Hydrablog

Open Mouth Insert Race Card

2009-07-24T17:12:00.002-05:00

So a black man gets caught breaking into his own house. When the police respond to a report of a break in in progress the black man berates the police and creates a bizarre scene by screaming to by standers that they are witnessing the way black people get mistreated in this country. Police then arrest the man, not for breaking and entering seeing as it was his own house, but for disorderly conduct seeing as his behaviour in the face of legitimate authority was outrageous.

So this is the water our cool-headed and intellectually gifted president felt he should wade into while desperately trying to save a floundering cornerstone of his legacy. Wow. And I though he looked silly when he walked into the side of Air Force One.

Here's the story, kids. A country that just elected a black president named Obama while currently fighting two wars because of an Osama is NOT a bigoted country. Period. Barak may have been well intentioned, but he could not have bungled this worse. And the "it's so tough to be black" line is getting really old. This country is wide open and full of opportunity for anyone willing to make even the slightest effort. And I'm glad we aren't afraid to question people for breaking into homes even if they do happen to be black.

A Famous Man Once Said...

2009-07-11T17:15:00.002-05:00

Oh sure, I could dazzle you with the academic research necessary to provide you with who...but this is a blue color blog and we don't go in for that fancy researching nonsense or even proper spelling. So let me just say that I once read that the downfall of Democracy will be the fact that it allows the people to vote themselves limitless benefits from limited stores of wealth. This memory came back to me as I read the linked piece. It states that the current autocracies are doing a much better job fiscally than the democracies and have, in fact, turned the democracies into debtor nations. Clearly this is not because they are more productive, just less profligate.

There is no better system for unleashing the potential of the individual than democracy. Not because of democracy itself, but because democracy allows for the least amount of interference and coercion from government. Even though a democracy can vote for less freedoms, they will rarely rise to the level of an autocratic state. That being said, the democracies are not being outproduced by the autocratic states. The democracies (even European ones) are still more productive. However, the autocratic states have the money and the democracies don't. Why? Because the democracies shell out huge amounts of money for expensive perks for their people (kind of like GM did) while the autocrats do not. A six figure bread winner who spends seven figures on fun and good times is just as broke as the most hopeless bum. It is pretty sad to watch the current batch of "leaders" find more and more expensive things to give to the people even though they have no money to buy them with. But it isn't surprising...because the people get what they want.

Kennedy Tries to Outdo His Own Stereotype

2009-06-07T09:37:00.003-05:00

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has begun to circulate his new health bill, and its going to be a whopping bill for businesses.

Calling the bill, "American Health Choices Act" or AHCA, which is apparently based on NOT giving employer's any choices as it will force employer's to provide health insurance to employees or "face a penalty."

Why is this a bad idea? It is terrible that people don't have insurance, most personal bankruptcies come from medical care, and, let's face it, the medical/health insurance/prescription drug is busted so why not be support a bill that will increase the coverage of working Americans by putting the burden at the hub of working America, the employer?

Mostly because it won't work (more on that later). But also because the one question I've never heard answered well is, "Why?" Sure the job is place where lots of people go, so if you want to cover a lot of people quickly, that's a great place to start. But again, why is it the employer's responsibility? Ostensibly, the employer pays a wage for work. What the employee does with that money is his or her own decision. If there's not enough wage to cover all that the employee needs then the employee is faced with a hard decision, seek a higher wage or make sacrifices. And you know what? The employer faces hard decisions too. No company can do everything they want with the revenue it earns. So it too must face hard decisions. Hard decisions are OK, that's a part of life. Forcing employer's to bear the health-care burden of their employees using the sole logic of "because they're there" is not only wrong its dumb. Kennedy's proposal just hides the cost of the bill. We'll all wind up paying for it in higher prices or lost jobs, but it will be opaque.

Sure, proponents will use the massive profits of the big companies to show that they can afford health care coverage. Unfortunately, those companies already provide heath insurance for their employees. In order to be effective this bill will have to target small businesses, those same small businesses that struggle with payroll and managing cost's to keep prices competitive. Forcing this on small businesses will absolutely kill them. So this bill will never pass unless it exempts small business.

This inherent flaw will not dawn on anyone in the Legislative branch. So this bill will pass with an exemption for small businesses and nothing will change, and the waste goes on.

Since my daddy raised me to never criticize without a solution, here's mine. Rather than fine/jail/sue the employer into solving a problem of the employee, use the sound base fact that lots of people congregate around work. Allow employee's to ban together to get the best price for their health insurance. Then allow multiple work sites to ban together to get even better pricing. Rather than change the law to force employers to foot the bill, change the law to allow people to use the power of bulk shopping to gain affordable access to health insurance.

But again, can our reader out there (Hi Ma) explain why this is a problem for the employer to solve by force of law?

Gosh, no, really?

2009-03-05T19:45:00.003-05:00

So, Obama, the political equivalent of a fresh breeze, is starting to smell a little stale. Seeing as UBlo writes all my comments in his diary then spends his days looking for inconsistencies let me state something clearly: Obama seems like a decent enough guy but he is an absolute run of the mill leader. We are seeing nothing unique beyond the superficial fact of skin color. Obama lied on the stump and he'll lie from behind the safety of his teleprompter. Of course he'll lie, he's a politician and that's what they do. If you find yourself staring starry-eyed at this guy because you've always been curious about what "worship" means, well you might as well try it on your neighbor or a farm animal you craft out of play-do. Because they would be just as worthy.

Less Than Zero

2009-02-11T18:31:00.004-05:00

So a woman goes into an abortion clinic and delivers a baby who is then killed. And the consequences? Well, the doctor may have his license revoked and will need another doctor around when he does this kind of thing in the future. Anyone else feeling a little sick? How would this story end if it started...So a woman goes into a mall and delivers a baby who is then killed. I'm thinking it wouldn't end with just having the mall manager suffer a shadow day with another more responsible mall manager. But then what do I know? I actually think human beings count for something...even if they're unfortunate enough to be caught in a Florida doctor's office.

Two Americas

2009-02-02T19:00:00.003-05:00

It looks like Loverboy Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There's the special rights America where paying taxes and generally following rules or laws is optional and then there's the one populated by the unfortunates who aren't politically connected. Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle are fortunate enough to live on the right side of the tracks with Mr. Obama. It seems choices that would land many of us in jail don't even give our president pause when stocking his political fishpond. Is it closed minded to expect our public servants to actually pay their taxes or follow the rules and burdens that they impose on those of us in the second America? Apparently so. There was a time not too long ago, when these types of "scandals" brought on bold typed indignation from our journalistic protectors. Maybe they're all too busy these days looking for someone who still wants to pay to read what they write, or maybe they're just happy to see their friends calling the shots, once again, in their America.

Whoops

2009-01-31T10:05:00.002-05:00

Wait a minute...I thought everyone just wanted to be loved. Isn't that one of the core liberal beliefs that keeps criminals on the street and disruptive students in the classroom? Well now Obama is applying this silly notion to world diplomacy and the result it hardly surprising. It blew up in his face. Obama's touching offer to give Iran a back rub and let bygones be bygones is being dragged through the streets of Tehran in humiliation. It is being used by the leaders of Iran to argue that we are weak. I recall being warned that this would happen for the past eight years. It looks like unpopular decisions can often be the right ones. Ever try being a parent?

My Vote for Luckiest Guy...

2009-01-29T00:21:00.004-05:00

Goes to Pittsburgh Steeler Fullback, Sean McHugh. Don't know much about the guy but this.

He was cut by the Detroit Lions right before the season started. Now think back to that day. You've just spent three seasons with the Lions and right before the season starts they cut you. You HAVE to be thinking about your career at that point, right. I mean, you were just told that you're not good enough for the worst team in the league. If the absolute dregs of the NFL don't want you, maybe its time to dust off the ol' college degree. I suppose the only consolation is that Matt Millen may have been the NFL's all time worst GM. But still...

Then, a few days later the Pittsburgh Steelers give you a call.

So instead of playing for the first 0-16 team in NFL history, you're in Tampa Bay playing for the Lombardi trophy. Talk about making the leap from worst to first.

Ain't life grand?

Ahhh, the Bush Legacy Continues

2009-01-26T23:14:00.004-05:00

So just when things were looking good for fans of small government, we get a reminder that America's biggest fan of big government left us with a parting gift.

The Supreme Court today handed down a unanimous decision stating that police officers have the unfettered right to search you at any time, for any reason, and what they find can be used against you as evidence.

That's right folks, 9-0 against the Fourth Amendment. At some point, I'm going to have to accept that I'm just not very bright because I just don't see how that ruling is possible. Here's the Fourth Amendment again,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe I suffer from some extreme form of obtuseitude, but I just don't see anywhere in the Fourth that backs up the Justices opinion. Maybe the H-Blog's reader (Hi Ma!) can shed some light on this for me.

