet at the end -- stiffing reporters' questions -- to get the next flight out. It must have felt good to slip between the sheets of his own bed when he finally made it back to Phoenix that night.

A current story (that includes the above) can be found here.

Keith Olberman had a great video segment here (and think what you want about Olberman as a shameless left-wing hack, this piece should bother you):

So Ms. Ham, perhaps before you go on national pretend TV and run your ignorant mouth, you bone up on a fact or two. McCain has received a pass for his association with murders and domestic terrorists. One last observation - Bill Ayers was never even indicted. Shelly Shannon is in prison. Whose associations should pose the biggest worries?

The vocal minority

2008-10-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I believe I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams.

In 1991, I moved to Eugene to attend the University of Oregon. At the time, all I knew about Eugene and UO was that it was the pot-smoking, tie-dye wearing, hippie Mothership. Notably, that is the impression enjoyed by virtually everybody who purports to know anything about Eugene but doesn't live there.

During my time at UO, I worked as an editorial page editor and columnist for the student newspaper, the Oregon Daily Emerald. Much of what I wrote was, in my opinion, basically common sense. I didn't have a particularly strong Pavlovian attraction to any partisan ideology, although I had always been a registered republican.

While there, I discovered some fascinating things about perceptions and human nature. For starters, I can't make anybody happy. I received equal response to my editorials and columns from both liberal and conservative readers, and within that response was myself equally labeled a liberal and a conservative. During the 1992 presidential election season, I wrote an editorial critical of Democratic Senate candidate Les Aucoin (can't recall why), and immediately we were deluged with calls and letters wondering why we didn't simply endorse his Republican opponent. Democratic student leaders came to our office - how could we do this? (In fact, we ultimately endorsed AuCoin, as I recall).

Later, I wrote an editorial critical of Bill Clinton's visit to UO, noting that his campaign squandered an opportunity to talk to actual voters when it instead bused in thousands of school children who couldn't vote (and didn't care). At the time, Clinton was not certain to win, and every vote counted. Immediately, we were blasted for our hidden bias, and why didn't we just come out and support George H. W. Bush. (Again, we ultimately endorsed Bill Clinton).

What this told me was that partisans can't, or won't, listen to criticism of their candidates. It doesn't matter what the criticism is, whether it's directed at the candidate, a position, or in at least in one case, the decision to exclude thousands of voters from a rally while trying to garner those excluded-voters' votes. From this, I concluded that partisans are, by and large, unthinking and generally none-to-bright. (Sixteen years later, my opinion has been, I believe, validated).

However, while in the heart of the proverbial beast at UO, I discovered that the loud, liberal voice that was generally attributed to Eugene, was in fact limited to the UO and its immediate surroundings. Go a mile in any direction, and the political winds shifted dramatically to the right. (Maybe "dramatically" is too strong a term unless understood relative to the left-blowing Santa Ana-like winds on campus). However, those people outside of the campus are not remotely as loud as those near/on campus. Truly, a vocal minority conveyed the false impression that the entire community shared a view.

I go through this lengthy preamble to set up the topic here - the new vocal minority of the right. Subsequent to the 2000 election, there has been a belief that right-wing, conservative ideology is the majority ideology in the United States. That belief is based on the election and reelection of George W. Bush, and has been fueled by right-wing talk radio (coupled with the near abject failure of left-wing talk radio - see "Air America.").

The belief is misguided but, as I have explained above, it is also invulnerable to honest consideration and evaluation by right-wing partisans. They cannot, or will not, engage in rational evaluation of their positions.

Nonetheless, it cannot escape observation that Bush did not win the presidency by a landslide (if he won it at all). At a minimum, he lost the popular vote. That, coupled with an embarrassing and aimless campaign by Algore, resulted in Bush stumbling into a victory. In 2004, John Kerry also ran a ridiculous and aimless campaign that, again coupled with an aggressive and fear-mongering Rovian attack, again allowed Bush to literally squeak by and win reelection. The idea that Bush won because he represents a majority of Americans and their values is laughable, and simply counter to reality.

Worse, the rise of right-wing talk radio has enhanced that bogus opinion. Right-wingers listen to right-wing radio and call in to right-wing radio for one simple reason - they have the time. Either they're unemployed, retired, or have lots of down time at work. A lot of these people are simply mad at the government, believe their situation is the result of or worsened by government action, and suffer from delusions of government designs on their guns, on their God, or on their childrens' sexuality. It is probably unfair to label these people with generalizations, but such broad-stroke attacks seem to be the only thing they understand. Thus, I would label them as older, less educated, less informed, less literate, lower income. Basically, the poor and stupid. (Note: not all poor people are stupid, and not all stupid people are poor).

Meanwhile, left-wing radio is far less successful. I ascribe a handful of reasons to this. First, the left-wing is already the master of alternative media, leaving little appetite for mainstream media. Second, those folks who tend to lean left but are far from partisan have jobs that do not leave time for listening and/or calling into talk radio. Also, left-leaning people tend to socialize with other left-leaning people, and so they believe everybody already thinks like they do. (It is noteworthy that, in my observations, left-wing people tend to be far less tolerant of the company of right-wingers, whereas right-wingers will gladly socialize with left-wingers and not feel the need to preach. That tolerance, however, does not spill over into the voting booth or policy positions).

Nonetheless, it is this misguided perception of majority that is causing many right-wingers to come unglued at the prospect of a Democratic victory this fall. They truly cannot understand what is happening, and they are stunned that the talk-show crazies (i.e. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck) are not having more of an impact. It is beyond their abilities to realize that those talk shows are focused on narrowly-targeted hyper-partisans and that the larger public neither listens nor cares.

What has changed as of late is that these crazies have moved from calling radio shows to attending John McCain rallies. What is surprising is not the level of hate and insanity, but that McCain is dumb enough to hand microphones to these people. And although this is not where I intended to go, where I have ended up is here - John McCain continues to exercise not just questionable, but incredibly poor judgment.

(Thanks Dean, for inspiring me to waste part of my day writing this).

Politico.com Errs With Inflammatory Headline (Updated)

2008-10-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

In reporting on a John McCain rally in Minnesota, Politico.com used the following headline: "Crowd boos after McCain says Obama not 'an Arab.'"

The story reports the crowd booing after various attempts by McCain to quell the rage building at the rally. However, in regard to the "Arab" comment, the story does not indicate any boos.

The specific exchange went like this:

Crazy Old Lady: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not, he's no,t uh, he's an Arab. He's not ..."

McCain: "No Ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."

And with that, the audience broke into applause. You can see the exchange here:

The editors at Politico.com need to do a better job of ensuring their headlines fairly reflect the content of their stories. It's little things like this that cause people to distrust political websites and the media generally.

UPDATE: Politico.com has changed the headline, which now reads: "McCain: Obama not an Arab, crowd boos." Technically accurate, albeit inartful.

Bad Movie Done In By Vast Left-Wing Theater Conspiracy

2008-10-10T13:32:00.000-07:00

This past weekend two movies opened that, I thought, might provide an early indicator of the public split between liberal and conservative. In particular, I thought it would shed a light on the idea, so often asserted on right-wing talk radio, that "conservatives" are the majority in this country.

Two movies - David Zucker's "An American Carol" and Bill Maher's "Religulous" undertake to preach to their respective choirs about the inherent insanity of the other choir. In short, "An American Carol" is an effort to mock left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore and his (real or imagined) disdain for America, while "Religulous" is an attempt to mock organized religion and its adherents.

I'm not particularly a fan of either movie (based on style, not substance - I haven't seen either). But I don't like movies that have as an agenda the mockery of people for their beliefs. Just because I might disagree with someone's beliefs doesn't give me the right to mock them. Challenge and question them, yes. But outright mockery? I just think that's in poor taste. But to each his own.

That said, there are a lot of people who will find these movies funny and entertaining, for no other reason than each respective movie supports and reflects the world views of those who like each movie. And with that in mind, I figure that you can identify the general compass of the nation by which movie does better at the box office.

Fortunately, both movies opened the same weekend, so neither movie could attribute a poor performance to an event that took place on its opening weekend that did not take place on the opening weekend of the other movie.

Reviews were not mixed. "Religulous" gained a 68% Fresh Rating at RottenTomatoes. Erstwhile, "An American Carol" received only a 13% Fresh Rating. Translated to normal English - reviewers liked "Religulous" and did not like "An American Carol." In fact, in my observations, I don't think I have seen more than a couple movies ever rate worse than "An American Carol" on RottenTomatoes.

When the opening week box-office numbers came out, "An American Carol" opened at number 9, while "Religulous" opened at number 10. Gross numbers reflected "An American Carol" earned $4,354,000, while "Religulous" earned $4,202,216. (You can see the week's charts here in Variety. Be sure to look at the week ending Oct. 9, 2008).

On its face, it appeared that "An American Carol" won out, albeit by a slim margin. But that's not the whole picture. "An American Carol" opened on 1,639 screens, averaging $2,656 per screen. "Religulous" opened on only 502 screens, but averaged $8,371 per screen. Thus, on a per screen basis, "Religulous" won the week by an overwhelming margin. What that translates into is "Religulous" played to packed houses, while "An American Carol" played to roughly 25% filled seats.

Apparently, the abysmal per-screen showing of "An American Carol" has inspired tales of a vast theater conspiracy to skew the ticket sales. Stories abound that theaters took money for "An American Carol" and then printed out tickets for something else.

On NewsBusters, commentator Warner Todd Huston suggests that it "wouldn't surprise [him] if it turned out that certain people were trying to doom this film," in regard to the ticket sales issue. Huston's post also contains a link to the movie's website where people can report fraudulent ticket sales. As of this posting, no such link exists. Huston himself notes the absence of the link in a subsequent posting (wherein he also denies alleging the existence of a conspiracy - I'll let you interpret his above quote however you choose).

Notably, few on the right want to acknowledge that, just maybe, "An American Carol" isn't very good, got poor reviews, and nobody went to see it.

Country First? Not for John McCain.

2008-10-09T11:15:00.000-07:00

This seems to have slipped by people, but in the second presidential debate, John McCain made an extraordinary claim. He knows how to capture Osama bin Laden. Specifically, McCain said "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him no matter what, and I know how to do it." (Click here to read and watch. On the left side, scroll down to "Policy on Pakistan" and go to about 7:14 into the video. The text will follow on the right side).

However, it appears that Senator McCain isn't going to tell us how to get bin Laden unless he's elected president. Clearly, John McCain has put country first.

Sadly, the ridiculous nature of the last debate precluded the obvious follow up questions: "How?" and "What do you know that nobody else seems to know?"

Either McCain is lying, or he's a hypocrite who is more concerned about winning an election than helping his country. In either case, there can no longer be any question but that John McCain is not fit to be commander in chief of anything, much less the United States military. A true CIC would subordinate his interest to that of the country's. John McCain is clearly concerned with nothing other than John McCain and winning the White House, national security be damned.

Rush Limbaugh Concedes Obama Victory!

2008-10-07T15:51:00.000-07:00

So I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning just to hear the pre-debate spin, and lo-and-behold, he declares Barack Obama is going to win the election.

Sort of.

Actually, Limbaugh went on about how the Zogby poll had Obama with a not-quite 3-percent lead over John McCain. Limbaugh then noted that he pays special attention to Zogby because that poll has been accurate in predicting past presidential elections.

As you may recall, yesterday I posted my belief that Obama would win in a landslide, and that part of that opinion comes from John Zogby, who is predicting a Reagan v. Carter, 1980 style landslide victory for Obama.

My hunch is that Limbaugh was unaware that Zogby has preliminarily called the election for Obama, but certainly if Limbaugh believes Zogby gets it right, then he must believe that Obama will win in a landslide.

Of course, I base this entire statement on the old tried-and-true mathematical theorem - if A=B and B=C, then A=C. So it must be true. Limbaugh concedes victory to Obama.

An Obama Landslide?

2008-10-06T22:00:00.000-07:00

I said it first (so far as I ~~know~~ ~~believe~~ claim) on October 3rd. But my self-aggrandized genius is probably somewhat overrated, as I clearly am not alone in my belief that this presidential election will end in a landslide victory for Barack Obama.

John Zogby, of the Zogby poll, predicts that this election may be akin to Ronald Reagan's crushing defeat of Jimmy Carter. Likewise, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Time Magazine's national political correspondent Karen Tumulty claimed "this is Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale landslide territory." (Go to about 7:43 into the video).

Noting that I am in no way a fan of or believer in polling (particularly with the rise in the number of people whose only phone is an unlisted cell phone), I guess it gives people something to talk about. So, if you care about polling, this is a pretty cool website - FiveThirtyEight.com. It's like the CNBC of polling data.

John McCain's New Drinking Game

2008-10-05T09:51:00.000-07:00

In a recent comment to a prior post comparing the pre-presidential experience of Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln, an anonymous commentator began a non-related rant about Obama's voting record. Specifically, the person railed against Obama voting with the Democratic party 90-percent of the time and, therefore, cannot bring the "change" he touts in his campaign.

In truth, Obama votes with his party 96-percent of the time. (Scroll down to "Voting With Party" on left side).

However, John McCain, a self-described "maverick" and reformer, has voted with his party 88.1-percent of the time. Not exactly an agent of "change" either. In fact, a review of this complete list of voting records reflects that there are 31 GOP Senators who have voted against their party more often than John McCain. There are 49 Republican senators. That translates to 63-percent of the GOP Senators whose voting records deviate from party-lines, and thus are greater "mavericks" than McCain.

Two things to bear in mind when considering these figures: (1) Voting "with" your party does not inherently mean you voted "against" the other party, or the administration. For example, the recent financial "rescue" bill was the baby of the GOP White House, and a majority of Senate Democrats and a majority of Senate Republicans voted for it. That would translate in a "voting with party" mark for any candidate that voted in favor.; (2) This does not identify the differences between Obama and McCain - i.e. where did they vote different and where did they vote the same.

