Friday, December 30, 2005

The Shallow End


Meant this to be much better, but it's too nice a day. Here, borrowing from Safire, is the "Office Pool" that'll keep us 'umble and 'onest in '06:

1. U.S. troops in Iraq at 2006 year's end will number: (a) current "base line" 138,000; (b) closer to 100,000; (c) closer to 90,000; (d) 80,000 or below.

2. The Robertscalito court will: (a) in the Texas case disengage from involvement in states' redistricting; (b) go the other way in Oregon, holding that federal power to prohibit substances trumps a state's authority to permit physician-assisted suicide; (c) decide that federal funds can be denied to law schools that prohibit military recruitment on campus; (d) uphold McCain-Feingold, enabling Congress to restrict political contributions but not expenditures; (e) reassert citizens' Fourth Amendment protection from "security letters" and warrantless surveillance.

3. Stock market will: (a) slump in midsummer, causing data-dependent Fed chief Bernanke to morph into "accommodative Ben"; (b) tread water while a barrel of oil gurgles down to $50 and media "convergence" zigs while corporate "disaggregation" zags; (c) finally reflect sustained 4 percent G.D.P. growth by Dow breaking through 12,000.

4. Super Bowl champ will be: (a) Colts; (b) Pats; (c) Broncos; (d) Bengals; (e) Bucs; (f) Bears; (g) Seahawks

5. Best sequel/remake will be: (a) Miami Vice; (b) Pink Panther; (c) Pirates of the Caribbean; (d) Superman; (e) X-Men

6. Moviestar most in need of a slap will be: (a) Michael Caine; (b) Tom Cruise; (c) Robert DeNiro; (d) Mel Gibson; (e) Sean Penn

Me? 1. (b); 2. (b); 3. (c); 4. (e); 5. (d); 6. (c)

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Leaves Me Cold


Woke up one morning after a long night singing "Old McDonald" sniffling, sneezing, and the rest, so Mrs. 3000 saw our Good Family Pharmacist for relief . . . and stumbled smack into the hot zone .

No kidding, meth cookers and users' kids and neighbors drew some short straws living within a crow's mile of anyone ingesting anything maybe made of nail polish and drain cleaner that can kill or poison all around. For the bystanders, who wouldn't want to do more?

Putting my NyQuil behind the counter, yeah, that's more, but it's not enough and too much--except in our legislatures, of course, where "something" as always must be done.

According to the Palm Beach Post article, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says "much of South Florida's illegal meth is smuggled from sprawling labs in Mexico, not brewed from a retailer's shelves of cold remedies."

And according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Thirty-six of the 416 children [in San Diego County] rescued from drug homes between May 2004 and May 2005 had meth in their system, according to county figures released in June. Most of the adults in those homes were chronic meth abusers," not cookers.

Anyway, there's now pseudoephedrine-free NyQuil (and my cold's gone). My thanks to Vicks for doing "something."

Monday, December 26, 2005

Baby, If You've Ever Wondered . . .

" . . . skyrocketing music-clearance fees are becoming major stumbling blocks for DVD reissues, often delaying or even completely derailing releases. Take WKRP in Cincinnati, for example: The 1970s sitcom used so much classic rock that it would cost 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment a mint to clear the tracks. Fox has suggested that it still is considering releasing WKRP, but others are not optimistic that the comedy and similar shows of its kind will ever make it into the market."

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

"Intelligent Design" Clip 'N Save

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Because I love Stalin Malone

Just thought I'd give Mr. Malone a chance to whip up on me and 0ne of his favorite targets at the same time. Call it an early Christmas gift.

Sen. Clinton has joined the mutitude of the bizzare who seek to protect image of the country while destroying it from the inside. She co-sponsored an anti-flag burning law. Apparantly she, like so many others like her, is completely igorant of this country's birth and the power of the principles of freedom. I would never endorse such a bill, and I oppose the constitutional amendment that is surely coming. I just don't get these laws. Is there some epidemic of flag burning I'm unaware of? Is anyone being caused any real harm by this? (I get that Mr. Malone may feel that the harm in watching a flag being burned is the same as watching his family being tortured, you know six of one... But I still don't accept that). In any case, I view these flag burning laws the same way Mr. Malone views Murtha's comments. Blatant pandering for personal political gain, at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Great Strategy

Frist is saying he will use the "nuclear option" if the Dem's filibuster Ailito. It's a great move. While I haven't heard any real credible discussion about the Dem's filibustering Ailito, it allows Frist to look strong facing the dems, and readdress a sore spot in his tenure as Majority Leader. I don't mean this facetiously. Creating an enemy and fighting him is a great way to get your feet when you're struggling. It all depends on the dems and how they respond. They quickly, and predictably, did. And the response is perfect. Rather than treating it as a non-issue and trying to make him look silly, they've fallen all over themselves to fight back. The imaginary became real. Now Frist has an issue he framed, on his timetable, and one that he's sure to win. That's just solid politics.

Anything but Bias

Could someone explain to me please why in the middle of this AP article the following information is included:

"More than two-thirds of those surveyed oppose the presence of troops from the United States and its coalition partners and less than half, 44 percent, say their country is better off now than it was before the war, according to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners."

And the following information from the same poll is excluded:

"A fourth of those surveyed, 26 percent, say U.S. forces should leave now, and another 19 percent say troops should leave after those chosen in this week's election take office. The other half say U.S. troops should stay until security is restored, 31 percent, until Iraqi forces can operate independently, 16 percent, or longer, 5 percent."

The second bit of data says that 52% of Iraqis agree with Bush's plan to keep troops there until the Iraqis can police themselves. I know there is a good explanation, because we all know that bias is a myth.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Thursday, December 08, 2005

God Bless John Goodman

Here's an excerpt from a NYT story on Alec Baldwin' s near-record-setting appearance as an SNL host this week:

"I wish him the best of luck," Mr. Goodman said, speaking by cellphone Wednesday night, between bites of chicken pot pie, from backstage at the Geffen Playhouse in Los Angeles, where he was preparing to go on as Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." "God bless the kid."
Mr. Goodman's streak as host ended in November 2001, and except for a cameo two years ago, he has not been back. On Wednesday, he made clear that he missed the show terribly - "For me, it was the week of the year, always" - and that it saddened him to contemplate his future as a host.
"I think my best days are over on the show," he said. "I'm too old to run around like that."
"The kids are a lot younger than I am," he added. "Chris Walken" - who has been host six times, most recently in 2003 - "he always gets the specialty material. Me, I just don't fit in anymore."

Me, I love John Goodman. Nobody for my money's been better throughout his career, and if he's sad, I'm sad for him. Who seems less like he's acting in so wide a range of material? Mundane household comedy, surreal psychodrama, and "The Big Lebowski"? Mark it zero!

Bias, Bias, Everywhere a Bias

Perhaps this is as controversial as calling Ted Kennedy a blowhard, but could a college professor get away with this type of slander if the target were blacks? Or gays? Would he only be asked to step down as the chairman of the Department of African American Studies? Would anyone ask what he was doing in that department in the first place? Or why this person was going to teach the course in the first place? Is it news to anyone that it is the media along with activist groups that peper an organization with hard questions when it behaves in a descriminatory way? I know that hypocrocy in one case does not prove the rule, but I ask you to consider when the media gets sturred up and when it doesn't.

Monday, December 05, 2005

McCain in McPain

I've been hearing rumblings regarding McCain and his anti-torture bill. Mostly from the talking heads and mostly along the lines of, "look I know he was tortured, and so clearly he has issue with it, but he will also tell you he broke, and it worked." Until now I haven't seen any actual references to what McCain said about his personal experience, but a web site called newsmax.com had an editorial about it by some guy named Carl Limbacher. Not to be dismissive, his bio is pretty impressive, but I've never heard of him. Anyway he makes the point that " Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked! " I thought, "well that's interesting," but when I read what Mr. Limbacher considered "worked" I missed it. McCain said he gave up his ships name, squadron number, and target, instead of the just name, rank and serial number. And then, after another episode, and 5 1/2 years later, signed a prepared document confessing to war crimes that he obviously didn't commit. I admit that I'm not a general, but I don't see the first "give"of information being that helpful, and the second is a joke. If we're looking to torture to get people to sign sheets of paper after 5 1/2 years, then OK. But in the most common hypothetical, a nuclear bomb is in the US and about to blow, I'm willing to bet that it would have blown after 5 1/2 years. The case against torture isn't that people will admit things under torture, its that they will admit anything. To call McCain's torture a success based on those two events is wrong. 5 1/2 years of torture isn't helpful, its sadistic. Maybe that's why he's so concerned with this. I'm sure he views the torturers and the government that supported them in a certain way, and he's honestly ashamed that his own leaders are now embracing the same useless assault on detainees.

