Look for the Union Label...And then Avoid It

I'll spare you all my predictable rant describing why unions reduce quality of outputs and create elitist institutions that foster exclusion. I'd rather ask any collectivists out there a more fundamental question. Why would government workers ever need to unionize? The argument for the necessity of unions (at least, the only one that ever made any kind of sense to me) is that they protect the individual from the harsh bottom line thinking of the capitalist profit motive. But the government does not operate with a profit motive. Therefore, it has no incentive to reduce costs and "underpay" employees. In fact, the government looks for political support from its employees and, therefore has an incentive to overpay...which it usually does. In the realm of governmental employment a union serves as just another layer of bureaucracy that adds additional expense (by siphoning of dues) and adds no value.

Good for the GOP (for once) in keeping unions out of the anti-terror bill. The American people would be far better served if unions were kept out of all governmental employment.

Al gets Gored on Home Energy Use

Sorry, everyone else was using some kind of "Inconvienient Truth" tie-in to discuss big Al's home electricity bill. Anyway, said bill is about $30 grand, and represents usage of about 20x the national average. OK, sure it looks bad, but only to those who are ignorant about the greater "environmental" message, and of course, those who wish to damage Gore. Says some random former adviser,

"I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

See, the fact that Just Call Me Al uses 20x the national average isn't news, its not hypocritical, its not ironic even, its just a feeble attempt by those who don't believe in global warming to show that a guy who does maybe isn't doing so much personally, "do as I say" and all that.

Anyway, allow me enlighten you with an assist from fictional Stalin.

Stalin: One, the mansion. Seriously, what's the deal with that?
Unknown Blogger: Gore spokes-person Kalee Kreider points out that it's old, and that's part of the problem, its just not that efficient. Anyone who knows anything about environmentalism knows the "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan. Gore is heroically doing just that. Sure, any other multi-millionaire could invest in the latest and greatest efficiency technology by building from scratch. Maybe even use their home to highlight said technology, but not Gore. He's "reusing" an old house. It's right there in the slogan Stalin. It's not "reduce, build new, recycle." Gore's taking one on the chin for his principles. By refurbishing a 20 room mansion, he's simply taking an inefficient home off the market.

SM: 20 rooms? But isn't it just he and Tipper at this point? Shouldn't he be "reducing" as part of that catchy slogan?
UB: Excellent question. One, he needs all those rooms to store excess carbon, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. Duh. Two, the article points out that he works from home. One room for leading Global Warming Charge, one room for possible Presidential run, one room for actual "working out," plus Tipper needs offices because its not like music's getting any cleaner, it adds up real quick. Why do you think offices are always in those big high rises. Plus, it saves on the commute.

SM: But $30 thousand?
UB: Yes, $30k sounds big, especially when the 2005 median household income was just north of $46k (but remember, housing is most peoples largest expense). But lets look at the numbers. It was $31,512 in 2005 and $29,268 in gas and electric bills in 2006, what did you do that saved $2,244 in gas and electric bills last year? Quit being a half-empty type of guy. Hater.

SM: All I'm saying is that you gave Bill Bennett a lot of grief for his gambling, certainly Gore deserves some heat (ed note: Stalin is famous for his really bad puns) for his energy usage. Even if he gets it all from renewable resources, its not setting a great example. When you hold yourself up as a paragon, condemn others and try to convince them to change their ways, your house (again with the bad puns) should be in order.
UB: Once again, you've completely missed the point. By spending almost a luxury car in gas and electric each year, Gore is heroically trying to bring the price down for the rest of us. Everyone knows that as the market for renewables goes up the price goes down. The problem is having enough need to bring expenses down. By spending so much on gas and electric, Gore is taking the price down for the rest of us. No Gore = higher prices. The man invented the internet and now he's single handedly bringing down the cost of renewable energy. I think I'm tearing up.

SM: Why is he just now getting around to installing solar? Isn't that an easy first step?
UB: The fact is solar wouldn't really help, his house doesn't get much sun due to being in the shadow of such a magnificent man.

SM: OK, so what about the private jet?
UB: Again, you're ignorance and lack of imagination show through. Gore needs a private jet so he can personally inspect the atmosphere.

SM: Once again Unknown Blogger, you have proven yourself to be my superior in every way. I'm so glad you're "unknown." If I had to face the world everyday with your vast greatness overshadowing my every move, it would be hard to get out of bed.
UB: Hey don't sweat it. By the way, you do have the superior penmanship, never, ever forget that.

Say "Cheeeeese!"

Radley Balco over at Reason wrote this post about short yellow lights at traffic signals. The gist is that at signals with cameras to catch traffic violators, the yellows are short. Why have short yellows? According to the link cited in the article (I know, I know its like a treasure hunt) about short lights in Lubbock, TX,

Adding an additional second to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53% reduction in violations, producing the greatest benefit of all the factors studied (2-6). When safety is the main concern, preventing crashes is more important than reducing violations. Yellow signal timing again proved most effective in reducing crashes. An extra second yielded a 40 percent collision reduction.

Read those numbers again. As a citizens, adding a second to yellow light length reduces expenses by 53% and reduces crashes by 40% (which reduce insurance costs, hospital costs, and lots of other expenses - and oh, yeah SAVES LIVES). One second? That's it? This is fantastic. Seems like there's a citizens initiative in the making, just huge savings all around. Now someone please remind me what the role of government is? Is it to debate safety v. revenue? I've never liked situations where the government views citizens as a source of revenue (which means I'm mostly unhappy), just too big a conflict of interest. But here it looks like citizens pay with fines and injury.

Just for the record, and not surprisingly, I'm totally against traffic cameras.

Virginia to Slaves, "My bad!"

Virginia Lawmakers passed a resolution expressing "profound regret" for slavery.

"The General Assembly hereby expresses its profound regret for the Commonwealth's role in sanctioning the immoral institution of human slavery, in the historic wrongs visited upon native peoples, and in all other forms of discrimination and injustice that have been rooted in racial and cultural bias and misunderstanding," the resolution reads.

Well, that's that.

The resolution passed 96-0 in the House and 40-0 in the Senate, which makes one wonder what happened to Delegate Frank Hargrove who during debate famously said that, "get over it" and questioned whether Jews should apologize "for killing Christ Gotta love the moxie, but where was his vote?