John McCain's "maverick" label borders on the ridiculous, but is clearly misleading (at least when engaging in an "apples-to-apples" generalized comparison of McCain's and Obama's voting records). Certainly, McCain has taken some positions well outside his party's agenda (e.g. Gang of 14; McCain-Feingold, to name a few). But cherry-picking doesn't undo the overall record.

On the funny side, during the Vice-Presidential debate, both my wife and I mentioned that we should play a drinking game where we drink every time Sarah Palin said "maverick." Turns out we weren't the only ones with that thought:

Palin's "Experience" Exposed

2008-09-23T23:19:00.000-07:00

As you may have heard by now, while Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town charged rape victims for the cost of their rape kits. A rape kit is the forensic/medical exam and testing done to deterimine the identity of the rapist - sort of like dusting for fingerprints, but more invasive and unpleasant.

When the town's police chief refused to end the practice, the Alaska legislature debated and passed a bill to forbid it, and specifically targeted Wasilla.

The debate over the practice has focused on whether Palin knew about and, by implication, condoned the practice. The general consensus is that there is no evidence Palin had direct knowledge of the practice.

That seems to miss the point. The significance of the story is not whether Palin condoned such an abhorent practice. Rather, it is that such a thing could occur in her town while she was mayor, and apparently she knew nothing about it. What kind of leadership is that?

And isn't it difficult to believe that the mayor of a town being targeted by the state legislature doesn't know that her town is so targeted? Again, what kind of leadership is that? Did she live in a bubble?

Palin criticized Barack Obama's stint as a community organizer by noting that one of the key differences between that job and being a small-town mayor was that the may had "actual responsibilities." If that is true, then when will we hear Palin take "actual responsibility" for the actions of her town's police chief, the actions of her mayoral staff in (presumably) keeping her in the dark, and her own actions in reviewing and approving budgets that reflected the practice without, it would seem, actually reading those budgets? And what kind of leader doesn't know this is going on?

Clearly, not all "experience" is created equal.

More Fox News Just Making Stuff Up.

2008-09-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

Came across this today from Fox News' John Gibson, in a piece about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them."

Really? Maybe Mr. Gibson should try fact-checking his commentary. On the other hand, if he was relegated to speaking the truth, he wouldn't have much to say (as would be the case with most of Fox News).

In fact, Fannie Mae was created in 1938, as part of FDR's "New Deal." Bill Clinton was born in 1946. I'm hard pressed to grasp how Fannie was a creation of the Clinton White House, when it was created 8 years before Clinton was even born.

Freddie Mac was created in 1970, during Richard Nixon's presidency. For those of you from Mars, Nixon was a Republican.

Gibson was right in that both entities were created by Democrat-controlled congresses. So, even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle.

The subtle genius of SNL's Palin incest skit

2008-09-22T15:18:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, September 20, 2008, Saturday Night Live ran a skit in which reporters from the New York Times were discussing being assigned to go to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. The relevant dialogue went as follows:

Reporter: Uh, what about the husband? You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on, it's Alaska!

Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly there is no evidence of that, but, on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.

The skit ends with a shot of a NYT mockup with a banner headline reading: "In Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger." Halfway down the page is another headline, two columns wide, that reads: "While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizongly Elusive."

On its surface, the skit was designed to poke fun at the NYT and other liberal media efforts to discredit Palin, while seriously failing to understand the world outside their cloistered Manhatten existence. Although you would think conservatives would enjoy watching the NYT be skewered, instead they are up in arms over how inappropriate it was to suggest Palin's husband and daughter was engaged in an incestuous relationship.

Fox News is on the story of course. In this somewhat rambling "report" about the controversy, the non-news network somehow tries to tie the fabricated incest story with the all-to-real story of Sarah Palin's Downs-Syndrome baby, and perhaps suggest the skit was intended to give voice to some bizarre conspiracy theories that the baby is actually that of the Palin's eldest daughter Bristol.

The beauty of the skit was saved for the final headlines though. First the paper creates a "what if" rumor based on nothing but ignorance of Alaska and Alaskans, then reports as news the fact that its phony story has not yet been disproven. That, in a nutshell, is what Fox News does every day - except they don't use a live audience or a laugh track.

Sadly, I don't keep a journal of all the examples I see of this on Fox News, which I confess to watching for the entertainment value - I am often on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll distort reality this time. Here are some examples.

First, on June 6, E.D. Hill, on her show "America's Pulse" characterized the Michelle and Barack Obama "fist bump" as "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."

Following that lede, after a commercial break Hill returned with an interview with body language "expert" Janine Driver and never again mentions the "terrorist fist jab" interpretation, and certainly Driver says nothing remotely similar. (Hill and her show were cancelled within days, so credit to Fox where it's due).

Watch it here:

Another great example comes from Megan Kelly, whose apparent qualification to work on TV is she's blonde and kinda hot. (Note - Megan Kelly is also a graduate of Albany Law School and worked for a brief period for Jones Day, one of the world's largest law firms).

In her speech to the Democratic National Conventinon, Michelle Obama said "the world as it is just won't do." She then went on to discuss how people have to fight for a better world.

In her subsequent "analysis," Kelly says this:

Megan Kelly: If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, you've been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country.

Really? If I replace someone's words with other words, then I can ask whether there are issues surrounding the story I just made up? And then, perhaps, I can continue to note that, although there is no evidence to prove my fabricated story, there is no evidence to disprove it, either.

Watch Stephen Colbert illustrate the point better than I:

In this broadcast, former journalist Britt Hume reads a story that begins by restating that Barack Obama and his campaign have gone out of their way to remind people that Obama is a christian, not a muslim. Then, Hume notes that the Jerusalem Post reported an interview with Obama's half brother Malik. The Post story, as reported by Hume and Fox, said "if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background."

Notably, Hume doesn't try to say Obama is a Muslim. Rather, he engages in the "if we put it out there and nobody disproves it, maybe it is true" practice that is the hallmark of what passes for reporting on Fox News. Worse for Hume, turns out it's not true anyway. The last half of the sentence is a fabrication, and you can listen to the actual interview here. You'll note that Malik Obama never says what Hume and Fox said he did.

So kudos to SNL for its sly (even if unintended) slap at Fox News and its mindless followers. Lies, and in particular outrageous lies, are no less wrong and immoral when they are couched in the false pretense of "just wondering" and then left to grow on their own, like a noxious weed. Sucks to be on the receiving end of that tactic for once, huh. (And a thumbs down to NBC for cowardly removing the clip from YouTube and failing to post it on its own website).

Busting the Palin Bubble

2008-09-16T10:11:00.000-07:00

It was fun ride, to be sure, but the Sarah Palin bubble of excitement that came with her unexpected (by anybody) nomination for the Republican vice-presidential slot appears to be bursting right before our eyes.

Palin has been on the stump for a good couple weeks now, and has yet to give a new speech. She continues to lie about the Bridge to Nowhere, she continues to lie about her opposition to earmarks, she continues to lie about being a fiscally responsible governor/mayor. Worse, she continues to make these lies after they have been universally debunked. However, Palin, John McCain and the rest of the GOP machine have apparently bought into the time-tested truth espoused by Vladimir Lenin - "A lie told often enough becomes truth."

The GOP has borrowed from Lenin's playbook before, leaking the "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama is not a citizen" or similar falsehoods through their proxies, and then disavowing responsibility while coyly responding "That's for Senator Obama to address," thereby tacitly re-asking the question and giving it an air of authenticity.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a campaign for any office at any level delve to the depths of the McCain camp. And I am very troubled. I have always had a high opinion of John McCain. I believe his record of running against the Beltway Insiders is, by and large, pretty admirable. Sure he's had his failings - even significant ones (i.e. the Keating Five), but I believed he learned from that and become a better senator because of it. I disagreed with McCain during this campaign on the important issues - the economy, taxes, health care. I disagree with his assessment of the war in Iraq, with the "success" of the surge (which I still consider dubious at best), and his non-strategy for exit.

But now, McCain has turned his campaign over to a group of hacks who, in any other election, would be salivating at the chance to light up McCain for being too liberal, too much of an insider, or just plain too old. They, in turn, have taken the campaign into an area that even Karl Rove has decried as beyond the pale. That's something. When even the devil himself says you've crossed the line, what do you do?

Apparently, if you are John McCain, you go on "The View" and expose the fact that you have no idea what your campaign is saying or doing. And now I don't know what to think of John McCain. Either he has, as one Obama staffer said, decided he'd rather lose his integrity than lose an election, or he is now exposed for the weak, bumbling old man being led by the nose that I sort of thought he was at the outset.

In either case, the magnitude of his and Palin's lies are beginning to unravel the whole aura of excitement and remove their stolen mantra of "change." Worse for McCain, Palin's handlers won't let her talk to the media until the media is nice to her (which is clear evidence of her ability to lead), won't let her cooperate with the "Troopergate" prove in Alaska (just like a real reformer), won't release her tax records, and won't let her go off script, even if that script has grown tired and has been rejected as an outright lie.

McCain should have picked Mitt Romney. There would have been a short run of ads showing Romney and McCain tearing each other up at debates and on the stump, but that would have passed and things would have settled down, allowing McCain-Romney to run on their records and issues. They would have posed a formidable challenge to Obama-Biden. But McCain-Palin is quickly turning into a punchline the magnitude of which I don't recall having ever seen.

Kissing Pigs

2008-09-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

Not that this is any big deal, but I sometimes wonder if the media, and perhaps most of America (or at least, America as it appears in the media) lives in a cave (or a small box).

In a campaign speech the other day, Barack Obama said, in regard to the GOP's questionable usurpation of the "change" theme, that if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. Now, I don't know how many times in my life I've heard that phrase. My favorite variation is that a pig in a dress is still a pig, but whatever.

Apparently some ignorant folk believe the remark was intended to call GOP Veep Wannabe Sarah Palin a "pig." This, because in her rousing yet hollow convention speech, she mentioned that the difference between a hockey-mom and a pit bull was lipstick. It was a stupid line then, and it remains a stupid line now.

But in order to believe the Obama comment was somehow formulated to respond to Palin's stupid line, you have to have lived in a cave (or a small box) for basically your entire life. Otherwise, you would know that the lipsticked pig remark is an old-school, tried-and-true, time-tested and pundit-approved colliquialism that is shorthand for you can't make a substantively bad thing good by applying cosmetic changes.

In this case, the Obama comment was meant to say that you can't change the tired, hackneyed, tried-and-failed ideas of the GOP by adding an exciting and energizing personality into the mix. (Or, maybe he was saying that you can make John McCain look like a maverick by propping him up next to a sexy librarian - I don't know).

But seriously, to those who are currently foaming at the mouth over this, stop being stupid.

And eat some bacon.

Who Ya Gonna Tax? BIG OIL!

2008-09-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

A funny thing happened on the way to the gas station today - Big Oil made more money. I'd sure like some that.

As it turns out, I'm likely to get my wish regardless of who is elected President.

Barack Obama wants to institute a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. I don't know what constitutes a "windfall" profit as opposed to a regular, or even large, profit. But he wants to send me a check with the money he takes from the oil companies, who I am sure won't miss it.

But, like with almost everything Obama discusses so far, it's pretty words and happy talk - good speech, no action - at least not yet.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin, the GOP's veep nominee, has already played the roll of Robin Hood. In Alaska, Palin seriously jacked taxes for the oil companies doing business in her state, then distributed the money to the people in the form of $1,200.00 rebate checks. Presumably, that also made it easier to manage the state's budget.

So I guess Obama and Palin aren't so different after all. Because I am certain that Palin's Great Alaskan Handout was not overt political pandering, but rather epitomizes her strongly-held conviction that it is her role to ensure government takes what it needs from big oil (or big business for that matter) and redistribute some to the masses while keeping the rest for itself.

Balanced budgets are just around the corner!

Obama "least experienced candidate"?

2008-09-03T14:53:00.000-07:00

Wow - it's been three months since I've posted anything. Not for lack of interest, just lack of time.

Anyhow, among the many things churning in my turbid little brain is the questioning of Barack Obama's experience and whether is qualified to be President.

Last night, I heard this line from presidential wannabe and former Senate washout Fred Thompson (R-TN), who apparently took time away from his nap to speak at the Republican National Convention. In his speech, Thompson said that Obama was "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President."

Fred, you're a good actor. But you're also an idiot.

Here's a little comparison for you Fred, using one of your honored own (unless you're from the South, then maybe not so honored).

Barack Obama
8 years in Illinois Senate (1996-2004)
3.5 years in U.S. Senate (2005-2008)
Democratic nominee for President (2008)

Abraham Lincoln
8 years in Illinois House (1834-1842)
2 years in U.S. House (1846-1848)
Republican nominee for President (1860)

Note Lincoln's 12-year absence from elected office. No way he could get elected today.

Obama the "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President"? Other than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps. But I don't think Lincoln turned out so bad, and he was a decent war-time Commander-in-Chief (at least he won his war).

I note, Fred, that you ran for President with only 9 years experience in any elected office (U.S. Senate). That's less elected-office experience than either Obama or Lincoln. Something about people living in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind.

Lastly, Fred, please -- I know you didn't write the speech (unless you did), but people who speak English as a first language would not say "most inexperienced." The correct term is "least experienced." Ignorant stupidity is one thing. Illiterate ignorant stupidity is simply intolerable.

McCain: Bring Back Prohibition

2008-06-10T11:29:00.001-07:00

Further distancing himself from his Democratic opponent, Woodrow Wilson, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has declared that, if elected president, he will bring back Prohibition.

Or, he was signaling his intent to bring on Mitt Romney as a vice-presidential running mate.

Or, he was channeling Homer Simpson.

You decide:

I want to know whether he intends to use earmarks to veto the beers, or if he will only veto beers that contain earmarks, but not other beers. If he intends to use earmarks to veto the beers, will he dip his ear in ink, or will it be dabbed on by an ATF agent? If the latter, will it be okay if my beer contains one earmark, but not two? And why would I be putting my beer up to my ear anyway?