The Backhanded Case for Media

So "cyber monday" was a hoax. It was created by shop.org an association of online retailers, yet the media jumped all over this. No one did any fact checking or they would have found that its only the 12th biggest online shopping day. In fact their press release even states that its "ONE of the biggest online shopping days of the year." But by the time the talking heads got it, it became "THE biggest online shopping day of the year." Why is this a defense? Because it demonstrates that the media is more inept than conniving. Had this been a mistake about a right wing issue, this would be yet more proof that the media is out to get the right. To me it's like government conspiracies. How can something so demonstratably inept be capable of pulling off anything nearly as complicated as a secret dedicated strategy against something, someone, or some idea? I just haven't been able to buy the biased liberal media arguement. Everything I've seen is explained by ineptitude, market forces, and the very human penchant for making mistakes. I've heard both liberals and conservatives decry their portrayal by the media. I've seen political candidates from both parties lose in part because of the media. I think its more that when bad things happen to you, or those you support, its both more noticable and it feels worse than when it happens to someone else, or someone you don't care about. I know this drives Stalin nuts, but he's so clouded by anger that he's barely my friend because I'm left handed.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

GOP?

The small government GOP strikes again. Texas Republican Joe Barton has decided to call a hearing on the BCS. Seriously. Its like he got a hankerin on this issue and decided that while this is a great debate to have around the bbq, he would just take it on himself to waste lots of time and money on this. The best part, he doesn't even have any idea what he wants to do with it. He just want to talk. How does any conservative still support this party? Is there nothing the GOP won't use the government to solve. My bananas are a little green. Can I get Barton to call a congressional hearing on this? I played in a 3 on 3 basketball tournament a while back. I was in the sub 6' group but there were definitely people taller than 6'. I was sad. Can he call a hearing for me?

Friday, December 02, 2005

Bush's Speech

Sorry this is not exactly a breaking post on Bush's speech. First off, I'm glad he didn't name a timetable. I was concerned that it could happen. I do think we will begin troop withdrawals prior to Iraq being truly stable, but I just haven't heard a convincing argument for naming a day, and number for bringing the troops home. Given what I know (and it isn't much) I'm one of the 7% or so that would like to see more troops in Iraq. So kudos to Bush not bowing to growing political pressure from both parties to set a time-line. But what did surprise me is the general admission that the immediate post war planning was so inept. Two examples. One, the President said, " When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from EXTERNAL threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external." I'm sorry, but who did he think would be the external threat to Iraq, Gary Larson's Pillow Vikings? Which bordering enemy doesn't have machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars? I don't even know what to do with that. Then he mentions, " When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures -- and they received limited training in the use of small arms. This did not adequately prepare the fight they would face." again, what post war scenario plan was he looking at. How do you not properly prepare police in the use of their gun. Even in America, with no post war anarchy, police get extensive training with their guns. Did they talk to cops in Detroit? Miami? NYC? Again, disgraceful. And finally, his general statements of progress in safety just scared me. For example, there was a Purple Heart Boulevard? And even now, the best we can say is "attacks are down" in Purple Heart Boulevard. I thought he said "Mission Accomplished." However, I really liked the following statement, " Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course." If by "stay the course," they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by "stay the course," they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by "stay the course" they mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him." Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy." Just thought he was at his best here. Great lines, great way to nullify the political attacks, and a great compliment to the leaders and troops. If it weren't for that middle part where he basically admits that a group of monkeys planned the post war occupation, then it was a nice speech. On a personal note, I don't like his delivery, but that's just me. Didn't like Clinton's either. Why can't we get a president who can really deliver a speech. Everything is so much more fun.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Someone Defend This Guy

I'd love to go to a pep rally run by Senator Murtha. How inspiring it would be to hear him describe how our team would mop the floor with that other team...if only they weren't broken and worn out.

It is completely reasonable to say that our approach to Iraq needs to be improved. It is completely irresponsible to say that our military has been rendered inept by current bad polices. I guess when your Murtha and you spend a week in the glow of constant media praise and attention it emboldens you make a bigger fool of yourself than you might otherwise.

And for those who might mistake Mr. Murtha for an informed gadfly please answer me why this "broken and worn out" military remains the strongest proponent of President Bush and his Iraq policies? How can it be that an old man in the safety of Washington knows better of a war effort than the men and women fighting it? This man is a joke...a sad and pathetic joke.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Sporting News

A quick collection of sports related blogging. Michael Irvin was charged with misdomenor possession of drug paraphanillia. ESPN will allow him to continue to work as an anchor until this is resolved. Earlier a Judge ordered Gerogia Tech to reinstate a player facing trial for participating in a drug ring. I agree with both decisions. Innocent until proven guilty must mean something. After guilt is proven, then both organizations should act according to their standards. But firing or suspending folks pre-trial does not suppose innocence.

On other football news, the collective bargaining agreement is up at the end of this season. Its time for the NFLPA to again show how it doesn't understand the union concept. Every year players complain about how short a their careers are, and that's why they need to make so much money. No disagreement here, but I've never understood why the union doesn't address chop-blocking and lousy field conditions for example. The backbone of any union is safety. Why doesn't the NFLPA simpy put into agreement an abolishment of chop-blocking, and write something in that states that artificial fields must be replaced every three years with the best commercially avialiable turf, and that natural fields meet some sort of standard? I know this is outside the normal parameters of this blog, but everytime I hear someone like Sapp complain about chop blocks, I just think, "take it the union." But the NFLPA is too consumed with the cash side of the negotiation. Lengthening careers means more cash to the players too. If you have a union, at least use it correctly.

Monday, November 21, 2005

To Jew or Not to Jew

I'm itching to do my typical (and cathartic) railing against journalism and it's unapologetic biases, but I'm going to hold off util Mike3000 weighs in. I have not been trained in journalism and so perhaps it is my ignorance that leads me to ask why a story about a very typical left-wing organization's opposition to a conservative court nominee would be written under the heading "Jewish Group Votes to Oppose Alito". Granted, the heading is technically correct, it is a Jewish group. But when one reads "Jewish Group Opposes..." it deliberately puts in your mind the idea that Alito has done something to offend Jews even bringing to mind possible anti-Semitism. Just as the title of a book is very carefully chosen, so is the "title" of an article. When I read this article I was surprised to find not a single Jewish reason for the opposition. The fact that it was a Jewish group had no bearing on their decision to oppose Alito, so why would the story be set up with an emphasis on the group's Jewishness? This story was so short that I'm confident as much time was spent on the headline as on the body, so "sloppiness" does not seem a reasonable defense.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

You Showed Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine

I have no idea if it's inflammatory. But it is strong.

Interesting Read on Intellegence

Thought this was a fair piece that makes its points without being inflametory.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Joe Lost, and I'm Still Sorry

Yesterday the Senate reached a compromise on enemy combatants right to habeas corpus. There are two related votes and, at first blush, I'm ok with either of them. But what's also interesting is the civic lesson being played out. There's been a few posts on this blog about Bush's ratings and what that means. With the President recently hitting an all-time low, we're starting to see the fall-out, or pile-on, depending on your point of view. The Senate is now starting to reel in the broad authority it gave him just after 9/11. With language calling for Bush to explain what's happening in Iraq, and requiring him to report every three months on progress, restricting torture, and asking about secret detention centers, this is not the compliant Senate we've witnessed over the last five years. Also, the recent gubernatorial race in New Jersey saw the dem run an ad saying, "Doug Forrester, he's Bush's choice for Governor, is he yours?" And Forrester lost. Slamming your opponent as a Bush ally is a stark contrast to the Lousiana Senate race four years ago when both the Dem and Rep both ran largely on how much they would support Bush. The incumbant Dem, Landreau, even touted her high percentage of voting with the President as a reason to vote for her. A President's biggest weapons are his popularity and the bully pulpit. Bush's never been fond of talking to the people, at least not to a non-prescreened audience, and he's rested on his popularity numbers to get things done in congress. As long as his numbers stay down, and if he continues to be viewed as a liability, he will be in real trouble. And yes, I know that's an obvious statement.

Monday, November 14, 2005

UPDATE: Stalin and Unknown Agree, sort of...