As far as the merits of this bill? I'm going to surprise long time readers (Hi Ma!) and say that I support it. I mean, why not apologize on behalf of the state. The state was involved with slavery. Granted none of the people in the state were, but the state itself, as an entity, yup. Also, people apologize daily for a huge range of things from the most insignificant, a slight bump in line at the Quick-e-mart, to more emotional, "You're dog died, man I'm sorry to hear that." But what's weird about apologies, the larger the issue, and the more personally involved the harder it is to apologize. One would never say, "You're dog died, get over it," or if after accidentally bumping a woman in the Quick-e-mart, "Get over it," but in an argument with a close friend or spouse? Well, there apologies are hard to come by. There's an inverse relationship between the need for an apology and ease of giving it. Slavery is a big deal, especially to the African American community. What's wrong with saying "sorry?" Seems to me to the be the absolute least America can do. If it would make a group of citizens feel better, and another group of citizens regret and don't support slavery, then what's the big deal? I mean, why not try to help ? Doesn't hurt me to live in a state that "apologized" for slavery, and it may help some others feel better. No brainer. Look, I had nothing to do with slavery, but as a proud American I'm sorry its a part of our history. Maybe whites need to "get over" the smugness and callousness of refusing to support an official "apology.

As a side bar, I also support a slavery monument in DC. A country should be proud of its accomplishments so that they be repeated, and acknowledge its mistakes so that then not be repeated.

White House points out Iraq "success" indicator

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that they were withdrawing troops. Granted most headlines make this seem more severe, it looks like they're taking total troop levels from 7100 to 5000 "if Iraqi forces can secure the country’s south." Probably a big "if" and he coats the potential for total withdrawal by saying troops will stay "in Iraq until at least 2008." I read this like .99 cents is not a dollar. A half-empty reading of his words says troops will be there through the end of the year, or another 10 months, until 2008 is really the end of 2007, but saying 2008 makes it sound longer.

Not only that but Denmark and Lithuania are pulling troops too. Thats nearly 500 troops, gone. Looks like the "Coalition of the Willing" is becoming more and more unwilling.

But not to fear, the White House spin machine is on the case. Says Condi,

“The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits. The coalition remains intact and, in fact, the British still have thousands of troops deployed in Iraq.”

And says White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe "We view this as a success." And not to be left out, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq.

Success all around. But why is it a success that the British are pulling out troops as we're bringing them in? Wouldn't it be much better if the British were reassigning troops to the same areas that we're sending more of our own? If the "coalition" was still in tact, wouldn't they be rushing to help where its needed? W's compared this war to every "good" war in US history, so I'll pick WWII as an analogy. The Allies didn't pack up and go home when they won a battle and secured land. They did that and moved on to wherever else they were needed, and kept at it until the war was over. While the "war on terror" will never be over, I assume at some point, the Iraq war will be. Why are our coalition parters leaving before the party's over, and why is the White House calling that a sign of "success?"

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a "success." Success would be securing the area, moving on to help elsewhere, while making sure the left area didn't backtrack. I see this as the Brits declaring victory and going home.

Insurance, companies...and you

Interesting article about how one company, Scotts Miracle-Gro and its CEO Jim Hagedorn, is dealing with rising insurance rates. Interesting for two reasons, one, it touches on the larger topic of how complicated employer based health insurance is becoming, and two, the article completely misses the larger point with its examples.

I'll start with the second. The article uses a lawsuit filed by a former employee (although his status is contested) who claims he was fired because he was a smoker but then goes into how Scotts has a whole expensive program in place to help people get healthier to bring down insurance costs. In my mind, this is really two articles. One about Scotts efforts to help employees get healthy thereby reducing insurance costs, and one about Scotts firing people who are unhealthy to reduce insurance costs. While it may not seem like much of a difference, there's a huge gulf between the two. I want to be clear, I'm not saying Scotts is did anything wrong, rather I think there was a very interesting and topical story about Scotts reducing insurance costs by firing unhealthy people. If the company's figures are correct and health insurance consumed 20% of the net profits and was growing at a rate of 20%, then it had to act. No one complains when a company fires an employee who is costing it money through ineptitude, slacking, etc, why is it wrong to fire an employees whose actions are hurting the company due to the health insurance impact? Touching on point one above, if the company is on the hook for your health insurance costs, they do have some (the line is very debatable) right to interfere with your choices as it directly affect the company. You will see companies moving farther and farther into your private lives in an attempt to constrain the growth of health insurance expenses. It will also be hard to argue against it, after all, they're paying for it.

Which is why employer based health insurance is on its last legs (unless congress steps in and forces things). It makes the least sense for the employer and employee. Not the benefit, but the method. Health insurance is a major carrot for most companies and they cannot compete for high quality employees without it. But its also enormously inefficient for the employees. They cannot shop for the plan that best suits them, and are forced into the company plan. And while it is subsidized, like all subsidies its still costing the employee only the cost is hidden. Lower profits mean less money to pay out, less money to invest, lower cushion against hard times, etc. Bottom line, less money is less money. Not only that, but healthy employees pay the costs for the unhealthy ones. Does that really make sense?

What does make sense is for employers to pay employees and for employees to determine how to best use their income. As an employer, I would much rather cut health insurance but pay employees more. Let employees find the plan that fits them best, if they can find it cheaper than their increase in pay, good for them. Heck, they could even opt out and decide to take the risk, whatever. For this to really work private citizens should be able to band together for cheaper rates, which, I believe requires a change in law. I would love to see private co-ops. Also, as I've said, W's plan to tax this benefits like cash will make this transition easier.

Health insurance is going to force companies to examine their own practices. Some will opt out and try to hire without the carrot, some will dive deeply into employee lives in an attempt to constrain the expense growth, some will, inevitably fire unhealthy employees. It doesn't have to be this way. Employees should manage this expense like they do all their other expenses. Its the most efficient way.

Finally, I do think its odd that employees are comfortable letting the HR department manage something so very personal. A company owns everything it pays for, from emails to the office. If it pays for your medical bills, it follows that they own the rights to that information as well. If employees paid for it, there would be no debate, no lawsuits, and no claim of Big Brother or other personal invasions. Bad policy begets bad policies.