Say's Ginsburg,

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public."

But what is the standard of "reasonable suspicion?" If a police officer is wrong three times in a row, does he lose his "reasonable suspicion" license? What if they don't find a gun but find the Mary J? What's the check on this power?

But more importantly, I thought Roberts and Alito were supposed to be "strict constructionists." How, how can anyone viewed as a "strict constructionist" stand by and allow this ruling to go forward? Forget Scalia. He's everybit a Constitutional purist as Ginsburg. He just has better rhetoric.

Nope, Robert and Alito are relativists in the same vein as W. Codes are good when they're easy, and bad when they ask us do things we don't agree with. Moral relativism is the mantra of the Bush years, and his court pics reflect that position exaclty.

Is "Conservative" the new "Gay?"

2009-01-26T22:48:00.004-05:00

I was going to go with "Is Obama the true Conservative President?" But then I realized that after eight years of Bush, the word "Conservative" like "gay" now means something much different than it did before.

Under Bush, the whole notion of a state deciding what's best for that state just got in the way of his"conservative" party's big government dreams.

Now Obama lets loose with this little gem. He's going to reverse the W doctrine and let states dictate their own emission and fuel efficiency standards. I have no idea what the economic, environmental, employment or any other ramification of this action is, good or bad. But I do know that I like the idea of letting states figure this out for themselves, and I especially like the idea of following each state as they experiment with it and trying to then figure out what's best for my state of Colorado. I recall something from civics class about having each state find its own path though difficult decisions being part of some kind of "Grand Experiment."*

Seems like that used to be the "conservative" view. But now its coming from what the knee-jerk media calls the "Liberal" President.

So nothing about W fit the old definition of "conservative" and the first days of the "liberal" president have been about restoring "conservative" ideals. So since "conservative" clearly doesn't mean what it used to mean, what does it mean now? And is it dirty?

I'm not sure what's going on, but so far, I'm having a gay old time.

*A free one-year subscription to Hydrablog if you can find the reference somewhere.

Like Fonzie I Was Wuhwoo. I Was Wroooough. I Was Woughroooggh.

2009-01-25T17:10:00.004-05:00

OK, so I voted for Barr, and thus "Barred" myself from playing with all the other kids in the Obama/McCain debate.

My main beef with Obama was that he wasn't taking a hard enough stand for the my America. My democratic friends all told me, "He can't take a hard stand for these issues because he'll look soft on terrorism, but he'll restore the 4th Amendment, finally do away with legalized torture, shut down Gitmo, and restore openness to the government." But he has to present a certain image to win. Sort of like when Clinton went back to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of Ricky Ray Rector.

"Maybe," said I, but I'm tired of voting for what I hope someone will become, rather than what they are. It's generally a bad bet. Leaders should lead, right?

Well, looks like I'm losing that bet.

In the first week of his Presidency, Obama has,

Made the move to close Gitmo and international "black site" prisons. From the article, Obama said,

The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,

And,

We are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.

Then the cherry on top,

We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms.

Doesn't he know from Bush/Cheney that morals are on a sliding scale of "at least its better than Saddam," and that we should all be ready and willing to suspend core American values because Bush said we're supposed to be scared? Where's Obama been? For eight years we were lead to believe that there is no core morality, no resolute American values. Now Obama's saying that it right to abide by a code of conduct when its hard? My mind's spinning. In one week we moved from morals are for losers, to morals are for victors.

I guess its hard to have core value and stick to them, but I'm game.

But surely the American value of knowing what the government is doing and questioning it is still a quiant, outdated ideal for a democracy. Right?

Let's check on Obama, in his first, week says.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a
clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.
The Government should not keep information confidential merely
because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because
of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never
be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of
Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed
to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive
branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit
of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of
the public.

Then, and it was hard to read this though my tears of joy,

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

Holy Smokes! Openess over secrecy? What kind of crazy radical thinks in order for democracy to prosper, the people have to have access to what's going on? Not only that, but that it's better to go ahead and inform the public, rather than making them jump thorugh hoops.

Yes it's been a week. And sure, some of those released will do bad things, but our prisions have been releasing people who have then done bad things for over 200 years, and we're doing ok. And yes, none of what he wrote above's been tested in action. Its certainly easy to say things, and harder to then do them. But I'll take these statements over what I've been hearing for the last eight all day long.

Frankly, this is much better than I anticipated. To all my friends that said this would happen, you were right. I hope it stays that way.

Stalin Still Cares!

2009-01-24T17:53:00.003-05:00

Caroline Kennedy dropped out of the running for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's (SOSHRC) vacant Senate seat.

Article says,

Caroline Kennedy withdrew her Senate bid because of a personal matter unrelated to her ill uncle, rejecting the governor's attempt to get her to reconsider, a person who worked closely with her said Thursday.

But we all know that the "personal matter" was the Bright Light of Justice cast by Hydrablog's own Stalin Malone in this post. It was no coincience that Mrs Kennedy dropped out three short days after Mr Malone posted his story. No one, not even the Kennedy clan, want's to be responsible for the destruction of the naive optimism aobut our nation's politics that Mr Malone personifies.

In a world where little makes sense anymore, its nice to know that the passive aggressive tactic of "go ahead, see if I care" still works. I think "Sell away David, I've stopped caring" is officially this generation's "Go ahead, make my day!"

So thank you Mr Malone. Thank you for stopping Mrs Kennedy from being a Senator. Thank you for still caring. Thank you for finally taking a stand against political lightweights after decades of supporting the likes of Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin. But mostly, thank you for being you.

Laugh Until it Hurts

2009-01-19T18:28:00.006-05:00

When this stammering intellectual lightweight becomes the next senator from New York it will no longer be possible to maintain the absurdity that politics is a serious pursuit. Granted, if a sponge that had once been used by a Kennedy to clean up a crime scene ran for office Democrats would be obligated to support it, but you'd think there would be enough grown ups in New York to stop this silliness. Either we've reached the point where absurdity is so common it can no longer be considered absurd or everyone who gets it has just stopped caring. Its too bad for Blago that he didn't realize cash is not the currency used to sell senate seats, David Paterson knows its family connections. Sell away David, I've stopped caring.

The Last Man in Europe?

2009-01-03T14:51:00.004-05:00

Populism of the left and the right is identical to the way middle school society functions. Everyone working tirelessly just to fit in. Just to be liked and accepted. You say whatever you have to, believe whatever you have to just to avoid being laughed at by everyone else. Which is not to say that no one believes the party line, but they are the minority. In any movement the majority are just there to fit in. Listening to one of them try to explain why they believe what they believe is often a painful experience. Like watching a kitten drown. Terribly sad. But belief, from a practical point of view, is about quantity and not quality. The opposite of how it should it be. Which is why a man like Vaclav Klaus is so refreshing. There was always that one kid who went his own way, not just to be different (the flip side of the same coin as conformity), but because he saw a better way and refused to let the ignorance of the crowd be his master. Vaclav refuses to be controlled by the tyranny of the European in crowd. He refuses to be bullied by them and their only claim to authority, "but we ALL believe this".

May 2009 be a very good year for Vaclav Klaus.

New Year 2009

2009-01-01T15:26:00.003-05:00

Its the first day of 2009 and let me report that Hydrablog is not yet defunct. Our silence has simply served to build anticipation. So I hope both our readers will take solace in knowing that 2009 will provide more wit and wisdom from the Hydrablog family.

Now get in there and hit somebody.

Extra Extra Read All About It

2008-09-28T10:08:00.003-05:00

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...

2008-08-25T21:01:00.002-05:00

And Europe stands ready to face yet another serious crisis.

Canary Row

2008-07-19T09:53:00.003-05:00

“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

2008-07-01T12:13:00.003-05:00

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

2008-06-21T11:03:00.004-05:00

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

2008-06-10T11:56:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-21T20:27:00.004-05:00

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

2008-05-19T18:49:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-17T20:36:00.004-05:00

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."

2008-05-16T12:42:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-15T12:30:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-14T17:46:00.005-05:00

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

2008-05-13T19:35:00.010-05:00

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

2008-05-12T14:08:00.004-05:00

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

2008-05-09T18:00:00.006-05:00

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

2008-05-09T10:43:00.002-05:00

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.

2008-05-07T09:42:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-01T21:34:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-28T18:26:00.003-05:00

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!

2008-04-27T16:58:00.003-05:00

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!

2008-04-22T10:29:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-17T22:47:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-11T17:02:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-09T13:03:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-09T11:24:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-07T16:58:00.004-05:00

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

2008-03-31T16:46:00.003-05:00

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

2008-03-25T17:08:00.005-05:00

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

2008-03-15T09:47:00.007-05:00

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.