Earlier, Mr. Malone said, " The purpose of using Clinton's words (and the words of all Democrats) is to show the complete hollowness of the "Bush lied to take us to war" charge. We generally agree here. I think many Dems voted for the war and failed at their duty because they were afraid to look weak and get the Sam Cleeland treatment. Personally, I think most of them voted for the war but did not believe the arguments, and looked the other way at intelligence inconsistencies because they lacked the courage to stand up and question the war. This was Kerry's biggest problem. He could not come out aggressive against a war he didn't support (I believe) because he made a political vote for it. Putting politics above conviction is what killed the Dems, and they continue to be trapped in the same dilemma. I agree with Mr. Malone that it is "hollow." But not because what is now coming out is without merit, but because at the "stand-up and be counted" moment, the Dems pulled the nifty trick of standing up because they cowed down.

There are two types of courage. The courage to fight and the courage not to. It's the middle ground where cowards dwell.

Jimmy Longs for Malaise

Confused and frightened by purposeful action, Jimmy speaks out!

Say it ain't so other Joe

Joe Lieberman defends his vote to deny foreign nationals the right to challenge their detention in court by stating, "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world war on terrorism has no more right to a habeas corpus appeal to our courts than did a captured soldier of the Axis powers during World War II." That's great. For torture, the argument is that "at least its not as bad as what Hussein did." Now, we're not even trying to be better that the most despicable people in history. Hey, if the Nazi's did it, it must be ok. Lovely standard. We are sinking into a very dark place.

PS. For you "original intenter's" out there, Habeas Corpus was one of the major points at the start of the Revolutionary War. This is a big give-up.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Word

The Torture Knot

So Bush says, "we don't torture." But we have, here, and here apparently want to again as Bush is threatening to use is veto, if he can find the thing, on an Anti-Torture Bill that passed the Senate 90-9. Sometimes I need a map to understand what's going on.
*Apologies for leaning so heavily on Sullivan, but he's been on this case for awhile, and does a good job of it.

Say it aint so, Joe

So Penn St. coach Joe Paterno becomes the next victim of "racism" by pointing out what everyone knows, in a very complimentary way. I've read this article several times looking for anything that could honestly be defined as racist. Is it that "black athletes have just done a great job as athletes and as people in turning the game around"? Man, now that's harsh. If Stalin Malone ever said that about me, "the Unknown Blogger has just done a great job as an athlete and as a person in turning the game around," I know I'd want to take a swing at him.

As a side note, I do think the Airforce coach should be reprimanded for apparantly not reading a newspaper in 40 years. "Afro-American?" I just have this image of this guy driving home in his Studebaker, chaninging into his sweater, and turing on his black-and-white TV.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Red Patriotism

Look like political PATRIOT's are really Soviets. The jist, the Feds can look at anything under the very specific title of potential threat, there is no oversight, records are kept even if the target is innocent (a new change), and over 30,000 probes are launched by random, unaccountable beurocrats every year. But don't worry, one, this is not abused (and since that kind of power never is, rest easy), and two, if your not guilty why should you care.

On the Fence

Not me. Not when my grass is high, or my salad is short a vine ripe. Who's going to trim my tree? Him?

"Simply adding more border agents won't work unless there is one every hundred yards or so along the entire border. That would require between 150,000 and 200,000 agents and support personnel, rather than the 11,000 at present, and an annual budget of five to ten billion dollars.

A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."

--WENEEDAFENCE.com

Friday, November 04, 2005

Congressional Approval Ratings Skyrocket in Small UB District

I'm so happy with this Eminent Domain Bill that I may send flowers to every member that voted for it. Checks and Balances may work, AND both parties working together? Time to get Satan that parka.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

WWF in Suits

What is absolutely amazing these days is the boldness of political spin. Politicians are behaving as if there is no public record of anything that happened before yesterday. The Democrats called a closed door session and served up a barrage of criticism aimed at the WMD intelligence used to partially justify our invasion of Iraq. Obviously an attempt to capitalize on the Scooter Libby indictment, the Democrats are trying to strengthen the surreal argument that the Bush administration concocted the evidence that showed Iraq as a WMD threat.

Here is the talking point, rarely challenged by the mainstream media: The Bush administration fabricated or exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. This line is often stretched to imply that no reasonable person would have ever concluded that Saddam was a well-armed threat. Bill Clinton amazingly went on the record to say that the Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq "with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

Please stand for a moment of truth:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." - Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program..." - Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - William Cohen 4/03

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright 1998

This is a tiny sample of the proof that very few of today's critics did not share the views of the Bush administration. The statement that Bush lied to take us to war is not an argument...its slander, and all the Democrats know it.

Be Ready


No one knows when or where something might happen, so to stay on the safe side, I've staged a mock outbreak of bird flu:

"Chickens!"

"Stop touching me!"

[Millions die.]

Thursday, October 27, 2005

UN-Necessary

Zvi Rav-Ner is correct, one UN member has just called, unapologetically, for genocide against another UN member. An organization that has already lowered the bar for bureaucratic uselessness (a Herculean feat in itself) with its failures in Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, et.al., and raised the bar for Mafia-style deceit and corruption via the oil-for-food program, now faces a profound moral choice. That's right, a moral choice, the one thing that the UN is perfectly unsuited for. In a world in which the accidental killing of civilians (by Israel) is equated with targeted killing of civilians (by Palestinians) can any of us have any doubt as to the type of solution that will be coming from the halls of the UN? I wouldn't go out on a limb far enough to predict an actual slap on the wrist. I'm not even sure I see a threatened slap on the horizon. The absolute pointlessness of this pathetic organization will be on display through this entire process, and in the end the UN will be revelealed for what it is - unnecessary. My bet is that Iran will be punished, much like the despicable Sudan, with a seat on the Commission for Human Rights. Please let me be wrong.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Everything You Say is Correct

This is a Ford Cortina.

Friday, September 16, 2005

No, I'm sorry, NOW its dead

Standing in Jackson Square last night Bush signaled the rebirth of New Orleans, and the death of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Key quote: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." So here's the President saying that we need to get used to more Federal authority, and as an added bonus here comes the military. So the "war on drugs" required that we give up the 4th Amendment, the "war on terror" requires that we allow the government unfettered access to our lives, and confiscate toe-nail clippers from air travelers, and the "war on natural disasters" requires that the Federal Government take an even larger role in local issues, and that it brings the military with it. The Founding Father's would be so proud. How do Reaganites stick with this guy? Hurricanes Camille, Andrew, and Charlie didn't require that the feds take over everything, nor did the San Francisco earthquake, the Chicago fire, the LA riots, or the last time my car didn't start. Not only that but the fix is "hey free money everyone." No Democrat could get away with this, why the long leash for Bush? No cap on spending? Well you can trust Congress to be frugal. But, just in case you're a cynic check here, and here. There is an argument, made famously by Cheney, that deficits don't matter. Now, I totally disagree. But for those that don't, just look at it this way. The deficit is the measure of government intrusion in our lives. That money's going somewhere and the first "here" link shows the programs. If you're at all a small government type, then rising spending should bother you because it signals a larger government. Its sad, but Reagan was betrayed by his own party.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Reagan's GOP officially dies

Tom Delay proudly claims that federal spending can't be cut anymore, in a must read article. I have a good friend who claims to be an independent but always votes Republican because he feels that he has the best chance of seeing a shrinkage of government with the GOP. Since House leader Delay believes there is no fat in the federal budget, and that all that spending is crucial to the economy (including, I imagine, the $231mm bridge to a small island in Alaska named after SITTING Senator Don Young). At what point does the illusion that there is any better chance for fiscal responsibility under the GOP give way. Over the last 11 years the budget has exploded, and we've added $2 trillion in debt since 2000. Reagan once vetoed a bill with 167 "pork" items, and the last budget had over 6000. In true Orwellian fashion, the GOP has taken the Reagan dream of less government, promoted it endlessly during campaigns, but has acted in exactly the opposite manner at every opportunity. The country has had six years of total GOP control, and has not moved one inch closer to Reagan's vision for the country. Reagan has been characterized as a "tax cuts only" visionary, but that's only part of the story. He wanted less government, and saw tax cuts as a method to that end. The current GOP makes FDR look like Scrooge. It keeps the tax cuts (good) but endlessly ramps up spending (bad). I just don't see how long GOP loyalists can continue to buy into the illusion that the GOP is for fiscal restraint and less government. The proof is in their actions, and the actions are very, very clear. Now that the head of the GOP congress says that there is no fat in the budget, all GOP voters have to confront that real statement with the election cycle hype.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

