Extra Extra Read All About It

I know this often comes as a shock to learned society, but the people who bring you your news actually have opinions. And these opinions, when strong enough, become causes. And once they are a cause what gets printed (or broadcast) is propaganda. The Chinese recently reported in their papers a successful space launch. And they were so excited about this that they reported it before it happened. You see, the success of the communist government as a cause for communists and so propaganda is all they can speak.

It is very tempting to consider communists a special subset of humanity and to shake our heads and pity those poor souls forced to live in a society constructed on deception. But know this: the cancer is not contained. Whenever strong views and influence converge you will get propaganda. And just so we are clear, "propaganda" is a polite word for "lie". Even though it is a lie sprinkled with a noticeable dose of truth. There are and have been many issues that our own esteemed press has felt very strongly about. And the result is always the same, the water of information that they serve you becomes more and more cloudy until the concoction threatens the health of your mind.

Russia Invades Georgia...

And Europe stands ready to face yet another serious crisis.

Canary Row

“Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. "

Sarandon v. Baldwin and why I'll vote for Obama

You know its election season when celebrities start making threats to leave the country if the guy they don't like wins.

Susan Sarandon says she'll split if McCain wins. Canada or Italy she says. Funny, I think its the debate most Honeymooners have. "Canada, Italy? Canada, Italy? Canadaaaa, Italy? Blast, why did they have to make those two countries so similar?"

Stephen Baldwin (can we really call him a "celebrity?") says he'll split if Obama wins. Maybe he'll drive the "Lords Lounge."

Anyway, Mr Obama is the clear winner here. He gets another check in the "Reasons To Vote For Obama" box.

Obamaphobic

Now that Obama leads McCain by a gazillion points (or if you're a sticker for numbers, 15 points), the hocus focus is now on Obama.

Again, as we've stressed before on the H-Blog, while Presidential hopefuls promise everything, a President can only deliver on some things (it's all in that pesky US Constitution that W vowed to destroy uphold). And we here at the H-Blog believe that voters should focus on the things that a President can actually do, now what he (yup, no longer "he or she") can deliver.

Speaking of, how does President Obama (get used to it Stalin) view the importance of the Bill-o-Rights? The House caved on it and voted to retroactively protect those telecommunications firms that broke the law and spied on US citizens. Basically, if the President says its OK to break the law and ignore the Constitution, then it is. Well, as long as the paperwork is all in order.

The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

Neat-o powers. But maybe I missed "The President is above the Constitution and can deem others to be so as well" in civics class. Must have come during Senior Skip Day.

Now, while Obama can promise to give you health care (he can't) he can uphold and protect the Constitution. So what's his take? Oh and remember, the new provisions greatly expand the Presidents powers. You take it from here.

Ready?

If you guessed, he'll take it but but do so with a firm pledge that

as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.

Then you win. Except that you lose.

PS. Want to go for double or nothing that nothing changes with this power under an Obama Presidency?

China Syndrome

OK Global Geopolitics Geeks (that's right I'm addressing the G3 posse) here's your fix. Todays topic? China.

Before everyone anoints them the new Superpower, riddle me this. What's China's path to Superpowerdomehood? And here are the rules.

1. China's currency, the renmimbi is pegged to the dollar. This gives them a tremendous edge in production cost, especially when exporting to the worlds largest consumer nation (that us).

2. China growth depends on energy, and more specifically gas, and more specifically, cheap gas. Can't grow without it. As all those hundreds of billions of people start movin' on up, or really, before they can even imagine that deluxe apartment in the sky, they need need cheap go-go juice.

3. The current generation of Chinese have never, ever experienced an economic downturn. All up, and big ups at that.

4. 1.3 BILLION people makes for an amazing market that everyone wants to play in. And when times are great, 1.3 billion people are a great form of leverage for growth, and it makes you the absolute belle of the ball. But when things go bad, that's 1.3billion people to go bad with, and gives you leprosy. Leverage cuts both ways folks.

So now, we know that the Chinese have a great demand for oil which is driving up price. But what's also driving up the price of oil is the fact that its priced in dollars, and has the dollar falls, the price of oil goes up.

And now you have China's knot.

Increasing gas prices will kill their growth. They must have cheap gas. Killing the renmimbi peg will give relief from rising gas prices, but losing the peg kills the production cost edge that drives the economy.

If China keeps the peg it must spend huge chunks of its dollar reserve to prop up our dollar, while also spending huge amounts to subsidize its citizens cost of gas. China does have a massive cash reserve (about 1.2 trillion, most of it dollar backed) but a double whammy like the one above can whip through it, fast. Not only that, but if the reserve looks low enough, speculators will attack the peg, forcing China to again dip into its reserves to protect it, or let it go. If it then fails, China will find itself having blown through hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason, maybe they can call Bush and start a support group.

If it drops the peg without defending, China's production costs will immediately rise. Cheaper gas, but mores expensive goods. That's a huge risk. Again, 1.3 billion people have hopes of improving their lot in life. If the economy takes a dive, or potentially even pauses, then that's 1.3 billion ticked off citizens. How does any government manage that? While no expert, my brief rundown of revolutions leads me to think that most of them are economically based. When living conditions fall low enough, the people revolt. Now that China's citizens have tasted growth and success, how much of a shock does it take to start splintering the country? Even without that dire prediction, how do you pull 1.3 billion people out of a recession?

Either path has looks like a loser.

The dollar's fall is big news here, but it must be giving China night sweats.

PS. Did you know that the dollar is now worth .97 Canadian dollars. Are things really so bad that we have the cute little currency in North America?

Oh well, I suppose the good news after eight years of disastrous republican economic policy is that it may slow China down.

If W's Right, I don't wanna be wrong

President Bush vetoed the new farm bill.

I'm officially giving our President an "atta boy."

Unfortunately it looks like there's enough graft votes in congress to override it.

UPDATE: Looks like America's most inept party can't even do an overwhelming veto right. Looks like congress sent W an incomplete bill, meaning Congress can't override his veto with the correct bill because W didn't review it. Ineptitude thy name is Democrat. Anyway, while the bill will still most likely pass, there's is now time to hope that the White House can kill this thing.

W's Prom Nightmare

So President Bush put out on prom night, but the Sheik stood him up on pumping more oil. Poor, poor, W. At least he wasn't wearing a tux from the Miami Vice collection.

But here's where I'm confused. The Saudi's say that there's not enough demand to warrant oil increases, and that they are meeting the needs of their customers.

But W says he understands that the Saudi's can't increase production because he,

acknowledges that raising output is difficult because the demand for oil—particularly from China and India—is stretching supplies.

But if there's not enough demand to warrant an increase, how are China and India sucking up all the supply? Doesn't the increased demand from China and India constitute "more demand?"

Next, aren't we customers? What about the need to meet our demand? My understanding is that the US is the largest oil consumer on the planet. If our President is asking "please sir, may I have some more?" isn't that a customer asking for more?

Here's my take. On the first point, the President, after running on a platform that included the message that he would "jawbone" the Saudi's into more production as President way back when oil was at $28/barrel, he blew it. So he was looking for cover and the Saudi's just declined to give him any. Maybe W's a sloppy kisser?

On the second, it shows why its a bad idea to have the President insert himself into an economic issue. Saudi's "customer's" are the oil importers/refiners/distributors etc, not us. Exxon and the gang are doing fine, and since we're still buying gas, so are we. It's beneath the President to beg for more oil. Let the market figure it out.

