Steve Horner's Revenge, or the ascent of Roy Den Hollander

Looks like renegade party pooper Steve Horner may get the last laugh after all. After calling "dibs" on the ideal that "Ladies Night" at bars crushes his civil rights, a gaggle of "me too's" are popping up nation wide. Seeking to one up Mr Horner, who merely sued for the rights of all Colorado males, one Mr Roy Den Hollander feels that he needs to lead the charge for all American males and is taking his case to the Federal Court. He's a modern day Martin Luther King Jr. I'm sure that one day there will be schools, streets and holiday's in RDH's honor.

Says RDH, "I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen." I suppose, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their chest hair but by the amount of liquor they can drink for half price." would have been a bit much.

Seriously, shouldn't having your rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen for something that 150 million American share, a hoo-hoo, affect more outrage than just one jack-ass? I honestly feel more like a second-class citizen because RDH is somehow my representative than his silly lawsuit. Can I sue him in Federal Court for making me and my whazzit look ridiculous (just to beat the wife to the punch, yes, I know I do a good enough job on my own)?

Another "man" who doesn't understand economics, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, says this is just the tip of the oppression iceberg. Seems Mr Banzhaf thinks the conspiracy of free choice spending extends to dry cleaners and hair-cuts. Just to help Mr Banzhaf out, no way no how will I spend what my wife spends on a hair-cut. I'm also in and out in 30 minutes, and have had the same basic hair cut since I retired my mullet in 1992. So a smart business owner maximizes what someone will pay, ladies will, and do, pay more, men, won't pay more, so they pay less. As far as clothes, I don't own nearly as many "dry clean only" clothes as my wife because I'm too lazy and don't care enough about them anyway. My local dry-cleaner would go broke waiting for me to bring my clothes in. His only chance is keep the prices down. In fact, I'm much more apt to by-pass a product that says "dry clean only" than to buy one. The clothing manufacturers know this too, and design around "dry clean only" products. There's nothing at all nefarious about any of these practices. In fact, if women wanted, they could easily band together and boycott until prices came down.

Bottom line? If ladies night was truly an oppressive, civil rights destroying, male bashing, submissive practice, guys wouldn't line up and frequent the bars that hold these events. The bar would suffer, and the bar owner would change the practice. Being a guy (I'm a life long member of the club), I'm fairly plugged into what bugs guys. Ladies night, I assure you, is not on the list. What does bug guys is little squirrelly cynics ruining a good thing and making us all look like idiots.

A True Cheating Zero Policy

Lots of talk over the last few days about cheating. Tour de France leader Michael Rasmussen was just kicked out of the race, SI.com writer Michael Bamberger just posted a piece on the subject. Everyone laments "what to do?"

Long time fans of the H-Blog (Hi Ma) know that this is the place to come to for solutions. And today I present the solution for cheating. Get ready.

It's very simple. If you're caught cheating (using banned substances, corked bats, scuffed balls, whatever) you are not merely penalized or suspended, your career statistics are erased and you start from zero. No one wants to waste time wondering when you started cheating, or how often, so you just start over. Get busted for steroids and your career sack total now reads "0." Use a corked bat, your career home runs and hits..."0." You get the drift.

The reward for cheating, increased stats, increased salary, increased endorsements, records, all outweigh the penalty of getting caught. So the incentive is clearly to cheat. If Sammy Sosa, or Barry Bonds know that all their stats will go to zero if they are caught cheating, then the incentive clearly shifts to, "Not worth it." Which is where it should be.

You could even run a cheesy ad campaign "Cheating makes you a zero." I picture it as a GI Joe bit, with Scarlett and Gung Ho saying it to a group of kids, then adding "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. GI Joeeeeeeee" This is why I'm here.

License Re-Vicked

The court of public opinion has officially condemned Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick. Under Federal Indictment for running a dog fighting ring, Mr Vick is now dealing with that accusation (and as of now, that's all it is).

Nike decided not to release the latest version of Mr Vick's shoe.

PETA and the HSPCA are on him like an angry linebacker. From Dan Shannon, an assistant director of campaigns for PETA. "We don't think their 'wait and see' attitude goes far enough." I assume by "wait and see" they mean "wait and see" if he's actually found guilty of the crimes he's accused of committing. But, honestly, I get Mr Shannon's emotion. I totally disagree with his request, but it's not at all surprising that he wants to destroy a man before he's been found guilty. However, when a US Senator jumps on the "guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon I get a little more chilled. Says Sen John Kerry (D-MA)

On behalf of millions of sports fans and dog lovers, I urge you to treat Mr. Vick's dogfighting indictment with the very serious attention it deserves and suspend him from the league until the resolution of legal proceedings.