Boring Election Background

David Weigel of Reason Magazine has an interesting post dispelling the "15% lie" or the idea that black candidates do about 15% in worse in the actual election than pre-polling suggested.

Not terribly exciting stuff, but in an era where you more about "electability" than issues, you may start to hear more about it.

McCain's Curious Rumsfeld Blast

Presidential Hopeful (and he needs all the "hope" he can muster since apparently being 72 led being gay by only 2% on the "would you vote for someone who is..." list) John McCain came out and blasted former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelf saying,

We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement - that's the kindest word I can give you - of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war. The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously.

And,

I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,

Hey, I'm with you brother. But I have to point out that that sentiment is a touch different than what he said when Rummy retired.

While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service.

Ok, everyone can change their mind. But here's what's really interesting. If Rummy is the worst ever, and we're paying a "heavy" price for his ineptitude, what about the guy who hired him, stood by him, and refused to fire him? Doesn't that make W culpable? Doesnt' that make W some kind of moron? Surely if Rummy was the worst W should have recognized it and acted. What does it say about W as a leader if he can't even recognize that he has the worst guy ever working for him? Not only that, but kept him on for years, causing all this heavy damage. Shouldn't someone at least ask the question?

So, is this McCain's ham fisted way of addressing Iraq without blaming W? With the majority of Americans against the war all Presidential hopefuls have to come up with some way of handling the bad feelings. Dems get to attack W, but GOPers have to tread lightly, especially during the primaries. W's still very popular with the party hardliners, aka primary voters. But this is so transparent, it makes one wonder.

It makes me wonder if he's trying to hit Rummy now to appease the masses but not offend the base, while setting up the "W should have acted on Rummy sooner" line once McCain wins the primary. This way, he can stay to the right early, then come up with a "soft" criticism of W during the general election where W's overall numbers are much, much...much lower. Its an attempt to win enough of the main-stream vote without sending the base ballistic.

I think its an interesting play. I also think that his hit on Rummy is a direct attack on W, but it's not playing out that way in the media, and hasn't backfired that I can tell.

See, Hydrablog goes beyond the media. Pop in some Pink Floyd and join us. Or, pop in some Roxette and Join the Joy Ride. Either way.

New Jersey Gays get Pink Slip

And its the good kind.

New Jersey started granting "Civil Union" status to gay couples. A status that confers the same legal rights as marriage. Also, looove the pink certificate. Seriously, was "rainbow" taken? If we have any readers in NJ, can you tell me if a Marriage Certificate is also pink? These are the kinds of things I have to know.

In any case, long time readers (Hi Mom!) know that I'm a huge fan of Civil Unions and equal rights for homosexuals, so big congrats to NJ.

Now lets all wait to see if this causes NJ to becomes some sort of stinky, belching cess-pool. You know, some sort of national joke. Err, scratch that-wait don't! It could be contagious.

W compares himself to the first (W)ashington

No lack of confidence for him.

But his analogy left me more scared than inspired. Says the modern W,

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive."

Ummmmm, who's who in the analogy?

OK. Lets assume we're the Continental Army. Is Al Qaeda the mighty empire? Are the odds against us overwhelming? Should I be planning to lose more battles than we win? Desertions? Are we on the brink of disaster? What the hell's going on? Maybe I haven't been scared enough? Or maybe W's finally starting to read papers. I mean, was that supposed to be inspiring? Is he really comparing the most powerful military ever to the "ragged" Continental Army? Is he saying troop moral is so low we're facing mass desertions? I'm not even going into the difference between defending the Declaration and putting it aside "for now." I'm completely baffled. That or he's just totally delusional. Worst. Peptalk. Ever.

But looking at it, it sounds more like a rallying cry for Al Qaeda. I mean, we're more like the "mighty empire." We could certainly be viewed as the modern version of Britain. And aren't the odds against them overwhelming? The insurgents are certainly rag-tag, and are definitely losing more battles than they're winning. Disaster is absolutely a constant presence. Seriously, wouldn't this speech make much more sense if it came from Binny?

However, maybe we should pay close attention to the current W's words. It's very hard to defy the locals if they don't want you around. A lesson the Brits learned about 250 years ago, one we learned 35 years ago, and one we may be learning now.

Finally, I think this quote is the scariest.

"After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Isn't he acknowledging how difficult it would be for any leader to give up the powers he asked us to give him. Especially since he won't be that leader? I think this is the warning we should all be heeding.

Kevin Federline just made another $15 million

Britney Spears publicly shaved her head (video here). While we at the H-Blog try to stay above the gossipy types, well at least celebrity gossip, I couldn't get one thought out of my mind about Brit, no not that one, this one.

And she is terrified her estranged hubby will take sons Sean Preston, one, and five-month-old Jayden James from her.

Well, clearly the best way to combat that fear is to publicly shave your head. Nothing says stable mom like crying and shaving off all your hair. This after going public without pubics. Well at least now the carpet matches the drapes.

Didn't anyone, and I mean anyone, tell here that there was no way Mr Federline was going to get the kids? Deadbeat guy who leaves pregnant girlfriend for Ms Spears, never works, known world wide as a mooch and opportunist is going to somehow beat the courts natural inclination that the kids stay with their mother? I mean its not like Ms Spears can't afford the absolute best lawyers to help her. All she had to do is sit tight for a year or so and she wins. No question. Now it's going to cost her at least another $15 million in the divorce settlement.

For his part, Mr Federline is playing this perrr-fect. Staying low and letting Mr Spears completely self destruct. Tactically just right. When you're getting what you want, shut up.

I honestly don't know which is the most embarrassing moment in a long list for her. Take your pick, quicky marriage to a Jason Alexander (and not even the famous one), getting publicly married to a loser, showing the world your nether region, crying and shaving your head, or getting completely outmaneuvered by Kevin Federline. Personally, getting outflanked by Mr Federline would cause me to move to Tibet.

UPDATE: Lafayette Marijuana and Judge

Quick update on a recent post about Lafayette Judge Leonard Frieling's decision to step down in protest of the city's decision to increase the penalty for possession of less than one ounce 10 fold from $100 to $1000 and up to one year in jail.

First the Honorable Judge Frieling responded to our post, meaning much like the Libertarian party boasts on and on about their sheriff, we can now claim an actual Judge among H-Blog readers!