Cool Workout Playlist

2008-06-02T23:16:00.000-07:00

Now that Tina bought me a new iPod Touch for my birthday (Thank You Tina!), I came up with a 30-minute playlist for running. Songs are designed for a 5-minute warm-up, about 6:30 in fast jog / slow run, about 10-minutes of faster running (about 6 on my treadmill), followed by 9-minutes of warm down.

Playlist is:

Hells Bells - AC/DC (warm up)

Crawling In The Dark - Hoobastank (fast jog)

Paralyzer - Finger Eleven (faster jog / slow run)

Inside The Fire - Disturbed (run)

Afterlife - Avenged Sevenfold (run faster - sprint the solos if you can)

Children of the Sea - Black Sabbath (catch your breath with some Dio)

Over You - Daughtry (relax, walk it out)

The whole thing is like 30.4 minutes, which is the minimum cardio you're supposed to get each day (not that I do). The nice thing about keeping a fixed playlist for running, rather than mixing it up each time, is you soon get to know exactly where you are the run and how much longer you have to go. And at least for me, it's all about the light at the end of the tunnel.

It's All Up To Missouri

2008-06-02T12:27:00.000-07:00

USA Today has a really cool electoral college tracker where you can assign states to Obama and McCain and see where each has to win in order to reach 270 electoral votes and win the general election.

I assigned states based primarily on history voting patterns, which resulted in several Bush states from 2004 swinging back to their historical Democratic-leaning trends.

My result? It all comes down to Missouri.

I gave Obama the following states: Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and the entire Northeast (from Maryland north, including D.C.). The result is 269 electoral votes.

Everything else I gave to McCain, including Missouri. The result - 269 electoral votes. A dead tie.

(I have no idea what happens in the event of a tie, and don't recall seeing that covered in the Constitution).

In 1992 and 1996, Missouri went for Bill Clinton. In 2000 and 2004, it went for Bush.

Now, I'm going to borrow a oft-cited (but substantively sophmoric) argument used by Clinton - that she has won the states Dems need to win the general election. On my map, the only legitimate battleground state is Missouri - a state that Obama won by a mere 10,000 votes (1% difference). Thus, Obama wins the only state that matters - the only state in contest. Giving Missouri to Obama results in a 280-258 win for Obama. Notably, it also results in the complete political marginalization of the South, which for years has been considered "must-win" territory for either party to win the White House.

Some states, like Michigan (which isn't really included in the primary results), California, Pennsylvania and New York all went for Clinton. But those states are unshakable Democratic locks, and have all gone that way for the past four presidential elections. Obama will win those without breaking a sweat.

Clinton's argument loses more luster when you view my map and realize that I have given McCain Ohio and Florida, both of which were obviously pivotal in the past two elections. Those are two of the big states that Clinton says she can win, and that Dems have to win. 'cept they don't have to win them (at least not on my map).

This year, as goes Missouri, goes the White House. And Missouri goes to Obama.

New Political Math

2008-06-02T12:11:00.000-07:00

Much like the Democratic primary itself, the bizarre death-spiral of the Clinton campaign continues unabated. Clinton and her cadre of hanger-oners continue to press the "we are winning the popular vote" claim.

Oddly, Clinton makes that argument using the primary vote from Puerto Rico. Apparently nobody has told Clinton that Puerto Rico doesn't count. The island gets to vote in the primary solely because the DNC wanted to throw a bone to various U.S. protectorates and territories (there's a primary in Guam, too). However, at the end of the day, in the only election that matters - the general election in November - Puerto Ricans can't vote. Consequently, nobody cares how they voted in a non-binding and irrelevant advisory vote. Counting those votes is sort of like a basketball team counting its pre-game warm-up shots toward the final score of the actual game.

Clinton should be happy that she managed to neuter the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC (and by extension, the DNC itself) by badgering it into giving her delegates that should never have been awarded to anybody. Apparently destroying her party's ability to run its own show is not enough. Seriously, her scorched-earth policy would do Stalin proud.

Primary confusion

2008-05-30T12:22:00.001-07:00

On Saturday, the rules committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is going to meet to discuss the "Florigan" problem - namely what to do with the votes of primary voters in Florida and Michigan.

As you may (and should) know, Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primaries early, in contravention of DNC rules. The DNC told those states that if they went forward with the early primaries, their delegates would not be seated at the convention in August, meaning their primaries would be meaningless.

All of the Democratic contenders (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) agreed to those rules. Nobody campaigned in Florida, and Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan. Not surpisingly, Clinton won both states, but didn't make any noise about the votes not counting until it became apparent that her coronation was going to be challenged. Suddenly she had a change of heart, and demanded a rule change mid-game, picking up the rallying cry of "count every vote."

Coming to her defense are political hacks and wannabe hacks who are crying foul, alleging that the failure to count those states' primary votes somehow runs afoul of, if not the Constitution, at least Constitutional principles.

But they are wrong.

You see, there is no right to vote for a party nominee. The DNC and RNC can both simply send approved slates to the convention. Of course, others can appear at the convention as well. Then, the delegates at the conventions get to debate and argue and, ultimately, vote for a candidate.

In fact, that's how it used to work. There were no primaries. But somewhere along the line, the parties decided that rather than have drawn-out, war-like conventions full of back-room deals and viscious party-infighting, they'd let the people select the nominee. Thus, the primary system.

Thus, the primary system is simply a creature created by the political parties solely for the purpose of ensuring nominees who have shown an ability to garner popular support outside of the party headquarters. Because it is a process they created, it is a process that they can control in any manner they chose. The creation of superdelegates is one example - they exist solely to serve as a counter balance to the popular vote in order to prevent voters from selecting a total loser.

Note also that pledged delegates don't have to vote the way they are pledged. Truly, your vote counts for nothing more than a suggestion.

But what this means is that you have no "right" to participate in a primary because you have no "right" to a primary to begin with. In other words, the primary is nothing more than the DNC asking for your advice on who should be its nominee. The DNC doesn't have to follow your advice, or even pay it any heed. It can create and modify its rules as it sees fit.

By not counting the votes of states who didn't follow party rules, the DNC is not dis-enfranchising anybody. It's simply enforcing its rules, and tomorrow it could change its rules to do away with the primary system all together. And there is NOTHING you or anybody else could do about it.

Saturday will see the DNC face the most serious challenge to its authority, and perhaps its very existence as a viable political party. For if a political party cannot establish and enforce its own rules, then it serves no purpose other than to bend to the will of whoever makes the most noise. If the DNC cannot enforce its sanctions against Michigan and Florida and seats those delegates, that will send the signal to every other state that, they too can ignore the DNC and schedule their primaries however and whenever they want, knowing full well that at the end of the day, the DNC rules have no teeth. Hopefully, the DNC will show some backbone on Saturday.

The Death and Re-Birth of Conservatism

2008-02-29T10:18:00.000-08:00

Conservatism is dead, long live Conservatism.

In this day of highly polarized politics, no one philosophy has garnered more attention and acquired more influence than what is most commonly referred to as "right-wing extremism." Fueled in part by evangelical Christians 30-year conversion to the Republican party, and in part by talk radio hosts who appeal to the lowest common denominator (and by extension the least thoughtful/intelligent members of the electorate), this particular brand of social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatism has taken hold at every level of government, including most recently the White House.

The social conservative movement really hit its stride after September 11, providing a galvanizing call to arms in defense of a "new" and overt culture war. The American Christian Nation (ACN), the spearhead of Western European Christian Civilization, came into the light in order to defend against the Radical Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent.

For years the ACN had been rallying against domestic moral failings - abortion, homosexuality, rock and rap music, and whatever else they didn't understand or like. They were (and are) intolerant, because tolerance equals acceptance, acceptance equals surrender, and surrender equals damnation. The issues were divisive and the ACN could do no more than preach to the choir - it was a total failure at converting the majority of Americans. 9-11 however gave them a cause that all Americans could get behind, or at least could not publically decry. And as a result, they believe they had crossed that last hurdle and had wrested control of America from the heathen majority.

Then came John McCain.

Conventional wisdom has long held that to win a party's nomination, a presidential candidate must carry the South, and in the case of Republicans, must carry the ACN (which is fairly headquartered in the South). In order to carry that vote, a Republican candidate must campaign on issues that make the ACN happy - anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, God in the classroom, and lip service to tax/spending control.

McCain is not a member of the ACN, and is not a true believer in the ACN movement. Rather, he is a pragmatist who holds his own opinions and rejects extremism is any form. And while his beliefs may not line up with yours or mine or the guy down the street, he does a pretty good job of keeping the pandering to a minimum.

With his pending nomination as the Republican presidential nominee, the ACN is going through a series of spasmodic seizures, trying to figure out what happened and how their party's nominee doesn't share their values. In particular, the ACN radio-show talking heads, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the nameless ass-clown who got dissed by McCain earlier in the week, are all spitting mad that they have failed to sway the vote as they have in the past. (In fact, their vehement denials of such frustration only reinforces the fact of its presence - they doth protest too much).

It is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years - America is fed up with the ACN and is about to re-assert its status as the majority. If Conservatism is not dead, it is at least Terri Schivo (or at least the ACN's opionion of Terri Schivo). A McCain victory in November would effectively pull the plug. Yes, McCain has campaigned on a platform of maintaining some elements of Bush's policies - that can hardly be a surprise. And yet it does not make him a Bush clone, as much as some might like to suggest. McCain is a moderate pragmatist - the antithesis of and an anathema to the ACN.

On the other hand, if McCain loses, the ACN will be able to rally and point out "see, without us the GOP cannot win." The result will be a shift in the GOP so far to the right that it might even rival the Oregon GOP. The ACN will gain not just control, but absolute control of the GOP for decades to come.

If you know anything about the Oregon GOP, you know that it is controlled by a cabal of ACN fanatics what have for decades proven incapable of winning a statewide general election for any office. Why? Because they field candidates who are true-blue ACN followers, while Oregon generally is about 160-degrees the opposite (the ACN does have some minor local traction throughout Oregon, but not much). The Oregon GOP would rather field candidates who will rigidly adhere to their ACN principles than candidates who can win. And if McCain loses, it is likely the national GOP will go the same route. Conservatism will thus be re-born, but will find itself flailing against the current for many years to come (or until the Democrats screw things up so badly that once again voters will chose change for the sake of change, consequences be damned).

McCain's nomination has dealt a near-fatal blow to Conservatism. His election will kill it entirely. His defeat will revive it and give rise to a Frankenstein's-monster version of the GOP.

Either way, it'll be a hell of a show.

Bush's economic genius on display

2008-02-28T13:48:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I can only scratch my head and wonder. I mean, it's easy to make snide remarks about George W. Bush's stupidity in regard to virtually any subject. But sometimes the depth of that stupidity just goes beyond description. For example:

Today in a press conference Bush indicated that he was unaware that gasoline was projected to reach $4.00-per-gallon by the spring. Set aside for a moment the potential diatribe about how that's possible, and move on to the next comment.

Apparently, the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gasoline is to make his tax cut permanent. Again, set aside the potential diatribe about the merits of the tax cut and who it benefits, etc.

No, instead focus on this - the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gas is to maintain the status quo vis-a-vis taxes, during which status quo gas will hit $4.00-per-gallon. In other words, do nothing. Gas will hit $4.00 while the tax cut is in place. How, then, does continuing the tax cut help? Bush's theory is that it would be worse if taxes went up in a couple years, then, boy-howdy, wouldn't $4.00-per-gallon gas suck.

Newsflash Mr. President, $4.00 is unacceptable and unaffordable now, with the tax cut in place. Making the tax cut permanent will not alleviate the suffering caused by $4.00 gas. And I don't think anyone is worried that, gee, taxes might go up in a couple of years (which, by the way, they will - but that inevitability is a topic for another day). No, in a couple years we'll be worried about $6.00-$7.00 gas.

I seriously wonder whether we can even survive another 10 months of this clown.

No rebate for GOP, either

2008-02-20T10:14:00.001-08:00

This is classic. One of the Republican Party's arguments in its favor is that it believes in running government like a business. Apparently, that is a truer statement than I ever gave them credit for.

It seems that the Oregon GOP decided to stop paying its payroll taxes and is now under a federal tax lien. This from the Oregonian:

According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the party had $35,850 in cash on hand in its federal political action committee as of the first of the year and $263,930 in debt. The state PAC had about $42,000 in cash on hand, according to a report filed with the state Elections Division.
* * *
The party, which favors lower taxes, came under federal scrutiny when it stopped paying payroll taxes for about a year and a half, starting in the last three months of 2006. Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on the organization, which is now on a repayment plan for the approximately $33,500 it owes.

The party blames an errant employee. However, isn't another GOP call to arms something about personal responsibility? It is not the employee's fault for failing to do the job - it is the GOP's fault for failing to make sure its business was being taken care of.

Tax rebate - not really.

2008-02-20T09:22:00.000-08:00

By now you've heard that the feds are going to be giving out a "tax rebate" as part of a poorly-conceived economic stimulus plan designed to jump-start the failing economy. Ignoring for a moment the stupidy of the rebate program generally, it turns out that it's not what the gov't and media have made it out to be.

Media reports all state that taxpayers will receive $600 rebates ($1,200 for couples who filed jointly) and $300 for people who didn't have any tax liability. Sounds pretty sweet, right?

Not so fast. First, in order to get your rebate you must file your 2007 tax return. So much for just sending a check. But that's not really such a big deal - you have to file your return anyway, so no big deal.

However, in order to get your rebate check, you have to either owe nothing or get a refund on your 2007 taxes. So, if you file single and end up owing $100, then your rebate check will be $500. If you owe $1,000, then you'll simply get a credit of $600 and still owe $400. And of course is you have an outstanding prior tax liability, it will be reduced by $600.

Now, there is an certain logic to the idea that the government should not hand out money to people who owe it money. However, the purported purpose of the plan is to stimulate the economy by giving people cash to inject into the pipeline - in other words, to go shopping. Not to give taxpayers a bonus, but to move products, increase spending and hopefully kick start the economy overall. It's a stupid idea and won't work, but if program's instigators truly believed in the goal, wouldn't they have made sure that the gov't kept its hands off the money in order to ensure a maximum economic bump? How does paying the IRS stimulate the economy?