It's a gas, gas, gas

I will never cease to be amazed by the level of economic ignorance that is sustainable in a great economy. I have yet to hear the man on the street (or the woman in the next cubicle over) say anything even close to realistic while attempting to explain the short term fuel crunch we are now experiencing. Supply and demand are lost on people. Market-pricing is a concept they have never heard discussed on The View. What's really sad is that these people have 16 plus years of education and yet remain utterly ignorant of the simplest economic concepts. While struggling to explain our current situation I actually heard someone say, "It's all in The Movie." Which is a reference to the Michael Moore fantasy piece of the last election cycle. It's no wonder that we have people who follow religions started by science fiction authors. I'm guessing that critical thinking has never been a strong suit of humanity and that I'm probably falling into the short-sighted "this is really bad so it must be the worst ever" camp by even acting surprised. If education has the ability to improve the thought processes of the masses as some argue, I say let's have some.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

GOP Trouble Continued

Just to continue my thread about why the GOP shuould be concerned about holding onto power. The overtly liberal Foxnews.com ran this article about how the GOP has changed. The article does a very good job of illustrating the points I've fumbled to make. Granted, for Republican voters, where can they go? But they can allways stay home and, in the face of a motivated Dem base, that alone can spell disaster for the GOP. At some point voters will realize that the party that they sent to power is not at all like the party in power. While not a historical first, it is, none-the-less, reality.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Something about history repeating itslelf

CNN/Money has an article under a tab called "Power Packed Muscle Cars Come Roaring Back" which takes you to this article. What I love about this is somewhere some executive at Ford said, "SUV sales are declining, gas is pushing $3 a barrel, everyone's clamoring about the need to rely less on foreign oil, and people aren't buying cars. What should we do?" And some genius yelled, "MUSCLE CARS!!!"

Amazing. Didn't this happen in the 70's? Japan focused on mileage and utility, and Detroit kept producing bigger gas guzzlers. Does Detroit not study history? Do they ignore market trends? SUV sales are falling, and Detroit throws up even less useful gas hogs. At least SUV's hold lots of people and things. But muscle cars? Just what every family needs, a low-milage, low-utility vehicle. Normally, I would just note the raw stupidity of these execs, but I also remember the taxpayer funded bail-outs that came afterwards. Its one thing to let businesses make bad decisions and suffer the consequences, but its another when businesses make bad decisions and taxpayers have to suffer. And thats the other part of history that seems doomed to repeat itself.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Spamalicious

Hey we have spam! So we're not popular enough to get actual comments, but the spammers have found us. Eventhough any comment makes me feel special, I put an end to the spammers (I hope) by enabling a varification window for comments. I hope it doesn't hurt our popularity.

Robertson, "US should date Chavez"

Pat Roberton becomes the latest person who, despite actual video evidence, says I didn't say what I said on TV. At some point, people need to realize that TV is recorded. I just don't get how you can say something on TV and then think you can get away with saying "never said it, nope, not me." At least review the tape and formulate a good story. But to just out right lie, amazing.

So he says he didn't call for Chavez's assassination. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

What he says he meant was, "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him." "Or our special forces could "take him out," like on a date. Bring him some flowers and candy, you know, take him on a nice date. If the special forces are feeling the right vibe they could kiss him on the cheek, but not the lips, it is after all a first date. Sometimes just showing someone you care is all it takes to bring them around. And lets face it, no matter how much lobster he eats, its cheaper than the bill for a war."

Sunday, August 21, 2005

The GOP Conundrum

Recent Polls show Bush's flagging approval ratings on most major issues. What's striking is that 80% of Dems dissaprove, while 90% of Republicans approve. The only thing worse than Bush's ratings are those of Congress, and that is the problem for the GOP. That core group of Republicans that approve of Bush do so out or personal loyalty. Key quote, "I may not approve of every single thing he does," McAllister said, "but he's a true leader because he's not leading by the polls." This quote, and other's like these, are rattling the rest of the GOP. Personal approval of Bush, even while disagreeing with his policies, does not translate to other candidates. I think this is why we're starting to see cracks in the GOP wall. Leading Republicans are aware that they are not Bush, and cannont rely on high personal approval. The concern must be that the blame for bad policy, because it is not sticking to Bush, will land on them. This will lead to more objections/defections, which could lead to lost opportunity for the GOP, and dissatisfaction of the base. Everyman for himself is a dangerous plan for the GOP, but this is the result of Bush's numbers. He must figure out a way to balance his numbers, and the rest of the GOP must figure out a way to garner some of his love with the base. GOP Presidential hopefuls (especially) must decide if they want to follow lock-step with a "war time" President who's numbers are below 50%, or do they want to risk the ire of a GOP base that is proping those numbers up?

Unless McCain gets the bid, the GOP may be in real trouble in 2008.

Once Bush is gone, however, the Dems would be wise to hit his policies while leaving him alone. But looking for wise strategy out of the Dems is in itself bad strategy.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Novakain

Bill Novak writes a long article bashing Frist. I'm not a huge fan of Frist, and he's done a host of laughable things, but Novak hits him, in part, because, "A month earlier, Frist missed the counting of Electoral College votes (including the Ohio challenge) to leave on a medical mission to the Indian Ocean following the tsunami. This was a decision by a doctor, not a politician."
How dare Frist do such a thing! Helping out in the tsunami relief instead of sitting there watching a foregone conclusioin in the EC? Why I never. This just shows why the beltway is its own twisted universe. Only in DC is this even an issue. Seeing the known conclusion to the Electoral Votes over helping in a disaster, where's the conundrum. It would be like a fireman saying, "hold on, I'll get there, I just want to catch the end of this Star Trek rerun, maybe Kirk dies this time?"
My favorite is the last part. I don't love Frist, but the more any politician thinks like anything other than a politician the better. I would love to see more Congressfolks making decisions like an accountant, banker, store clerk, mechanic, whatever than a politician. I mean, "thinking like a politician" isn't that an insult?

Gas Woes Just Got Worse

Since Congressfolks are not required to take Econ 101, we get this. Apparantly Congress is flummoxed by the concept of supply and demand. Next they's tackle such brain busters as "why do people need to eat?" And, "where do clouds come from." I think my favorite statement comes in the third paragraph, " Lawmakers admit there is no short-term fix to pain at the pump, but are nervous about political fall-out. " Just kind of says it all. I just hope, and this is a long-shot, that they don't put in some kind of cap, or some other useless command economy tool.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

FANtastic

Saturday, July 30, 2005

This Will Save Lives

Barbaro Rosseland, 5, of Norway, undergoes explosives detection screening at Palm Beach International Airport. Inside the "Puffer", a burst of air pushes dust particles from your clothing to be analyzed for bomb material.

"It was no trouble at all," Ingvild Mo--Barbaro's mother-- said with a shrug following her screening. "I like fresh air."

Friday, July 29, 2005

Yes, They Called It "The Streak"

August approaches, and unless the Bill Murray movie comes to town, I--for the first time in at least 25 years--likely will end the summer without having gone to the movies.

Sure, I'm cheap and a churl when it comes to me paying to go see slop I spent years watching on the clock ushering. But check out my Netflix queue and about all that's out this summer that I'm even mildly interested in seeing even at home other than Broken Flowers is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Bewitched, and The Brothers Grimm.

So, with the streak all but at an end, but a legacy left to tarnish, is it time to say, "Enough"?

Monday, July 25, 2005

The Race Is On...

Quick review of the "Profile Views" for Hydrablog reveals that Stalin Malone is the clear winner.
Stalin Malone: 90 views. Great Job Stalin, almost six times the nearest rival. Clearly in a class by himself. Legend of the blogosphere.
Mike3000: 16 views. Just added a fancy picture...looking to make a move.
McLieberman: 16 views. McLieberman better do something, Mike3000's picture could break this tie.
Unknown Blogger: 8 Views. Clearly the Cincinnati Bengals of this blog.

90 views, seriously...90? I mean people aren't even checking out the other bloggers just to see. How's that? The rest of us need to take a long look in the mirror and ask if we have what it takes to hang with the likes of Stalin Malone.

Subsidze Me!

Quick note to those that argue that renewable energy is overly subsidized against carbon fuels. Notice that Tom Delay, GOP budget minded, fiscally responsible House Majority leader is fighting hard for: “A Senate-passed requirement for an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources and a House-approved measure, pushed by Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, to provide $2 billion in subsidies for research into oil exploration in the deepest parts of the Gulf of Mexico.” Notice, this is $2 billion for RESEARCH into EXPLORATION. Its not even money to recover known quantities. Its taxpayer money to find out if we can look for something. Not to mention that at oil companies are doing great right now and are flush with cash to do this all by their lonesome. Here Bush has it right, “With oil at more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas." But the GOP controlled congress has other thoughts: The energy bill under consideration on the Senate floor would reduce royalty payments for oil and gas producers drilling in federal waters -- a break worth almost $100 million over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

I am not using this to justify "green" subsidies. This is to point out that everyone eats at the federal trough. I wonder who would survive if everyone had to fend for themselves? About the only given there is that the Nuclear boondoggle would be exposed.