Speaking of Judges, on to the update. As Judge Frieling says in his now famous reply to the post, the City of Lafayette reversed course and withdrew the Ordinance. Judge Freiling's decision to step down, and not "work from the inside" (really bad comment on my part, since when have I not championed the bold gesture?) was clearly the catalyst. The resulting media attention and resulting local outcry killed the ordinance. We at Hydrablog humbly accept our small role in this action (the great thing about a group blog like Hydrablog is that those contributers who don't support an action pressed by another, are along for the ride. So while the rest of the H-blog gang may not support the Council's Ordinance withdrawal, we're all in it together. Much like when Stalin finally pulls off replacing the Star Spangled Banner with Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" as our national anthem, I'll be dragged along with him.).

Some fun facts.

53% of Lafayette citizens supported Colorado Amendment 44 , which would have decriminalized possession of less than that very ounce that the City Council wanted to increase the penalty for holding. Much like the South Dakota Abortion Bill, this shows a real disconnect between legislators and citizen.

"Lafayette Judge Marijuana" gets 123,000 hits on Google. Again, Judge Frieling's decision to step down was the correct one.

Again, with the disconnect between the city council and the citizens, all it took was the right catalyst to get everyones attention. 123,000 Google hits was more than enough to alert the Lafayette citizens that their legislators weren't acting in accordance with their wishes. And the the 123,000 hits came from on man's decision to take action. This is also the time to congratulate the City Council for reversing course rather than stubbornly continue down a path at odds with the citizenry. Believe it or not, this is roughly how a democracy is supposed to work.

The NBGay?

Also tempted to go with, "The NBA, I love this gaym!"

Anyway, the most recent entry for the "Is This Really News" is a twofer.

One, Former NBA center John Amaechi is gay. What? Homosexuals play sports? Someone alert the media! Oh, someone already did.

Two, the newsworthy (?) reaction. Former NBA Point Guard Tim Hardaway said,

You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States.

Wait, some people don't like gays? Quick someone alert the media! Oh, someone already did. Seriously, with the thousands of players who have played the game, one guy says something, something real and honest by the way, and it gets treated like it means anything. And of course Hardaway's real reaction comes complete with a fake apology.

"As an African-American, I know all too well the negative thoughts and feelings hatred and bigotry cause," Hardaway said Thursday in a statement issued by his agent. "I regret and apologize for the statements that I made that have certainly caused the same kinds of feelings and reactions. I especially apologize to my fans, friends and family in Miami and Chicago. I am committed to examining my feelings and will recognize, appreciate and respect the differences among people in our society. I regret any embarrassment I have caused the league on the eve of one of their greatest annual events."

I'm sure Mr Hardaway stayed up all night, reaching deep into his feelings, to craft that apology. However, I do have to say that when I first read his apology, I thought he was leaping out of the frying pan into the fire with his "As an African-American" intro, given how the AA community is chafing at comparing their struggle with gay rights. But so far so good. Also, no one seems to be wading into the fact that Mr Hardaway's comments are even less "shocking" given that he is African-American, a group that is statistically less tolerant of homosexuality than the rest of America (which, by the way, explains much of the gay baiting that the GOP's did during the last election cycle, it was an attempt, in part, to split the AA community away from the Dems - but I digress). Nor has their been any discussion about the fact that some people actually feel this way.

None of this is news. Seriously, you could see this whole thing coming, action/reactions style from a mile away. Granted, ESPN treated it like their own private Anna Nicole story, endless coverage, debate among talking heads, "breaking news," etc, but to me, that's even more proof that none of this is remotely "newsworthy."

I'll wrap all of this up by noting that clearly the best way to handle intolerance is to be intolerant. NBA Commissioner David Stern banned Mr Hardaway from all NBA related events during the All-Star break. Says Mr Stern,

"It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours."

I guess the league can't make former players attend "sensitivity classes." Side bet alert. Look for Mr Hardaway to do something like that to get back into the NBA's good graces, especially as his Hall of Fame votes start coming around.

Actually, I'm going to put on a follow up wrapper, a bonus pack if you will. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has the correct perspective. Coming out after you retire isn't a big deal. The real trailblazer will be the man who comes out while he's still playing.

See, that would be news.

"It's not my fault I was mislead, I didn't ask any questions"

I have to start this post by saying I have no idea who Richard Cohen is, could be a hack, could be a genius no clue have I.

However, I found this article interesting. I've often wondered why Kerry didn't make more of a "I was mislead" argument for his vote on the war. I get it now. He and all Dems in the race for the big gig have to answer one very troubling follow-up, "How come, Senator, you didn't ask more questions?" There was a lively debate among the people about the necessity of the war and the resolutions authorizing it, but in the Senate? Not so much. Especially from senators with Presidential aspirations who stood quietly and tried to read the public polling tea leaves. Not wanting to "look" cowardly on terrorism, the became cowardly on terrorism by not doing their job. It forces one to wonder what kind of President any (Obama gets a pass) would be seeing how they hid from their conscious out of fear and/or for the sake of votes.

It is one thing to be mislead when you're asking questions and probing for answers, its another to let yourself be mislead because you're not asking questions and probing for answers. The former is genuine, the latter is a convenient mutual deception.

And I have to add, Hillary complaining that she was "deceived" by W is very much liker her "shock" that Bill had an affair with Monica. At some point you have to question her ability to ask questions and understand what's going on.

Circle, Circle, Dot, Dot, Now I've Got a Coercive Public Policy

Q: What do chickenpox, hepatitis, and measles have in common with the human papillomavirus, or HPV?

A: Less than is reasonable for requiring 11- and 12-year-old girls to have the vaccine to register for public or private school classes in Florida. Of the four diseases, HPV is the only one that can be spread solely through genital contact. Lawmakers, take a deep breath. All you'll catch is a whiff of grandstanding legislators and the millions Merck no doubt stands to make at the expense of families' rights to clearly choose what belongs in their children's bodies.

Speaking of Tobacco

Two smoking bills in the CO, one would the use of a legal product in designated areas of nursing homes, the other would allow local taverns to pay $500 a year to exempt them from the smoking ban.