Andrew Sullivan On My Mind

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog, I came across this entry about an initiative in Colorado put forth by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights to amend the Constitution to state that,

The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

In the post, Mr Sullivan attacks the initiative saying,

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?

Normally I find Mr Sullivan to be very bright and reasonable. And I also get that the very nature of a blog is "real time" so ideas and sentences don't always match up (I can vouch for this personally, every so often I'll reread posts and think, "That's not at all what I was trying to say), so I'm inclined to work with Mr Sullivan here.

However, I humbly submit that I would like to die of natural causes, and I also like having my rights as a person. I'm not really sure why Mr Sullivan holds these ideas as mutually exclusive. There are many ways to debate the merits of this particular bill, but Mr Sullivan badly misses the mark here. I think we can all agree that Mr Sullivan is right, many fetuses die in the womb, no one argues otherwise. I believe this bill is an attempt to stop the artificial ending of a life in the womb. Just like many people die of natural causes everyday, but we still have a law against murder. No one shrugs and says, "Look, people die of natural causes everyday, so a law against murder is just silly. Ha ha, silly people trying to save lives." Not only is his argument bad, it's also aimed at nothing.

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

Apple Economics

This is a random beef post so feel free to skip it, there won't be a quiz at the end.

Why does Apple (and the music industry) charge the same price for every song? The number one hit in the country cost's $.99, the same exact price as the least purchased song on iTunes. According to Apple, not only are they the same quality, but they have the same demand base. I know that Steve Jobs kind of has to use this method because of his contracts with the recording industry, the same industry that has always charged the same for every cd, so he justifies it by saying, in short, "its easy to understand, and come on, its only 99 cents."

But it bugs the Kajagoogoo out of me. Its like saying a Lamborghini should cost as much as a Yugo because they're both cars. I really need someone from the record industry to call me and explain the reasoning behind this. Why not charge $2 for the Rihanna's "Take a Bow" (#1 right now) and $.25 for The Call's "I Don't Wanna" (never #1 on any chart, but the chart in my own heart)?* Does anyone really think those two songs have the same economic value? Well, I mean, besides the record industry?

Charge more for what's hot, charge less for what's not. This whole "charge the same and subsidize" mentality just hampers growth while keeping artist's profits down. You know management's on to something when an idea antagonizes both the talent and the customers. No wonder the record industry is failing.

Well I feel better now.


*Yes, I laid out my dollar for a song that 5 people bought this year. I admit, I'm part of the problem. But there are lots of random songs I can't pull the trigger on buying because it just bugs me. And no, I'm not an 87 year old man.

Election Prediction Update

For those of you wanting to look smart at dinner parties when you discuss the upcoming election please read Andrew Sullivan's blog, for the rest of you, keep reading.

Here it is, short and sweet, McCain will not win. Period. To see if I write right, mark these trends.

One, Obama will get a bump in the polls once Hillary drops out. This is not a divided party. Its more like trying to pick what you want for dinner. You know which restaurant you want to eat at, just not necessarily what you want for dinner. Once Clinton drops, the party will all eat the same dish, no ones going to leave the restaurant. Hence the bump.

Second, conventional wisdom (meaning Stalins hated Main Stream Media) is that the dems are killing their chances with the prolonged primary. Nope, not this time. This particular campaign is hardening Obama and setting Hillary up for a huge run for Senate Majority Leader and a long shot for VP (either are great carrots for her). All these "damaging" revelations and "embarrassing" slip ups will be long played out by the time the general election comes around. The one thing we know is that in America, scandals are like comets. Burn bright then, poof, no one cares anymore. Obama's learning.

Third, and here's where Stalin's going to blow a gasket, the war is an issue. Politics, right now, is about "blocks." And there's a large block what just doesn't like the war, or how its being waged. "More of the same" is an automatic killer. Having a large block out there that simply wont vote for you just means you have less to work with. Rove perfected this concept. Create blocks that won't vote for your opponent no matter what and hem him in. Then attack the edges. I agree with Stalin, this block, by itself, won't change things, but it makes it much harder for McCain. And, by the way, I think this block is bigger than pinko commie liberals, and, if I'm right, that really hurts big Mac. Block Theory is also why Clinton could never win. Her "no matter what" block is just too big.

Fourth. The economy. Incumbent parties don't win Presidential Elections. You can argue all you want that this recession isn't bad, or real, or lots of things, but perception is reality, and the perception is that we're in a recession. And we also all know that the economy picks up well before the perception of the pick-up is realized. I just don't see the perception changing before the election, even if the actual recession is over by then.

Fifth. Age. Big Mac has been under the warming lights for a very long time. Nothing can change that. Oldest President Ever Elected is just going to haunt him. Again this issue by itself isn't enough to change the election, but a large component of block theory is to set the block then attack the edges. Age is perfect "edge" stuff.

Sixth. McCain cannot hold his two key blocks. Right now he's after the conservatives and the moderates and they are not complimentary blocks. Its too fine a line and a zero sum game. A move to shore up one will cost him with the other. He cannot hold the line on his two blocks with no competition. You can bet that once the dems start attacking, holding on will get even harder, forget about building.

Seventh. He hated Bush, now he loves him. Did he vote for Bush, did he call him, "dumb as a stump?" Who knows? My bet? Oh yeah baby. McCain has a famously bad temper so it's not a huge leap of faith to believe Daddy Mac said some not so nice things about W, and I totally understand McCain not voting for W. I mean, I'm a relatively calm dude, but if W pulled that election sleeze on me, I'd say mean things and not vote for him too. The problem is that with conservatives leery to support McCain, this is bad. It also wont go away. Just as Obama probably has more "friends" he'd like to forget, McCain probably has more "comments" he'd like to take back. Will they bring him down? Nope. Just as Obama's "friends" will be old news, McCain's "comments" will also loose steam. But in the interim, McCain famously cash strapped campaign will have a hard time gaining traction as these comments come to light. Again, as the block of absolute no's grows, and W's massive disapproval numbers drag McCain down, the margins are disproportionately important, and his past comments about Bush will hurt those margins.

In summary, keep these two things in mind. One, circumstance and McCain's own actions have created an inverse in the typical strategy. For McCain the margins aren't marginal, they're his life. Losing a few votes on the side isn't really marginal, its exponential. Two, remember, just getting McCain's base to stay home is a huge win for Obama. Obama doesn't necessarily have to convince voters to vote for him, he can also shoot for getting McCain's base to vote for no one. That's a much easier proposition. Worse for Big Mac? He can't run the same strategy against Obama. Obama's voters are coming. While McCain must convince the swing voters to swing his way while shoring up his base all Obama has to do is focus on the swingers (and this is where Bill Clinton comes in-HEY NOW!). Anyway, two fronts vs. one. Odds are strongly with Obama here.

McCain's only hope is that the dems just plain blow it. Normally that makes him a huge underdog, but since its the dems, its probably 50-50.

Varnished

Saw JUNO a couple of days ago. Did the critics?

"She goes to the local abortion clinic but finds the place disgustingly casual (they hand out flavored condoms), and she decides to carry the baby to term."

"Antenna aquiver for false notes, she checks in at the abortion clinic and doesn't like its casually clinical attitude. So she checks out the alternative press and finds an ad placed by a couple seeking adoption."

"Juno thought about getting an abortion, but couldn't do it—the clinic was too drab, its patients too hopeless, its receptionist too thoughtless . . . she just can't be bothered to stick it out in the most depressing waiting room on earth."

" . . . for reasons that aren't clear to anyone . . . Juno can't terminate the pregnancy."