Permanent Patriot.

Question: If war time measures become permanent, are we permanently at war?

Light-Wing Propaganda


Should Congress fail, Daylight-Savings activist Jim Ahmed vows to set this clock forward again and again until Washington gets it, and gets some sun!

"DON'T COME TO ME WITH A PROBLEM, COME TO ME WITH THE SUN!"

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Granted, It's Art

Click on the link above and scroll down for The Big Local Story, "Total Eclipse of the Art." Here's how it ends. Here's how it began.

(And here's us.)

Thursday, July 21, 2005

WE, oui?



Two weeks ago, the Underground was the world's busiest subway system, ferrying three million people each day through London.

"Madrid carried terror to the heart of Europe, but we never believed we would be a lonely, unique case," said Jorge Dezcallar, the head of Spain's foreign intelligence service during the Madrid attacks. "[Madrid] just had the bad luck of being chosen as the first target, but not the last. London, like Madrid, proves how vulnerable we are."

And this is who "we" are: Brits and Spaniards, yes, but also Pakistanis, Australians, Israelis, Americans--Christians, Jews, and Muslims--and, oui, the French.

Take Tony Blair, for all that's wrong with the war in Iraq, at his word: "[Islamic extremism] and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy."

Nor should Paris count on Islamofacism's end safely beyond the secularized borders of France, a nation that licenses its clerics, bans religious dress in its schools, and imports more than 400,000 barrels of oil per day from caliph-avorites like Saudi Arabia and Algeria.

Algeria, a Mediterranean neighbor to Spain and the North African Al Qaeda hotspots from which the Madrid bombers came--Morocco and Tunisia--knows terror, too: Between 1992 and 1998, more than 100,000 Algerians were killed during the army-led Algerian government's struggle with the Islamic Salvation Front and other Islamacists such as the Armed Islamic Group. France perhaps remembers the Armed Islamic Group as the terrorists responsible for the 1994 Air France murder-hijacking in which the fully-fueled plane was meant to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower, as well as Paris subway bombings that killed eight people the following year.

No, the Armed Islamic Group attacks against France were not, as those in Madrid and London, the work of Moroccans, or Tunisians, or Pakistanis, or British nationals of Pakistani descent, or Jamaican-born British residents like Germaine Lindsey, who murdered 27 people on the Piccadilly line train. And the Armed Islamic Group had no apparant hand in the Al Qaeda attacks since 2002 against French citizens in Morocco and Tunisia and Pakistan and Yemen.

Yet, somehow, it's all about Iraq?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Initiating Auto-Destruct Sequence "Hydrablog"

3000, Mike, Zero-Zero-Zero-Destruct-Zero.

CONCUR!

Friday, July 01, 2005

Broken Words

There is no federally recognized "reporter's privilege." When a journalist refuses to reveal a source's identity to a federal grand jury, that journalist stands on principle, not the law.

Time Inc. editor in chief Norman Pearlstine, by revealing the identity or identities of confidential sources in Time's reporting on Valerie Plame, abandoned principle and broke what little of my trust in confidentially sourced reporting remained.

"The journalist and the lawyer were fighting in my head," Pearlstine said. "But if presidents are not above the law, how is it that journalists are?"

They're not. Concealing sources is not a right or a privilege, it's a responsibility. A journalist who accepts this responsibility should accept the consequences.

A confidential source not worth fighting for 'til the source says the fight is over is a source whose side of the story isn't worth writing or reading.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

A Gulag By Any Other Name...

How easy it is to get attention these days. Everywhere you look there is a camera streaming images to somewhere on the cable spectrum. And people watching...for hours on end...watching. (Marx could not have been less prescient about what makes for good opiate.) And all that information. Good clean information. Well-considered and minty fresh. Oh, I know, you can't trust it ALL. I mean there are always a few kooks out there, a few exceptions to the rule of intellectual honesty and fair play. But certainly they get discredited quickly once the media has a chance to debunk. I mean who would risk that priceless jewel of credibility? Well, Amnesty International for one. And the mainstream media for two.

The United States has been charged with running a gulag, with ghost detentions and torture. Charges that one would expect would have to be well-documented to be credible. Or not. Ghost detentions and disappearances refer to summary and secretive executions usually carried out in dictatorships...catch the implication? Amnesty levels this charge without a single victim's name. Torture? Is this a well-defined term in the report that warrants the strong language? No, but there are some examples - like holding one inmate "incommunicado". Loneliness is torture. Thanks Amnesty International for your courageous war on boredom. The charges are laughable, the fact that the media accepted it uncritically is scandalous.

It's a shame. There was a time when a respectable thinker could quote an Amnesty International report to bolster an argument. Unfortunately, now such a quote would only reveal the mistaken use of "respectable".

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Zingered

For those of you fanatically following the Pyramid thread, Mr. Malone just proved why you never see two long-time friends run against each other in politics. They know each other too well. Mr. Malone just took my "having the Feds bail out the minority is just wrong" point and applied to homosexual marriage. He knows that I'm very much in favor of full CIVIL marriage rights for homosexuals, and he rightly points out that this is the minority position. To which I say "CURSE YOU MR. MALONE!" and "well done."

I moved this back to the front because I think this is worth its own space. Now pay attention as I attempt to maneuver out of this corner. Feel free to cry foul if I miss-step.

A point I made in the other post is that the free-market is often used in areas that it is not designed to handle. Law is just such a place. The free-market works in the FCC space because it is an economic issue. Pure and simple. Here are some of the reasons. Its not about emotion. It's real time. If the nation moves through a conservative period the market will immediately adapt. There is no lag. Also, those who don't want to buy the product don't have too. Furthermore, the market accounts for those that don't like what the majority have to offer. If you don't like what Spike TV is showing, you can watch PAX. So the minority shoppers also have an alternative. This is the free market at work. Its all about economics. This isn't the case for law, particularly homosexual CIVIL marriage.

The free-market accounts for the economic interests of the minority, and it does so in a real time fashion. Law tries to do the same, at least in the US, but it is not real time, and does not allow for entrepreneurial alternatives. So what is the place for law and minority interest? I think its an interesting question, and that's why I brought this forward as its own thread.

I think its incumbent on the strong (majority in this case) to protect the weak (the minority here). I have yet to be persuaded that allowing civil marriage is in any way harmful, so it seems easy that the strong allow the weak this privilege. I get that others feel that allowing homosexuals CIVIL marriage is extremely harmful, so this is the debate. But what I don't get are those that would also disallow civil unions or other legal contracts between homosexuals. This even takes away the attempt by the minority to fashion there own creative solution, it in effect outlaws PAX. This denial of any outlet strikes me as abusive. Unfortunately most laws, and the current proposed Constitutional Amendment do just that.

Put another way. If the 9th grade gym class decides that a particular kid is a nerd and that it is therefore ok to pick on that kid, that's the majority opinion, but its still wrong. I'm still not going to stand by and watch the kid get beat-up, or worse join in. I'm going to try to help the poor geeky kid. That way, maybe he'll help me with my math homework.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Pyramid Schemes

Expanding on Mr. Malone's "government treats Americans like idiots" theme, I'm taking aim at the FCC. The Feds in their ever growing desire to parent the rest of us want to increase indecency fines. While I think it perfectly appropriate that you can be fined more for saying a naughty word on the radio than for medical malpractice or product liability that causes death, I have to wonder is this necessary? The whole notion of a few people deciding for the nation what's appropriate is typical of the Feds. I'm fine with a rating standard, but fines and censorship? I can handle this for myself. Just as its silly that I need the Feds to tell me that a Big Mac is unhealthy, I find it equally silly that folks are surprised that someone known as a "shock jock" may be... shocking. I thought the GOP was the party of the free market. If the market doesn't like naughty words, then the market will penalize those shows that use them. I also like the feds think us so incompetent that we are unable to take the mighty step of changing the channel if we find something offensive. So while we're able to use credit cards, drive, vote, take out home loans, get jobs, fight a war, etc, we are apparently flummoxed by the idea of pushing a button.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

ACLU to America, "Bonk Bonk"

The parents have to sign a form before a child can be allowed to visit the local zoo with her classmates escorted by her teacher and transported in a big, yellow, happy bus. But if she wants to have an operation in another state to end a pregnancy? Well, Mr. and Mrs. America, it's none of your damn business what your daughter is up to. Huh? It's not a story that we are changing this law...the story is how we could have put up with something so twisted for so long. We are told that abortion is no different from any other surgery that removes something unwanted. And yet if a minor wants her tonsils removed mom and dad have to be informed, that seems different. Where is the outrage over this current tonsil-related oppression of our children? Where is the ACLU? Silent, because it would be asinine to argue against something so sensible. Just like it is asinine that secreting children across state lines for abortions without giving those responsible for their well being a say so was ever legal.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