2008-03-14T22:24:00.004-05:00

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

2008-03-13T11:26:00.003-05:00

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

2008-03-02T11:42:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-02-29T14:32:00.003-05:00

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

2008-02-26T23:24:00.004-05:00

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

2008-02-26T22:44:00.002-05:00

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

2008-02-24T09:12:00.003-05:00

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."

2008-02-18T21:21:00.004-05:00

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

2008-02-18T12:12:00.004-05:00

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.

2008-02-10T13:44:00.001-05:00

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

2008-02-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

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.”

2008-02-09T18:00:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-08T10:54:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-31T23:18:00.000-05:00

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

2008-01-30T11:06:00.000-05:00

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.

1-888-Biz-nezz

2008-01-27T19:06:00.001-05:00

I'm setting up a business advice hot-line. As a teaser, once again I'm putting out some free advice for big business. Last time it was Detroit, but they didn't listen.

Now I'm going to try to help Sony and Toshiba and their Blu-Ray, HD DVD format battle. Let me look into my crystal dollar bill. Lets see...Oh I see it. My advice? Sell, sell, sell the technology to whatever sucker you can find. Pssssst, call Detroit, they're alway looking backwards.

Why you ask? Simple, DVD's are a dead technology. Whoever wins the format "battle" loses. Apple TV, Amazon Unbox, Netflix direct and the rest are all going to stream movies directly to the consumer's TV. There's no way to make back the development and marketing costs as this whole thing has maybe, maybe a two year window.

Which means dear consumer, don't waste your hard earned dough on this new technology. Wait just a sec and you'll get HD movies via the internet, format be damned.

Cool huh?

Weekly Round-Up

2008-01-26T22:23:00.000-05:00

Interesting week.

Mitt "He just looks Presidential" Romney hears voices. During the GOP debate, debate fans (Freaks and Geeks?) heard a voice from beyond give Gov Romney a "prompt" when answering a "trick" question from Tim Russert. Lots of ideas, Huffpo gets huffy, but me? Well, I'm going where no one dares go (I mean, this is what you don't pay me for right?). I say it was one of the Latter Day Saints. An unidentified whisper helping out Mormon Mitt? Gotta be. Poor Huck. He had to be there wondering why the Former Day Saints let him down. And by "down" I mean both financially and with the votes.

Feeling heady with the Big Guy in his head, Mitt of Arc then spouts off with,

Well, I'm not concerned about the voters.

Which is only fair, because it looks like the voters are less and less concerned with him.

Someone who won't be hearing from the Spirit in the Sky until she makes a "sorry" is ESPN Hostess with the Mostess (booze) Dana Jacobson. At a Celebrity Roast for Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic (its OK, I'll wait while you read that again...yup, not a misprint, I know, go figure) Ms Jacobson said some naughtys about Notre Dame, Touchdown Jesus, and the actual Jesus. Could it have been the booze talking? Here are some pics, you decide. Yup.

Big deal in the Big House. The Supremes rule that inmates cannot sue for lost property. So what if Hacksaw Jones can't sue to get his shiv back you say? Read the comments.

The confusion in the courts comes because the immunity is mentioned in a section of the law that blocks lawsuits against the government over the "loss of goods, merchandise or other property" detained by customs or excise officers. The law then adds "or any other law enforcement officer."
"Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than 'any other law enforcement officer' " to show that it intended broad immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Therefore, the law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers."

That's right folks, according to Clarence "Strict Constructionist" Thomas, "any" law enforcement officer can take anything from you and you have not right to recourse. Now, I'm no legal scholar (I roll with the illegal scholars), but I thought I read somewhere about an Amendment that prevents just such a thing. But wouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know that? Lets see...its somewhere around here...what did I do with my pocket Constitution? Oh, that's right I lent it to Ron Paul when he crashed on my couch awhile back and we were rappin 'bout evolution. Hold on, I'll Google it. Here we go, Find Law says,

blah blah blah...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oooooh, I did, I did, I did taw a Fit Amentment. To my astigmatic eyes, it looks like you cannot just take something from a prisoner without due process, and private property cannot be taken "just 'cause," even if there's just cause. Seems to me that if Congress says "any" law enforcement officer can take anything with immunity, a "Strict Constructionist" should say, "nice law Congress, but take it back for a do over." Why not here? Maybe "Strict" is one of those slang words like when "bad" means "good." See, then it makes sense. "Strict Constructionist" means "Constitution don't matter." Who knew the Court was so hip?

Hip hurtin'? Got a script for your "medical" marijuana? Still gonna git the pink slip. And no I don't mean 'ludes (are those even still around? I'm way behind in my cool drug references).

Clearly someone was abusing their "medical Mary J" when they came up with the Britney Industrial Index. Single greatest economic idea I've ever heard, and yes McGinty that includes your idea in the 90's to move towards a "beanie baby based economy." I figure the Unknown Blogger Industrial Index is a solid $1.25, but once you factor in paid subscriptions to the H-blog, it skyrockets to $1.25.

All those "prescriptions" for wacky weed are making things hard for everyone (takes a lot of water to fill all those bongs). Nuclear power (siiiigh, again, the most expensive form of energy...ever) is once again in the news. Apparently those reactors are facing water shortages and may have to shut down. New cost, on top of the crazy, insane amount it costs already?

"Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour (ed note, no, no, no!)," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer."

Now that gets me steamed.

Truth Abuser

2008-01-26T13:09:00.000-05:00

The euphemism of the month is "truth abuser". The second runner up is "not factually accurate". The game is, "How to call a liar a liar without saying 'liar'". Kerry calls Bill Clinton a "truth abuser". Kerry is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Barak says Bill Clinton's statements are "not factually accurate". Barak is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Politics is professional wrestling for people who can read newspapers. Nothing is at is seems by design. Or if it is then we call it something different to add another warm blanket between us and the cold truth. The truth is that most if not all politicians lie. However, not all do it with as much shamelessness or gusto as the Clinton's. Even some democrats now are admitting what the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy brought to light over 10 years ago...the Clinton's lie, it's what they do. No matter what you call it. If the Clinton's capture the White House again it will mean that America has become unrecognizable to the people who once believed in the simple decency of her citizens.

I Am Sub-Prime

2008-01-24T10:40:00.000-05:00

The sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing tsk-tsk's started me thinking (good thing I had my Excedrin handy, thinking always gives me a headache). The general attitude seems to be "well, the borrowers should have known better" and, "obviously, borrowers should have known that those rates weren't forever" or even, "you simply cannot get a house for free."

OK, I hear and understand all of the above. But here's the thing. In a very real way, we are all sub-prime borrowers. Not because of any fallout regarding mortgages. Nope, not that simple. We're all involved because we, as voters, have all bought into the GOP notion that "deficits don't matter." (Well not all Americans. H-Blog readers are well aware of that this GOP notion is utter nonsense-quick examples here, here, here, and here. Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? H-blog, H-blog, yaaaaaaaay H-blog!).

For example, when we fund a multi-gazillion dollar war solely on debt, we're signing on the "no money down" line of our nations mortgage loan.

When we continue to borrow, and assume that we will aways grow our way out of our debt payments, we're committing the "I'll always get raises to cover my spending" mistake that leads to taking on more debt than our nation's household can reasonably sustain.

When we continue to borrow thinking that we can always get others to finance our spending, we're committing the "Las Vegas homes will always go up in value" mistake of the real estate speculator who does OK in good times but goes busted in bad.

So before anyone gets too high and mighty on those who are going busted in sub-prime, I suggest taking a good long look in the mirror. By default, you're in just as deep (I say deeper) and you've fallen for the same "it will all work out, sign here" scam as those who bought their house with too much leverage. You bought the same, "it will cost you nothing" argument, the same, "you can always make the payments" argument, and the same, "someone will aways be there to buy it at a profit argument" argument. In the end, you accepted the same, "it all makes sense in the math, just sign here" argument. Why? Because you really didn't understand the math, because you trusted "experts" who were conflicted because they were profiting on our signature, and most importantly, because we wanted to. So show a little sympathy for the busted homeowners. You're heading in the same direction.

Bush's real, lasting, legacy will be that of the mortgage broker who got the nation to sign away the house.

Slate Readers are Soooooo Behind

2008-01-23T09:22:00.001-05:00

Congratulations again, dear H-Blog reader, for being ahead of the MSM (here meaning "Mighty Slow Media").

Main article of Slate.com has an article about Gov Mike Huckabee's comments on South Carolina's affection for the Confederate Flag. The writer was one Mr Christopher Hitchens. Why am I boring you with this?

