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.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Death and Re-Birth of Conservatism
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bush's economic genius on display
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
No rebate for GOP, either
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is attracting higher-income college-educated voters. In other words, wealthy elitist snobs.
Interesting.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Whoa! That hooker looks just like my wife!
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.
Now they're getting divorced.
Too bad, just when they found a common interest.
You can read it here.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
This is news? Really?
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?
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?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Careful what you say.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
U. Florida tasering justified
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Clinton Campaign DOA
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.
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Massachusetts Annexed by Europe
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).
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
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
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
Sunday, September 09, 2007
2007 VMAs - MTV Jumps The Shark
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.
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.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Pac-10 Football - Better Than Advertised?
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Why Craig Should Resign.
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.
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.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Inconvenient civilian control of the military
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