MyPyramid...My arse

If you find yourself concerned that those dangerous tax cuts are threatening to starve our needy government let me give you some food for encouragement. Despite all the missing funds, our government is still able to tell us how to eat. Where would you or I be without our benevolent government and its geometric simplicities? My great fear is that all this budgetary bludgeoning may lead to the canceling of the much needed How-to-Coordinate-your-Clothing Octagon or the Channel-Changing-is-Easy Mobius strip. I tremble at the thought of a citizenry untethered to the daily guidance of Washington wise men, left to fend for themselves in this cold and complicated world like so many pilgrims. But apparently, even after such drastic and horrifying cuts, there is still enough cash in the coffers to devise ever more colorful ways to treat each and every American like a complete idiot.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Good God, y'all

Someone explain to me on what grounds religious influence is considered incompatible with American jurisprudence? The point of a jury of your peers is to bring the sensibilities and backgrounds of your fellow citizens to bear on a case. This, by design, allows for the subjective standard of mutual understanding to temper impersonal justice. The vast majority of Americans have a religious basis to their lives and, therefore, their opinions on justice. To consider this beyond the pale is simply ludicrous. If any of our esteemed bloggers has any sympathy for this ruling please speak up as I find it hard to fathom a thoughtful person seeing this as reasonable. If you share my disappointment, what do you think motivates such a bizarre ruling? Can we only select juries from a pool of atheists and agnostics? Or is the issue that jurors should not attempt to persuade one another during a deliberation?

(It appears the link for this post is no longer active. It was linked to a story that reported in CO a judge ruled a verdict was not valid because the jurors consulted a Bible in their consideration of the death penalty.)

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Mea Culpa

Let me apologize to Mike300 for simplifying his "Any Matter, Any Time" thread. His original post was much broader than my "comment". I probably should have posted a new article, but wasn't up to the effort. As important a topic as the Schiavo case is, especially for gauging where we are on the issue of life and its value (follow your heart McLeib), Mike3000 said much more.

Politics, and perhaps all intellectual query, has a reductive quality to it. Scoop out the guts, we just want the Jack-o-lantern. Sometimes this serves to focus and clarify...sometimes it just triggers an Amber Alert for the bathing baby. When you introduce a press infested with gossip columnist poseurs, well, discourse is the bloodiest casualty; et tu, Brute.

There are some sincere optimists in public office, but they don't get fed press attention and slowly starve. It should be no surprise that journalists of our day reduce to nothing more than fertilizer, so hold your nose and shovel through another New York Times "story".

Is the media the only antagonist in this story? No. The politicians have free will and can pander or not pander. However, media influence is as corrupting as the ever-pilloried "money", and that's a shame because were it honorable, it could be palliative.

It certainly is easy to point the finger outward and blame institutions...but what about the institution of "citizen"? Could we handle the straight dope from a real straight talker, not the kind that has to put it on the side of a bus to be noticed. The press may just be giving the people what they want so keep the Tums in arms reach. No optimist am I, I look forward to reading my clippings.

Here's hoping I'm at least in the ballpark...because I sure am juiced.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Any Matter, Any Time

Randall Terry was right Friday about exactly this much: We're seeing what a G.O.P.-led House is made of — again, I'd add.

Thought I'd seen plenty Thursday afternoon as I watched what turned out to be Hour 7 of the House Government Reform Committee's hearings on baseball.

"Rule 10, Clause 4C2 gives us the ability to hold a hearing on any matter at any time," committee chair Tom Davis said the Sunday before the inquiry. "We're the major investigatory committee of Congress."

On Thursday, Davis, on the behalf of his committee, reminded the nation and its ballplayers that "Our primary focus remains the message that's being sent to" — you guessed it — The Children.

The ballplayers, said Davis hours later, "have an opportunity today to either clear their name or take public responsibility for their action, and perhaps offer cautionary tales to our youth."

Generously, Dennis Kucinich — a Democrat, it must be said — paid forward his final minutes of "face" time to the ballplayers, whom he invited, in English and Spanish (for Sammy), to "speak directly to America's youth."

Steroids? They agin'em! Canseco too, rat tale best-seller to the contrary. And 'til you've seen Gold Glover Rafael Palmiero field questions about which is worse for America — ballplayers betting on baseball or ballplayers juicing (hint: play with steroids, lose it all) — well, let's just say Rafy, 'though he came up in the end with the right answer, his game ain't softball.

Our Congressional Pasttime
No longer amused by playing with a presumably innocent man's livelihood, the committee on Friday — at Jeb Bush's and the congressional leadership's behest — began playing a sick game with the lives of Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, threatening him and his irreperably brain-damaged wife with congressional subpoenas — states' rights , the Schiavos' rights , and simple decency be damned.

Any matter. Any time.

The Senate , it must be said, also is deep into Florida's and the Schiavos' business, and that as I'm writing this on Sunday morning, Bill Frist appears to be the face of the G.O.P.'s prying eyes.

Party history, like any forgotten history, is doomed to be repeated. Frist, should he linger too long on the front line of the culture wars, will learn his history the hard way come a presidential campaign.

And it'll be his loss.

Eyes Without a Face
The front line's a fine line that Congress — the Democrats and the Republicans — walk with us. We're always looking out for outrage, especially when we can get indignant without even getting up from in front of the TV.

Democrats play mad, sure — Missouri's William Lacy Clay, he's so honked he wants Mark McGwire's name off a highway! — but since the mid-'80s, whether it's Darling Nikki, Sister Souljah, or Grand Theft Auto, Dems have stuck to little-d demagoguery, and quietly quit while they're ahead.

No Q - U - I - T in the G.O.P. — unless it's over Medicaid or Social Security or, y'know, a federal issue.

Hey, we all love a damned shame, the dirtier the better. Did you hear? Michael Schiavo's got a girlfriend, and they've got kids, and they're all rich because his wife's a vegetable.

And there's fewer of us who'd say that to his face then there are watching Fat Actress.

When we think for five minutes like people living face-to-face in the real world instead of as the faceless, heartless, mindless viewership into which citizenship has deevolved, we know this much about the Schiavos: They're nobody's business, least of all the United States Congress'.

And while we all love to hate facelessly from home — whether it's Michael Schiavo, McGwire, Hillary, or Slick Willie we want thrown under our moral bandwagon — our bandleaders, our surrogate scolds? Scolds, them sooner or later we just plain hate.

Buchanan. Starr. Gingrich. C'mon, look at 'em (if you can find them). That's not us, what we're about. What you do and who you do it with, when and where you did it, whether you really love each other, your life, that's not our business — that's our entertainment!

Really. They're not us.

Frist forgets at his political peril what the faces of Republicans Past mean to us when we look at ourselves and see what we'd rather see than somebody like them, looking long and hard for somebody somehow worse than we are.

They Never Forgot
Two elephants, at least, remember the lessons of the '92 convention and the Clinton impeachment.

Jeb, looking for all the world like he's simply done all he could do, he'll be remembered for this outside Florida for Terri's Law — his "by-the-book" and "The Good Book" bonafides ready-made for '08.

And then there's the Master of the House, I wouldn't know him if he hit me with a hammer: Not-Newt himself, Tom DeLay.

Newt was the speaker, you see. DeLay's not, that's that teddy bear, Denny Hastert. DeLay's the leader, at least for the moment.

He's no Newt, simply because with Newt we knew where he stood: in your face at all times, 'til America told him his time was up.

DeLay and the House looked, learned, and left him in the shadows. And for all the hell DeLay's raised from Texas backrooms to Terri Schiavo's bedside, what's he look like?

Exactly.

So here's Tom DeLay.

Here's our business.

Take a long, hard look into the matter.

Any time.

Friday, March 18, 2005

How I Wish I Read the News

and how I wish I wrote like Leonard Pitts.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Take it to the Bankruptcy

The Senate passed the Bankruptcy reform bill, and the house is expected to follow. An interesting provision makes lawyers vouch for the validity of their clients numbers, and holds the attorney liable if they're found innaccurate. I get that all lawyers are bad and they should be shot, but this strikes me as weird, and counter productive to the justice system. This just feels like a backdoor way to nail the lawyers at the citizens expense. I suppose we could do the same in criminal and civil courts as well, but I'm not sure that justice is served with this sledgehammer approach.

With St. Patricks day coming and all...