There is nothing worse than a bad idea poorly executed. And while I would love to lay this on top of the stack of other poorly-executed bad ideas by Bush, this is truly a bi-partisian effort. Everybody is guilty. Worse, the media have utterly failed to investigate these details, and I assure you that you will not read or hear a news story about the IRS intercepting rebates until the checks start going out and people start bitching about not getting their's. Way to be on top of the news, guys.

Dolts for Hillary?

2008-02-20T09:13:00.000-08:00

Fascinating factoid - in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it turns out that Hillary Clinton's base is made up of lower-income white people with primarily high-school educations. In other words, poor dumb people.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is attracting higher-income college-educated voters. In other words, wealthy elitist snobs.

Interesting.

Whoa! That hooker looks just like my wife!

2008-01-10T15:20:00.000-08:00

Somehow there is a Polish joke in this. Married guy in Warsaw, Poland goes to a brothel, where he runs into his wife, who apparently worked there. Seems she had told him that she was working in a store in a nearby town. Guess not.

Now they're getting divorced.

Too bad, just when they found a common interest.

You can read it here.

This is news? Really?

2008-01-06T22:17:00.001-08:00

So some American nut-job joins al-Qaeda, runs off to the land-o-sand, and then releases a video where he renounces his American citizenship, tears up his passport, and urges Muslims to attack Bush on his upcoming middle east trip.

CNN reports this as if it's news.

Seriously, did someone at CNN say "whoa! This American dude joined al-Qaeda THREE YEARS AGO and today we got a video of him tearing up his passport!" What, no video available today of Britney in a straight jacket?

Careful what you say.

2008-01-03T15:35:00.000-08:00

If you're blogging in Saudi Arabia, don't be too critical of the government.

This guy went to jail for blogging about what he believed were lies being propogated by the Saudi government. Fouad Ahmed al-Farhan apparently wrote to support political figures in SA who are considered supporters of terrorism by the government there.

In an interesting twist, the Bush administration has condemed the arrest as contrary to the principles of freedom of speech. I find this a curious dichotomy given BushCo's general attitude toward anybody who could even marginally be considered as supporting the supporters of terrorists.

Anyway, I won't be blogging from Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

Iowa Caucuses - Who cares?

2008-01-03T14:56:00.000-08:00

Tonight a bunch of people representing a minority of whatever political party in which they claim membership will join with others in a state of absolutely no political importance whatsoever and "vote" for who they believe their party should nominate for president.

And my interest in their opinions is far less than the length of the above sentence. In a state that reflects absolutely nothing about any part of America I am familiar with, in a state with only seven electoral votes, the major political parties will decide which candidates are worthy of continued support.

Why is this so ridiculous? Aside from the fact that, seriously, does anybody outside of Iowa care what people in Iowa think?, wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that the candidates being supported are capable of winning the states that actually matter come general election time?

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president. That total is reached with just the 11 following states: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (15), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and any one of the remaining 39 states.

Yes, that's right - to become president a candidate must win a grand total of 12 of the 50 states. So why, I ask, does anybody give a crap about the other 38? Seriously, wouldn't the wise candidate focus on the states that matter and win those primaries? If you can carry the states that would get you elected in the general election, then it would seem that your party would have a pretty good incentive to fund your campaign.

Instead, over the next few weeks we'll hear about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - states that account for a mere 19 electoral votes. States of absolutely no individual political relevance.

Why not simply run a six week primary system where you start at the top of the list and hold primaries in two states per week, with the remaining 38 states holding their primary on the last week - allowing each candidate to pick whatever camel-back-breaking-state they choose (since they only need one, it doesn't really matter). Then, based on those results, decide what two candidates you'll send to the convention and let the remaining states battle it out on the convention floor - the way it used to be.

UPDATE:

Iowa caucuses are over, and, best I can tell, Kansas pulled it out over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. In a game full of turnovers and big plays, it became more and more clear that if Oregon had remained healthy, they would truly have been a juggernaut. Nobody in the country could have laid a hand on them.

Oh, and I think Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee won something tonight too.

Who has time to blog?

2008-01-03T14:21:00.000-08:00

Jebus, it has been since mid-September since I've written anything. What have I been doing? (I mean, other than not blogging about anything).

I used to try blogging about politics, but it just pisses me off. How many times can I write about how everybody running for everything are pompous, vacuous gasbags who could just as easily be replaced with one of my daughter's countless stuffed animals. Would anybody notice?

I also tried blogging about sports, or about the UO. But that got too tedious - people who follow that stuff want more detail than I frankly care about. Plus, I don't know anything.

I tried reviewing movies, and that was actually a bit of fun, except I stopped going to the movies. I could blog about what I watched on TV - but that would just expose how much TV I watch.

I could blog about my day-to-day life, but not even I want to read about that.

The other thing that always pisses me off is how much time it actually takes. See, in my opinion, a truly thorough blog entry includes hyperlinks to whatever I've referenced. That takes time. But to make it worse, at least 20% of the time something happens and the blog doesn't upload, or the links don't take, and then the whole thing is lost forever - so I just quit. I really have no patience for writing something twice.

So, I guess I'll go back to blogging about stuff I don't actually care about, but who knows, maybe one time I'll write something that will stand the test of time and get me own show on E!, or maybe MSNBC.

U. Florida tasering justified

2007-09-19T16:59:00.001-07:00

By now everyone has seen the video, or excerpts of the video, of University of Florida campus police arresting and tasering a student, Andrew Meyer, at an open mike Q&A with former presidential candidate and current Senator John Kerry.

Watching various television networks cover the event, and in particular MSNBC, there seems to be some idea that the police here used excessive force and were suppressing Meyer's right to free speech.

Before commenting further, I suggest you watch this video. It's about 4:30 long, but it provides much more coverage of the arrest and aftermath than I've seen anywhere else. Pay particular attention to his attempted escape about 28 seconds in, and the cop's explanation of why Meyer is being arrested near the very end.

This video doesn't cover Meyer's performance at the microphone, but it is fair to say that he was asking a legitimate question - one that, notably, Kerry wanted and tried to answer. (You can find other videos on Youtube that show that part if you must see it).

So the cops walk up to Meyer and drag him away. As you can see, when Meyer got to the top of the aisle, he tried to bolt and attempted to fight off officers who were removing him. That, all by itself, justified the use of the taser. However, police did not tase him then. Instead, they forced him to the ground, where he continued to fight back. Finally they tased him. Again - justifiably, albeit unpleasantly.

Here's the point that people seem to be missing - even if the cops are completely unjustified in their attempt to arrest you, you cannot resist that arrest. In otherwords, it is no defense to a charge of resisting arrest that the arrest itself was unlawful. If you resist, you get zapped. Or worse. If people don't like that, they can ask their legislators to change the law. But just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you don't have to follow it.

As for the initial intervention - that was complete crap. The cop at the end said Meyer was being arrested for inciting a riot. That is just laughable. He asked a question. The cops moved him off the microphone, without any cause to do so.

Had Meyer not reacted like a moron college student, his case would be solid. Unfortunately, like the child he apparently still is, he flipped out and resisted arrest - with violence, just as charged.

If the campus cops are going to be punished, it should be for their initial interference and failure to understand their role providing security at these kind of events. But they should not be punished for their use of the taser, and Meyer should be convicted of resisting arrest.

Clinton Campaign DOA

2007-09-18T16:43:00.000-07:00

Mark it down - September 17, 2007 - the day Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign died.

The campaign doesn't know it yet - few do. But it's over. Done. She can never be elected President. Not after this.

As I noted yesterday, Clinton unveiled a mandatory health insurance plan that she plagerized from Mitt Romney, who created a similar plan when he was governor of Massachussets. I noted it was horrible, but thought to myself that between then and election day she would "clarify" the plan to reduce its draconian approach of penalizing the American worker.

I was wrong.

It was reported today that Clinton gave an interview to the Associated Press, wherein she went so far as to note that she could forsee the day when a person would be required to show proof of current health insurance before being allowed to work.

WTF!

On the radio today, her "economic advisor" tried to blabber something about taxes and how this will only be a percentage of someone's income. Newsflash dumbass - most people (myself included) cannot afford for the government to forcibly redistribute ANY percentage of my income.

Clearly it is not just Clinton who is completely oblivous to the real world, but she has apparently surrounded herself with others who are just as ignorant. This seems oddly similar to another completely detached president who surrounded himself with like(feeble)minded "yes" men.

It's over. Mark it down. September 17, 2007.

Massachusetts Annexed by Europe

2007-09-17T13:40:00.001-07:00

In today's news - Hillary Clinton makes love to the insurance lobby, Masschussets was annexed by Europe and nobody noticed, and Mitt Romney is a pot.

Health insurance and health care are expensive and not readily available to too many people. We all know this. Republicans try to ignore the problem by pandering to their insurance company donors and blaming "trial lawyers." The (mistaken) theory goes that trial lawyers and their gigantic fees from their frivolous lawsuits (you know, the ones that prevent gynocologists from practicing their love with women?) so run up the cost of medical care that, if only we could put a halt to those persnickity lawyers, medical care would be cheap and plentiful.

Nevermind that lawsuits (and verdicts) are trending down and that insurance companies are making record profits. Also nevermind that insurance companies don't make money by paying claims. Just stop the lawyers. (And, while you're at it, make sure that injured people quit suing, pick up their severed limbs, and get back to work - shiftless lazy good-for-nothings).

Meanwhile, the Democrats want to solve the problem by turning it over to the government. You know, the govenment that fabricated a war, created a Nazi-sounding "Homeland Security" department that doesn't actually do anything, and cannot repair just one major city that was flooded a couple years ago. Yet they can somehow effectively manage my health care.

Today, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a Democratic candidate for President, unveiled her new health care proposal to much fanfare. Unfortunately, it's not new. Rather, she stole it from Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who created a virtually identical plan in his state.

The Romney Plan, which went into effect July 1, 2007, requires all residents to have health insurance. If they do not, and cannot obtain a waiver, then in the first year they will be penalized by losing their individual deduction on their state tax returns. In subsequent years, they will be penalized on their taxes at one-half the lowest cost of available insurance.

What a great idea. Rather than face the insurance companies and their bullshit underwriting practices or their denial of coverage scams, and rather than face the medical lobby and their hyper-inflated charges (allowed only because the insurance companies will pay them), how much more convenient to simply penalize poor people for not buying insurance they already can't afford. So now the working poor, people with low-wage jobs and no health care, who can barely make ends meet as it is, must now pony up their non-existent cash to pay for health insurance instead of food, housing, utilities, gas, etc. Brilliant.

Hillary's plan appears to be identical, making health insurance mandatory. Her people try to equate it with states making automobile insurance mandatory. Big difference here - I don't HAVE to drive a car. I sort of HAVE to continue to breathe. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Staying alive is, I'm pretty certain, a right (although I suspect some folk such as Bill O'Reilly would suggest it is only a privilege).

Moreover, what if I don't want health insurance? What if I so hate the insurance companies that I do not ever want to see them get a dime? What if I don't believe in traditional medicine? Why should I have to have insurance that pays for treatment I don't want and would never seek? What if I just flat out don't like being told what to do? It's my money, dammit, and if I want to spend it on beer and potato chips instead of blood pressure medication, then that's what I'm gonna do.

Worse, the Clinton plan would, as I understand, prohibit insurers from assessing higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. That's just stupid. Now, I'm no fan of insurance companies - I downright loathe them. But they do have a place and they have to be able to run their business in a reasonable fashion. People with pre-existing conditions are going to cost more to treat - consequently it should cost more to insure them. Insurance is based on risk - a healthy person is cheaper because there is less risk of paying out a claim. Sick people are more expensive because there is more risk of paying out a claim. Duh. But if the insurance company cannot charge more for people who will cost more, then they will simply charge more for everybody.

Remember, insurance is not a public service - it is a for-profit business that makes money via taking premiums and investing them, then retaining the return on those investments. When they pay claims, they lose both their investing power and some of their return, which means they and their shareholders make less money. Because their incentive is to make a profit, not protect your health, they will act in a manner to maximize profits.

And now Clinton is playing right into their hands. Imagine a world where the government mandates that the public buy your product, whether they want to or not. The ironic part is that the large-scale implementation of this fiasco is being proposed by a Democrat and not a Republican. Apparently not all insurance company investments generate the expected returns after all.

But let me get to the best part - the killer funny twist of this whole mess. Romney, who created this very program when he was Governor of Massachussets, calls the Clinton plan something inspired by "European bureaucracies."

"Instead we should take our inspiration from the American people. Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families."

My score - Mitt=Pot, Hillary=Kettle, Massachussets=France, Insurance Industry=$$$$$$, American Working Family=Anally Raped (and without insurance to pay for the treatment).

Pac-10 week three - oh well

2007-09-17T11:13:00.000-07:00

So I was off in my predictions last week. I knew UCLA was overrated and Arizona was still a distant threat to be consistent, but come on - Utah was 0-2 and throttled by OSU, while New Mexico had only beaten a Pac-10 team one other time in its history.

Rather than the 7-1 outcome I predicted (with Stanford losing to San Jose State), UCLA chokes (not really), Arizona just can't quite get there, and Stanford rolls. So we went 6-2. Still not bad, but should've been better.

Most notable, however, was UCLA's tremendous beatdown at the hands (or hooves) of the Utes. But stop for a moment and think about UCLA. Sure, they had moved up to No. 11 in the polls. But did anybody stop to ask why? Two reasons - 1) they beat USC last year and 2) they have 20 returning starters.

So? Oregon State beat USC too. The Beavs are hardly worthy of a ranking. 20 returning starters? From what, a mediocre to poor team? UCLA wasn't anything to write home about last year (or the year before that) and there was no reason to think that had changed. They got lucky one game at the end of the season when USC was looking past them. UCLA has a not-very-good football team, a not-very-good coach, a not-very-good quarterback, and return 20 not-very-good starters. What's it mean? It means they're not very good.