As I said in my recent abortion post, I'm against these "soft" bans. Smoking is legal if you're over the age of 18. Change that, or leave it alone. I don't smoke, never have, and back in the day, I didn't frequent places that allowed smoking. You can choose to smoke, you can choose to allow/disallow smoking in your establishment, and I can choose my way. So while I do believe that smoking is an unhealthy decision, I also think you're free to make it. We were all getting along just fine, we don't need the government to get involved, especially when it says you may consume this legal product in a one square foot area of the state.

But what's striking about these bills is that legislators are playing God (I know that that sounds strong, but if you believe that these legislators are innocently acting on a good intention of saving people, then they are clearly deciding who gets "saved" with this mishmash of banned areas), and their choices are interesting.

Lets go through the exemptions.
Apparently casino employees aren't as important to keep alive as restaurant employees. Not exactly sure why the CO legislature feels that casino employees should die slow cancer related deaths, maybe all the casino employees pants the Legislature back in Middle School.

It also looks like nursing home employees deserve a half-death by cancer. Since smoking is only allowed in well ventilated places, I assume that the Legislature feels that this decreases but does not eliminate nurses from the pale stench of their own death. Or maybe they figure that working in a nursing home they're used to it.

Overall, says Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver,

"The bill we passed last year is uneven, but we need to spend our time bringing establishments into the act rather than exempting them."

Or maybe, his time is best spent letting Tavern owners decide how best to run their business.

However,Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, clearly a H-Blog reader counters with a near flawless argument

This really shows the unintended consequences of the bills we run up here, I opposed the smoking ban. As long as tobacco is a legal substance, we have no business of legislating it out of existence."

Genius

Judge steps down due to increase in Mary J peanalties

Leonard Frieling, a Lafayette municipal court judge, resigned his position because,

"I cannot in good conscience sit on the bench while being unwilling to enforce the municipal ordinances," Frieling said in a resignation letter to city officials.

"Specifically, since you have seen fit to increase the penalty for cannabis possession from a $100 fine to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail, I find that I am morally and ethically unable to sit as a judge for the city."

Good for Judge Frieling. One could suggest that Judge Frieling stay on the bench and work for change, but I respect his stance.

CO Abortion Update

Tough day for CO pro-lifers, and I find myself conflicted. While it may surprise most of the H-Blogs readers (that would be two out our three) I'm Pro-Life. As such, I support most laws looking to restrict abortion. Once such bill (Senate bill 143) failed today in the CO senate Judiciary Committee meeting, 4-3 (no big surprise, no way this bill was going to pass, honestly I didn't even bother researching it).

What I did like was that Senate Bill 60, which requires hospitals to inform rape victims of all their options passed unanimously (yes, including abortion). This is somewhat controversial in CO but I strongly support the bill for two reasons. One, every abortion bill contains the "rape or incest" clause, even the "restrictive" one that just failed. Two, and more importantly, abortion is, in fact, legal today. Since it is, I cannot support any measure that would hide a legal remedy from a citizen. So while I'm personally opposed to abortion I support disclosing it as an option to anyone and everyone. I don't like playing games with legal rights and issues. I'm also very against smoking, but I'm also against the advertising ban. Legal products have the right to advertise. These "soft" bans are damaging. Legal is legal. Deal with it or make a strong stand and clearly change the law.

The pharmacist issue briefly mentioned at the end of the article is another one. If you're a pharmacist and your company sells "abortion" drugs, you should have to distribute them. If you don't like it, start your own company or work for one that shares your views. This is like a sales clerk refusing to sell tobacco or alcohol. No dice. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

To summarize, I'm pro-life, but I'm against all these soft measures that create a pseudo pro-life environment. I'm an enigma.

ND rationalizes Cohabitation Law (almost).

Rather than poke fun at ND for having an anti-cohabitation law in the first place, I'm commending the ND state Senate for passing a bill making cohabitation OK unless you claim to be married. Too many states have laws like ND's, where living together is technically a "sex crime" punishable by 30 days and $1000, but don't act to repeal them.

However, I'm not sure how you prosecute a "claim" to be married, or what damage it causes. But this is a step in the right direction.

And the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

On sale April 24, according to tvshowsondvd.com. Surprise!

Whose Manipulating What?

This article with the expectation setting headline "Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel" actually has very little to say about intel being manipulated. The headline gives one ("one" being "me") the distinct impression that the Dems have finally proven that the Bush administration lied about something leading up to the toppling of Saddam. I'm sure Air America was given the same hopeful expectation. Poor, Air America, yet another disappointment. Let's refresh the long-time readers of H-Blog (Hi UBlo's Mom!) as to what the Bush administration did claim leading up to the Iraq war. They said that there were "links" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda and international terrorists. And guess what? There WERE "links" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda and international terrorists. It is well documented that agents of the Saddam regime had meetings with Al Qaeda members and that Iraq hosted terrorist training camps prior to the US invastion.

Somehow the media reports of this assertion changed this claim to "There are links between Saddam and 9/11". This may be a subtle point, but that was never claimed. The logic may follow for some that if Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 then Saddam had links to 9/11. However, that was never explicitly asserted by the Bush administration. That's because there is no intel proving a link between Saddam and the operation that brought down the twin towers. Saddam clearly gave aid and comfort to our enemies, but it is not clear if he actually participated in the attack. Of course, wondering if he may have is a perfectly reasonable thing to do given the facts.

It's well past time for thoughtful participants of the "why did we invade Iraq" debate to move past the strawman invented by the left who said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Saddam was in violation of the sanctions impossed upon him after the Gulf War (this is why the UN security council passed resolution 1441 which mentioned "serious consequences" if Iraq did not change its ways) and Saddam was aiding "terrorists" (granted a very broad term and one that more often covers enemies of Isreal instead of enemies of the US...if there is a diffence). I think it is perfectly fair to question the decision to invade Iraq as there may have been other valid options available to us. However, it is completely irresponsible to charge the Bush administration or the intelligence community or the media of having "deceived us" into war.

Pelosi wants Air Force 3

SOTH Nancy Pelosi wants a private plane, a private military plane, and wants us to pay for it. Apparently former SOTH Dennis Hastert used a military plane because he wanted to conduct business while flying and didn't always fly his family on it. Naturally, Pelosi wants to push it a little farther. And don't think Senate Pro Tempore Robert Byrd isn't eying one too (a scary number 3 in line).