But wouldn't suspending him before he's found guilty just mean that the allegation is equivalent to guilt? I get that "innocent until proven guilty" is not explicitly stated in the USC, but the principle is about as American as any principle gets. For Mr Kerry to jump ahead of due process, which is spelled out, and urge the suspension of Mr Vick before the trial even begins is a tad alarming. Using Mr Kerry's logic, any accusation should result in penalty. Not sure I can endorse that. (Quick aside, Mr Kerry repeatedly condemned Mr Bush's handling of Guantanamo Bay -rightly so- but is OK with punishing Mr Vick based on nothing more than accusations. Not the same, certainly, but very similar.)

Finally, the NFL acted. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "temporarily" suspended Mr Vick, telling him to stay away from training camp. Yes, Mr Vick will still get his pay, but is that the point? He will lose training time with his teammates, the suspension will certainly give the air of guilt to those same teammates, and the combined effect of both of those actions will certainly affect his on field performance (assuming an actual suspension isn't in the works). That will cost him, and that cost is potentially huge (if he loses his contract that alone is $130 mil, add in the fact that his endorsement value decreases if he's not on the field, and it ramps up from there). Of all the third parties involved, I feel most for Mr Goodell. It's an almost impossible situation. Allow Mr Vick to continue as if nothing happened and your fans go nuts, hurting the image and revenue of the league (his primary responsibility). Suspend Mr Vick and you set yourself up for having to answer why any player accused of any misdeed isn't similarly treated. Keep in mind, the NFL is a league where drug and sexual abuse allegations occur yearly. The next time a player is accused of sexual abuse, Mr Goodell will find himself having to explain why dogs get more attention than women. At least if he sticks to the "due process" clause, he avoids that. Furthermore, I believe, most American's will eventually understand and respect that path. Over the short term its easier to suspend Mr Vick, but its wrong, and will open up a whole new can of worms. (When I say "wrong" I mean it in the civic sense. I know that the NFL has the clauses built into all contracts to make the move. It's contractually correct, but civicly suspect.)

Just so PETA stays off my back. I have two dogs, and the idea of dog fighting makes me ill. If Mr Vick is found guilty (and for the record, that's my bet), he will find no defender here. My point is that due process is not on a sliding scale of heinousness of accused crime. It's not, "speeding ticket = due process" and "dog fighting = destruction of reputation and earning power." At some point, as a nation, we need to decide if American core principles are indeed core principles. If they are, then someone accused of dog fighting, or terrorism, should have the same rights as someone accused of shoplifting or fraud.

I say let Mr Vick play until he's found guilty. Then drop the hammer.

Farm Aid?

Lot's of talk about reforming the Department of Agriculture's practice of giving farmers cash for loads of reasons.

The House (or Da Hey-Ouuuuse for the cool kids) is set to debate a bill that would stop subsidies for farmers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income. Not huge, and largely cosmetic, but it is something. However it does bring up the idea that maybe, just maybe, all subsidies should cap out at companies making more than $1 million in agi.

Also, turns out the Department of Agriculture paid out over $1.1 billion to dead farmers. Wow. the aptly acronymed DOA relies on the kindness of others to report when someone dies and payments should stop. My favorite is that the DOA not only defends this practice of trusting people to say "Hey, quit sending me free money" but actually has the gall to then say, "that any overpayments would amount to less than 1 percent of farm subsidies paid between 1999 and 2005." This tells you two things. One, the DOA pays out way too much money. Two, and more importantly, some bureaucrat feels that $1.1 billion just isn't a lot of money. $1.1 billion is "oh well, what can you do?" I feel like just uttering those words is a fireable offense.

And this leads me to today's rant. The problem with government is that people are spending other peoples money. Lots of it, with no repercussions or context. Its always, always easier to spend a lot of someone else's money. The same folks that cut out coupons (always a smart move) are the same folks that feel like any random spending project is OK. The good news for all the H-Blog's readers (Hi Ma) is that I don't just come with rants, I come with solutions. My humble solution is to tie government pay to spending. Waste 1% of your budget, you lose 1% of your pay. Go over budget by 10%, you give 10% of your pay as the first "loan" in to cover it. If wasting 1% of my money isn't a big deal, you can certainly give up 1% of yours. If something is so important that you need to blow the budget by 10% certainly it must be important enough for you, the decider, to put up 10% too.

Now to come out of the rant. The DOA already pays out subsidies to dead farmers for two years so the family has time to get its affairs in order. Nice sentiment, but why does that only apply to farmers? Why can't every estate get money from the feds when there's a death in the family? Shouldn't the estate of an owner of a restaurant get two years of free money to get things in order? Look, I have to admit that I have a soft spot farmers. I think a nation needs to be able to feed itself, I look at it as a matter of national security. But some of these provisions are just too much. I'd probably be cool with some kind of federally backed insurance pool.

