Someone Take Away Al Gore's Belt and Shoelaces

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

Global Alarming

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

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

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

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

At Least He's Tough

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

Before I Voted Against It...

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

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

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

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

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

Fight the Power

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

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

Psychic Blogger of the Year

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

Take That, Fatty

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

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

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

Throw It On the Pile

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

Play Nice Children

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

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

Is a Change a Comin'?

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

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

Swing and a Miss

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

Honey, I Shrunk the Condom

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

Death To Democracy

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

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

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

Kill the Messengers or The Mouse That Didn't Roar

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

Black Hacks

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

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

Gambling and "the Market"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Shambling to a Blog Near You

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

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

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Look for the Union Label.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmmm, maybe he was just doing "research."

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I liked this part.

[Multiple bicycle manufacturers have recalled their quick release mechanisms due to failure of the mechanism; and]²

The danger to children caused by bicycles with quick release wheels is unacceptable in light of the fact that safer alternatives exist ²; and

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

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

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

Local Government, gotta love it.

I'm So Wasted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A True Cheating Zero Policy

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

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

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

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

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

License Re-Vicked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farm Aid?

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

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

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

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

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

The Anti-War Dirty Little Secret

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

Put Up or Shut Up

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

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

Take the new Hydrapoll!

Hey, look over there ---->

McCain cirlces the drain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whose the Problem?

Farfour the Muslim Mouse is dead. He was killed by the brutal forces of Israel. And, sadly, his execution was televised for all to see. And, even more sadly, it was televised explicitly for children to see. Who would do such a terrible thing to innocent children? Wicked Israel? No. Their parents who are supporters of Hamas.

I'm not sure anything quite so clearly shows the difference between "them" and "us". Sure the Palestinian terrorists have been murdering Israeli civilians for years. But the Europeans and many of our enlightened "intellectuals" have found it easy to explain that away as freedom fighting or the consequences of Israeli oppression. But how flexible must your morality be to consider the murdering of children's characters in front of an audience of children as anything other than complete depravity? And keep in mind, this is not the work of some fringe extremist group, these people are the popularly elected leaders of Palestine (if you believe there is such a place)! If this is Islam, then Islam should be done away with. If it isn't, then true Muslims need to get off their moral rear ends and start fighting against this continuing degrading of Islamic culture by people, who, if they worship anything, must worship a demon.

Nothing is more clear than who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in the Middle East Problem. If you ever find yourself sympathizing with Hamas for any reason, please, seek counseling. You may not actually be evil, you may just be confused.

The end of a dream?

The California Department of Health Services is moving to revoke the license of Martin Luther King Jr-Harbor Hospital (aka King-Drew, aka Killer King), effectively shutting the place down.

If you're new to the story a woman died in a pool of her own blood as a janitor mopped around her and as her boyfriend desperately called 911 for assistance while they were in the hospital. The kicker is that most of this is backed up by video and 911 tapes. This article goes into the unfortunate story.

My point with this article is the Killer King is a public hospital set up with the best of intentions. Originally, it was built as a response to the Watt's riots after one study finding was that lack of access to medical attention was one of the reason's for the riots. Another public hospital set up with the best intentions, Walter Reed recently made some news of its own. While there are many public hospitals that don't mock you as you die on the waiting room floor, nor do they put you in moldy rooms. However, I guarantee you that overwhelmingly, in any city, the public hospital is the least preferred option. This is a very important nugget to remember as we head into an election season where Universal Government Run Health Care promises to be a big topic.

Government's are not set up to run your health care. At best what governments do is big picture, broad strokes tasks. The finer points of addressing your particular medical needs is simply something it cannot do. For all the well meanings and best intentions there is no escaping the idea that the government is the sledge hammer trying to work on your health care microchip.

Its morally compelling to want to use the resources of the government to provide health care for all, no way does any caring person really feel that all US citizens deserve the best medical attention possible. The government has a lot of money and power, and surely should be able to make this happen. Right? Wrong. It's just not the right tool, and all the money and power won't change that. History is rife with military examples of this point, and many believe it is happening right now in Iraq. Good intentions, money and power do not guarantee success, not even close. The right idea, the willingness to do it get you there much faster. I know that we, as Americans, have the willingness, so the goal now is to find the right idea. Turning everything over to the feds is not it.