I mean who wouldn't want to fly from DC back to San Fransisco on a big private plane with stewards and a private open bar? See, it's all about security. While normal air flights are fine and safe for schlubs like us, Pelosi, a democrat of the people, needs more (Separate and unequal?). Playing up the Number 2 in line angle (and the number 2 has ascended due to the death of the President and VP how many times?) Pelosi sees this massive expense and luxury as a necessity.

I guess she wants to view the "draining of the swamp" while sipping her drink served to her by a military steward from the open bar of her all expense paid private military plane. Power to the People!

CO Seat-belt bill

CO State Sen. Peter Groff (D-Denver) introduced a bill, SB 151, that would make not wearing a seat-belt a primary traffic offense, meaning a cop could pull you over just for not wearing one (Bonus points to a Democrat for standing in front of this one, way to go Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, you get the Hydrablog "Who'd a thunk it" Award for breaking stereotypes).

This is a pretty basic Libertarian issue so I won't shed anymore light on this subject. But I do want to take SB 151's proposal and add another one. I did a quick internet search, I'm posting this before I head out the door for a quick trip so forgive my sloppy research, trying to find out if you're auto insurance could be canceled if you weren't wearing a seat-belt, a query if you will. Looks like no. My bet is that because insurance is mandatory, you pretty much get it if you pay for it. What I'm curious about is the impact on seat-belt usage if mandatory laws were repealed, and insurance companies could cancel your policy if you weren't wearing one (I would also expand it to DUI's but lets not complicate things right now).

I think people are smart enough to work through the logic. "If I get into an accident, not only am I much more likely to be injured if I'm not wearing a seat-belt, but not doing so voids my policy. More pain, more expense, no coverage, I'm wearing the thing." Not only that, but my bet is that my rates will go down (and like everything else, this is really all about me), because my rates don't have to cover people who were injured while not wearing said seat-belt. In essence, I'm no loner paying for other people to be stupid.

Also, given that after all these years and laws, compliance is still only at 80%, maybe letting people and insurance companies work it out is best.

Fair and Balanced?

Media quick hit. Here's Fox's Rupert Murdoch in a moment of honesty,

Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."

I wasn't there, so I don't know the parameters of the question, or if this quote is taken out of context, but given the long history of debate on the topic of media bias on this blog, especially from a liberal slant, I thought this quote was interesting.

Politician + Moral Lapse = Rehab

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had an affair with the wife of a "trusted aide." OK, I know what you're thinking, "So a politician had an affair, guess what the sun rose today." I agree there's no news here, it's between Mayor Newsom, the aide, and the wife. What caught my eye was this,

"Upon reflection with friends and family this weekend, I have come to the conclusion that I will be a better person without alcohol in my life,"

And that he,

"would get treatment from the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco"

Like Congresman Mike Foley before him, Mayor Newsom had a problem with morals, and alcohol became an excuse and rehab becomes a "safe haven" from the press and responsibility. More and more politicians are retreating to rehab after doing some dastardly deed. Rehab is a place for those with serious problems and who are serious about solving them. Rehab is not a place to rehab a reputation and garner sympathy from the public. Accepting "responsibility" for an made up problem is not really accepting responsibility.

ARLEN SPECTER TO THE RESCUE!

hooray. Everything's going to be better now. woo hoo.

I would feel much better about this comment if it didn't come from Sen Arlen "The Courts will clean-up this patently un-Constitution bill up so I voted for it" Specter. For what it's worth he said,

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Totally agree with the statement, I just don't think it will go anywhere given Specter's history as a total coward.

But Seriously...Life?

The thing about the Michigan Life for Adultery article is that it highlights what I think is one of the biggest problems facing the nation, or not if you like the direction. As I've written before I see an increasing trend towards "Judging from the Assembly" (I'm still playing with the words, I need to hire Frank Lutz) which is the opposite side of the coin from "Legislating from the Bench." The interpretation by Judge William Murphy, sarcastic or not, shows the damage that taking a "literal" interpretation of statues "regardless of the consequences" is not only stupid, but un-American. To take a literal interpretation means you believe the same group of people that routinely garner low 30's in approval rating (I'm not sure what MI's Assembly gets, but I got a dollar that says its max low 50's) can write laws that cover every possible situation while sitting in their office, writing bills, amending them, and passing them is not only naive, but stupid. What happens is that statute exceptions are too many, too cumbersome, poorly written, and overlooked, and a "blanket" rule is passed because its easier to encompass everything than deal with reality. The problem is that its not a security blanket, its a plastic bag.

The Court system insures that common sense prevail in extraordinary circumstances, it is also an independent Third Branch of government. What's the point of having an independent judiciary if they can't be independent? Saying the Court must interpret statutes literally, combined with mandatory sentencing takes away that independence and robs We The People of one of our great protections.

This is what happens when everyone goes all aflutter and buys into the media hype about "Activist Judges." Less freedom for all.

Life in Prison for Adultery?

Michigan Judge says "maybe."

My question? How's that worse than a life sentence of marriage?

Wow, my wife walked right into that one, like shooting fish in a barrel.

"Great coaches, that I know could have done this if they'd been given the opportunity.

Says Tony Dungy after he coached the Colts to victory last night in Super Bowl XLI referring to all the African-American coaches who came before him. Sums up what I love about Coach Dungy, how many people after accomplishing something like winning a Super Bowl, after having been fired by Tampa Bay and watching John Gruden win it the next year with Dungy's team (never a sour word about that - and where are the Bucs now?), taking years of abuse for not being able to win under pressure (which is why Tampa fired him, and he was taking heat for the same reasons over the last three years), standing on there, finally winning it all, and he says that lots of other coaches could have done the same thing if they had the opportunity. Just class all the way.

Dungy doesn't cuss, raise his voice or use threats to coach his team. He does craft great game plans (I disagree with Dungy, I think most coaches would have blown that game by feeling like they have to throw with Manning at QB, while Dungy settled into a running game that ate up clock and wore down the Bears D, even while Manning was clearly wanting to throw more - just great game management by Dungy), respect his players, and push them to participate in local events and charities. Coach Dungy is a man I would want my son to play for.

Quick side note, I think roman numerals should be abandoned after III, but that's just me.

Welcome to Moe's!