But should they have got taken behind the woodshed at Utah? An 0-2 Mountain West team should not, EVER, lay the beatdown on a Pac-10 team - not even Stanford. It is thus only fitting that UCLA plummeted from number 11 to being unranked, ala Michigan post Appy State.

Anyhow, the Pac-1o improved its non-conference performance to 20-6 (.7692), although the Beavs' "big" win was against 1-AA Idaho State. As I predicted, the conference went 1-1 against the Big-10 and Big-12, with Washington losing to Ohio State and USC thumping Nebraska. Note to Nebraska - football doesn't live there anymore. It moved away years ago. Try competitive corn-shucking.

Meanwhile, the Big-12 went 27-9 (.75), the Big-10 went 26-7 (.7878), while the SEC went 15-3 (.8333). Oddly, the SEC played a bunch of confernce games, so it's tough to really evaluate it with the same view as the other conferences, who other than UCLA v. Stanford have yet to play within their own conferences.

So my predictions for the coming week:

Pac-10: Arizona at Cal - Cal, 52-10.
WSU at USC - USC, 32-17
UO at Stanford - UO, 49-3
OSU at ASU - ASU, 17-13
UW at UCLA - UW, 38-20

New Mystery Train videos

2007-09-09T19:36:00.000-07:00

New vids from our July 4 concert.

2007 VMAs - MTV Jumps The Shark

2007-09-09T18:14:00.000-07:00

6:00 - Opening Act - Britney Spears. Britney apparently ate a stick or 50 of butter prior, then used the rest to squish herself into an outfit that might have fit her 3-4 years ago - before she exploded and her career died.

Is that Latoya Jackson up there?

Oh, and she can't lipsynch to save her pathetic life. Truely, deaf blind people lipsync better.

She can't dance anymore either. She walks like a drunk stripper - "anybody wanna dance?"

But I can't stop watching. Yes I can. No I can't. Yes I can. No I can't.

Yes I can, because it's over.

Sarah Silverman comes out. She's funny, right?

Not.

Nobody laughs at her slams on Britney. The hairless vagina joke falls flat - big surprise.

Nothing else she says is funny. Please leave now.

First award. Rhianna wins something. Does anybody care?

Cut to Kanye West singing on the balcony at the Palms in Vegas. Maybe he'll fall off. Then at least the show would be interesting.

Commercial break.

6:21 - Back from break. Some guy is singing a song that apparently requires the bleeping of every seven words.

Best new artist. Go pay a buck to text a vote. As if.

What is the "quadruple threat of the year?" Who makes this crap up?

Justin Timberlake is very happy winning an award nobody has ever heard of until 45 seconds ago. He calls out MTV to play videos. What's he thinkin?

Cut to Fall Out Boy. Could this be more random?

6:32 - Foo Fighters rock! But I can't figure out when the award part of the show starts.

Next up - the VMA for "Earth Shattering Collaberation." 50-Cent and Kanye West do a lame Frazier-Ali staredown. Kanye needs lifts.

Beyonce featuring Shakira wins. I remember when the categories made sense. Beyonce's about to have a wardrobe malfunction. Gee, I'd hate that.

6:36 - I assume this is Maroon 5. More commercials. Maybe they'll be watchable, 'cause this show is about one step away from bad public access.

6:43 - Chris Brown! Very First Time At The VMAs!

Who the hell is Chris Brown?

Oh - it's DJ Jazzy Jeff with Hitler's mustache.

And he's lipsyncing. Does anybody actually sing anymore?

Now he's impersonating Michael Jackson. That's really cool. If you watched this 15 years ago.

Yeah for commercials!

6:54 - Who the hell is this? Possibly cris-cross (or something) all growed up.

More stupid "don't vote for who you want to lose" in the Best New Artist category.

6:56 - Male Artist of the Year. I've never understood if these categories are based on music videos (i.e. the VIDEO music awards) or just the music.

Justin Timberlake wins. Probably due to his name recognition - and the fact that the other contenders sort of just, well, sucked.

JT says "play more videos." As if.

Foo Fighters are back! Rock on! I quit.

Pac-10 Football - Better Than Advertised?

2007-09-08T23:09:00.000-07:00

Week two of the college football season has come and (almost) gone. Pre-season predictions seem about what I'd expected - wrong. As usual, the Pac-10 was given no respect, essentially viewed as USC + 9, where the 9 were not good enough to be .500 teams in the "real" conferences - Big 10, Big 12, and, ugh, the SEC.

So Week Two is over and let us review the non-conference wins/losses. Pac-10 is 13-3 (.8125). Big-10 (which has 11 teams) is 18-4 (.8181). Big-12 is 17-5 (.7727). SEC is 13-3 (.8125).

In head-to-head matchups, the Pac-10 is 1-1 against the Big-10, 1-0 against the Big-12, and 1-0 against the SEC. The sole embarrasment was the Beavers' loss to Cincinnati of the Big East (which as a conference has gone 12-2 (.8571 - best of the bunch), and 1-1 against the Pac-10).

And the Pac-10 wins aren't squeakers, either. Washington waxed Syracuse 42-14, Cal handed it Tennessee 45-31 in a game that wasn't as close as the score indicates (although SEC/Tennessee fan seems to think otherwise - big surprise there), Arizona State unloaded on Colorado 33-14, and of course, Oregon bitch-slapped Michigan 39-7 (and actually took steps to avoid running it up on the Wolverines).

Anyhow, the point is that the Pac-10 is far, far better than the rest of the country expected, and is 4-2 against the supposed "power" conferences. Next week should see the Pac-10 go 1-1 against the Big-12 and Big-10, with USC walloping an overrated Nebraska squad while a much-improved and resurgent UW will be unable to maintain against The Ohio State University (but I wouldn't fall over dead either if UW surprised me - they're capable). The rest of the conference ought to go 7-1, the sole loss being Stanford to San Jose State.

One interesting thing to note when comparing conferences - the Pac-10 is the only conference where every team plays nine conference games - the rest play eight.

Why Craig Should Resign.

2007-09-05T21:49:00.000-07:00

By this point most people are aware of Senator Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) arrest and conviction in Minneapolis for trolling for sex in the men's bathroom at the airport there. A quick summary:

Craig was arrested for sitting in the stall in the men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport for sending "signals" to an undercover police officer in the next stall over. I have read the arrest report. As a municipal prosecutor, I can say with absolute certainty that I would have "no filed" this case had I read that report. That means I would not have allowed it go forward - it was that bad.

Nonetheless, Craig pleaded guilty. Some liberal radio talk-show hosts have claimed that Craig pleaded guilty the same day he was arrested, then flew to D.C. to cast some vote. They are lying. (As opposed to wrong - anybody who read the arrest report (dated June 12) and the guilty plea (signed August 1) would have immediately noticed they were a month apart).

In any event, Craig's claim that he didn't have enough time to contemplate the ramification of his decision, that he felt rushed, is complete crap. He mailed his freakin' plea petition, which he or an attorney drafted - there was no rush.

It is immaterial that Craig was arrested on this stupid, b.s. charge. It is also immaterial that he pleaded guilty. It is further immaterial whether he is gay or, if you believe his bizarre press conference, is not gay. None of that matters - yet it is all that the media are talking about. That, of course, is because the media are essentially a collective of idiots who pander to the lowest-common denominator.

No, the reason Craig should resign is quite simple - he is not qualified to be a United States Senator. Now, techinically speaking, he is qualified. The only requirements are age and residency. He meets both.

However, he is not intellectually qualified. He is claiming that he did not understand the ramifications of his guilty plea and that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered it. Aside from the rather explicit and detailed explanation found in the plea petition, this is not rocket science. I deal often with people of far lessor capacity (supposedly) who clearly understand the plea petition and what it means to plead guilty. So he can't understand the basics of the American criminal justice system, yet he is entrusted to understand and vote on the most complicated legislation this nation has to offer. Seriously?

Simply put, anybody who can't understand a simple misdemeanor guilty plea has no business being in the Senate. And why nobody has caught on to this yet is entirely beyond me - unless the reality is that EVERYBODY in the Senate (and most of the media) are also too stupid to grasp the significance of a misdemeanor guilty plea.

Inconvenient civilian control of the military

2007-08-27T11:17:00.000-07:00

It's hard to argue with people who have been maimed or lost family members in the war in Iraq. Whether it's Cindy Sheehan who uses her son's death to seek an end to the war, or other's who use their loved-ones' deaths to justify continuing the war, attacking their arguments is always met with a "they earned the right to take position 'x', so leave them alone."

Someone (I forget who) once said "war is a continuation of politics by another means," or something like that. I can see no valid reason why participating in one aspect of political action (e.g. war) gives one a greater insight into the policy underlying that extension of political thought than, say, me, or anybody in congress.

With that in mind ...

The other day I began seeing these commercials here in Tennessee (I assume they are elsewhere around the country). (I won't slow your load time by embedding them here). I won't get into the details of each ad and why any particular ad is mind-boggling in both its naivete and outright stupidity. However, one consistent theme demands comment.

My daughter just turned 12. While watching these ads, she hears these people say, using different wording, that politics, and by extension politicians, should not be deciding whether the war continues. She looked over at me and said "but isn't that how it's SUPPOSED to work!?"

Now, she's 12, and she apparently understands the fundamental concept of civilian control of the military - namely that the military does what the civilians, through the politicians, say. They don't go to war without political okay - and they come home when the politicians say so. The military doesn't get to decide when and where it's going to fight. The military is the tail - it is not the dog.

"Don't play politics" with the military is a resounding theme in these ads - and one that is precisely wrong in both its conceptual foundation and its pragmatic demand. War is exactly that - a political game. It's very function is to serve as a tool of politicians and as one extension of foreign policy. And just as it is the right of the politicians to use that tool, it is no less their right to withdraw its use.

Freedom's Watch, the organization sponsoring these ads, is frightfully nearer the political philopsophies of Stalinists and Communists than freedom-loving Americans. To even harbor, for a moment, the thought of relinquishing civilian control of the military (even as such philosphy is phrased in terms of "don't act") is the first, clear step toward dictatorship and a shift to the far-left side of the "J curve" (which I'll discuss in another post).

All freedom loving Americans should watch Freedom's Watch, and make damn sure they don't gain a foothold anywhere that matters. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

America - now 20% less filling!

2007-08-27T10:42:00.000-07:00

So the other night I end up having to watch the Miss Teen USA pageant. I usually watch those shows just long enough to see the contestant from Oregon get the boot. Unfortunately, I now also have to wait to see what happens to the contestant from Tennessee, and damn if that girl didn't make the final 15.

So anyhow, it gets down to the final five and the contestants must draw a name of a judge from a fishbowl, and then answer the question that judge asks. Miss South Carolina is first.

Much as they did Miss South Carolina, words fail me here. You just have to watch (and listen) before reading any farther.

Something about the south and edumacation I guess. Whether it's Kansas adopting (at least for a while) intelligent design (see my previous post here, about half way down - go to August 10), or South Carolina's efforts at watering down education and replacing it with religious indocrination, I can only assume that the 20% of Americans who can't find the US on a map are that way because there are no maps of the US in the Bible.

You gotta feel sorry for this girl. She's been raised in a culture where her looks and physical abilities (apparently she's a star soccer player as well as a national model) have made it unecessary to also, you know, think.

Anyhow, the sponsors of the pageant (in particular Donald Trump) must have been cringing, seeing their efforts to portray these girls as bright, intelligent and the future leaders of tomorrow go South (literally and figuratively) - assuming they could find "south" on a map.

Sanctity of life?

2006-01-17T16:58:00.000-08:00

Sometimes reality is funnier than any fiction.

In this story, an elderly California death-row inmate had requested prison officials let him die if he suffered another heart attack before his execution.

Sayeth the prison official:

"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him," then execute him.

Only in America.

BTW, it took two lethal injections to finish this guy off, who had recently lost his petition for clemency arguing that he was too old and feeble to be executed.

Gonzalez v. Oregon - Oregon Wins!

2006-01-17T09:54:00.000-08:00

Yeah for me. I called it (I guess). The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) in a 6-3 decision. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia dissented. (I called that, too).

Like I anticipated in my previous post on this topic on the day of oral argument, the majority distinguished this case from Gonzalez v. Raich, in which the Court rejected the state of California's argument in support of its medical marijuana law.

And although in my previous post I thought the Court might skirt the issue by simply saying the Attorney General has the authority to interpret his own rule (which is basically the dissent's position), the Court hit that subject head on and said the AG overstepped his authority.

It's an important decision because it, theoretically, removes at least overt politics from the office of the Attorney General, who is supposed to be above that.

Alito v. Roe? Not likely.

2006-01-13T12:50:00.000-08:00

Much has been made of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's refusal to state that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." As a result, many in the pro-choice camp are making as much noise as possible about Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court being the likely death-knell for reproductive rights in this country. Clearly, they did not listen to the hearings.

Two very important things were said at the confirmation hearings that should give pause to those who belief Alito spells the end for Roe. First, Alito was unequivocal in his affirmation of the right to privacy being found in the Constitution. And second, Alito refused to back away from that position when pressed - hard - by right-wing nut job Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Ok).

Anti-abortion activitists are vehement in their collective opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Specifically, they note that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy. And, in the most literal sense, they are correct. There is, in fact, no express right to privacy anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court has found that the right to privacy is implied within the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The far right repeatedly calls this "judicial activism." Justices like Antonin Scalia, a so-called "strict constructionist," would not find rights in the Constitution that are not expressly written into the document. It was widely believed that Alito shared Scalia's minimalist view of the Constitution and personal rights.

Thus, it was with almost jaw-dropping amazement that I listened to Alito clearly and unequivocally state the the Constitution did, in fact, contain a right to privacy, and that it was found at least in the Fourth, Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments. That was huge - huger than huge - perhaps earth-shattering. And it went virtually unnoticed, or certainly unappreciated.