I'm 100 percent for abortion rights, but the reasons all are clearly in the movie.

She Turned Me into a Newt...I Got Better

Two points: Number one, there is very little anti-war sentiment in this country. Don't be as gullible (or hopeful) as the media is when they use polls indicating Americans aren't pleased with the Iraq war to conclude a strong anti-war sentiment. Many of the respondents simply mean they wish the war was being fought differently and most of the rest respond with a shrug. The reality is that with such little loss of American life a fairly unpopular war elicits almost no resistance. Well, except for...

Point two, the anti-war movement is till mostly peopled by the bizarre and the unstable. Which is not to say that there are no reasonable voices against the war...but certainly not enough to undo the damage done by the vocal majority. When reasonable people start to grumble against our current war stance they look to the barricades, size up their potential allies and then figure that they may need to think a little harder. Sure they may not be happy about the war...but are they really SO unhappy that they'd be willing to risk being caught in a photograph next to a member of Code Pink? Clearly not.

Super Tuesday

From Newsarama:

Everyone’s talking about politics these days, and in September, that will
come to include the heroes and characters of the DC Universe. The place for the
discussion: DCU Decisions, a four-part miniseries shipping every other week in
September and October, written by Bill Willingham and Judd Winick, with art and
covers by Stephane Roux. The heroes…they’re drawn into the political arena both
by circumstance and by the actions of one of their own. A look at the
art [to the left] makes that latter part pretty clear. We spoke with
DCU Executive Editor Dan DiDio about the story, the idea behind it, and why in
the world anyone would willingly bring politics into a place that’s
politics-free these days.
Newsarama: Dan – first off. Why? What’s at the root of Decisions in terms
of getting the project started in the first place?
Dan DiDio: We’re entering a very interesting election year this year, and
what I think is important about it is that it’s that there’s this excitement – a
sense of “building”…there’s change in the air in regards to the whole political
process that’s at play in the United States. What we want to do is tap into that
emotion, and tell a story that plays in the DC Universe with our characters,
while using the political backdrop we’re seeing now to help to define our
characters better.
NRAMA: So how far will the characters go? We’ve got the piece of promo art
here, with Green Arrow and he’s not keeping anything vague…
DD: Right. For the first time, we’ll be having our characters make true
political stands in regards to their leanings, as well as what motivates them to
be heroes, and what they believe is necessary for their world and their country
to move in the direction they believe to be the right one.

They lost my business at "Davis Brewster"--Marvel's always had the savvy to ever-so-discretely make their prezzes the real deal--but, anyway . . .

SUPERMAN: Forbidden to change the course of human history; obsessed with privacy; dates outside his species; does the dirty work only an illegal immigrant from outer space will do, like SUPERMAN III with Pryor = TOTAL LIBERTARIAN

BATMAN: Where does he get those wonderful toys? Out-of-control military-industrial complex = MCCAIN '08

GREEN LANTERN: Swears allegiance to eggheaded, lookalike, gown-wearing "Guardians of the Universe" as blue as a U.N. beret = THE DEMOCRAT OF HIS PARTY'S CHOICE

Obama Supporters to bail out Clinton

I have to admit, I've been following politics for most of my life (yes, I accept that I'm a total geek) but I had no idea that the following was possible.

Top officials of the Barack Obama campaign are privately exploring ways to help Hillary Clinton discharge her debts and pay back the $11.43 million she has loaned her organization.

Really? So now Clinton staying in makes much more sense. She's not so much staying in because she thinks she can win, and she's not really hindered by spending more money because she's actually staying in as a way to make money. In effect, Clinton's just playing for time to negotiate the best deal (don't blame her, $12million is a lot of jack).

But I can't help but wonder if this is bad for Obama. I know that if I gave money to Obama (I didn't) it would be because I support him and his ideas, and not Clinton's, or I would give to her (I didn't). But with this transaction, if I gave to Obama (not the real me, the hypothetical me), I'm really giving to Clinton. No way do I want the money I gave (recall, I didn't) to go to Clinton. In fact, I'd be pretty peeved at Obama for giving my money (in theory) to Clinton.

I'm also surprised this is legal under Election Laws, but I guess it is. Interesting loophole no?

Anyway, my assumption is that this has been going on for years so no one involved thinks anything of it. But now that the practice of using your campaign money to pay off the debts of your competition is public knowledge, I'll be watching to see what the publics's reaction is. I also wonder if McCain did the same for Huckabee and/or Romney?

In other news, the sky is blue.

A new report "breaks" the news that blacks are jailed at a higher rate than whites for drug offenses.

Here's a quick tip to the GOP heading into election season. For all your talk about how you should "really" be the party of the African-American community, you will never, ever be trusted by the black community because of your stubborn insistence that the "War" on drugs is good for America. Why would blacks ever trust you as long as you're jailing them at global record rates for an arbitrary crime?*

African-American distrust of the GOP is one of the easiest political ties to understand.


*Yes, I know that Dems are equally guilty in ruining millions of lives for no logically consistent reason, but the GOP owns the "War" on Drugs issue in the minds of most Americans. The GOP benefits greatly from the "tough on crime" reputation, and here they get hurt by it.

Global Mulligan

OK, if it gets hotter we win...starting...now! No wait...starting...NOW!! No hold on...wait...just a minute...star...ting...NOW NOW! No, seriously this time. NOW!

You've got to love it. A scientific theory that's right even when its wrong. Sure the world is heating up...we've all seen the hockey stick for goodness sake. But for some reason, the planet has the ability to cool itself down? Wait...where was that in Al Gore's movie? Must have been after the credits. During that photo montage of him and PETA euthanizing kittens.

Anywho, the world will cool for the next 10 years. But, don't be foolish enough to think that that means it isn't warming...because it is. And if we get more cooling after that 10 years? Well, we'll just have to adjust our numbers again because we all KNOW that the planet is warming...it just has to be. The Hockey Stick told us so.

And if this doesn't shake your faith in the warming theocracy well good for you...faith like that hasn't been seen since the last Christian was eaten by a lion.

PETA Endorses Killing Animals

According to Newsweek online, since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. First, I'm not sure that counts as "rescue" and secondly, PETA says that this is A-OK.

Pause for spit take...

So to recap, if YOU kill an animal and eat it, you're a bad, bad person.

But when PETA kills an animal it "rescued" its OK. What else can you do with a homeless animal right? Gotta kill them, duh. I understand, facilities and food aren't free, and PETA's annual budget is a meager $30,000,000. Besides, surely it's impossible to find a home for those 17,000 animals among PETA's 1.8 million members?

Besides, its so hard to run a no-kill shelter. Says Daphna Nachminovitch,

No one hates it more than we do, but we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research.

"Painless" by the way is hotly debatable. Human prisoners and executed using largely the same method, and there is a lot of evidence that its not so "painless." But anyway, I really feel for her and her hatred of killing 17,000 animals. But I understand, there's just no solution to be found with $30million and 1.8 million members. None. We know its true because she said she hated it.

Plus, we're all looking at the this the wrong way. The real problem isn't PETA killing defenseless animals, its that there are defenseless animals in the first place. Employing the "look over there" defense, Nachminovitch says,

Focusing on the animals that come into shelters is like emptying a river with a teaspoon. By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering.

Exactly, its all about dollar and cents. It doesn't make sense for an organization specializing in protecting animal rights to spend money to keep animals alive. Not when its so much more cost effective to just make sure they don't exist in the first place. All these living animals are the problem. PETA wants to focus on the non-living animals, and what better way to do this than to make sure that the animals it rescues become non-living. Its all very rational when you think about it.