Wellllll, Hydrablog covered this subject over a YEAR ago. Long time readers (Hi Ma) have known the ins and outs of this topic way before the pointy headed geeks who read Slate. Proving that Hitch steals from us while dissing Huck,

The political flag of the Confederacy—the so-called "Stars and Bars"—is one thing. The battle flag of the Confederate army, the most militant symbolic form that secession and slavery ever took, is quite another. Under this fiery cross of St. Andrew, the state of Pennsylvania was invaded and free Americans were rounded up and re-enslaved. Under this same cross, it was announced that any Union officer commanding freed-slave soldiers, or any of his men, would be executed if captured.

Hmmmm, excellent point. Let's see if the H-Blog picked up on this a YEAR ago.

Here's my issue. The battle flag of the Confederacy is an open sign of rebellion, of violence against the state. Its also a symbol of division and a flag under which many people killed and died in an effort to forcibly divide the Union....Thus I suggest that SC fly the actual national flag of the Confederacy at the memorial. It honors the soldiers, keeps history alive, educates folks, yet doesn't suggest that violent hostility towards the Nation is good, and it doesn't give the KKK and WS' anything to brag about.

Oh, goody, we did.

An asterisk somewhere noting H-Blogs groundbreaking analysis of this issue would have been nice.

Obama hearts Reagan

2008-01-22T22:52:00.000-05:00

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from Sen Hillary Clinton (and the the inverse of "Behind every great man is a woman" Bill) for his recent quotes about President Reagan. Here's the actual transcript if you're bored enough to read it (hey, if you're reading this blog, you have to be close right?). Mostly Obama correctly identifies the GOP 'sascent, the problems with the Dems, the GOP's current problems and gives credit to Reagan for rallying the nation back in the day.

Interesting strategy on Clinton's part. Most polls show that voters don't really like either party, are fed up with the status quo (read, interparty fighting), and want change (read, from interparty fighting). So what does she do, attack the idea the the Stalin's Hero (where a then chubby VP Bush was famous for "I see noe-thing, I know noe-thing" and and younger hipper Cheney always said, "Staaaaaalin"), may have been an OK President, and that the GOP came to power. Yes, yes, the best way to show that you can work with the other party and move our nation forward is to attack the GOP's Father Figure ( That's all I wanted, something special, Something sacred in your eyes, For just one moment, to be bold and naked
At your side) (creepy how well that fits, right?).

As for Obama, I think he should stick to his guns (if the Dems didn't hate them and want to pry them from your cold dead hand that is) and keep on praising the Gipper. See, there were loads of Reagan Democrats back then and hey, they're queer*, they're here, deal with it. Not only does it potentially reignite that base, but it also reinforces his "See, I can work with the Republicans" message. It makes him less of a partisan. Normally that's a fatal move in the primaries, but again, not a lot of love for either party and the hackery that keeps coming down that pike. This particular election cynical (oops, I mean "cycle"), that may be the exact right move.

Quick side notes from the last debate. When did the debates become so filled with lame cliche's. To wit (or not to wit, that is the question).

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

And,

Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Awesome. I respectfully suggest next they go with,

I forgot more about how to move this nation forward than you'll ever learn.

Or,

I'll take you down Senator, take you down to China Town.

Ahhhhh, election season. Enjoy.

*queer (kwîr)adj. queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.

What? What did you think I meant?

Outsourcing Immigration

2008-01-16T12:45:00.000-05:00

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?

*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

Twas SWAT, it twas

2008-01-13T20:50:00.000-05:00

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.
"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.
"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

Disorderlies?

2008-01-13T11:13:00.000-05:00

A Pennsylvania man was charged with "Disorderly Conduct" after writing the "f-word" (I won't write it here, I have a clean record and want to keep it that way) on the Memo line of a check he used to pay a parking conduct.

The man, David Binner, later apologized, and charges were dropped. OK, except I don't see how writing the "f-word" could possibly be considered "Disorderly Conduct." From the all powerful Wiki Disorderly Conduct comes when,

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

I don't see any of the above in writing a bad word in the Memo section of a check. Not even a little. In fact to me, and lets face it, that's all that really matters, it seems like a valid, if ineffective means of protest.

Also, what adult could really, honestly be insulted by some random person writing "f" in the memo section of a check? I mean, enough to file charges insulted? Sticks and stones and all that right?

So to recap, a man immaturely vented, someone immaturely claimed to be offended, the man was falsely charged with a crime, the man was either forced to apologize or did so honestly, and all is well.

The larger question, is why did anything happen besides cashing this man's check?

Whatch U Tonkin 'bout Willis?

2008-01-10T16:23:00.000-05:00

OK, I'm no conspiracy buff (but really, can you be a "buff" of conspiracies? Wouldn't you be more of a conspiracy...monger...zealot...or even devotee?)...wait, where was I? Oh yes. I don't normally buy into conspiracies, especially the governmental kind (here's another aside. Who put the "mental" in "Governmental?")

OK, I've totally lost my point. So now I'll go directly to the post. A group called "The Federation of American Scientists" has just put out a press release claiming that they have proof the the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened.

Says Steven Aftergood,

What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record.

OK, OK, I admit it. I don't have a larger point to this post. I just thought of the headline when I read the article and had to use it. I also liked "Jive Tonkin."

Maybe I should just quit now and go to work for the National Enquirer?

And justice for all? Only if its convenient.

2008-01-09T23:11:00.000-05:00

Wednesday night quick hit.

I was perusing this article about The Supremes (Robert's called Diana-which totally pissed off Thomas-who looks A-mazing in sequins) questions about an Indiana's voter ID law.

Here's the part that caught the eye of el-bloggerino. From Kennedy,

You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?

Now, I'm no Constitutional Scholar (but I do play on on the blogosphere) but I thought that Ross and Co don't decide law based on "convenience" but rather the other "c" word. Yes, "Constitutionality." From where I sit (brown couch, flannel bunny pj's), if said law is "Unconstitutional" it shouldn't really matter if it's convenient or inconvenient. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the "Constructionist" view of the US Constitution? Isn't that their job? If it's Unconstitutional for one person in the 300 million of us, then it should go away. For, by and of and all that.

Anyway, from the article it looked like the judges were more concerned with turning this into a convenient/inconvenient debate, rather than a debate about the Constitutionality of the Indiana Law. Just a touch troubling in the one building on the planet that's supposed to be devoted to that cute little document.

Pauly Sure?

2008-01-08T22:16:00.000-05:00

I know my esteemed colleague M.C. Ginty already wrote about this, but being the spotlight hog that I am, I wanted to put in my own post.

I was a Pauler, not to be confused with the much more attractive Paulettes. As long time readers (Hi Ma!) know, I'm a small "g" government guy. Mr Paul was getting that message out, and, joy-o-joy's it was not only heard but cheered.

Then it came out that Mr Paul's wrote some letter's that nobody should cheer. So now I'm a Paul Bearer.

Lot's of hand-ringing going on in the strange world of Libertarian politics. Reason's folks go into it, and even cover some other's so I'll let them do it.

If you don't feel like clicking the link (odd how those new "lost body fat" commercials don't show blogging-I wonder how many clicks per pound?), I'll summarize. Mr Paul couldn't write that, TMR could be lying, doesn't detract from the message, old news, the Newsletters had his name but there's no proof he wrote them-lots of newsletters had ghost writers, blah blah blah.

Bottom line? Newsletter had his name on the top, its his mess. You can't run for leader of the free world and say that you couldn't even control what was going on in your own newsletter. If he didn't do it, he certainly didn't fire whoever did. That's what you do when you're the bossman and someone does something that appalls you (you even do it if it apples you). By not doing it, he condoned and in my humble opinion pushed the message. At that point, I don't care if you say it or not. It's on you.

It is for that very reason that today, officially, I'm done with Pauly. I don't support that message, so I cannot support that man. Yes, regardless of how appealing his other message is. I'm tired of playing the "support the bad guy to promote the good message" game. I don't support bad guys, no matter the message. No knots for me.

I do hope that the message that was well received doesn't go down with Mr Paul. Hopefully some non-homophobic, non-racist, non-lots-o-things will look around and think, "The small government message, strong it was. Too bad it is that young Paul took to the Dark Side, Hmmmm?" Then after that* Star Wars Geek gets trounced, hopefully someone normal will take up the message and we can all win.

Sorry M.C. (which, sadly was my rap name back in the day), didn't mean to "post you up," but I wanted to get my reaction directly on the record.

*Yup. Three italicized "that's." in one post. Now That's Incredible.

APAULed

2008-01-08T18:24:00.000-05:00

Tough break today for the libertarian "message," thanks to the "messenger." Being an exceedingly cynical "small-l" libertarian means never having to say I'm sorry for Ron Paul.

But regrets? Some of them have a few. Andrew Sullivan, Arnold Kling, and Matt Welch at the bottom most closely share my sentiments.