In a recent actual conversation with MCL (this was before he got too busy to talk to friends) he noted that Sinn Fein may be the example we're looking for in the Hezbollah case. Here's an interesting article that I think bolsters his case. I do think there are interesting and important similarities between the two, but I'm not sure of the Barkley factor. I avoided this because I was hoping our resident Irishman would figure it out, but like everything else in the Western World, the Greek had start the ball rolling.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Man Refuses to Sing "Happy Birhday" at Kids Party

New York- Local man MC Lieberman caused little Johnny Webster to burst into tears at his recent birthday party. "Look, I know the words, he knows the words, why do I have to waste my time singing the words?" Mr. Lieberman said. Johnny saw it a bit differently. "Why doesn't he like me?" he wailed to his mother. When asked about this Mr. Lieberman said, "Look, clearly I like the kid or I wouldn't be here. I mean, if I didn't want him to have a happy birthday, I wouldn't be here. He knows it, I know it, I'm just trying to save time. In fact, this interview is a waste time, I have to get back to filling up my wisk bottles." Mr. Lieberman had no further comments, and was last seen prancing to his car singing "wisk, wisk, makes me feel brisk" when his phone rang. "D--- it, why do my friends always call me?" he said angrily as he got into his car.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Best use of time

In a departure from our normally high minded conversations allow me to go Seinfeldian on you. My issue: Messages on cell phones. If you are callinjg someone you know from a phone you have called them from before, why leave a message if you have nothing to say? If a friend calls and my phone shows a missed call I can assume that that friend had something non pressing to say/ask and can be called back at my leisure. Why should I have to take the time to check my messages in order to hear "Just saying hey" or the equivelent?

Don't call it a comeback

Maybe the flat-tax is making a comeback. And once again someone else does a better job discussing it that I could (here it's Mr. Bartlett). The flat-tax is one of those ideas that had traction but just died, and I never could figure out why. I'm borderline single issue on this. If Bush gets this passed, then he will move way up in my book (and we all know how bad everyone wants to move up in my book).

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Question for MCL and SMf

I'm moving a point in the "France..." entry, largely because I have the power, and I love to wield my power.
Reading the posts in that entry, I wonder if MCL and SMf view terrorism as a viable means of gaining legitimate political power? The notion of rewarding Hezbollah by giving them political power opens the door to all terrorist thinking its the way to go. The standard protocol is don't negotiate or pay-off terrorists, but is this changing? I remember SMf railing against the UN for allowing Libya to chair of the Human Rights Body. There was no talk of forgiveness, legitimizing, or the need for peace then, what's changed? If Bin Laden succeeds in overthrowing the Saudi royal family, should we try to "take away his ferociousness" by recognizing his legitimate authority in Saudi Arabia? This is not a new point. It often pointed out that the US "patriots" were "rebels" until they won. And that southern "rebels" were "traitors" because they lost, so I get the thinking. But this terrorism vein is new. SMf, do you feel that Hezbollah is just a modern version of GW and the gang? Certainly "threads" exist. If so, I get your point and see why you don't have a problem legitimizing this group. Maybe the question isn't about Hezbollah in particular, but the use of terrorism in general?

Also, I did add another comment to the "France" section, please don't disregard. I know the front page is all splashy, but the behind the scenes efforts mean something too.

Good News/Bad News

The Supreme Court overturned existing law allowing the execution of minors. Here's my dilemma. I am against capital punishment, but I think the courts got this wrong. Citing the Eighth Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fine imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" the court, in a 5-4 vote, determined that capital punishment of minors was "cruel and unusual punishment." "Cruel and Unusual" are two pretty vague words, but I'm not sure they apply. What was not cruel in the 1700's may be considered very cruel today, and what was unusual in the 1700's may be usual today. The wording is another example of 'breathing room" the framers built into the document. Is capital punishment of minors cruel? Balanced against a lifetime in a maximum security prison, the argument may get circular real fast, and I'll leave that to others. Is it unusual? This is the interesting side. We live in a country where murder is illegal, euthanasia is illegal, suicide is illegal, and most think abortion is murder. Therefore, is it "unusual" to kill someone? I say yes. But is that enough? For the “evolving standard of society” to apply, what constitutes unusual? If 50% of the citizens think it’s unusual, is it so? What about 75%, 95%? This is where I think the Court overreached. The Court cited no direct statistic in its ruling, only a compilation of numbers, plus international standards. (Quick aside for Malone, were we like Iran because executed minors, and if so, should those that opposed Iran, also opposed the US? What about those of us in the US that don’t support Iran. Should we also not support the US? I’m very confused, and I want to be a good patriot.) You can base law on 51%, but societal values? I don’t think so, and this is why I disagree with cause of a ruling whose effect I support. The Court also focused on culpability. Does a minor know what they’re doing, and are they responsible. Reading the case, this guy did. But the larger question is how different is a 17 year old from an 18 year old? But that topic is to brainy for me.
Personally, I think this Amendment addresses torture, public humiliation and the like. Also, do I think Bush's vision of a society that "embraces life" should also abhor the death penalty, absolutely? I just think that this should have come from national referendum, not the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Looney Toons

I think this guy is one of the best conservative editorial cartoonists going. This picture sums up my dissapointment with the GOP. I think this thought will continue to grow in the GOP ranks. Its the Chuch Asay post from 2/28/05.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Sunday Comic

Joe Sacco's the "comics journalist," and his latest work as an inbed with reservists on the road and the Euphrates is well worth the read. (And worth the wait to read it. The PDF linked to in the title downloads slowly.)

More here.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Why I love NY

This is why I love NY. The Red Sox auction off the naming rights to its stadium for a day, and a Yankee fan buys it at auction and want to name it Jeter Stadium. Genius. This is what separtes the great from the merely good. It Troy all over again. Boston wins, celebrates to excess, and someone says, "Hey I got a GREAT idea." There's just no way bringing this big wooden horse inside can backfire, we're the champs! The worst part is that the auction winner only had to bid $2325 for the naming rights. Beenie Babies sold for more. This makes me an official Yankees fan, sorry Mc Lieberman.

France tries to become the Stalin Malone of the EU

At this point France is just disagreeing to disagree. Chirac refuses to vote to include Hezbollah in EU's list of terrorist organizations. I get that France wants to be the counterbalance to the US in international affairs, but this is getting out of control. Really, I just feel for Hezbollah. While they have the good fortune to rhyme with ebola, always a plus when you're trying to be menacing, they have to wonder what they have to do for a little recognition. I guess suicide bombing is so yesterday. I can just see them crowded around a small t.v. waiting for a shout-out from Chirac, only to be left out. Truely a sad day for the Hezbollah faithful. Maybe not as sad as Gary Payton hearing he's been traded to the Hawks, but still, pretty gloomy.

Supportive???

There is a human being walking the earth with the rest of us who, when commenting on her husband's suicide said, "I wish I could have been more supportive of his decision." And she didn't just say it privately to friends, she believed that repeating this twisted sentiment to the press for all to read would not reflect ill on her. Keep in mind we aren't complicating the issue with an extreme disability or severe chronic pain. This husband was just a guy who felt that leaving a bloody corpse in the kitchen by the 12 pack of Diet Pepsi for his son and grandson to find was a better plan than facing another day of duty to his life.

I wish I could be more supportive of that too. I wish I could be more supportive of rape and white slavery. I wish I could be more supportive of people who want to cheat on their wives or steal from their employers. I wish I didn't ever have to make a stand and call wrong what it is when someone else wants it to be right. I wish I could take the easy path. I wish I could be Spanish. No, I don't. Because if I were to strip conviction and courage out of my life there would be no reason not to follow the other cowards into the kitchen with my own revolver.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Designated Driver

From Saturday's New York Times:

". . . most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government's overthrow.

'Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view,' said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. 'North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach.'"

A reconsidered approach is exactly what the Bush administration has made the past four years. How carefully and consistently that approach has been made says much about the so-called neo-cons. This says it especially well, and explains both Powell's failure in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration's failure to end N. Korea's nuclear program or, in other words, Kim Jong Il's regime.

The "tangible assurances" North Korea seeks seem unlikely to come from the Bush administration any time soon, for diplomatically calibrated reasons the article makes all too clearly and amusingly, unless you're Powell (that sexy sportscar of a state department secretary who turned all the pretty little pundits' heads, but couldn't carry the load).

Nor should these assurances be offered. North Korea's not a nation in an "axis of evil"; it's a singularly imminent global ground zero, dead center of a decade-in-the-making disaster-to-be. Whether it's war precipitated by a border crisis with South Korea or nuclear brinksmanship in the Sea of Japan, it'd be hell on Earth, and we'd be in it with China. Short of a war with North Korea, there's its nuclear technology or materials being sold to Islamicists or nations like Libya.