I did find this From PETA's page on Animal Exploitation,

Every animal deserves a chance to thrive in a responsible and permanent home.

Or PETA kills them.

PETA's stance on euthanasing animals is one of the most hypocritical issues I've come across in a long time. It's just beyond reprehensible.

In defense of Hillary!

I'm going to buck the crowd. Get ready for this...I support Hillary Clinton in her fight for the Democratic Nomination, not with my vote, but in spirit. And no, its not because it hurts the Dems. I support her because I think she's right.

This is the biggest prize in the whole world. Period. And it matters who wins. You shouldn't quit on it. I mean, isn't that what we want, "not quitters" as President. I mean as a nation we get mad when teams don't go for the Hail Mary before the half of a close game, and we all want her to just quit.

Not only that, but the rules of the game give her hope. If Obama continues to fade, and she continues to build, the rules of the Democratic Party give Superdelegates the ability to alter prior outcomes. Yes, it lacks elegance, but its like Hack-a-Shaq. If it puts you in position to win, do it. If Shaq can't hit his freethrows, that's his problem. If Obama can't put away Hillary, that's his problem. The reality is that Hillary's not the problem, Obama is. He's the one fading, he's the one ducking debates, he's the one allowing this to happen, NOT Hillary. She's just doing what she's supposed to do, try to win. All this stuff that's come up would and will come up in the general election. His "pretty words-no substance" and "don't make a mistake" approach is costing him. Yes, I'm going to another sports analogy, but he's put in the prevent defense, and everyone knows the only the prevent does is prevent you from sealing the deal. If Obama cannot put Hillary away, and this causes the Superdelegates to wonder about him in the General Election, the rules clearly give them the option to give the nod to Hillary. And Hillary's right to try to create that scenario.

Will it destroy the Democratic Party? Who knows. Would it hurt in any worse than losing again (which is a real possibility of an Obama nomination-the guys fading badly and lots of unhelpful things about his past keep coming up)? Again, who knows? I do believe that fear of the unknown should never rule the known. Besides, she has a strong point in thinking that she would have won FL and MI. Those are two states filled with her voters, and two states the Dems must have.

Hillary's found a path to victory, slim yes, but its a fair path well within the rules. She's not my candidate, but I fully endorse what she's doing.

I AM THE LAW!

That's Judge Dredd for you non-comic book geeks.

Quick blurb from CNN about a "Citizens Citation" against a Portland Police Officer over, get this, a parking violation. First of all, I had no idea that you could even do this. I've heard of "Citizens Arrest" but "Citizens Meter Maid" is a new one. You have to be one serious Parking Afficiando to take the time to go down to the courthouse and file whatever you need to file against a cop. I think someone has a GI JOE collection. But all jokes aside, good for Eric Bryant. He has a right to file the citation and he did it. Probably best if more folks did the same.

But on to 5-oh's take. Assistant Police Chief Bryan Martinek says he tells his officers that it's OK to break the law, and since he says its OK the officer did "nothing wrong." My favorite part comes late in the interview when Officer Martinek says that it would be wrong for officers to wait for a "legal" parking space and then uses the mocking finger signal for "" and goofy shrug when he says "legal." So he acknowledges that the officer in question broke the law. I guess according to officer Martinek the police are there to enforce the law on others, but are above it themselves. I'm not sure that's the best message. I don't want to tell the Portland Police Chief how to run his department, but if it were me, I would make sure Assistant Chief Martinek never came near a camera again.

For the record, I agree that police officers should stay near their cars. But according to Mr Bryant, Portland's law says that the police can only park in loading zones under certain clearly defined situations, and take-out isn't one of them. The police are here to enforce the law, not ignore it.

Pandering

Bush knows that the science isn't with the global warming Chicken Littles. Climatology is an extremely young science and the adults of the scientific community have just started checking up on these kids. What they've found is a room littered with unsupportable theories and broken methodologies so full of holes study after study has to be thrown out. With the huge number of variables that go into any predictive climate algorithm it is silly that anyone would believe that human carbon emissions is the main driver of change. Why weren't these people stamping out butterflies when chaos theory argued our colorful little pals can be the cause of hurricanes? That would have made as much sense as pinning all climate variation (in the positive direction anyway) on fossil fuels. Buy anyway, back to pandering...

Bush seems to know this and he was right to ignore the silly Kyoto agreement which has proven to be even a bigger farce than the critics predicted it would be. So why this pretend, "we need to do something about global warming so how about..." speech? Pandering. Give the people what they want even if what they want is foolish. Its a shame when the mob must be appeased even though the mob is wrong. Of course that's the definition of populist. But if Bush ain't anything its a populist so why waste all our time? He probably is just trying to define a compromise position since the conversation has been dominated by the hysterical since its inception. But I still say that's wrong. If your friend is wrong about something, what good is achieved by becoming a little wrong yourself just so you can meet him halfway?

Please Pay Attention

What part of the Ranting Kooks Won't Help Your Political Campaign lesson did Hillary miss? Will someone please have Jeremiah Wright call her and walk her through it again?

Greenspan Sleeps Well

So I came across an article about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's thought's on the Fed's complicity in the current economic slowdown/recession (you pick).

Lots of blah, blah, blah on an issue that no one can ever really know the answer, but I did have to take a moment to appreciate these quotes.

I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve policies that we initiated back then because I think they were very professionally done

And...

Clearly, certain of our anticipations of what would happen as a consequence of those policies were off but there's no way of avoiding that.

Ok, lets play with the first one.

See, he doesn't have regrets that his policies were wrong, and may have destroyed trillions of dollars in value, and killed off whole companies, wrecked the economy and destroyed households, because these policies were "professionally" done. It's kind of like a mob hitman saying he has no regrets for killing innocent people because he did so in a "professional" manner. This is going to be my new mantra when I make a mistake. "Yeah, sure I made a terrible error, but I was a pro about it." I absolutely love that one.

And lest you think that living in the Beltway distances you from the people, go back and read the second quote. Why the empathy just oozes out of it. "Hey, we made made some bad assumptions, what can you do, right? It happens. Why is everyone so bent out of shape? You can't avoid making mistakes, that's why pencils have erasers."

Every decade has its legacy. The oughts' legacy will be the catastrophic implementation being shrugged off with a "hey, it happens, what can you do" attitude and a total disregard for consequence by both the perpetrator and the stakeholders.

Georgia Weighing On My Mind

So Georgia's Senate, a famously "Red" state passed a law mandating that elementary schools weigh their students twice a year, or, as I like to call it, the "Ensuring the Prosperity of Therapists Bill." I also like the "Georgia Wants to Make Sure its Girls Have No Excuse for Not Being Screwed Up Bill-AKA The Body Image Destruction Bill."

So anyway, Georgia wants to join Arkansas (another Red state) and "several" other states in this massive invasion of the privacy our our children. And what do they want to do with this info? According to the sponsor and chief Socialist, Joseph Carter (R-Tifton), the goal is to make the overall data public so it can be distributed "much like test scores, with schools reporting their data so parents could check out how they measure up to other area schools." Wait, I need to reread that, does it say, "R" Tifton? Why yes, yes it does. So a Republican in one of the nation's strongest Republican states, wants the government to weigh your child.