Election fallout, of course, will be zilch, as was the Paul candidacy as anything other than a freewheeling vehicle into mainstream cluck-cluckery.

Here's hoping the message has stronger and longer legs than the messenger; but that should have been the hope all along.

"Changing the 'Establishment'"

2008-01-08T13:21:00.000-05:00

Saturday night the candidates--especially the Democrats--seemed to sing those empty words loud and long. Me? I was changing the channel back to Jags-Steelers. Anyway, here's George Will, calling it like I see it:

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment". . . .
Huckabee says that "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a
human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and
five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that
He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control
nuclear weapons?

Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world market sets
the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of --surging demand
in India and China? Unrest in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That
is Edwards's explanation of every unpleasantness.

Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change
Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity.

Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous
who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who
therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are
unsplittable . . . .
The way to achieve Edwards's and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing
the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the
role of government in distributing money.

Chris Rock, Political Genius

2008-01-06T22:43:00.000-05:00

Chris Rock makes a point about Presidential hopeful and NY Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I think America's ready for a woman president . . . just not that woman. Being married to somebody doesn't make you good at their job. I've been with my wife 10 years now. If she got up here right now, y'all wouldn't laugh. At all. You get on a plane tomorrow, you want the pilot's wife flying you?

Hard to argue against. We got our current President because he was someone's son. And look how great that turned out.

I mean think about it, just because Stalin's my friend doesn't mean he's a devastatingly handsome, witty, charming, smart and humble man like me. Would you trust him as your political guide? I think not.

Hmmm, can it be that Dynasties are actually bad? Should it be that you have to earn the Presidency?

Nawwww, just give me people I'm familiar with. Then I feel like I'm in the club.

Ayuh

2008-01-04T18:58:00.000-05:00

From Dave Barry, "Swarming in the Land of Snow and Donuts," at miamiherald.com:

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- And so the eyeballs of the world turn to New Hampshire,
a tiny, flinty, gritty, Dunkin' Donuts-intensive state located mostly inside the
Arctic Circle. On Tuesday, the voters here will troop to the polls, where -- as
they have done every four years since 1952 -- they will turn around and troop
back home, because the polls, like virtually everything else here, are under 23
feet of snow.

But a few people, the truly flinty ones, will manage to actually vote,
and they will determine the course of this presidential race -- and, yes,
America's future -- for approximately two news cycles. Then the eyeballs of the
world will turn to either North or South Carolina (nobody is sure which) and the
people of New Hampshire will go back to their traditional flinty New England
lifestyle of sitting around eating doughnuts and waiting for the August
thaw.

When One Head is Better Than 50

2008-01-03T11:56:00.000-05:00

Continuing my trek through the Bizzaro World that is the modern two party system, I stumbled upon this quote from allegedly Republican President George Bush regarding how the US should deal with greenhouse gasses.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?

Funny, I thought Republican's believed that the Great American Experiment was having 50 states trying 50 things and seeing what works best. Yes, yes McGinty you're probably right. W was trying to help the GOP distance itself from that well known disgrace Ronald Reagan who famously catered to the KKK when he made a speech referencing "States Rights." Whew. Now that the GOP is in danger of losing the White House, I guess it makes sense to try to out Democrat (another slur) the Democrats and get as far as possible from the RR (Granted, some might say that W already took the long walk off that short pier). Talk about two hearts living in just one mind. Just one mind, just one mind. Good to know that the Republic is dead, long live whoever holds the keys to the Federal Offices. Well, unless you're not quite born, then its all about giving the States the right to choose (see below).

Honestly, I have no idea what's the right thing to do with these gasses. For all I know, maybe we need more of them. I mean, isn't everyone always complaining about the lack of gas in America? Maybe W has a crazy solution to both problems. However, if the good people of California want to ignore the mad genius that is W and desire a tougher standard than the national one, I say let 'em. Then we can all see how it works out for them.

Now for some irresistible quick hits.

One, hearing W talk sincerely about the need for effective strategy is like hearing Brittney Spears talk sincerely about the need for effective family values.

Two, isn't W the same guy who says that the best way to handle the abortion issue is to let each state decide what's best for its citizens? Sooooooo, if you're keeping track at home (and if you're reading this blog you probably are, heck right now I'm in my jammies), that means that according to W, the need to protect the environment demands a sound national strategy, while the need to protect unborn children specifically doesn't require a sound national strategy. And I thought Gore was the one who was over the top on Global Warming. Poor Stalin. What to do when your hero W tries to out Gore Gore. Now that's...gory (ohhhhhhh, even I'm embarrassed by that one).

Three, I was trying to find a way to work C&C Music Factory's "Things That Make You Go Hmmm" into this post. But I was honestly embarrassed by the opening verse.

I was at the crib, sittin' by the fireplace
Drinkin' cocoa on the bear skin rug.

This is a rap song mind you, and this guy is boasting about sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on a bear skin rug. And you thought Barry Manilow songs were gay.

Fix Fact

2008-01-03T10:46:00.000-05:00

From Radley Balko, "Death by Drug War," at The Agitator:

Washington State has a law allowing prosecutors to impose a special
homicide charge on people who supply drugs to overdose victims. The problem is
that the law itself may be causing more overdose deaths.

The state of Washington’s position is clear: If someone calls 911 whena
friend is overdosing, not only does the witness risk charges for possessing
or selling drugs (which 911 callers in these situations have feared since
the passage of the Controlled Substances Act), but he or she could be charged
with homicide, too. The end result? Overdose victims—who might survive with
promptmedical care—may be abandoned and left to die.

When you think about how the law would be applied, it’s far more likely
to catch teens and college kids who share illicit drugs with friends making
just such a decision than it is to catch any major drug dealer. I doubt many
peopleoverdose with their dealers . . .

And it makes another case for legalizing the possession and sale of drugs. There's no upside for any drug dealer, let alone a legitimized one, to let customers fix under his roof. Dope and coke ain't alcohol; fiends and base heads, they ain't Otis Campbell, coming or going, so a dealer's going to get them in and out fast, and let 'em get back to wherever they'd be, being who they choose to be, laws or no. Just with a lot less drama on the street.

Where to start?

2008-01-02T10:23:00.000-05:00

Some quick hits to get us out of the gate.

Pope Says Gays are bad for peace. I don't know about that, haven't really seen the studies. But I do feel the need to point out that a German Pope is saying,

that a traditional family led by a husband and wife instilled values that promote peace.

Now, I don't want to point out the obvious, but I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany had a high "family rate" and they were definitely hostile to the gays, but oddly, not a lot of peace. In fact, as I review my history, lots of wars started by lots of nations with lots of families. I'm just not sure that gays are the big threat facing the world today, maybe we should focus our attention elsewhere. On a roll, he says,

Those who are hostile, even unknowingly, to the institution of the family ... make peace fragile for the entire national and international community.

He's looking at you New Hampshire and you're gay love...love. Not only are you on the forefront of determining the next "Most Powerful Person in the World*" but you're also at the forefront for the next World War! Lots of pressure on the Granite State. My protest sign? Civil Unions=Civil Wars!

Speaking of War, McCain pulled an Unknown Blogger and returned strong for 2008! How'd that happen? Latest poll has them at a tie. Clearly the fine people of NH don't read the H-Blog. If they did, they would know that we declared McCain yesterday's news way back in July 2007. Come on people pay attention, I'm prognosticating here.

In other election news, Mike Huckabee has decided that wrapping himself in the flag is soooo tacky. The Cross is much, much better. Between ads with not so subtle "God's Behind Me!" themes, and "Take a knee for me" slogans, Ol' Mike is not so much asking for the Religious Conservative Vote as begging for it. Maybe that's why he's on his knees so much. No push back from me, I'm a big fan of free speech, and talking about religion is clearly speech so I say, Keep on Truckin'. But, as a voter, I'm a bit weary of Christ as the new Flag.

Did you say Fag? Looks like gay couples get "divorced" too. And when they do, not so fun. Welcome to the club boys (and girls). My advice? RUN! You can cheat nature, but you can't cheat the statistics.

Just ask Olympic Champion Justin Gatlin who tried to run and cheat nature, but he too got caught (who knew sprinting was so gay?). Busted for doping, the Gold Medalist is out for Beijing. Again, I renew the call for The Unknown Blogger's Simple Solution For Cheating (and cure for Ricketts). It's right there folks, yours for the taking. Maybe if I could get some media attention.