Hey y'all prepare yourself for the rubberband . . .
man!
You've never heard a sound like the rubberband . . .
man!
You're bound to lose control when the rubberband . . .
starts to jam!

"I'll Be Around", I dig the most--pretty much the last blast of '60s Motown-style R&B, recorded on Atlantic and released in '72, the same year Motown moved to L.A. without the Funk Brothers . . . which brings me to Joe Hunter, who also died this weekend.

You'd know the "I'll Be Around" bass and horns anywhere, but you've heard Joe Hunter everywhere. He and the Funk Brothers "played on more number-one records than The Beatles, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys combined": "Papa Was a Rolling Stone"; "Come See About Me"; "Tears of a Clown"; "Shotgun"; "Heat Wave."

They deserve better obituaries than these.

FL seeks to end reign as "King of Election Jokes"

Newly elected FL Governor Charlie Christ (R) wants paper trails for electronic voting machines.

''What we're talking about here is Democracy and it is precious. You should, when you go vote, be able to have a record of it, common sense.''

Yeah I know, I'm just not used to seeing it in politicians.

Al Franken's Monster

I know, I know, easy on the Franken/Frankestein references too easy. Anyway, looks like comedian, radio host, liberal pundit Al Franken is going to run for Senate in Minnesota, ya. While we're not in the habit of announcing every candidate, he's interesting. Personally I enjoy his books, I think he's generally funny and he seems to have a decent grasp of the issues, even when I disagree with him. What will be interesting is to see him in action. It's always fun to watch an arm-chair quarterback jump into the big game. I have to admit, I'm expecting a lot from his campaign, but I think I'm going to be disappointed. Sitting back I think, "He's smart, witty, confident, and articulate," but I have a feeling that that part or Mr Franken won't show up, and that he'll be rather disappointing.

Some advice for his opponent, incumbent Senator Norm Coleman. One, just leave funny to Al. Take the "serious times demand a serious Senator, not a comedian" approach. Two, understand the Tucker Carlson Rule. Never, ever, get into a battle of barbs with a stand-up comedian. They're just too quick and have too much training dealing with hecklers. Take the hit and move on. Summarizing points one and two, there's cutting an witty for politicians and cutting and witty for professional comedians. Sen Coleman has got to understand this. If, in a debate, he goes for "hey I'm cutting and witty too" he may as well hand the keys to office to Mr Franken then and there. Make Mr Franken prove he's up to standard of your job, not that you're up to the standard of the the job Mr Franken is leaving.

H-Blog's first 2008 Crib Sheet

Here's the first in a potential series of quick hits on the 2008 Presidential Election. Looking at random candidates who are either in, or are strong potentials to jump in.

Democratic Party Candidates:

Former VP Al Gore: Not officially in. Here's a tip, Gore is binary. If he enters the race it will only be because he knows he'll win. You may not see it, I may not see it, but absolutely the only way he's in is if he's aware of something that all but guarantees him the win (not just the nomination, but the whole shebang). Bank on it. Unless that scenario presents itself, he won't run. Black and white. In, win, out lose. I know most people think there's no way, but remember this, he won the popular election. Not only did he win, but he "beat" someone who would go on to become a wildly unpopular President who's waging a wildly unpopular war, which to his credit Gore never backed. There will be some "what if Gore won" sentiment, and not just from the die-hards. Also, agree with it or not, Global Warming is reaching the tipping point, and Gore was way out ahead of that issue (granted he'll have real trouble describing exactly what he did to help during all his years as Senator and VP, ie nothing really). Those are two big things, but still not enough for him to risk losing again. Having said that, I think he would love to take Hillary out.


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): Here's what's interesting about her. Her polling numbers (both favorable and unfavorable) are remarkably stable, going back to her time as First Lady (by the way, are we really at a point where First Ladies have polling numbers?). What this means for her campaign is that they know exactly what they're dealing with. They know her positives and negatives and can create strategies to address both with little guess work. However, the consistency and level of her unfavorable numbers, combined with such a small percentage of "don't know's" is a real problem for her. There's just not much room to work with. People know, and a lot of people know they don't like her. Looking into the future, even if she manages to win, she will find it very hard to govern with those negative numbers (See Bush, George W). Still, with her money, skill, high favorable marks, and high ability and willingness to fight, she's the current front runner for the nomination, but hard to imagine her winning it all.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): Nipping at Hillary's heels. The current media darling. The Audacity of Hope. Generally has negatives in the "What have you done?" category. I don't think this is a big deal, look at W, nondescript Governor, terrible business past, President (I don't bring this up to slam W, really, rather to point out that "resume" is often overblown in elections, sad as it is, it usually comes down to "likability"). But still, what has he done? What will he hang his hat on come election time? This will be the resounding issue for his candidacy, in these very tense times, what's he done? He's a great speaker, good looking guy, being African American helps, but all he's been is a candidate. Not only that, but he's never been tested. He walked into the Illinois gig, wasn't really blasted, what will happen when the heat gets turned up. I have to say, so far so good. When Fox ran their brief smear campaign against him (debunked, again, Fox hides and blames Hillary here, just good times all around), he handled it very well, so maybe he'll handle the heat (by the by, how come no calls for the heads of the Fox news folks who went with this "story?"). In any case, I think he passes Hillary and becomes the nominee. But can he win? Even if he doesn't he could be in fine position for a run in 2012.

One very large problem plagues the two Democratic front runners and all Senators with Presidential hopes. A Senator hasn't won the Presidency since Kennedy. Obama can overcome this because he just doesn't have a lot of votes under his belt to attack (the good part of "just what has he done"). The "stain" of the Senate isn't quite set in. But for Hillary, this is a killer.

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM): I think he missed his window. By playing it coy in 2004, he missed his chance. Had he made his move, I do think he would be President right now. However, he's Hispanic, he's a Governor (huge, huge position for running for President), solid resume (yes, I know I said that resume is overblown, but better to have it than not), and he's savvy. However, rumors plague him that he has some severe "negatives" in his past, NM doesn't bring a lot of electoral votes, and no one talks about NM unless its about illegal immigration. I think his best bet is VP, but if one of the two falters, and Hillary will, so all he really needs to hope for is an Obama stumble, he'll be a threat.