Can we finally just all agree that there is no discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans? Please, just so I can stop getting all worked up when I hear about how the Republican's stand for small government and fight against government intrusion into our lives. They don't. Both parties loooooooove to intrude on your life, they just argue about the reasons. When you cast your vote on election day, here's what you're really doing. You're heading to the booth to support the party that massively intrudes on your life in a way either you approve of, or are least bothered by. Nobody really wants to be left alone. Americans want the government to use its power to promote in all what the collective individuals of each party want.

So Republican State Senator Carter is upset about childhood obesity. What does he do? Does he give to a charity to promote healthier lifestyles? Nope. Does he start his own movement to change the pattern? Nope. Letters to the editor? Nope. What does a representative of the small government party in a solidly small government state do? He passes a bill. He strips elementary school children of their basic right to privacy. And why? Because he's concerned about childhood obesity. He feels its his duty to be concerned with the weight of your children, not the parents. So in a state that never scores well in education rankings is now going to spend time and recourses weighing students to judge their BMI (a flawed measurement, but who cares about that?), to tell parents how their schools are doing in regards to something the school cannot control (what kids eat and how they exercise), and that parents have no way to change anyway (due to the public school monopoly).

In the end, this Bill is not only a political joke, its also creepy.

If the Germans Loved Their Children Too

When you value something, you take care of and protect it. When you don't, well, you don't. A German mother kills eight of her children. The German people must be outraged and the judicial system barely able to contain its punative urges, right? It must be so because we universally value children. Well, apparently the universe isn't as big as we suspected. All Germany can muster in the way of punishment for this two-legged force of evil is 15 years in prison. Less than two years for each murdered child. My first thought was that this must be a story about the failure of the German justice system. Not so, the journalist doesn't even allude to this being a controversial ruling. Which is not to say that many Germans weren't outraged, but how many? Not even enough to register on the cultural radar? Or just the radar of one monstrosly calloused reporter? I don't know the answer, but what I read made me sick. I hope decent people still outnumber the other sort in Germany, but if what this story implies is correct...I have to stop and wonder.

Economic Truism of the Day

Here is a truth that many have never read in their local paper: the gulf between the "rich" and the "poor" is a good thing. A very good thing.

Picture a world in which dropping out of high school and sitting around on your front porch with your posse yields the same economic rewards as spending 16 years studying or even more building a business. What do you think would become of a nation if choosing jobs that offered very little value to society were just as financially rewarding as those that added lots o' value? It would slowly become North Korea - The Land of Poverty and Squalor. Sure it might take a while and if enough ambitious souls still chose higher value jobs it might never hit bottom...but the point remains. The reason why you get paid what you get paid is because that is how much your job is worth. Pretty simple huh? So if you think you deserve more money; that's cool. Go earn it. All you have to do is work hard and get good at something that has value. And what would that be? Just look up the job descriptions of the "rich" and do that.

Don't Shoot the Messenger

It's OK, lady, you can open your eyes...that wasn't sniper fire!

It is always sad to watch the death throws of a living creature...even a Clinton. In case you limit your information gathering to the "mainstream media" you need to know something...Hillary is done. She can't win the nomination legitimately. There is a very small chance that the nomination could be stolen from Obama, but I'd encourage you not to take that bet. And the most recent Clinton defeat at the hand of their arch nemesis The Truth (battle joined here by the next generation) just proves it. You are looking at a sad, desperate woman. The Bosnia sniper lie that Ma and Pa Clinton even forced little Chelsea to tell shows how far gone they are. Granted, it is common practice for a Clinton to tell a verifiable lie that goes unchallenged, but even their pals appear to have had enough this time.

My question to the blogosphere (and UBlo's mom) is this: what of the Bill Clinton legacy? His VP was rejected by the nation in a gimme election and his wife is being rejected by his very own party. I'll tell you the legacy...he's that guy from high school you had all those great laughs with but for some reason you can't even recollect what he looked like 5 years later. There was no substance to him. He's a Hollywood set...all press board and sandbags and no concrete.

Leftist Biased Pentagon Report on Iraq/Al Qiada Released

A Pentagon report finds, and I'll paraphrase here, none, zero, zip, nada, el nolo, links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.

So the question is, when the Admin was touting all this "evidence" about a link, what were they looking at? What were they seeing? What were they touting?

Assuming no duplicitiousnessity, I just don't see how this report can do anything other than show that this is the most inept administration...potentially ever. At least with some of the past harmful Presidents they were at least corrupt. So they were at least competent in their goals, dishonest, but competent. If you believe that this administration is honest, then you have to go with "honest, but unimaginably, stupendously harmfully, epically incompetently, historically...bad."

As always, I don't point this out with any glee. This is the President of my country. I expect some basic level of competency. I would have fired this guy as my mani/pedi guy years ago, and he's the leader of my country.

If only a book had warned us about this type of stuff. Maybe one about animals. Maybe living on a farm.

In the "you can't make this stuff up" category of the George Bush Presidency, I submit the following.

Talking via videoconference to a group of military and civilian personnel, our own Berkshire Boar says,

I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Holy Schmoley! Looks like Squealer is working for Bush, I mean, Napoleon himself could not have shown more gusto.

Isn't this the same President Bush who famously went AWOL during the Vietnam War? The same one who has no record of ever even showing up for duty? I guess maybe protecting Texas isn't that "romantic." How, seriously, HOW can Bush stand there and say that? I honestly think he's been playing with his action figure too much. To his comment, "If I were slightly younger and not employed here..." I would add, "and living in a fantasy world where I didn't avoid Vietnam, go AWOL from the National Guard and party hard while other suckers were fighting and dying, a little place I like to call, 'Where what my spin team tells me about myself is real,' I think it would be a fantastic experience..."

How can he stand there in front of actual soldiers, knowing his own history, and say "Man, I wish I was a young man again, I'd be right there with you." This is like Bill Clinton talking to a group of monks and saying, "Hey, if I was a young man again, wow, I'd totally join you guys. Celibacy gives you so much clarity, so much time. A life of honorable, humble, dignity is just so pure. I'm envious. How exciting, I wish I could join you. But I can't soooooo, thanks for that."

McCain hates torture, stymied by what to do about it

GOP Presidential hopeful(ly not) John McCain tells 60 Minutes,

We prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II, and one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they waterboarded Americans.

And now America does it. Does, anyone have any ideas on why, and how to stop it? Lets see the follow up.

Asked "how did we lose our way," McCain answered,

I don't know the answer to that.

OH, OH, I know, I know, call on me, call on me, OH, OH! Thank you. Ahem. I think the answer to "how did we lose our way" is when politically ambitious anti-torture Senators sell their souls and vote against a bill that would bring the CIA into compliance with the Army Field Manual banning torture. Then to complete the sell-out urge the President to veto said bill. Which he did. Meaning America still reserves the ability to torture.

So there you go Mr McCain. Feel free to cut this post out and keep it in your pocket next time you're asked the question.

Feeling Randy

So I'm reading this link from CNN.SI about top football free agents (good news/bad news for this Rams fan, no Rams on the list. Soooo, half-full says at least we won't be losing any top players, half-empty says maybe that's because we don't have any top players).

Number two is Patriots WR Randy Moss. Blurb starts with,

Moss comes off his best season in half a decade and took a liking to the New England environment.

Which gets me thinking, Moss set the NFL record for TD's by a receiver last year. So, what did he do 5 years ago that was better than that? To my way of thinking Moss is coming off his best season ever!

I know, I know quibbling over sports writing is like quibbling over plot in a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, but still.

What's Up Doc?