The Anti-War Dirty Little Secret

As the article shows, the war in Iraq continues to be a war against Al Qaida. Granted, there is more going on than just that. But, sadly, too many critics are being allowed to assert the false claim that the Iraqi insurgency is just a manifestation of a civil war. It is not, it is a regional war and one that has real consequences for the west (that means you and me). If Iraq cannot be stabilized it will become a staging ground for attacks against the west. The same is true for Afghanistan. The same is also true for Syria and Iran. Like it or not, the reality is that Islamic terrorists will continue to kill us non-Islamic terrorists by launching attacks from ungoverned areas and sympathetic regimes. Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel, as is Syria. Al Qaida is funding terrorism in Iraq, Europe and the U.S. All of them have resources exposed in Iraq. Iraq is the place we should be destroying those resources. I will continue to appeal to those who want to see the U.S. abandon Iraq. How else do you propose we strike at the threat that is Islamic terrorism? Or do we not strike? Do we just attempt to build a fortress that cannot be penetrated? What cost offense and what cost defense? There is no cheap solution.

Put Up or Shut Up

The anti-war crowd is thrilled to see more Republicans joining the Bring 'Em Home chorus. Apparently, ending the war is more important than protecting Americans. I make this inflammatory statement because I don't know what the anti-war crowd's solution is to our terrorism problem. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are good reasons to be opposed to the Iraq war. However, if you don't prop up those reasons with a plan to keep Americans safe after we withdraw from the battlefield, those reasons are irrelevant.

If you claim to be a leader and you can't offer up a solid plan for keeping Americans safe in their homes, on their planes or in their offices then please step aside and let your betters lead. Empty criticism can serve a purpose as it forces all the weaknesses of a choice to be considered. However, that choice should never be abandoned until a clearly superior choice has been identified. This is not a partisan issue, this is life and death. Those abandoning their positions for no reason other than the lack of public support should be ashamed of themselves. Those abandoning because they have found a better solution had best speak up.

Take the new Hydrapoll!

Hey, look over there ---->

McCain cirlces the drain

The information in this post should not be new to any long time reader of the H-Blog (Hi Ma). But for the rookies, it looks like John McCain is real trouble after raising just $11.2 million in the second quarter (H-Blog called him "Dead Man Walking" in February). Yes $11.2 million is a lot of jack, but not when it puts you third in fund raising. See, its all about perspective and the perspective is all bad for McCain right now. Ron Paul would be thrilled with $11.2 million as it would signal upward momentum, but for Mr McCain, $11.2 is a big signal of downward mo'. Also, everyone likes to back a winner, and the perception that you're stallin' and fallin' only makes it harder to raise money. Mr McCain is on the edge of the dreaded downward spiral, where things are going bad, and things going bad only makes more bad things happen. Disappointing fund raising ($24.8 million so far on a $100 mil year end goal) and layoffs are a huge signal that bad things are happening (the bad event). Now, who's going to rush in and support that camp (the more bad things event)?

So the question is why? And that dear readers is why you come to the Hblog. Yahoo and CNN blame the two I's Iraq and Immigration, where McCain finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion on both issues. "Wrong" on Iraq with the general population, where Mr McCain used to be the belle of the ball, and "wrong" on Immigration within the GOP where Mr McCain plays Carrie.

But that's not really the issue. CNN Political Editor Mark Preston gets closest,

"He's going back to what he did in 2000. He realizes that the way he is going to win this nomination is not by getting the establishment votes but rather a grassroots campaign."

And there you have it. Mr McCain sold out. Sold out big, and sold out early. The cult of his particularly personality was built on "Maverick Senator John McCain." But immediately after he withdrew from the 2000 election he went from the voice of the people and supposed King Maker, to chief lap dog for the guy who blew him up. It killed him with his public. The man that fell victim to push polling suggesting he had a black baby, kissed the feet of the man who ordered the poll. Nothing maverick or heroic about it. A man who had the reputation of being a "man of principle" sold that principle to win. And that's just not his gig.

Two types of people win elections. People who will live and die by their conviction (W) and people with no conviction (Clinton). People will respect the first for their principles, and respect the second for their effectiveness (if they ever even notice it). But if your gig is that of conviction and you publicly sell out, well, it makes people gag. Its the worst of both. And that's John McCain. And Mr McCain's biggest "gag" moment was selling out on the Torture bill. It was a sad, sad moment. It was also when he lost this election. Everyone kept waiting for him to rise and champion something that should be so close to his heart. But everyone forgot that he sold his heart in 2000. Once his supporters, and his opponents realized this, he was done. Mr McCain was publicly played, and no one, not one single American, can vote for someone who was so badly manipulated in public.

So when Mr McCain says that he tried the maverick route last time and he lost, so this time he's going to court the right and suck up to his old opponents, it tells you a lot about the man and why he's destined to lose again.

For the record, I do believe that if he stayed with his Straight Talk Express persona (and that's clearly what it was), and repeatedly challenged the White House, then he would be the front runner. Now, not only will he badly lose the primary, but he cannot fall back to the "I'll run as an Independent" line. In 2000 he alienated the GOP core chiefmakers but won the hearts of the independents, some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. Feeling stung (aka panic), he spent the next eight years alienating all those R's, I's and D's. And what's that spell? RID, and that's exactly what the public is doing. They're getting RID of McCain (No? Too cute?).

So now its about layoffs and falling well short of his fund raising goals. Next it will be about falling well short of the White House (Was that better?).