Me and Ron Paul. FOX News, "Fair and Balanced" unless you annoy us is not allowing Mr. Paul to play with the other kids at the big debate. Something about polling numbers, but wait, Mr. Paul is polling better than former Belle of the Ball Fred Thompson who made the cut (sort of like the number one draft pick who's clearly a bust but teams keep bringing him in because "Hey, he was the first pick in the draft! Maybe he'll turn it around for us.") There's also a rant about the power and danger of media control and the new FCC arguments for rules allowing for more consolidation. Oh well, given how we all love and trust the media, its all good right? For the record, I think FOX caves and Mr Paul makes the list.

In other news, the Unknown Blogger promises vows to create policy that will insure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Mike Huckabee vowed a defense build-up that would produce

"a military of sorts that no one on earth would want to take us on."

Really, does he feel like that's not the case now? Who's looking to take us on? I love it when a politician creates a controversy around something I already have, then promises to give it back to me the way it was before he created the controversy. Especially when it will cost billions. If you're keeping track at home, we already have an untouchable military. Unless he's saying that it's no longer untouchable, which then seems like a direct attack on the Bush Administration.

Really quick...Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Guiliani in a free fall. Romney, up down, all around, getting dogged, and spending loads, but still the front runner.

Whew, that's the US update. I think some things are going on elsewhere, but that doesn't really matter anyway...right?

*Can't even say "Most Powerful Man in the World" anymore thanks to that woman Hillary Clinton.

Hydrablog's New Year's Present to all

2008-01-02T09:57:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year reader (Hi Ma!). As a gift, and offering, for the new year, Hydrablog has brought back the internet's most sought after blogger. That's right folks, The Unknown Blogger has returned! Like Mac Arthur to the Philippines, or Stalin Malone to the Red Lobster Shrimp and Lobster Fest, I'm back.

So for all of you who have been following those "other" Unknowns, rest assured that only Hydrablog has the original. All those other dopplegangers are but pale imitations. As you could clearly see if I wasn't "Unknown" I'm simply much, much better looking than the others. At least according to the Carthart Scale of Attractiveness, where I'm a solid 70-105 Wellots above the rest. And Stalin, don't even bring up the Nelpert Scale of Looks. Everyone knows that Nelpert omits "Animalist Mysteryism" which you have to take into account to get any semblance of hotness. So dear readers, if you see a blogger claiming to be the Unknown Blogger who isn't a solid 1, 245 Wellots on the Carthart Scale, its not me. It's why I have to wear the bag, keeps the ladies in check.

So, taking a quick review of the blog since McGinty and I had our little "altercation." (I'll never forgive you McGinty, never. That was my Eggo, damnit!). Apparently we're heading into an election year, only from the looks of things it.s 2000 because Stalin's on some kind of full out attack on Al Gore. It takes real insight to wade into the 2000 Presidential Election in 2008 Stalin, keep up the good work!

So happy reader (Hi Ma!) get ready to hunker down and ride 2008 with the Hydrablog crew. Election season, gotta love it.

Someone Take Away Al Gore's Belt and Shoelaces

2007-12-20T22:56:00.000-05:00

Let the HBlog be your source for all things climate related. And let Al Gore continue to be your guide down the path of failure. You'd think you'd have to feel bad for the guy. He was the heir apparent to 8 years of peace and prosperity and still America rejected him. He started a television channel for the young and hip and found out it wasn't cool enough for anyone to watch. Then he staked what remained of his credibility on the trendy crisis of the hour and now his iceberg is melting out from under him. Poor fractured Al Gore. But there really is no need to cry because he still lives in a country where even if you fail at every turn you can still find enough dupes to make you extravagantly wealthy. So the facts may not support any of Al's hysterical poses, but being wrong isn't enough to discredit a prophet in Green America.

Global Alarming

2007-12-15T11:48:00.000-05:00

If you've got a hysterical streak in you then most likely you have already joined the global warming crowd. You've been screaming yourself horse at rallies or lying awake at night weeping for drowning polar bears. What you haven't been doing is asking the question...does this make sense? Well, thankfully there are people in this world who don't always join the in crowd just to be liked. And now, they are speaking up about global warming.

As the article shows, there is anything but a consensus regarding the cause of global warming/climate change (sorry Al Gore). What is clear is that we are currently in a warming trend because the planet is forever heating and cooling. That's right...change is NORMAL. What should scare us is if the climate for some reason STOPPED changing. That would be unprecedented. But deserts are forever expanding and contracting, as are the ice caps and the populations of millions of species. People weren't somehow dropped onto an orb in perfect balance and then managed to knock every thing off kilter...no matter what the hysterics say.

So why are there so many shrill voices demanding we fix a problem that may not even be a problem? Or something that can be fixed? Its because we are so narcissistic. We seem to need to believe that we are in control. This can be good when it makes us responsible for things we really can control. But it makes us utterly foolish and hysterical when we run up against things beyond our control. And climate change is just that. In effect, the Chicken Littles in Bali are asking us all to stand in front of a speeding freight train and hum as loud as we can to make it stop. Their solutions are small and sad and will do nothing about the freight train. They will do much harm as they reduce standards of living all over the world (assuming anyone actually implements whatever silly plan happens to get ratified) and millions of people suffer as a result.

It takes courage to stand against the crowd. There was a time when it was even respectable. Now if you aren't part of the group think the group will try to shut you down. Well, thankfully these scientists won't let that happen no matter how hard the press tries. And thankfully the US won't support this silliness, no matter how hard Al Gore tries to shame us into being cool. Even though everyone else is doing it.

At Least He's Tough

2007-12-10T23:25:00.000-05:00

Rudy says no to flat tax because he wants to protect the oh so important home mortgage deduction. This sums up so much of what is wrong with modern Republicans (as my friend UBlo used to point out so well). Why should we implement a system that would save every tax paying American money if it may increase the taxes on one particular group? Because we aren't...and Rudy should know that. Ok, homeowners won't be able to deduct one type of expenditure, so what? They will more than make up for it with tax savings in other areas. If I told you that I'm going to reduce your heating bill by $100 a month but increase your electric bill by $30 would you have a problem with that? Well, Rudy, would. He'd say, "I just don't think its right to be increasing people's electric bills at this time." That's pandering, folks...or ignorance, and I'm not sure which is worse.

Before I Voted Against It...

2007-12-06T18:33:00.000-05:00

I've always been fascinated by people that support Bill Clinton. Now, don't get me wrong, the world is full of misguided people who are not capable of seeing things as they really are. That they would rally around Bill is anything but surprising. However, at some point even the most obtuse reach a breaking point. A point when their cognitive dissonance gets so strong that their hands start to tremble.

Bill Clinton this week (Or last week. Hey, cut me some slack, I'm just a blogger) tried to convince a room full of conscious adults that he has been against the Iraq war from the beginning. I hope Sandy Berger has some really big pants because there is a lot of documentary evidence that he is going to have to steal and destroy to cover up this one. Finding contradictions to this fantasy is a trivial affair...here's a good one. And for those as lazy as me the juicy bits:

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, "Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process." You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away."

Oh, I know what the qualifier to all this is. Bill said at one point in the past that he would have timed an invasion somewhat differently. He would have waited for Hans Blix to come back with his report even though Hans was being stone walled and no report was coming. Well let me tell you, even Ray Charles can see through that...and he's dead.

Someone please tell me when is enough enough? Do we really want more of this Clintonian clap-trappery? Does anyone think Hillary is really different? Or even her own person? I understand that some people would literally vote for Satan if he supported their policy agenda but I believe at some point even supporters get fatigued when their boy (or gal) insists on embarrassing them over and over. Seriously, how much more embarrassing can Bill Clinton get? I guess we'll find out if he becomes the first male first lady.

Fight the Power

2007-11-29T18:13:00.000-05:00

The mainstream media has finally joined the fight started by this cutting edge blog. That's right, as I reminded you yesterday we were first to mock the prophets of precipitation seven months ago. "Who do they think they are telling us how many hurricanes to expect?" we asked. Well, it now seems the arrogance of these self-appointed rainmakers runs much deeper than we first thought. Not only do they make laughable predictions, but they also fudge the data to game the predictions. Pete Rose and I hope each and everyone of these wicked weathermen receive a lifetime ban from the Weatherman Hall of Fame. But we have a feeling that these storm-chasing Chicken Littles will turn a blind eye to this whole sordid scandal because without credibility what will the Windy Wendys have left?

I have met the enemy, and his name is...meteorologist!

Psychic Blogger of the Year

2007-11-27T22:47:00.000-05:00

You want predictions that mean something? HBlog wrote this very article seven months ago. Is the hair standing up on the back of your neck? Well, it should be.

Take That, Fatty

2007-11-19T18:28:00.000-05:00

Now, I hate fat people as much as the next guy, but joining New Zealand's blubber bashing is not the intent of this post. (Of course, I'm kidding. Hey, I've got plenty of fat friends) The ugly reality is that New Zealand is completely justified in their eater hating. It goes without saying that unhealthy people cost society more health care dollars than healthy people do. Which is why I've always rooted for Skinny Oprah. Therefore, if my countrymen are going to pay the cost of my health care I owe it to them to stay in shape. Or, to put it more accurately, to get free check ups you must sell your body.