At least, unnoticed to everyone except Tom Coburn, the right-wing crackpot from Okalahoma. Listening to Coburn proselytize from the dais caused me to grind my teeth - it was absolute agony listening to him whine and bitch and moan about his bizarre belief in the failing of the judiciary. However, he made a point to come at Alito and get him to admit that, although the Supreme Court has found a right to privacy, there is no such right actually in the document. Alito, quite properly, acknowledged the absence of the word "privacy" in the text of the Constitution, but then very forcefully reinforced his earlier statement that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy, even if not expressly stated. Eventually, Coburn gave up.

Finally, I note that Alito was entirely correct to refuse to acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." Simply put, it is not. Brown v. Board of Education is settled law. Roe left open room for modification, and the Court has repeatedly said as much. Abortion rights are not yet settled in stone, and the degree to which government may regulate abortion and other reproductive issues remains an open question. Thus, Alito's refusal to commit to Roe as unalterable is legally, factually, and practically correct. It doesn't mean he opposes Roe - it means that Roe is open to collateral attack - and, like it or not, it is.

Alito may not be the best choice to replace outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He might not even be a good choice. But it is unfair, and incorrect, to label him as the mortal enemy of reproductive rights, based on his refusal to adhere to a legally untenable position.

American Idiots

2006-01-05T13:22:00.000-08:00

Great article here in the November 2005 issue of Esquire, discussing why so many people, "Idiot America," are more likely to believe talking heads rather than experts - i.e. scientists who might actually know something.

PC NCAA FUBAR (update)

2006-01-05T12:57:00.000-08:00

Great column here by George Will discussing the NCAA's silly hate-free mascot policy. (See my previous discussion here).

The column ended strong, and I quote it here for your convenience and entertainment:

But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility. So, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has demanded that the University of South Carolina's teams not be called Gamecocks because cockfighting is cruel. It also is illegal in South Carolina. [See SC Code 16-17-650].

In 1972 the University of Massachusetts at Amherst replaced the nickname Redmen with Minutemen. White men carrying guns? If some advanced thinkers are made miserable by this, will the NCAA's censors offer relief? Scottsdale Community College in Arizona was wise to adopt the nickname "Fighting Artichokes." There is no grievance group representing the lacerated feelings of artichokes. Yet.

"Kerry Wins" shirts in Haiti?

2006-01-05T12:46:00.000-08:00

Had a thought. Ever notice how when a sports team wins a championship, they suddenly have shirts and hats commemorating the win? Well, obviously they didn't just print those up in five minutes. Rather, there are shirts and hats printed for both sides.

Turns out that many times the clothing commemorating the losing team's non-victory is either destroyed or donated. Seems people in Haiti were running around with shirts last year commemorating the University of Oklahoma's football championship win over USC, who actually won the game.

So I wonder - are there a bunch of Hatians now running around in "Kerry Wins!" t-shirts?

My monkey-butt fetish revealed.

2006-01-04T12:23:00.000-08:00

I thought I was alone in the world. But, alas, it seems I am not.

In a story discussing how monkeys perceive differences (i.e. small v. big; many v. few) like people, Fox News reports (and I've decided) that apparently we share even more in common with our simian relatives:

"This finding is the most recent in a series of discoveries that indicate our primate cousins display human-like characteristics. Monkeys like to gamble and enjoy looking at other monkeys' bottoms.'" (emphasis added).

The results were subsequently confirmed by Dr. Cornelius.

For more on monkey butts:

"Interest in porn a case of monkey see, monkey do," Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, March 5, 2005.

"Monkeys Pay to See Female Monkey Bottoms," Free Republic, January 28, 2005.

"Rhesus Pieces," The Washington Post, March 6, 2005. (If they ever make monkey porn, this HAS to be the title of the first movie).

The "War" on Christmas

2006-01-04T09:38:00.000-08:00

Perhaps this could be more broadly titled "The 'War' on Christians." Anybody who happened to watch Fox News this past Christmas season certainly was exposed to the argument that there is some sort of "war" on Christmas, and specifically on the Christian theme of Christmas.

Leading the charge seemed to be Fox News pundit John Gibson, who authored a book titled "The War On Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought." I haven't read the book. I have, however, listened to Gibson's radio show, in which he devoted hours, if not days, to this supposed "war."

Boiled down, however, is that the "War on Christmas" has two elements: First, there are the wacko school-boards, city councils, etc. who have, in fits of leftist apoloxy, have banned the Christian elements of Christmas. Some have banned the singing of traditional Christmas carols, such as Silent Night. In 2000, the city of Eugene, OR banned Christmas trees from city property.

Second, several "big box" retailers use the phrase "Happy Holidays" in their advertising. I'll deal with that last.

Notably, for every crackpot school or city manager who is scared by the threat of a lawsuit into taking stupid actions (all of which, by the way, end up being temporary - no permanent ban on carols or trees has ever occurred so far as I can ascertain - and I'm sure if there was the Christian right would have let us all know), there are several more false stories that the Right tries to use to fuel its argument.

For example, Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly accused the Plano, TX school district of banning red and green clothing. Turns out, however, that it never happened. Likewise, the World Net Daily, a Christian-right website that is likewise sounding the alarm, accused the Glendale-Rivers School District in Glendale, WI of banning Christmas carols, but permitting Hanukkah songs because they are "cultural" rather than "religious." That story relied, exclusively, on a press-release from a Christian-right "law firm." Specifically, the school district is accused of keeping out religious-themed songs:

"The intent of the school district's policy is clear – 'Frosty the Snowman' is in, 'My Dreidel' is in, 'Silent Night' is out," said Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel president and general counsel.

However, that is, not surprisingly, not true. The first-grade class at Parkway Elementary School (which is in the Glendale-Rivers School District), sang "Angels We Have Heard on High," and everybody sang "Let There Be Peace on Earth."

It would be belief that, if there was a "war" on Christmas, somebody would tell me where I cannot say "Merry Christmas." If there was a "war" on Christmas, where are the battle lines? Where are the casualties? The occasional temporary misguided order from a school in a town I've never heard of is hardly a sign of "war." Rather, it is the exact opposite. The very nature of these debacles - i.e. temporary and occassional, indicate that, if there is a "war," it is going very poorly for whomever is waging it.

Instead, this is a fabricated battlefield with a less obvious but still clear agenda - there is a growing backlash against the Christian Right in this country. The past several years have seen a rapid rise in prominence of the Christian Right, as it did toward the end of the Regan-Bush era. However, the Clinton years saw the decline of that element in its ability to influence public policy on a broad and, specifically, federal level.

Today's leaders of the Christian Right have learned the lesson there - all glory is fleeting. Consequently, they have pushed harder than ever to create permanent inroads. However, like any cause that has taken center stage for too long, they have started to wear out their welcome. Just like people got tired of seeing the Chicago Bulls in the NBA finals year after freakin' year, now they are tired of seeing these bible-thumping megalomanics bastardize the Christian faith for their own grab at power.

As a result, there is a growing backlash, and a growing sentiment that enough is enough. This is not anti Christian - it is merely an attempt to return the country to a "status quo" where Christianity has a smaller, but still visible, place in the public-policy arena. The Christian Right has realized this, however, and thus fabricated the "War on Christmas" in order to rally the troops and keep hold of the territory they've gained in the past five or six years. That, of course, would also explain the reliance on rumor and falsehoods. There is no real "war" of any consequence actually taking place, so one has to be made up.

Finally, the retailer issue. I was unaware that the Christian element of Christmas relied on Wal-Mart and Target to convey the message. I thought that's what church was for. Silly me. But seriously, I am pretty certain that those stores (1) cater to non-Christians, and (2) want shoppers to come in and shop from Thanksgiving to post-New Year - i.e. the Holiday Season.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year - belated.

Would life on Mars mean there is no God?

2005-11-30T00:08:00.000-08:00

Wow - it's been a month since I've last posted anything. Where have I been?

Anyway, I was reading this story (click above) about the ongoing search for life on Mars, and I got to thinking - if life on Mars in some form once existed, but couldn't get off the ground (as it were), would that mean there is no God?

For starters, God is infallible - yet His attempt to spark life on Mars failed. If God's only role is to direct the evolution of higher order, then He still hasn't "created" anything - He's merely retooled an existing product. Because God knows all (since He exists in all times simultaneously), why would He bother with something He knew wouldn't work?

I have not seen this issue raised anywhere yet - nobody seems to consider the ramifications of finding life elsewhere in the solar system. Personally, I'd like to see the "intelligent design" crowd explain that one.

Alberto Gonzales for SCOTUS

2005-10-27T17:41:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note here: I want Alberto Gonzales to be the next supreme court nominee. Why? Because he is the author or advocate of so many significant decisions that will come before the Court. Consequently, he will have to recuse himself. Since many of those decisions/positions are being rejected by the lower courts, it is likely that his recusal will result in 4-4 splits that necessarily result in affirmation of the lower court's ruling.

Specifically, I want the Court to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Right now, Oregon probably wins that case at least 5-4 (and maybe 6-3), with O'Conner on the winning side. Many seem to think that if she is replaced and the result is then 4-4, the new justice will make it 5-4 for overturning the law. However, Gonzales, as AG whose office argued against the law before the Court, would have to recuse himself, leaving the vote, at worst, at 4-4, and thus affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold the law.

GO AL!!

Early entry into pro sports

2005-10-26T17:10:00.000-07:00

First my disclaimer: I hate professional sports. All of them.

I haven't always. It's a recent thing. I used to hate college sports. Thought they were stupid, low-talent, etc. Now I realize that college sports (in any flavor) are better than professional sports.

Why? One reason - heart.

College kids just play harder. Most of them play for the fun of the game. A few play for the shot at being drafted and becoming millionaires. In either case, they have more incentive.

I realized this many years ago (but didn't make the connection) when I attended Portland Winter Hawks games. If you don't know, the Winter Hawks are Portland's minor league (AAA equivalent) hockey team. Those guys play (and fight) hard because they have to prove their worth to get to the NHL (back when the NHL existed).

Pro athletes have the contracts, endorsements, etc. before they ever put on a uniform. Before they've ever done a damn thing. Why should they play hard then? They're gonna get paid whether they ball or not. Worst that can happen is that they get traded or benched - but they still get paid.

One of my greatest peeves with pro sports though (and the real reason I hate them) is the decreasing quality of the pro game (namely basketball and, to a lesser extent, football). Allowing kids to come in with minimal or no college time is assinine. These kids were superstars in high school, which means they were rewarded for basically taking over a game - i.e. playing selfish.

College ball is full of kids who were also high school superstars (or stars), so you can't really just run over people like you used to in high school. Thus, players have to learn to adjust their game to the team concept while enhancing fundamentals that must change to the evolved skill level of the competition (i.e., your high school jump shot won't cut it in the face of an NBA defender).

I have never understood why the pro leagues don't simply require college degrees. Yeah, so some dumb-asses won't make it. So what? Isn't that consistent after all with the hypocritical "stay-in-school" v. skip college messages sent by the pro leagues?

I guess the NFL's new rule comes closest so far - requiring a draftee's high school class to have finished college. In other words, you can sit out four years, or play college football for four years (three plus a redshirt I guess). I imagine most would play, and the rule lets them leave after their junior season (if they redshirted). Basketball could do this too.

In the meantime, we'll continue to have dressed-up high school basketball presented as the professional game, and we'll have NFL draftees who take 4 years to learn the game, and it'll all just continue to suck.

I hate pro sports.

I'm going to die.

2005-10-12T15:28:00.000-07:00

For those regular readers (all two of you) I want you to know that it has been a pleasure entertaining you. However, it turns that I will be dying on Saturday, March 30, 2041. I know this may come as a shock to many of you, but so it goes. One does not argue with the Death Clock.

Apparently, I could extend my time here until Thursday, April 29, 2060 if I became an optimist.

Screw that.

I only wonder if I'll finally get to meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster, face-to-noodly-face. Guess I'll have to ask my Magic 8 Ball.

Ann Coulter Partially Sane!

2005-10-10T12:59:00.000-07:00

Click here for an article that notes how even Ann Coulter had a lucid moment (two in fact!) when she came out critical of Meiers' nomination.

Meirs linked to corporate scandal?

2005-10-10T07:58:00.000-07:00

Hmmm. Seems that while Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meiers was managing partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, they got hit with $30 million in fines for vouching for the reputations of some Ponzi scheme crooks, which vouching induced some fools to soonly part with their money. (Click on the title of this post to view the complete article).

For my part, that's a nail in the coffin. There are very few people from whom I demand the highest character - but I think it's fair that in a country of nearly 400 million, I can demand that nine of those people be, essentially, without flaw.

Is that asking too much?

George Will on Harriet Meirs (figuratively, of course)

2005-10-10T07:33:00.000-07:00

Good ol' George Will has taken Bush to task on his selection of Harriet Meiers to the U.S. Supreme Court. In his column (click on the title of this post to read the column) he sets out three "starting points" for the Senate to keep in mind as it looks forward to the confirmation hearings:

"First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due."

Better yet, he all but calls W too dumb to be permitted to make decisions that might involve the Constitution, when he says:

"The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

"He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections."

That's the nicest way I have ever heard anybody call anybody else "dumb."

As for Meirs herself, Will suggests that:

"If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."

I can understand appointing someone with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, if that person had some body of work (courtroom or academic) that reflected a solid and in-depth understanding of the Constitution and constitutional law. Meiers has no such experience and no relevant body of work upon which the Senate (or the people) can make an informed decision. She was a corporate lawyer at the Texas law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp (note that many "corporate" lawyers have never seen the inside of a courtroom), on some city council, president of the Texas Bar Association, and is nice. Yippee.

But I have to agree with Will here - there are at least 10,000 more-qualified candidates than this woman. There are certainly many, many more qualified conservative candidates.

Speaking of which, this strikes me as kinda funny. W has insisted that he would appoint candidates who share the judicial philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now, as far as I can tell, the only other human being who intentionally chooses to think like Scalia is William F. Buckley (Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't count - at least not until he demonstrates an ability to think for himself rather than be Scalia's lap dog). So far, nobody Bush has appointed is like Scalia - not even a little bit. Thus, this raises an obvious question that I have never heard asked: Does George Bush know who Antonin Scalia is? Has Bush ever actually read a Supreme Court opinion, much less one of Scalia's "the other judges on this Court are stupid assholes" dissents?

