Obamaphobic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready?

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

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

Then you win. Except that you lose.

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

China Syndrome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now you have China's knot.

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

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

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

Either path has looks like a loser.

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

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

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

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

President Bush vetoed the new farm bill.

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

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

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

W's Prom Nightmare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Sullivan On My Mind

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

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

In the post, Mr Sullivan attacks the initiative saying,

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

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

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

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

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

Apple Economics

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

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

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

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

Well I feel better now.


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

Election Prediction Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varnished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Tuesday

From Newsarama:

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Supporters to bail out Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other news, the sky is blue.

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

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

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


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

Global Mulligan

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

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

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

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

PETA Endorses Killing Animals

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

Pause for spit take...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or PETA kills them.

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

In defense of Hillary!

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

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

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

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

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

I AM THE LAW!

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

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

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

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

Pandering

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

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

Please Pay Attention

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

Greenspan Sleeps Well

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

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

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

And...

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

Ok, lets play with the first one.

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

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

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