Once universal health care is put in place you no longer have the right to live as you choose. And if you think you do; you are an arrogant ass. The price of letting someone else pay your way is they get to call the shots. It is an obvious truth. One parents used to teach to their children. Once society is bearing the cost of one's health I challenge anyone to show me where the governor is that will allow the individual to still live as they choose. And if you find yourself responding with, "Well, so what, it will be good for that person to have to be healthy," then go with that...and let your inner fascist out. Before you sign up for the newest craze that's sweeping the soft-headed nation maybe you can humor me and ask yourself if it's really worth the cost?

And if you need me...I'll be at Krispy Kreme while I still can.

Throw It On the Pile

2007-11-15T22:55:00.000-05:00

Just throw this story on the pile of all the others that utterly and completely disprove the notion that anyone lied us into the war in Iraq. As I've said in the past, there are actually good reasons to oppose the war in Iraq and even to dislike George Bush. But "he lied us into war" is simply stupid. Saddam not only did all he could to make us believe he had WMD, he did all he could to make the Iranians think that as well. Logic is never welcome in a fanatics world so these truths are not for the impeach-Bush-he's-a-war-criminal crowd. Its for more thoughtful people. People like you. People who read Hydrablog and never miss our biannual posts.

Play Nice Children

2007-11-01T19:11:00.000-05:00

"One of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read! Mein Kampf? Helter Skelter? Maxim? No. Mr. Pullman, the soon to be famous author of the Golden Compass, is referring to the Chronicles of Narnia. That's right. The often sugary sweet series by (evil genius?) C.S. Lewis. Now, I'm no world renowned psychotherapist but here's a sentiment that I think anyone who's read the Chronicles of Narnia would share...Mr. Pullman has issues.

I refuse to paint all atheists with the same brush, but Mr. Pullman and Annie Laurie Geller risk setting atheism back eons...perhaps to the time when lighting creating all things out of mud. "Mr. Phillips and I would say it is religion that poisons everything," saith Ms. Geller. Religion? Not just the Jews this time? Or the gays? Or the Gypsies? I hope I won't have to wait as long for atheists to rally against such blatant bigotry and hatred as I've had to wait for the Muslims. Is "hatred" too strong? Let's ask Mr. Pullman..."I loathe the 'Narnia" books...I hate them with a deep and bitter passion..." No.

Is a Change a Comin'?

2007-10-25T20:09:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure anyone should be ready to call Al-Jazeera an ally in the war on terror just yet. But is it possible that time is now on our side? Bin Laden is clearly frustrated with the inability of his holy warriors to drive out the crusaders. Bush's stubbornness has apparently gotten under his craw. And now Al-Jazeera has realized it's good press to report on the dissension in the ranks of terrorism. So the west can no longer pretend that the Iraqi resistance is unified and unyielding and conclude that Bush should just give up and go home.

What our generation (and our parent's) has not had to learn is that war is a long, brutal process. And the winner doesn't have to execute the best or strategize the best. Often the winner just has to wait for the other guy to blink. Now the Left started blinking about the time the dust from the Twin Towers got in their eyes, but thankfully, they aren't America. America, has been considering blinking for several years now but hasn't. And that is almost solely to the credit of President Bush who hasn't allowed it. In that time, there has been no sign that the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere were even considering blinking. But now, with Al Jazeera willing to report that there may be disunity in the great struggle against the occupiers one can't help but wonder if this isn't the beginning. Shouldn't it be obvious to everyone that the longer the insurgents see that their tactics are failing the more frustrated and disheartened they will become? Perhaps common sense isn't so common.

Swing and a Miss

2007-10-16T19:11:00.000-05:00

No wonder congress is home to the only politicians less liked than President Bush. (34.3% approval for Bush, 23.5% approval for Congress) The Democratic Senators who tried to make hay out of comments made by Rush Limbaugh played themselves right into his hands. The "controversial" talk jock (do I sound mainstream now?) who, if anything, practically worships the military was accused of "calling into question" the service of our troops in Iraq. How so? By using the term "phony soldiers". Of course, in context this term referred to soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who have lied about what they did in Iraq to gain notoriety and feed the anti-war crowd's need for proof that they are right. I'm sure Dan Rather will soon speak out in defense of Mr. Macbeth since even though his "facts" are lies his "position" is correct. But I digress...so the Democrats try to outmaneuver the biggest American military/Iraq war cheerleader by saying he doesn't respect our troops in harms way. As Confucius says, "What is the sound of wood hitting nothing?" (he didn't actually SAY that, but it's in line with his positions. You got my back, Dan?) And playing this utterly impotent attack off as a joke is absolutely the right move. Wow, this was like watching a Patriots v. Dolphins game...no contest.

Honey, I Shrunk the Condom

2007-10-11T18:59:00.000-05:00

After years of tireless lobbying, UBlo has finally struck a blow for the little guy. Condom manufacturers have arrogantly been turning out their products with a minimum size of 6.3 inches. These "circus tents" as UBlo has long referred to them are not only an environmentally unfriendly waste of latex, but they are an anachronistic nod to the phallocentric man worship of the dark ages. "Let's get real!," has been the cry of UBlo and his Japanese supporters for years now. When asked if he was at all reticent about being the face of this movement UBlo replied, "I'm not ashamed to order a small Pepsi so why should I be ashamed to ask for a small condom?" Look for the new custom fit condoms at a mall kiosk near you.

Death To Democracy

2007-09-25T16:37:00.000-05:00

Lethal injection is cruel and unusual because it can cause "excruciating pain". Well, having a baby DOES cause excruciating pain...when is someone going to ban that?

The reality here is that all capital punishment is cruel and unusual to those who oppose it. They see the cruel and unusual protection as the poison pill that can kill a policy that is supported by the people. So the definition only needs to get so broad that all capital punishment fits inside and then, just like that, the people will have been beaten by semantics. It sure beats having to change people's minds in a free democracy. Who has time for that?

There's another way to stick it to the rabble. You can have your local professional group force its members to boycott a legal and democratically approved execution. The argument here (if you can believe the story...it is from CBS) being doctors shouldn't kill patients...unless they ask for it...or their mother's do. More meds for me please...I can still see the truth.

Kill the Messengers or The Mouse That Didn't Roar

2007-09-13T21:49:00.000-05:00

Let me tell you why this country, despite lilting significantly in their direction, will not get behind the Democrat's plan to cut and run from Iraq...their spokesmen. War fatigue is a fact of democracy. It is inevitable. America has it. Therefore, there is no easier position than the one staked out by the Democrats. And still they can't muster enough support to accomplish anything on that issue. And all you need to do is listen to the somnolent droning of Jack Reed or the shrill whining of Nancy Pelosi or the prissy preaching of John Kerry to understand why. It is so pathetic that the Democrat leadership thinks just because Jack Reed has some kind of military background (bugle player?) his wimpish delivery of liberal tough talk will resonate with people who want to be kept safe from terror. It won't. The only reason Hillary has a chance to be Pres is because she IS the ice queen...and she seems tough. When nothing is going on you can sell us a non-threatening dough boy like Billy Clinton, but when there's murder afoot it's going to take more than jittery Jack Reed to win over this country. Tonight the Democrat rebuttle didn't and now you know why.

Black Hacks

2007-08-22T18:29:00.000-05:00

It might be argued that it would be unfair to paint the entire NAACP with the same brush used to blot out the idiots seen to the left. However, they are part of the NAACP and are speaking on behalf of that organization. So what do they have to tell us? Well, that much like OJ, Michael Vick is being unfairly treated. In fact, we shouldn't conclude from Vick's admission of guilt that he is actually guilty. And, after he's sent to prison for this I'm-not-really-guilty-guilty plea he should be treated as if it never happened when he gets out. Give him back his job. Give him back his status in society. Give a brothah a break!

I'm not sure if there is any greater indicator that your organization no longer has any value than when it is reduced to defending humiliated ex-sports heroes. Wouldn't it be great if Mr. Vick could accomplish two august goals with his martyrdom: the end of hero worship for debauched men who can run fast and jump high and the end of the NAACP as the spokesmen for a group of people far better than they.

Gambling and "the Market"

2007-08-09T16:06:00.000-05:00

Big controversy in the NBA as one of their refs, Tim Donaghy is accused of fixing games, and no that doesn't mean helping to bring back the mid-range jumper. He's accused of working with Mafia types to skew the the points scored in games, specifically effecting the over/under line.