Refineries - about damn time.

2005-10-07T13:12:00.000-07:00

Finally, the gov't is doing something about increasing our refinery capacity. People can bitch and moan about reducing our dependence on foreign oil 'till their blue in the face for all I care. Foreign oil is where it's at for the short and medium term (i.e. next 100 years).

It's a little known secret that the reason the cost of gas is so high at the pump is because of the bottleneck at the refineries. Increasing the number of refineries will lower the price of gas for consumers - obviously not overnight, and probably not for a good 3-5 years.

This Slate article does a good job summarizing why the real villians in the rise of gas prices are the refiners, not OPEC and not the local gas station. Why are more refineries good? Current refineries are running at 94 percent capacity, and have no domestic competition. The largest independent refiner, Valero, saw its stock rise 226 percent in the past year. Here's another good article on the need for greater refinery capacity. Capitalism requires competition in order to hold down prices and not drive the economy downward.

There are those who contend otherwise, and argue that building more refineries is sacrificing the environment to the benefit of oil companies. Maybe - but only a little bit. I'm willing to accept some environmental sacrifice from time-to-time, so long as it's reasonable and necessary. This is. Will oil companies make more money? Maybe, but I'm okay with that. I would rather see them make money on volume rather than margin, because at least I know I'm not getting screwed in the process. If they get richer - good for them. Wish I was one of 'em.

More evidence that Rumsfeld should be in prison

2005-10-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

This is a great blog by William Arkin, military analyst for the Washington Post.

In it, he refers to a memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking "Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" The memo is dated October 16, 2003, more than two years after 9/11 and the October 7, 2001 initiation of the "War on Terror." Two years into it, and the head guy doesn't know if he's winning or losing? I'm sorry, but to me, the answer is very simple, if you are not winning, you are losing - and if you are winning, you know it. Ergo, the question is itself an acknowledgment that we are losing (because, yes, in this case, an indeterminate outcome equates to a loss).

One of Rumsfeld's more interesting observations is our lack of metrics to ascertain our progress. In other words, we do not have a measuring stick. This is interesting and important because it directly addresses a point raised by Michael Scheuer in his book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" By way of set up, Scheuer led the CIA's bin Laden unit until 1999, and published his book as "Anonymous" due to CIA regulations. The book itself is an "open source" text (thereby saving it from being stamped "secret" and shelved) and started out as an unclassified training manual for new counterterrorism operatives working on bin Laden and Sunni extremism. (See link here).

In any event, Scheuer notes that it is impossible to determine whether our capture and/or killing of various high-profile targets has made a dent. This is because we do not have an "order-of-battle" study in place for al Qaeda. (Imperial Hubris, p.67). He says, "[w]ithout this basic reference point it is impossible to objectively determine how badly or permanently al Qaeda has been damaged." (Id). Without going into detail, he notes that we simply have no way of knowing whether we are successful.

So back to Rumsfeld. Now, two years after asking the question, the DOD has finally decided to start the process of seeking an answer. On September 8, 2005, the DOD sent out a solicitation for bids on a contract to develop "a system of metrics to accurately assess US progress in the War on Terrorism, identify critical issues hindering progress and develop, and track action plans to resolve the issues identified."

In other words, four years into the "War on Terror," and the DOD finally decides that it should maybe develop a method of evaluating its progress. Seriously, can ANYBODY whose head is not completely up their ass believe that BushCo have the first clue about what they're doing? I mean, aside from the lack of sufficient forces on the ground, the faulty intelligence, the total failure to grasp Middle Eastern and Islamic culture, and the stubborn refusal to actually engage in a real war on terror, now this? Four years into the game, and we're just now contracting to define the rules and build the scoreboard!?

One of the problems the DOD now faces is that any system it develops for measuring success/defeat will be based on a military perspective, which is incongruent with the law-enforcement mindset that dominates this alleged "War on Terror." Our policy is not to defeat terrorists through their military destruction, it is to arrest them. Occassionally, more by dumb luck than design, we manage to kill some. Scheuer argues in his conclusion that we must stop viewing bin Laden as a terrorist, because he is not. He says, "Al Qaueda attacks are terrifying, but acts of war are like that. Bin Laden is leading and inspiring a worldwide anti-U.S. insurgency; he is waging war while we fight him with counterterrorism policies dominated by law-enforcement tactics and procedures. It has not and will not work." (Imperial Hubris, p. 246) (emphasis added).

Scheuer goes on to note that, "[a]s practiced by the United States, counterterrorism is appeasment; it lets the enemy attack and survive, keeps allies sweet by staying the hand of the U.S. military forces they hate, and ignores the true terrorist states in the Sunni Persian Gulf because they own much of the world's oil. The bloated, risk-averse, and lawyer-palsied (counterterrorism) community ensured state sponsors and their proxies survived, and now it blocks the counterinsurgency strategy needed to beat al Qaeda." (Id. at 246-47).

It will be interesting to see if the DOD assessment ultimate results in a revised methodolgy that mirrors one of the issues raised in Scheuer's book. Since the days of Grant and Lee (and the Overland Campaign), the U.S. military has trained its officers to wage war with a blood-letting mindset. Massive destruction, massive casualties, unrelenting pace. Today, war is fought for the television cameras, so we get nifty pictures of laser-guided bombs. However, as Scheuer notes, "[d]ainty U.S. military attacks convince our Muslim friends and foes that America lacks the military savagery to either portect its allies or destroy its enemies, and that, despite massive U.S. military power, the Islamists can absorb U.S. attacks and fight again." Another author cited by Scheuer said, "[w]arriors will interpret such an aversion to violence as a wekness, emboldening their cause. ... For such adversaries, our moral values - our fear of colalteral damage- reperesnt our worst vulnerabilities." (Id. at 235, and quoting Robert D. Kaplan, Warrior Politics).

In short, either wage total, unrelenting and catastrophic war on the muslim world (I didn't get into Scheuer's point that this is not a war against extremists, but against the entire Muslim world), or agree to their demands, which are, simply, get out of the Gulf. (I also did not spend time discussing his point that bin Laden, et al, do not hate us for out values, politics, or way of life - they simply want the infidels out of their holy territory). Given the two options, only the first is viable and stands any likelihood of success - like it or not.

Why did 9/11 happen?

2005-10-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

Recent discussions elsewhere have led to pause and back WAY up.

Now, I am curious, why do people believe Al Qaeda, and specifically Osama Bin Laden, attacked the United States? And if you have an opinion, from where does it originate? Can you link to a source? (preferrably as high as a secondary source - obviously nobody here (I hope) has direct access to OBL).

I'll wait patiently.

Gonzalez v. Oregon

2005-10-05T08:01:00.000-07:00

Big day today at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court will take up the Oregon Death With Dignity Act. This one is hard to predict. On the one hand, the feds argue that the Controlled Substances Act gives the Attorney General the power to interpret the CSA and promulgate rules, which authority has been delegated to the Drug Enforcement Agency. The feds note that the act prohibits any use of a Schedule I substance, and regulates the use of substances found on Schedules II, III, IV and V to "legitimate medical purposes."

However, as the feds note in their brief, neither the CSA nor the DEA's rules defined "legitimate medical purpose." Instead, the feds rely on the fact that the other 49 states and the AMA disavow the practice of physician-assisted suicide (which Oregon claims to be a misnomer because the doctor doesn't actually assist in the suicide) to conclude that Oregon's permission of it does not qualify.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to rely on the opinions of the states to argue the federal government may trump those same states' interpretation. If 49 states disapprove, and the federal government may enforce an interpretation of "legitimate medical purpose" that is derived solely from the fact that those 49 states disavow such medical practice, then what would happen if 49 states approved such a practice? Where would the support for the feds' interpretation come from then? I hope somebody on the bench asks this question today. It would seem to me that, if the federal government relies on the state's interpretation of "legitimate medical purpose," then it must concede that the definition of such is up to the states.

A lot of commentators seem to think this case is somehow analytically related to Gonzalez v. Raich, the medical marijuana case recently handed down. However, the question presented there was different. In Raich, the issue was whether the commerce clause permitted Congress to regulate the use of a drug over the objection of a state. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug. Consequently, it may not be prescribed - period, not even for a "legitimate medical purpose." Thus, it was immaterial why marijuana was prescribed - the fact remained that the drug was not subject to prescription for any purpose. Here, the question is whether a drug that is otherwise permitted to be prescribed for a "legitimate medical purpose" may be prescribed to hasten death, and consequently whether such use constitutes a "legitimate medical purpose."

Boiled down to an even duller level, this is a case of the authority of an agency to interpret its own rules. My (rather cursory) review of the briefs indicate that nobody has really brought this issue to the forefront. Frankly, if I were the AG, I would start out with this because I think it's his strongest argument. Congress delegated rulemaking to the AG. Therefore, he can make - and consequently interpret - rules. It is well-settled law that an adopting agency's interpretation of its own rules is subject to considerable deference and will usually be upheld so long as it is reasonable and does not conflict with some other rule or law. And although I disagree with the AG's interpretation, I don't see anywhere in Oregon's argument a persuaive reason why it should not be accorded deference. Considering the opinions of the other states, the AMA, and the Court in Washington v. Glucksberg, it certainly appears reasonable, and obviously doesn't conflict with any other rule or law.

When it's all said and done here, I would not be surprised to read an opinon that avoids all of the more interesting "states' rights" arguments and simply says an agency may interpret its own rules, the AG has the authority to regulate the use of scontrolled substances, and therefore it may interpret the rules regarding the use of controlled substances in a manner it deems consistent with its own rules and that gives the rules the force and effect the agency (and Congress) intended.

Why bother.

2005-09-19T12:41:00.000-07:00

So we're going to spare no expense to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

On its face, it sounds good, it feels good. It would certainly be an almost intolerable psychological shock to the American collective psychology to lose a major city - i.e. New Orleans.

But, seriously, this needs some thought.

For starters, unlike the people of Holland, who have no choice but to live beneath sea level because they have no land above sea level, last I checked, most of America is above sea level. This reminds me of an old Sam Kinison routine, where he said he had the solution to world hunger - pack up all the people in the African desert, and move them to "where the food is!" Why? Because, as Sam said, "see this, IT'S SAND! Know what it's gonna be in hundred years? IT'S GONNA BE SAND! NOTHING GROWS HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW HERE!"

Likewise, know where New Orleans will be in a hundred years? BELOW SEA LEVEL! Why, then, would you intentionally put a city there?

It's not like we have a shortage of vacant land in this country.

Thus, my solution: undam the Mississippi, restore the entire Gulf Coast wetlands, and then, whatever is left dry, go ahead and build where you can find dry land. This is the result of man's arrogance in believing he can control the world without consequence. Ultimately, Mother Nature always wins.

I, for one, am not keen on running up an insane, decades long deficit to rebuild a doomed city. I suggest we learn from the wise folks who gave up on Atlantis after it sunk. They didn't build it again - they moved. To where, I don't know, but I DO know that Atlantis was not rebuilt.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

2005-09-01T09:51:00.000-07:00

Open Letter to the Kansas Board of Education.

This is the bestest thing ever!! The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who has touched us all with His Noodly Appendage, created the world, and should be discussed in any "intelligent design" conversation.

Here is a drawing of the FSM creating a mountain, trees, and a midget:

Also, please note the inverse relationship between the average global temperature and the number of pirates:

As you can see, from the above descriptions (and please read the open letter for a better explanation of the underlying and indisputable dogma here), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created us all with His Noodly Appendage, should be discussed in all "intelligent design" classes in Kansas and, soon enough, the world.

Thank you.

Parmesean be with you.

Bush tells residents of New Orleans: Learn to swim

2005-08-31T12:44:00.000-07:00

Drawing heavily from his knowledge of submerged civilizations, President Bush today informed the residents of the New Orleans Sea that they would need to "learn how to swim." Standing on the bow of a supertanker, Bush yelled down through his bullhorn that, like Kevin Costner in that "really wet Waterworld," New Orleans Sea dwellers would be expected to grow gills and breathe underwater. Bush immediately curtailed the use of federal funds to use stem cells to create underwater-breathing people.

"Self-determination is what makes this country great," Bush orated from on high. "I understand your pain and your loss, which is why the fight against terror must continue," the President exclaimed, in a rambling four-hour speech that covered topics as diverse as the Iraq war, space exploration, and the new giant-sized M&Ms. Bush promised to give each family who lost a relative in the flood one giant M&M, "just like in that funny commercial, you know, where the guy throws the big M&M up in the air and it hits him in the head and he falls down - that's funny." A spokesman for the Mars Candy Company, which makes M&Ms, quickly issued a press release indicating that, in fact, the M&M featured in the commercial was exagerated, and in fact the company does not make M&Ms that large. The price of M&Ms surged upward later as reports of troop movements near that M&M factory were confirmed by the Pentagon.

Bush cut short his six-month vacation to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he had been mercilessly harrased by "that woman whose boy up and got hisself kilt," as Bush described her. Bush noted he did not understand why the woman was so mad at him. "I say, if he chose to wear a kilt, which we all know is what those gay French boys wear now days, then the problem is with a mother who didn't raise her boy right," said Bush.

At a rally outside the new Walmart Marina, a Bush spokesman said from her dingy that rumors of dry land were just that - rumors. She was subsequently killed after announcing the President's plan to come by the marina later to distribute bottles of water.

Hard times for terrorists

2005-08-25T09:48:00.000-07:00

Just when I was starting to feel like I could be concerned about the homeless problem in this county, I learn that the smelly beggars are actually al Qaeda posers scoping out their next target. Now, generally, I'm not one to take serious most of the Dept. of Homeland Security "warnings," namely because I have never bothered to learn the color-to-threat conversion table (much like I never learned metric conversion - on the other hand, neither did NASA).