MSNBC.com has an article about who pays when the Hospital makes a mistake. If you said, "We do!" you win (or, I guess, lose). Increasingly, however, more and more hospitals are taking the "my bad" approach and taking the loss. 40 states, however, still pull the Hussein and charge you for the bullet, and here's my favorite quote. Its from Debbie Rogers vice president of quality and emergency services for the California Hospital Association

But if a surgeon operates on a person’s third cervical vertebrae instead of the fourth, and the hospital staff prepared the correct site, who should pay? Is that the hospital’s fault?”

You know, I'm not sure. But I am sure its not the patients fault. Lets review the players under here scenario. Hospital staff prepped the right site? Check? Patient out like a light? Check? Doctor operated on right site? Ooops. Now, using a simple diagram it looks to me like maybe the hospital could take the bill up with the doctor. I wonder how much more careful the doc would be if she (ha, didn't see that coming did you? No sexist am I.) had to pay the bill? If the people in charge of this dilemma (Hospital's and doctors) only see the patients wallet as the solution then I'm not convinced that we, the patients, are going to get the best solution.

Hydrablog Saves Counting, oops BLACK Crowes New Album

Once again Hydrablog has shifted the course of this great nation. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) and roustabout fans know that we were at the front of the great Counting Crowes/Maxim Magazine controversy.

Well folks, its over. Maxim caved under the pressure of the H-Blog Blogettes and issued an apology. Here it is with the appropriate acknowledgment to the H-blog.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to those albums that have been heard in their entirety. Unfortunately, that policy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apologize to our readers."

What, didn't see it? Here, I'll highlight it in bold for you.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to tHose albums that have Been heard in their entirety. UnfortunateLy, that pOlicy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apoloGize to our readers."

See! Right there in an AP Article. We cover it, and BAM, it gets fixed. Mr Kaminsky clearly couldn't handle the might pressure of the H-Blog. That's what H-Blog readers expect, and that's what the H-Blog delivers.

And to Mr. "What have you ever done" from the comments section, wellllll, my blog gets AP mention. That's international baby! So I say good sir, "What have you ever done?"

Signing the Constitution away

AZ Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain said the following on Presidential Signing Statements,

Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it.

Wow. Excellent. Music to my cynical ear (the other ear is quite the optomist-its a good thing they can't reach each other. Ooh boy do they not get along). Respect for the Constitution and Separation of Power. Glad someone was paying attention in Civics Class (of course, he's the only candidate that was around for the actual signing of the Constitution. Wham-POW)(In fact, I think Counting Crowes played their last hit single that day, "Shaketh Thoust Shilling Maker"-Uh Oh, double Wham-POW).

Anyway, what's great about this comment is that it directly affects something a President may or may not do. So its a "legit" topic. Mr McCain declared that he would not use them. If you're against signing statements, then this is a real, direct reason to vote for Mr McCain. If you're for them, then this is a real, direct reason not to. I love it when Presidential politics addresses something a President can actually do/not do.

So let's see what the Democratic hopefuls say.

Mr Obama?The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives." (italics mine). First, I doubt that its appropriate. Second, I'm confused (but I'm also "no one" so it shouldn't really shock you). As I read it, Mr Obama thinks signing statements are wrong when President Bush uses them, but ok if he does. "Implausible or dubious constitutional objections..." Who decides? Mr Obama? Sounds to me like "this power is bad when you use it but good when I do." No thank you, I've had my fill of that for eight years. I'm pulling a "mom." I'm taking signing statements away from all of you. You'll put your eye out. Anyway, more "I'm not taking a stand" words from Mr Obama. Alert the media!

How about you Mrs Clinton?

I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.

OK, so Mrs Clinton is a supporter of "The Executive Branch Determines Constitutionality" theory of Separation of Power from the rare "Two Branches of power" school of Constitutional Scholarship. So here too, Mrs Clinton is a fan of Signing Statements. And here too, Mrs Clinton loses rungs on my Presidential Vote Ladder.

Again, here's my understanding of the idea behind Separation of Power. Congress makes the law, the Executive Branch executes the law, and the Legislative Branch establishes Constitutionality of the law. If a provision comes to the desk that the White House deems Unconstitutional, the President, having sworn to uphold said constitution, is duty bound to veto that sucker. If Congress exercises it's right to override, then the President can take the issue before the Supreme Court for judgment. Unconstitutional? Its struck down. Constitutional? The Executive Branch is duty bound to enforce said law. Its all very clear and simple. There is simply no need for Signing Statements and supporting them is just plain wrong. It's a blantent attempt to solidify power and inherently against our Country's best interest.

McCain is right on this one. Exactly right in my book. Too bad I don't trust the guy. If the "conservatives" pushed him on this, I fully expect a flip/flop. See this post as to why.

The problem is that the Democrats are in the wrong camp. Much as one expects, after years of complaining, when the chance arises to actually do something about the wrongs they wail against, they hedge and falter.

My life in the "the only ones taking stands are taking the wrong ones" world of modern politics continues to devolve.

Just for the Record

Apparently the Black Crowes got the feathers ruffled over a bad review in Maxim magazine. Crowes say the reviewer couldn't have listened to the record (album? CD? What are the kids calling them these days?) because they didn't prerealese it (which, by the way, is never, ever, ever, never a good sign-is it bad? Can they not afford to send out some CDs, can't send out some mp3's, I mean, what is up with that strategy anyway?). Says band waterboy, Pete Angelus about the "You couldn't possibly give a bad review to the CD we didn't think enough of to pre-release" review,

It speaks directly to the lack of the publication's credibility. In my opinion, it's a disgrace to the arts, journalism, critics, the publication itself and the public.

OK, just...wow. We're talking THE Maxim magazine right? Look at the current home page. Credibility? Journalism? Where, and why would you expect that from a soft-core porn magazine? I'm starting to think that Mr Angelus criticized Maxim without reading it. Definitely feeling a whole "pot/kettle vibe" here.

Mr Angelus then goes on to further call out journalism's apex predator,

What's next? Maxim's concert reviews of shows they never attended, book reviews of books never read and film reviews of films never seen?

I'm going to go with...yes?

The way I see it, the Black Crowes' hay day was something like 17 years ago. First, they should be happy anyone's reviewing anything they're doing, period. Second, since I'm guessing Maxim's average reader was approximately 3 at the time, they shouldn't be too worried that the bad review is going to kill their record (Album? CD?) sales. Just not their target demographic. Honestly, the only angle that makes sense here is that Mr Angelus has figured out that no one's buying this album and that no one cares. So he's decided to try to stir up some controversy to get people talking, and hopefully caring again. And hey it worked, now both of our readers know that the Black Crowes have an album dropping. Bet they didn't know that before right?

McCain to Torture, "I hate you, but I need you."

AZ Senator, Presidential hopeful and former torture victim John McCain has come out repeatedly against the US' involvement in torture. This, more than any other issue has helped me not only get comfortable with him, but put him on the path to winning my vote. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) know that I abhor this practice, its a stain on our great nations honor, period.

In an election with lots of noise, pro-torture/anti-torture is one issue where there is no doubt that the President can act, and I think elections are about what a President can actually do. Call me silly.

So when the Senate took up a bill that would require that the CIA conform to the rules in the Army's field manual for interrogations, I thought, this is one good moment.

However, I was completely shocked (but fortunately not that kind of shocked) when Sen McCain voted against this bill. So it was right then that John McCain lost me for good. Why, you ask, did he vote against this bill? According to his rep, who said

that his vote does not mean the senator endorses any of these tactics. Instead, the aide said, there are noncoercive interrogation techniques not used by the Army that could be useful to the CIA. The aide declined to provide an example, but said it made sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.