Minus honeyed words in cuckoo Kim's ear, however, we had an obligation after Afghanistan and along with continued anti-terrorism efforts to make disarming North Korea our top international objective. Had we not reached for what's correctly been called the low-hanging fruit of Iraq, we wouldn't have spent almost two years and counting chewing that rotten apple instead of sitting at the table with the EU and China (in addition to the six-party talks), making what's in everybody's all-around interests clear: Kim's regime will struggle to survive nuke free, or not at all, and China—not the U.S.—can be the hero here.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Suffering Sappho!

So now it's Keyes? Phenomenal.

And it's all in my forthcoming feature film, League of Extraordinary Lesbians.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Alan Keyes

Nobody wants to give Uncle Joe any guff about this? Really?

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Personal Soapbox

Yes, I'm slowly turning this site into a personal venting source against a increasingly intrusive government. However, there is a very interesting case before the Supreme Court. The case is Kelo v. City of New London and its about Eminent Domain abuse. George Will's piece is well done. There are more than 10,000 cases of Eminent Domain being used to take property from one private citizen to another. In one case, the city council passed zoning laws to declare an are blighted, that used a definition that included that a home must have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, attached two car garage, and central heat and air. However, not even the mayor or any of the seven city council members who were trying to condemn the neighborhood had homes that met the description.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Social Security

What seems to be missing in the debate is that shoring up Social Security and personal Savings Accounts are two different issues, although the second ones cost will make the first goal even more difficult. The President bravely mentioned the proposals needed to return the program to solvency, he even made sure that we knew democrats had proposed each one of them. My feeling is that social security has worked rather well so far and solutions like rasing the age, reinstituting the payroll tax on those making over $80,000, means testing, lower benefits or some combination of those would solve the problem for those that think Social Security as originally envisioned should be maitained.

On PSA's, what i don't understand is whether we want to view Social Security as a safety net or an investment program. Lets not confuse the two, if people who aren't market literate make their own investment desicions, we will have more elderly in poverty at the end of the day. This may be a reasonable trade off, since others will retire with more money then they would have otherwise. If the Federal Gov't administers this plan is there a danger of state interference in markets? If the goal is to expand investment to grow the "ownership society" why not expand the 401(k) plan?

I credit the President with having the stones to get this discusion started but hopefully I wont heave to hear how those who disagree with PSA's hate freedom and think that gov't can spend your money better than you can.....

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Social Security Numbers: Third Rail, First Step?

The more I read about the all-around opposition or reluctance to support the personal accounts that Bush is proposing, the more I'd like to believe Bush is framing social security reform, not the tax cuts, as his domestic policy legacy. It'll take his successor (s) and subsequent congresses, but given the unprecedented expenses ahead for the U.S. and what surely will be our generation's growing interest and influence, social security as we know it is nearing its end.

Today Bush's stand on social security is principled; by 2012 , it's a winner, and the pivotal issue upon which the Democrats must also stand or finally fall as a viable party.


Wednesday, February 02, 2005

What a Conservative Wants

I think we established that there isn't a monolithic conservative view on constitutional jurisprudence, however Justice Scalia is a good place to go for at least some guidance as to a conservative paradigm.

In commenting on the notion of employing international law when deciding American jurisprudence, in this instance the question was what would he do if there was no US abortion jurisprudence but there were Canadian decisions, Scalia had this to say:

"I wouldn't look to Canadian law. I'd look at the text. It says nothing about it and I look at 200 years of history. Nobody ever thought it said anything about it. That's the end of the question for me. What good would reading Canadian opinions do unless it was my job to be the moral arbiter, which I don't regard it as. I regard the Constitution as having set a floor to American society. That floor says nothing about abortion. It's not the job of the Constitution to change things by judicial decree. Change is brought about by democracy. Abortion has been prohibited. You want to change that? American society think that's a terrible result? Fine, persuade each other about that, pass a law, and eliminate the laws against abortion. I have no problem with change. It's just that I do not regard the Constitution as being the instrument of change, by letting judges read Canadian cases and say, "Yeah, it would be a good idea not to have any restrictions on abortion." That's not the way we do things in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens and repeal the laws. Why should the Supreme Court decide that question?"

This is consistent with what I tried to say in my evolution sticker post. The Constitution is silent on many of the issues that society is attempting to resolve. Scalia is saying, don't turn it into a hand puppet and put words in it's mouth. If it is silent, let it be silent so the people can be heard.

As an aside, Justice Breyer felt that international opinions could be used to settle American constitutional questions. This demonstrates the liberal inclination to wander away from original intent. Clearly, the desires of our constitution creators cannot be found outside of the borders of the US.

Monday, January 31, 2005

Seach Me

So the Supreme Court overruled a Federal Court decision and now the Police can use a dog to search your car if you pulled over for any minor traffic violation. I have to admit I'm a little confused here. Every new clean water regulation is a sign that our country is becoming the next USSR, but allowing searches without a warrant or even probable cause is a ok in the world freest nation? If I remember history correctly, the one thing the Founding Fathers were most concerned with was too much government intrusion into the lives of citizens. The Bill of Rights sets out to keep the Feds from grabbing too much power from the citizens. Where are all the anti-big government voices?

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Judge this!

I would like to say that Randy Jackson II never says anything insightful or even valuable when he judges the contestants on American Idol. He is a complete waste, and if I may, a bit of a dork.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Attacks Relief Plan?

Dubya 2: It's the sequel only a slim majority of us asked for, but it starts Thursday anyway. Advance word: Mandate!

Politics, yes. So's this, excerpted here:

"President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives [Sunday] for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. 'Clearly there is concern' among conservatives, Perkins said. "

The article goes on to state that, "The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them [since Monday] that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won."

Yet pick them the president did 'til Sunday, because for him the fight over these issues was won in November. Fooled me too, Tony, strange bedfellows though we are.

I find myself almost inexplicably disappointed.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Please welcome the New Kid on the Block

Please welcome Mike3000 as Hydrablog's newest member. We think he adds that Donnie Whalberg toughness to the group, in start contrast to McLieberman's tiny blond haired kid.

And to all the cynics out there, we didn't add him to spur lagging t-shirt and poster sales, this kid's legit.

Friday, January 14, 2005

The Evolution of Bias

In college, I went to hear a speaker who was making the argument that the theory of evolution had become a religion. Its proponents, he explained, attempted to shout down all dissent crying scientific heresy. The speaker never alluded to creation, God or even Pat Robertson. Yet when he finished he was forced to suffer angry question after angry question asking why he wanted to establish a theocracy. It was clear that none of the inquisitors had even heard the talk and were only there to head off a possible threat to their what...their faith?

These are interesting times, the Men of Science say they dethroned the oracles so that we all could be freed from the tyranny of religious ideas. Now it's clear it was really just a game of King of the Hill, and the Men of Science have found those thrones to be just as pleasurable as the oracles did...and just as corrupting.

If you never realized that evolution may be wrong, then the New Millennium Oracles have done their work well. The theory of evolution is just that; a theory. There is much of value in it, as well as many holes and shortcomings. Just what you would expect from one possible description of how life came to be. The leadership of the people of Georgia want to underline the fact that this is a theory. Feel free to question their motives. Feel free to assume their biases as you pay heed to your own. But please do read the words of the sticker they want to add to their scientific text books: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. " Every word is either true or good advice for anyone interested in science.

How a statement of fact, coupled with an appeal to intellectual prudence, can be seen as an unconstitutional promotion of religion by the state is quite curious. But one man, who happens to be a judge, has determined the following: advising people against putting too much faith in a possible truth is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because that would promote religion. In other words, discouraging faith is advocacy of faith.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. George Orwell is somewhere grinning.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Amerikan Show Trials

Is there anything more creepy then a congressional public hearing? It's like watching a group of 13 year old boys attempt to impress the only good looking girl at the party. Posing and posturing should be left to vacuous cover girls and UN leaders. I expect substance from my elected officials which is why caring about politics is such a losing proposition. Alberto Gonzales has had to sit in front of God and everyone and field questions meant to imply that George Bush's America is unkind to terrorists. Don't get me wrong, a reasonable concern for the rights of everyone, even terrorists, is what makes American's so great. But reasonable does not describe the concerns of the ring leaders under the Capitol Hill Big Tent. In fact, reasonable is not even an expectation. Political points are all that matter. How can American's peek in on this impossible display of puffery and not worry for their republic? No wonder American's are devouring "reality television"; they have been driven there by our politics of the surreal.