Frmr Sen. John Edwards: I'll sum up this way. No ones thinking that Kerry lost despite the great help he got from Edwards. He's going no where, the "Kerry Stain" is just too much. Sure is good looking though.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): Not a chance. Running just to run, get his name out, try to gain some power and influence in the Senate. Maybe looking for the VP gig, but I doubt it. Would be fun in the VP debates though.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): Really needs to work to get known. Also don't see him using 2008 as a platform to 2012. Another VP candidate?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rev. Al Sharpton: They just like to take their act on the road. They do a good job of raising issues and getting attention. They're playing for speaking time at the convention.

The GOP:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): Dead man walking. This almost a Shakespearian Tragedy. Straight Talking Maverick Republican gains national following, loses Presidential primary, spends next eight years becoming Conservative puppet, cozies up to those who destroyed him, they don't rebuild him, he loses all credibility with his national following, never gains credibility he so desperately sought with conservatives, gets blown out early in the process of the 2008 primary. At this point no one likes him. Essentially sold his soul for a lump of coal. If I'm right, this is the saddest story I've witnessed since I've been following politics. There will be books about how he was destroyed by others in 2000, and how he destroyed himself in 2008. Did I mention that he's a Senator with a looooooong voting record? Lieberman may want to watch this closely. Not because of a potential gig as VP, but because his career is looking remarkably similar. Both took the express train from rebel to pawn.

Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: At this point, while not in, the favorite, and the favorite with the best chance of winning it all. "America's Mayor." Perceived moderate, knows how to campaign, knows how to fight, knows how to win. Credited not only with cleaning up NYC (image, crime, economy, etc), but became real hero with the WTC bombing. Just cannot be attacked on any 9/11 issue and can take the high ground in that debate instantly. Has negatives, but they're well known and, more importantly, he knows how to deal with them. His main problem will be getting out of the primary. The moderate status that will help him nationally will hurt him with the GOP base. The question is, will they overlook his social moderation in favor of his untouchable 9/11 cred? Or has W mined 9/11 for all its worth, leaving Rudy without any cover?

Frmr Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Tough road when you're best known for losing over 100 pounds. Still, a Republican in a Democratic state, well respected Governor, and the weight loss is a great story. Part of the new breed Republicanism, deeply religious, favors big government on his issues, sort of a W before the wheels fell off. Hard to place in the race, I'm giving him dark horse status. Not sure about his VP cred. Possible, he's out of a job. AR doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, but if he can take some Blue in a close race he'd be worth it. Definitely worth watching.

Frmr Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Similar to Gore only not quite as drastic. He'll run on field weakness, while Gore will only go for the sure thing. Tons and tons of negative history. Hard to imagine that he'll really overcome them. More likely, Gingrich may take the Buchanan route. Run, get some press, get some props, then settle into a nice high paying pundit job and spit out a book every few years (at least this time he'll get to keep the proceeds). Not a chance that he's eying the VP gig.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): The Libertarian. Which is Latin for "No Chance." Running to promote issues. A sane Dennis Kucinich. Hopefully will spark some memory of a GOP that was for small government, individual responsibility, and individual freedom. Best bet is a speaking gig at the convention.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): Here's the GOP answer to Kucinich. Pure issue push. I think they should go out and do a road show. Seriously, total opposites, passionate, nuts. I'd pay to see them debate.


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB): Gaining fast. I think he's Rudy G's biggest threat. Smart, has the Presidential look (white male, nice hair), working his way nicely through the Iraq debate. Hasn't been in the Senate long (but his "Senator" status can't be discounted), won an upset victory to gain the seat in 1996, and has been pushing back on the White House's handling of Iraq without coming across as whiny, disingenuous, or treasonous. Plus he's a vet. His post as deputy whip for the Republican Caucus gives him access to favors and connections. Personally, I think he's going to be the one who comes out of the primaries the winner. Watch him.

Frmr Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA): (By special request from the Comments Section). An enigma for the GOP. At first blush he seems like a great fit, deeply religious, conservative, comes from the NE where he can steal a lot of Electoral College votes, etc. Then you start peeling back the layers. His religion is Mormon which is a bit iffy with the Catholics and the Born Again set, at least in theory. The fact that he was elected Guv of MA, with its high concentration of Catholics tells me maybe this isn't as big a deal as some make it. But still, the national spotlight on The Church of Latter Day Saints may reveal some of the peculiarities of the religion, some of which may not play well with middle American voters. Personally, I think it's going to hurt him, but another famous politician with questionable religious tint did fairly well coming out of MA, so you never know. Also, Romney's moving fast towards the right, but his past is actually fairly liberal, speaking out in favor of Gay Marriage, for example. In the era of blogs and YouTube, you just can't get away with denying your past statements. I haven't heard him speak so I can't discuss his charisma, but again, white male, nice hair. He is a Governor, statistically a big leg up. Like Huckabee and other's he's at the end of that line. He can use the campaign to make a move for Senate. Kennedy's not going anywhere, but Kerry, if Romney runs a solid primary is vulnerable. He could also be a VP choice and I think he's an interesting one. If he can deliver EC votes from the heart of the Dem stronghold in the NE, that may take it in a close race. Plus as VP his Mormon religion gets muted, as does his "liberal" past. So while I think he has almost no chance for the big gig, I do think he can parlay a run into a longer career, and I think that's his goal. Look for him to run a cautious race, playing mostly to MA voters.

Final note on Senators. Obviously, if both parties nominate a Senator, which may very well happen, then the "Senate Anchor" is a wash.

We lost Molly Ivins

Nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins died yesterday, the breast cancer she had been fighting finally overcoming her. Eulogies are not my thing, but having lived in Dallas for eight years I'm very familiar with Ms. Ivins' work. She was a passionate voice of the left, and an excellent writer. While we did not agree on everything, or even much, I always thought that she was genuine in her views. I don't recall reading her work and thinking, "she manufactured that to meet a deadline," or "Wow, she really sold out there." She wasn't working for a Democratic majority, she was working for an ideal. Her bias was her beliefs, not her party. Huge difference. I can remember vicious articles about President Clinton, and certainly more than a few vicious articles about President Bush.

I'll take principled passion that I disagree with over manufactured passion I agree with every time.

I greatly respected Ms. Ivins work and I'll miss reading it. The already troubled field of journalism lost one of its best yesterday.