The great thing about not having much honor is that its really easy to hide it behind feeble words.

The good news is that its a Presidential Election so I can just read the article to see where his opponents stand.

Says Sen Obama,

I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.

Ooooh, that's strong. I like that. Especially the whole "no Administration should allow the use of torture" part. So now I can mark down that President Obama would act against torture. Excellent. Hmmm, but he's not President Obama yet. I wonder what Senator Obama would do. Uh oh, it looks like Senator Obama is trying to becoming President Obama and neglected to vote. To recap, President Obama would not allow torture and is sick of "political parsing and legal loopholes" but Senator Obama, in a position to close a gaping version of said loophole, couldn't be bothered to vote. I think I like President Obama much better than Senator Obama.

What about Sen Clinton?

As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period.

Again, last I checked, the Senate plays a fairly large role in determining "American policy." Unless you have better things to do I guess, because she too, neglected to vote.

Look, I get that these two are running for President. I also get that they don't care nearly as much as I do about this particular issue. But Sen McCain dragged his butt to DC to sell his soul (again) to vote against a bill banning torture by the CIA, why couldn't these two do the same to show how they felt about this issue? Why? Well its becoming more and more obvious. The GOP is willing to take a stand, even if its terrible. The Democrats aren't willing to do anything that may "rock the boat" no matter how terrible the rocking.

So my choice is between a party that is willing to take stands on issues I completely disagree with them about, or a party that is filled with people who say the right things but are afraid to take any kind of stand. Awesome.

Honestly, I've held my nose every time I've ever voted in a Presidential election. Every time. This may be the year that I just go to the park and enjoy some fresh air.

PS. This great OPED about torture by Morris Davis former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo (and obvious hippy America hater) was just submitted by a long time reader. Mr Davis is clearly more eloquent than I, as evidenced by the great line,

Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues.

Yup. Please read the article.

Baseball Fever

While traveling last week I watched some of the Roger Clemens Congressional testimony. Oh my was it bad. Not anything about the "issue," rather what was said.

For the record, no fan of Roger am I. Anyone who would sell their wife out, well I say you're not the Greatest American Hero.

But apparently, I'm alone in my lack of Roger worship. Lets look at Congress' words to the man accused of cheating at his sport, tampering with a witness and lying to Congress.

From Rep. William Lacy Clay,

A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to know what uniform you're going to wear to the Hall of Fame.

Yes, I see how that addresses the issues at hand. Excellent and biting questioning Mr. Clay.

Says Rep Virginia Foxx,

You appear to me about the same size in all those photos," offered Foxx, addressing Clemens without mentioning the source of the material. "It doesn't appear [your] size changed much.

Well, that's enough for me. A couple of pictures provided by Mr Clemens show him favorably, and the scientific eye of the Honorable Foxx says "alls good." May as well wrap up.

If only there was some silver lining in all of this for Mr Clemens. Oh, good here's one. From Rep Elanor Norton from DC,

All I can say, Mr. Clemens, is I'm sure you're going to heaven.

Well at least he'll have that.

There's a long speech here about maybe that part of the problem with our country today is that people who can throw a ball real hard reduce the leaders of said country to giddy school girls.

But my favorite is reserved for the Chair, Rep Henry Waxman.

I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing.

You and me both brother, you and me both. But I wonder why we had this hearing? Why would Mr Waxman feel compelled to utilize the awesome power of a congressional hearing, spend loads of taxpayer money, and waste his, presumably, valuable time when we're at war, facing a recession, in the midst of a homeowner meltdown, etc. Why, why get involved in a game? Who has the ability to command such an act? Did this come at the behest of the President? From the Speaker of the House? Who? Mr Waxman says it came from an even more powerful figure,

The only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.

So the guy who can throw a ball real hard insisted that the leaders of our nation drop what they're doing right now and listen to him. And they did. Really? Can I do this if I feel wronged? Can I summon a congressional hearing? Can all those homeowners call a hearing? I have real problems with the "Protect America Act" can I demand a hearing? I didn't know we could do that. But I get the feeling "we" can't.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go into a dark room and cry.

Good idea, wrong question.

Presidential Phoenix John McCain was asked if he would veto tax increases*. Not one to miss a softball he said, "Yes."

Problem is that it only reinforces the public misperception that taxes are the problem. The much, much better question is, "would you veto any bill that increased spending?" A "Yes!" to that is something to get excited about.

OK readers, for the 154th time, revenue is only part of the problem, it the spending stupid.

*Bonus points if you picked up the subtle bias of the questions.

From Chris Wallace, "As president, will you veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress?"

From Bob Shaffer, "Let’s just say that you do become president and a Democratic congress raises taxes. What would you do? Would you veto it?”

Not just congress folks, the Democratic congress. Lousy liberal media and their pro-Democratic agenda.

NYC finally understands taxes, freaks out and quits

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr (Democrat, hold on read that again its important. This is a story about a Democrat from one of the most liberal areas in the Nation) wants to secede from NY State. Why you ask?

This is where it gets good. See NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified in Albany that NYC pays $11 billion more in taxes than it gets back from the state. This ticked Mr Vallone off.

Welcome to the world of taxation and wealth redistribution Mr Vallone. Surely, as a Democrat you are passingly familiar with these concepts. But maybe not when it applies to you. Anyway, lets look at some fun quotes.

somebody please tell me what other options we have if the state is going to continue to take billions from us and give us back pennies.

Ummm, this is the exact concept of wealth redistribution. The wealthy give lots get little. Maybe its not fair, but I'm assuming as a Dem that you've voted to "redistribute" the wealth many, many times.

Next.

They take $11 billion from us and give us back a mere pittance and they make it seem like they're doing us a favor to give that pittance back. Somehow they missed the point that that is New York City's own tax money and we deserve it.

Wait, you feel that its your money and you "deserve" it? Capitalist pig! Seriously, are you new to your party? This sounds like the mad rant of a greedy capitalist, what with earning and keeping money and all. Railing at the government and feeling upset that they took a lot from you and gave you little. Mad that they want to take the money you earned and give it to...to...others. Don't they "deserve" a better life on your dime? Isn't this what your team wants? How can you sleep at night with all those billions under your mattress? Maybe you missed the point, its not your money, its your obligation.

But who are the problem according to Mr Vallone?

It would be much, much simpler to be able to govern 8.5 million people without having to ask legislators who represent villages on the Canadian border for permission before we do anything.

Oh, now I understand, the problem is the poor. Very egalitarian of you Mr Vallone.

What do other Councilmen think of this raving conservative and his idea to choke the poor? Let's go to Mr Simcha Felder a Brooklyn Democrat.

It certainly has merit. Why in the world should New York City be held hostage to the state? It just doesn't make sense...I think the people in New York City are very interested for the most part in it. The question is the people outside New York City in New York State who have been eating the fruits of our labor for all this time. They aren't going to be ready to just say forget about it." (italics mine).

What the? Am I living in some kind of Bizzarro world where Liberal Democrats are shouting Conservative Philosophy.

My only question is how did these Conservative Republicans get elected Councilmen for Queens and the Brooklyn? I mean they clearly favor letting the wealthy keep their wealth, not only that but they're so mad they want to opt out. They clearly can't stand the idea of forced wealth redistribution. They clearly disdains the poor. So much so that they feel wronged even giving them a say. By their own words they just want to be left alone with their money to do what they want. I don't see any difference between this platform and the most conservative Republican's I know (Shout out to Stalin).