But what I find more interesting is that he was able to pull this off. According to ESPN,

research into Donaghy's last two seasons supports Bell's claims. In the 66 games Donaghy refereed in the 2005-06 season, the two teams in his games combined to score an average of 196.8 points. The average over/under, according to BoDog.com, was 186.6, a difference of almost 10 points.

In 2006-07, Donaghy refereed 73 games. In those contests, the two teams combined to score 201.37 points and the average over/under was 187.9 points, a difference of more than 13 points per game.

"Vegas is too good for that to happen," Bell said. "The standard range should be somewhere around five or six, maybe. Not 10 or 13."

Mr Bell is right, Vegas is too good for that. But what's more interesting is that Vegas was not too good to price this information into the spreads of games worked by Mr Donaghy. After all, the spreads are public, and are viewable by millions of people, not just gamblers. So are the referee schedules. Again, from the article,

At the start of the 2007 calendar year, Bell said, there were 10 straight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the point spread moved a point and a half or more before tip-off, indicating big money had been wagered on the game. In those 10 contests, according to Bell, the big money won all 10 times.

So, clearly, someone was getting the benefit, but not the whole market. The market failed to notice that for 10 straight games, and for two seasons, games refereed by Mr Donaghy hit the over by a large margin. With all information publicly available, millions of dollars wagered, and tens of millions of observers this free market should have bid up the over/under line to reflect the "Donaghy Effect." Markets are not supposed to leave "cash on the table" or unexploited profit opportunity. Yet the market missed this. Badly.

Why?

Because, despite what textbooks and Cliff Note versions of Adam Smith tell us, markets are not perfectly efficient. They do leave "cash on the table" and miss significant events and signals. This is not a dig on "the Market" rather a reality check. The Market is the best thing going, but its not perfect, not by a long way. Some folks treat it like it is and get confused when its not. Take the old joke about an old economist and a young economist walking down the sidewalk. The young economist says, "look, a $100 dollar bill on the ground" and goes to pick it up. The old economist stops him and says, "its not real, if it were, someone would have picked it up by now." If economic theory as commonly stated were right, the market should have recognized the number of overs hit when Donaghy refereed, I mean, it had two years to find this information. Even more telling, figuring out the "Donaghy Effect" did not require any inside information, or archaic math equations or intense skulduggery. It was decidedly straight forward.

This is why stock pickers can beat the market, this is why entrepreneurs can succeed, and why people make profits. Its not that the "The" Market is perfect, its that the market is flawed. It's the "Free" Market that allows people to succeed in "The" Market. Remember this next time someone tells you that things are "priced into the stock" or whatever. That, and sometimes simpler is better.

As for the NBA. Maybe it should fully embrace gambling. Rather than spend all that time and money to monitor players and refs, let the market of gamblers inform the NBA of what's expected. When reality deviates from what that market expects, points, fouls, wins, player stats, etc then that should signal that something may be up. Focus on what millions of participants, with money on the line, have calculated. It's a bigger and better model than anything created on the NBA's budget of time and money. Had the NBA done that, they would have noticed the "Donaghy Effect" long before an informant tipped off the FBI.

To come full circle markets work. You just have to understand what that means.

Shambling to a Blog Near You

2007-08-06T14:13:00.000-05:00

Susie Madrak needs help. She's a blogger. Now keep in mind that blogging requires a chair and at least one finger. The rigors of blogging are akin to the rigors of sun bathing. And yet to Susie this is "very intense - physically and mentally." If you ever needed a window into the union mentality, there it is. That which appears to be easy is actually very hard and, in fact, too hard for any one person to do. It takes a village to have a hobby.

Collectivism is the Cult of Incompetence. It is founded on one principle - You Can't. It is absurd.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Look for the Union Label.

Noooo, see I'm not gay, I'm just a racist. That's cool right?

2007-08-05T00:21:00.001-05:00

FL Assemblyman Robert "Bob" Allen (R-Merritt Island) was recently arrested for solicitation in a Titusville restroom. But, he wasn't there for any "man love," and certainly not there to pay for it, he was there because he was scared.

This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.

So there you have it folks, the first recored use of the "Let me free, I'm just a publicly elected racist" defense. You can read the officers description of the events and just what "say anything" means to Mr Allen in the same article. Just like Michael Vick, Mr Allen deserves his day in court, but just like my opinion on Mr Vick, I think Mr Allen is in trouble.

Just for kicks, you can also read Assemblyman Allen's recent legislation that would increase the penalty of such acts, make it easier to prosecute such acts, and increases the scope of such "lascivious" acts here. It died in Committee.

Hmmmm, maybe he was just doing "research."

The Wheels on the Bike Go Round and...ooooph

2007-08-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

The New Jersey State Assembly recently passed bill A2686 which makes it illegal for bicycling stores to sell bikes with "quick release" skewers, the skewer is what binds the wheel to the bikes fork. While billed as a measure to protect the children, amendments added to the bill (for kicks, you can view the progress from a simple bill to a horribly convoluted bill by going to this link and checking out the versions, whoo hooo!) seem to read that all bikes are exempt. The problem is the 20" standard. In the first version, the standard was "intended for use by children." OK, that does seem to be purpose of the bill (more on that later). Then came, "with a wheel diameter of 20 inches or less." OK, now we're getting picky, but still, it's within the realm of the idea. Then came the mind numbing, "(a) the front wheel diameter is greater than 20 inches; or (b) it is a specialty adult bicycle with a front wheel diameter of 20 inches or less." while keeping the "20" or less" standard in the same document. So, it will be illegal to sell bikes with quick release skewers on bikes with a front wheel diameter of 20" or less, and bikes with a front wheel diameter of 20" or more. Now, I'm no math genius (that would be Mr. Malone's department), but that seems to cover pretty much all bikes (except, for some reason, adult specialty bikes with a front wheel diameter of less than 20", go figure). This is State Government at its finest. Simple bill, with a simple goal (patience, patience) that now takes it out of everyone with a very poorly written bill. There are 100's of thousands of bikes out there with qr's, I've ridden them for years, they serve many purposes and work great. While they can be a problem, so can any piece of equipment. A bolt can work loose, break, whatever.

But more interesting, and why this post is under the "Helen Lovejoy" tab is the the line that

"Children riding bicycles with quick release wheels have been involved in over 100 accident: Many of the children involved in these accidents have suffered injuries, including permanent scarring, disfigurement, major bone and dental trauma, severe scraping and bruising, brain injury, and ruptured internal organs;"

What it doesn't say is over what period that 100 happened and how many were of real consequence. Beyond being shoddy, its also dumb. I suggest banning roads, as I recall lots of road rash growing up riding my bike. I also recommend doing away with cars (easy to hit and get hit by), dogs, fences, other kids, rocks, sticks, ramps, girls (they induce boys to "show off"), bike chains, bike stems (any boy who's ever hit that knows exactly what I'm talking about), AND bolts (they come loose, I know this from actual experience, I suggest welding everything in place). I also suggest making all kids wear mouthpieces, gloves, steel toed boots, and knee and elbow pads. You know what, I think they should just ban "fun" and just make every parent wrap their kid in bubble wrap.

Finally, I liked this part.

[Multiple bicycle manufacturers have recalled their quick release mechanisms due to failure of the mechanism; and]²
The danger to children caused by bicycles with quick release wheels is unacceptable in light of the fact that safer alternatives exist ²; and

Furthermore, advances in quick release technology make it right and proper that the new mechanisms—which are less prone to assembler and user error—be used in place of the old².

It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper that the State regulate the sale of bicycles with quick release wheels to stem the rash of senseless injuries to children resulting from their use.

Sooo, the market worked with recalls and newer quick releases that work better. Yet Paul D. Moriarity, wants to ban them and regulate an obscure part of the bike market. It's elementary, Moriarity can't ride a bike and doesn't want anyone else to do so either. Because of Assemblyman Moriarity, the whole of NJ can't buy bikes with qr's increasing cost and hassle for everyone, all because over 100 problems of some sort have occurred over some undetermined amount of time.

Local Government, gotta love it.

I'm So Wasted

2007-08-03T08:46:00.000-05:00

Jeff Spicoli met with Hugo Chavez in Caracas to discuss matters of state. At one point during the visit Spicoli picked up an emaciated street urchin and struck the side of his head, "That was my skull!" he shouted to the nervous looking revellers. Silent armed guards nearby seemed to enjoy the exchange, at least, that's what the local papers reported. Spicoli then offered that he couldn't think of any good reason why Mr. Hand would have a problem with a violent criminal running a country. "It must be because of oil," he concluded. The nervous crowd seemed to approve of this assessment or possibly they were just signalling their recognition of the word "oil". After the rally the Great Leader and his Bud retired to the palace to work on a diorama of Joseph Stalin.