In any event, I can get behind this one. At last, I have an excuse to not give the homeless my spare change (which I don't do already, but I have to lie about why - "Sorry, I don't have any change," or sometimes just "sorry."). Now, whenever a shivering, dirty, hungry old woman asks me for change, I can respond in a strong, confident voice, "United We Stand!" before pushing her under an onrushing MAX car and chortling, in the words of Chief Wiggum, "Where's your messiah now, Flanders?"

Alternatively, maybe we can deport them to Venezuela, where, apparently, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is inviting Islamic Terrorists to spend their next terror training session in his lovely South American paradise. (Okay, there is no direct evidence of this, but come on - Pat Robertson has a direct line to God, PLUS his own TV show! I can' t argue with credentials like that).

Maybe the next time a homeless al Qaeda terrorist asks me for a quarter, I'll just point to the sky and screech, like Donald Sutherland at the end of the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PC NCAA FUBAR

2005-08-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

Prince Charles apparently considers political correctness as a form of intellecual communism (a term I thought I had invented - silly me). If the Prince is right (and who am I to argue with the Crown), then the new PC Politburo is the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) Executive Committee.

That committee recently approved a report by the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee (MOIC) and the Executive Committee Subcommittee on Gender and Diversity Issues that criticizes colleges and universities who use Native American nicknames and/or mascots. (You can read the full report here).

The report identifies schools with such mascots, and puts them into three categories - those who, upon inquiry from the NCAA, dumped there nicknames/logos, those who allege a close relationship with Native Americans, and those who said "go to hell." (Let's hear it for the Fighting Sioux of the University of North Dakota!!).

The report approves of the use of the name "Braves" by the University of North Carolina-Pembroke because it 21% of its 5,027 students are Native American and 24% are African-American, and because it has Native Americans on its board of trustees. This is like saying it's okay for African-Americans to use the word "nigger" because they're black. (Bill Cosby - quite rightly - thinks otherwise).

Everybody else, however, must be punished. The report notes that:

"the staff received several written responses from numerous Native American
organizations, tribes, interest groups, and individuals stating their opposition
to the use of Native American culture in their athletics programs.
Although several of these institutions have reached out to Native Americans in
their local communities, several Native Americans in and outside of those
communities are opposed to the use of Native American culture in intercollegiate
athletics. "

However, NCAA President Myles Brand acknowledges that, at least insofar as Florida State University (Seminoles) is concerned, the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida supports FSU's use of the nickname and imagery. In an August 11, 2005 press release, Brand says:

"To be fair, some American Indian tribes have expressed their approval of the
manner in which their names and imagery are used by specific institutions.
Florida State University is a well-documented case in point, and that will
likely be the basis for any appeal. The Executive Committee must take such
claims seriously."

Well, if the FSU case is "well-documented," why is there no mention of it in the report? (FSU, for its part, intends to sue). It seems that the report's authors were selective in their analysis in an attempt to justify their conclusions. In short, they cheated. I'm pretty sure the NCAA does not condone cheating.

The report recommended that schools with "hostile or abusive racial/ethnic/national origin macots, nicknames or imagery" be prohibited from hosting NCAA national championship events, or displaying their macots, nicnames or imagery at NCAA national championship events.

The report suggested schools follow the examples of the Universities of Wisconsin and Iowa, who do not schedule non-conference games with other schools who use such macots, etc., and to remove such references from NCAA member publications.

(As an aside, this is, admittedly, less dumb than some univeristy's ban on the Trojan guy from USC brandishing his sword while galloping around the stadium on Charger because of the school's no-tolerance policy for weapons - or so I recall).

Here's the sticky part (aside from the non-sensical, biased, intellectually dishonest analysis contained in the report) - what constitutes "hostile or abusive"? The report does not provide a definition. Hotile or abuse to whom? What about Notre Dame? "The Fighting Irish" and their little drunken, brawling leprechaun mascot? Here is my short list of other possible offensive nicknames and their schools (who are also not on the list) and who they might offend:

Appalachain State Mountaineers (rural, mountain folk);
Arizona State Sun Devils (religious folk);
Central Arkansas Sugar Bears (women; men's teams are called Bears);
Earlham Hustlin' Quakers (Quakers and anti-gambling oatmeal lovers);
DePaul Blue Demons (religious folk and demons who are blue);
Furman University Paladins (French surrender monkeys);
Hawaii Rainbow Warriors (Gays, Hawaiians);
Hawaii-Hilo Vulcans (Vulcans, e.g. Mr. Spock);
Hofstra Flying Dutchmen (Dutch and drug addicts);
Idaho Vandals (criminals, law enforcement types);
Illinois College Blue Boys (boys?);
Iona Gaels (Scottish);
Jamestown Jimmies (anybody named Jim)

Etc, etc. This could take all day.

In any event, for all the hullaballoo, these changes don't affect the one sport where such mascots, icons, etc. take center stage - college football. You see, the NCAA doesn't sponsor a college football championship. The bowl games are independentl entities, and the FNC (fictional national champion) is now "decided" by the BCS bowl series, which is also independent of the NCAA.

Here's an additional interesting tidbit - and proof positive that the NCAA was looking at a pre-determined outcome here: As I noted above, NCAA President Myles Brand pointed out that Florida State University has a "well documented" situtation wherein the Florida Seminole Indian Tribe supports FSU's use of the nickname "Seminoles." As I also noted, this is not in the NCAA's report - rather, Brand suggests that FSU must now appeal - in effect saying, you can appeal based on information we ignored, and we will take you serious. Oh really. The Florida Seminole Indian Tribe approved the use of Seminoles back in June, months before the NCAA draft policy (dated in July). Why wasn't it taken seriously the first time around?

I feel compelled to make this point because of its Orwellian aspect - namely the blatent disregard for the truth in order to achieve a "politically correct" result. (See, e.g., NARAL's discontinued ad campaign against John Roberts). In any event, college football season kicks off here shortly. I, personally, now hope to see my beloved Oregon Duck sporting war paint and wearing a headdress. (Hey, does anybody remember the "Tommy-hawks" from the mid-90's, where when Oregon kicker Tommy Thompson took the field, people would hold yellow foam hatchets (sold by the UO) and make a chopping motion? Don't recall any protests then. Darn).

I survived the "Pledge" - you will too.

2005-08-11T08:20:00.000-07:00

Seems another crackpot tried to sue a school district to stop them from starting the school day with a recitiation of the "Pledge of Allegiance." He lost.

When I attended school, we started with the Pledge. It included the words "under God." Yet, somehow, I turned out okay (i.e., I have yet to "thump" a Bible). Honestly, I never gave it any thought. I certainly never thought I was being somehow indoctrinated or preached to.

Here's an idea - if you don't like the Pledge's reference to God, you have the freedom to explain to your kids why they shouldn't take that line to heart. Better yet, maybe explain to them why it's there and examine the tension between the Establishment Clause and government's pervasive references to God.

In the marketplace of ideas, suppresion of ideas, any ideas, regardless of their perceived offensive nature, is another form of intellectual communism. Basically, only stupid people try to stifle expression with which they disagree, because to challenge or question or counter that expression with more thoughtful counter-expression is, well, just too much work. And as Homer Simpson says - "If something is too hard to do, then it's not worth doing."

"Intelligent Design" Adopted by Kansas

2005-08-10T15:03:00.000-07:00

While so much of the county is focused on "islamo-fascisim," there is very little attention being paid to an equal or greater threat to this county - namely "christo-fascism."

Today, the christo-fascists in Kansas struck a blow against education when, by a 6-4 margin, the Kansas Board of (Un)Education approved the teaching of "intelligent design" in Kansas classrooms. The most recent draft of those standards, dated July 12, 2005, claims to not adopt "intelligent design," but that appears to be, well, not exactly true.

Personally, I think there's something to intelligent design in the sense that the development of intelligent life (or perhaps life at all?) took such an unlikely random series of events that something must have dabbled in the great genetic pool. However, that discussion belongs in a scientific philosophy class - not a science class. There is a difference between science and philosophy.

That said, I seriously doubt the Kansas Board really thinks aliens may have influenced the course of evolution on this planet.

Everyone Hates Roberts - So I Like Him!

2005-08-10T09:40:00.000-07:00

John Roberts, Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, seems to be pissing off everybody. Good for him. Seems some conservative group, the Public Advocate of the United States (never heard of them) are mad that Roberts did pro bono work on behalf of gays opposing a Colorado law that would have legislated discrimination.

When I first read the story of Roberts' involvement with that case, the White House immediately spun it as "well, he didn't know what he was doing - it was one of a jillion pro bono cases," or something like that. Well, I'm a lawyer, and I am relatively certain that 1) I would not forget who I had worked for (in a case of that magnitude), and 2) I would never work for free on purpose without knowing why and for whom. Thus, Roberts knew what he was doing. Good for him.

On the other side, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has launched a completely dishonest ad campaign against Roberts. There, they accuse him of defending abortion clinic bombers. What crap. For the whole story, click here . (BTW, I highly recommend the Factcheck.org website for unbiased fact checking of claims by both political "sides.").

Finally, Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) is whining that the Supreme Court disrepects Congress when it limits Congress' power to enact legislation pursuant to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Sec. 8). In case you don't know this, Congress has very limited power. Among those few powers is the regulation of interstate commerce. Congress has figured out that if it simply says an issue is a matter of interstate commerce, then it can pass whatever law it wants. In recent years, the Supreme Court has restricted that power, ruling that a number of notable laws were not reasonably within the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Now, Specter calls this "judicial activism." Funny but I bet this is more akin to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's "originalist" construction approach. Namely, the Court is enforcing the actual terms of the Constitution by restricting Congress' attempts to expand beyond what the founders intended when they drafted the Commerce Clause.

In case Sen. Spector has forgot, this is what's referred to as the "checks" part of "checks and balances." The Court is supposed to act as a check on Congressional (and Executive) power. That's it's fundamental purpose. In any event, Roberts apparently participated in a decision that struck down a law protecting some endangered species in California, noting that the animal (I forget now what it was) lived its entire life in California, and thus could not impact interstate commerce.

This is gonna get good, I'm sure of it. :D

Another Reason Budweiser Sucks.

2005-08-08T12:45:00.000-07:00

This story kills me. Seems Anheuser-Busch, who makes that watered down psudeo-beer called Budweiser, donated $5,000 to the South Carolina state Republican Party. Now, that alone is funny. For although we can be sure that the S.C. Republican party panders to Budweiser-swilling rednecks in order to "get out the vote," I have a hard time envisioning their leadership really caring about beer (or psudeo-beer, as the case may be).

So, in any event, apparently the good folk at Budweiser wrote the check, then presumably helped themselves to gallons of their product, afterwhich they mailed the check to the South Carolina state Democratic Party, which promptly deposited the check.

How nobody noticed the check was made out to the GOP and not the Dems is itself confusing. Presumably the Dems figured, as Dems are want to do, that any hand-out is a good hand-out; and so what if it was for the GOP, those bastards hog all the cash anyhow.

Eventually the drunks at Budweiser sobered up, realized that "drink responsibly" relates to more than drinking and driving, and notified the GOP of their error. The GOP threatened to sue the Dems. The Dems relented, and refunded the money to the beer meisters.

Quote of the day comes from this story. When explaining why the Dems sent the check to the hung-over lushes in St. Louis instead of the lush-lovers in Columbia, the Dems said:

"Nobody should expect us to write a check to the Republican Party."

I would have paid to see the ads the GOP would have run after that!!

Does Bush have no shame?

2005-08-08T12:11:00.000-07:00

Okay, look, if you're gonna lie, the secret is to lie about things that are not otherwise provable (or at least not easily so). For example, I can lie about my golf score, and unless you were there, you'd never know the difference.

Bush is, simply, the least subtle (or least intelligent) liar I've encountered in a forever long time.

In his August 6 radio address, the President said:

"The increased revenues and our spending restraint have led to good progress in
reducing the federal deficit."

Oh really?

Seems Bush is actually spending money like a woman scorned. Check out this site graphing the national debt - you'll gag (unless you're an old-school Dem, in which case you might be able to cancel your Viagra prescription).

Review - Dan Simmons' "Olympos"

2005-08-08T11:36:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading Olympos, the second half of the massive Illium-Olympos epic tome by Dan Simmons.

For starters, if you haven't read Illium within, say, a couple months, don't bother with Olympos. I was about a quarter to a third of the way through the book before I remembered who was who and what was going on.

Although I enjoyed Olympos, if you don't have at least a passing familiarity with The Illiad, The Aenid, The Odyssey , the Tempest, and Robert Browning's Caliban Upon Setebos, Or Natural Theology in the Island, well, at least read the Cliff Notes versions first.

I won't recount the story - I don't have all week. But the Trojan War aspect of the story serves no purpose here (or such minimal purpose that it could be relegated to 10 pages needed to get Achilles to Olympos and move on).

The story was too long - the ending to short. It reminded me of any countless episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the writers got to the 45th minute and then said "Oops, we better wrap this up. Find a use for tachyons." Who is Moira, Propero, Sycorax? What happened to Setebos? What happened to Zeus? Why'd the post-humans choose to act like Greek Gods?

Just too many questions. There's fodder here for short stories set within the Illium-Olympos universe - the rise and change of the post-humans, the evacuation of the Jews, the rubicon, etc. Frankly, I find those backstories more likely to hold my interest.

So, if you enjoyed Illium, read Olympos. If you have no idea what I'm talking about - go read Hyperion. Even my wife, no huge sci-fi fan, loved that book/series.

2005-08-07T19:42:00.000-07:00

I intended to start this a long time ago, but forgot - much like my attempt to conquer the world. Stuff just kept getting in the way.

Anyhow, my good friend "Harold" started a blog, and thus I am remotivated.

If you read this, you must really be hard up for opinions - so I'll try not to disappoint. Unlike my friend, I am not a Flaming Liberal. However, I am also not a Neo-Con Fascist Conservative (although I am, alas, the last of a dying breed - the Real Republican - the kind whose philosophy predates the GOP's hijacking at the hands of Religious Extremists (although this kid seems to have figured it out).

Thus, don't be surprised to read opinions that are, at least on the surface, inconsistent or incongruent.

Good luck with this.