What I can't accept is that Mr Vallone is some kind of hypocrite. Happy to give away other people's money, but not his own. Because a NY liberal Democrat decrying disproportionate taxation on the rich and forced wealth redistribution would just be too much.

*On a more serious note, and just to be clear, while I am definitely mocking these two Councilmen, I am not intending to mock liberal ideas in general. While I have a different, some would say "much" different, view of taxes and free markets, I firmly believe that the conflict between the "liberal" and "conservative" views on economic policy are crucial to our nation. I have never held that "liberal" views on taxation and economy are anything other than intelligent people doing what they think is best for America. What I cannot stand are hypocrites (see the above Councilmen). If one really believes that high taxes and wealth redistribution are the best policies, then those policies should also, happily, apply to oneself.

Thank you, and now we can all return to my lame attempts at comedy. sarcasm and wit (yes, yes I am aware that what I mostly achieve is tragedy, chasm, and sh...(nope, my mommy reads this here blog).

"We hope that the (EU) will finally ensure that it puts in place a bananas import regime that is WTO consistent.”

Nothing huge to this story, but I absolutely loved the quote .

Generally I'm a fan of the WTO, but I'm a stodgy old freemarketeer. If I could only find two other friends we could form a little club, or gang. If only I could think of a clever name for us...

H-blogs new economic indicator

Mac and Cheese sales. That's right, you heard it here first. I came across this article about the spike in Mac and Cheese sales. No mention of the failing economy or recession, but I'm going to go ahead and jump in and call it an indicator of an economy going south. As money gets tight, people eat in, as it goes further south they eat in cheaply. When that happens, you get a spike in M&C sales. My bet? When Mac and Cheese sales fall, the economy will be on the upswing.

So there you have it folks, Hydrablog's Mac and Cheese Economic Indicator (HMCI). Tell your friends.

Football Gods v. God in Super Bowl MMVII

First things first. This is why I love the internet, check out this site. It's an actual Roman Numeral converter. Awesome.

Anyway, on with the show.

Every year I read articles like this about the NFL cracking down on churches showing the Super Bowl on large screen TVs.

A couple of interesting tidbits about this particular article. First, somehow sports bars are exempt from this rule but not churches? How'd that happen? Seriously? How has this passed by all the "cross bearers" in Congress? What an opportunity for face time. And where's Huck? Come on man, take up the cause. Get back in the game with this Hail Mary (yes, I wrote that). This whole thing practically writes itself, NFL v. Churches, NFL allows bars to show the game on the big screen but not churches, the angels (oops, I mean "angles") are endless. I mean this controversy could run on FOX in a continuous loop, Hannity and O'Reilly would fight a death match over who got more upset. How's this not a bigger deal?

The second part is why is the flock taking this lying down? Is the NFL so powerful that the church and church goers aren't challenging this? Why no boycotts, no letters, no outrage, no...anything? Normally, if you mess with church you get the horns*. Yet here, there's just a sort of...acceptance. I feel like I read an article everyday about how churches and/or religion is attacked/shortchanged and Dobson or some else is on the air face a fury on the attack. I mean, Bill O'Reilly had his whole "War on Christmas" gig based on the words "Happy Holidays" but the NFL giving the finger to churches is met with less than a shrug. This could be a whole new book for the "Culture Warrior" (man I never, ever get tired of that book cover). I'm just confused. This should be a marketing dis-ASTER for the NFL. No one, and I mean no one else shuts down church functions. Yet the NFL gets away with it year after year.

I honestly don't have an answer, not even a theory. I just bewildered.

By the way, I'm taking the Giants and the points (But I'm taking a huge risk that Manning doesn't fall apart. If he has one pick or less I'm good, two to five, I'm toast. But at least I'm not betting on the over-rated Brady, right Stalin?).

*Did you get the Jericho reference?

Free Market Gun Control

WordNetDaily.com has a very interesting article about Credit Card companies that will no longer allow charges for a particular gun dealer. Now, since I hand carve all my muskets including "Mickey," "Annette," and "Minnie" this won't affect me, but while I was a smokin' my corn cob pipe at the ol' waterin' hole it occurred to me that this here's a right interestin' idear.

Rather than try to go through Congress and mess with that pesky Second Amendment, use the market. See, while this particular throw down is between Citi Merchants and Texas' own CDNN Sports and their head honcho, Charlie Crawford, the precedent is very intriguing. No way, no how do I support an intrusion on the Second Amendment, but I also no way, no how have a beef with a company electing to not extend credit services to merchants who sell guns. That's the market. So to my friends who favor stricter gun control I offer this suggestion, rather than fight the US Constitution, why not work with sympathetic companies to try to find your solution? Credit card companies, per this example, have massive power to legally restrict gun sales, use it. Stores run on credit, that leverage gives the credit issuer the ability to restrict sales in general, restrict sales in particular or outright stop them.

Granted this is not a slam dunk, but at least you can take your fight to the market, build support, gain funding, etc all the while leaving the US Constitution alone. Not only that, but any success is direct and immediate. Fighting your cause this way also takes people like me out of the "opposition" side and may even get some who don't like guns but like the US Constitution on your side. In either case, you've decreased the number of those who oppose your goal. That's good right?

Now I got to get back to the still...

Foreclosures Silver Lining

Looking beyond the Silver Rainbow *(you won't know if you're coming or going) at foreclosures, sure they're killing the economy, yes they're up 75% (hey, at least some segment of the market is up, right?), sure you lost your shot at the American dream, OK you have to move, yes now you're credit is ruined and the cross default provision in your credit card agreement is killing your interest rate, but don't be so "me" oriented.

One man's trash is another man's treasure! First, a little back story. WJS asks how to recession proof your job. Interesting reading, and they left of the tried and true, "Be an apple polisher " (we're a family blog, you can use another term if you wish). But the WSJ left off a biggie...

Work for the Government. Yup, can't beat working in an industry with unlimited revenue. No one says, "ooooh, times are tough, where can we cut back. OK, we'll set the thermostat to 68, only go out to dinner twice a month, and go with basic cable. Oh, and lets not pay taxes. There, now we can keep the house." Which brings us to Colorado's latest move (and finally, the point of this little post).

Due to the high number of people losing their homes, how very inconvenient for everyone, the Colorado Senate has decided to give those poor saps who handle foreclosure auctions** a raise. Hooray! Foreclosure's bad for you, but good for the person who deals in your misery. See, like Jerry Seinfeld, it allllll balances out. So when you're thinking about how bad things are for you, get off the "me train" at big picture station and rest happy (but not in your home) in the idea that you created the extra work that led to the extra pay of another person. It's like Christmas (but again, not in your home).

But, just for kicks lets look back at that WSJ article and compare private industry tactics with Government work.

• WSJ says, "work harder." Government says, "working harder, poor little fella, here's a raise."
• WSJ says, "be a good sport. Do extra work." Government says, "doing extra work, well surely you need extra pay."
  
• WSJ says, "take a pay cut." Government says, "hah, what are you kidding me? A pay what? Here, take more money."

Wow, I knew Murdoch would hurt the WSJ's reporting but this is ridiculous. They missed the easiest and most surefire way to not only survive a recession but to actually prosper. Go to work for the Government. Look around, who else is talking about raises in this economy? Looks like I owe my more liberal friends and apology, Government really is the answer.


*Only you know if you should be pumped or sad if you actually knew this reference...

**A free subscription to the H-Blog to any reader who can tell my why the State of Colorado handles these auctions and not the private market anyway.