I don't like having an only "not so" post, I prefer to offer solutions rather than pure criticism. I'm making an exception here. One, because I don't want any solution offered up to take away from my focus on the idea that the Feds can't do it. And two, sometimes deleting an option by itself is helpful. Ask Sherlock.

Good For Something?

The Republicans have done precious little to improve our great republic over the past 6 years. But credit must be given where credit is due. The senate shot down the Pathetic Pandering to Big Labor Bill that this blog whined about several months ago (I'd put in a fancy link to it, but I don't know how...find the post somewhere below...show a little initiative). The bill would end the requirement that secret ballots be used when voting to unionize. That's right. Not allowing workers to vote in secret about forming a union BENEFITS workers. If you understand how this could possibly be true please notify this blog immediately. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen more obvious pandering in my long and storied life. And what makes it more than just run of the mill offensive is that it claims to protect the very group that it is shafting. It also shows how little unions really care about workers. Unions care about unions. And democrats care about union money. And workers are just patsies to both. I'm begging a union supporter to set me straight. Show me this isn't as Orwellian is it appears. And show me why all elections from now on should be held by having voters wear a t-shirt supporting their candidate in a group photo taken by the Jimmy Carter.

The Real Mystery: Who Voted for Her?

No one knows what to think about our immigration problems. Not only does an elected city councilman from LA not understand what to do about the problem..she didn't even know she was part of it. For some reason a person deemed competent enough to lead her fellow Americans didn't realize that not being born here may actually effect her resident status. Now, I don't expect Mrs. Meyer to know everything, but isn't it a no-brainer that you would want to look into what restrictions apply to you knowing you weren't born in the country where you are running for public office? And trying to scare up sympathy with the old, "If they can do this to me they can do it to anybody" nonsense is just pathetic. I think most other people would have had the sense to make one call to the immigration office at some point in their life to check on the rules.

I really don't want Mrs Meyer to be deported because she clearly didn't violate the intent of the law. And I wouldn't mind having her as a neighbor because she is probably a very nice lady. However, I do hope the people of LA are sharp enough to realize that if someone can't manage something so simple in their personal life, they have no business managing a city.

Don't Believe the Hype

The great myth of science is that it settles disputes by revealing the facts about our world. The reality of science is that it is just another player in the world of opinion shaping. A world where opinions are standards that rally followers. And just another interest group lined up for government handouts. We hear calls from the cult of science that demand embryonic stem cell research saying it is THE cure for so many of our afflictions. Of course it is, just like Marlboro is THE smoke for any manly man. If you disagree with the Marlboro Man you're a wuss; if you disagree with the embryonic stem cell crowd, you're religious kook. This is the marketing of opinion, not the revelation of science.

The reality is that adult stem cell research has been yielding fruit for over a decade while embryonic stem cell research has yet to lead to a single successful therapy. Is this sufficient reason to defund all embryonic stem cell research? Of course not. But it absolutely should make you wonder why we hear so little about adult stem cell successes and so much about embryonic stem cell promises. Embryonic stem cell research is justifiably offensive to millions of Americans. Adult stem cell research is not. And seeing as there is no reason to believe that adult stem cells won't provide us all the benefits of embryonic cells that is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Bush provided a reasonable compromise. Scientists can continue to research on current lines, but more subjects will not be provided. However, the already successful road of adult stem cells is wide open. The controversial is allowed but restricted, the reasonable is encouraged if not promoted. Well done.

Whatever it Takes

This post is admittedly a bit unfair. I'm going to make the argument that I don't care a whit if some of these pedophiles had their civil rights violated during this investigation. This will of course put UBlo in the position of having to appear to defend pedophiles to support his fairly unyielding civil rights positions (something that he clearly would not be doing). I assure you, that is not my intent. And I want to say up front that I do respect to a large degree Mr. Blo's position on these matters. However, when it comes to eliminating this type of evil from the world I will continue to argue that I don't care if rules have to be bent to speed up the process of shutting down this kind of horror. It is tragic that these types of people exist and would be even more tragic if we were unable to eliminate them in the shortest time possible because we had to cross every T and dot every I.

I know that the theoretical argument is that we can have it both ways. Our law enforcement can nail the bad guys and the innocent can be uncompromised. I don't believe that. I don't believe that because people are categorically far less than perfect and the systems they create suffer the same fate. Therefore, investigations of this type of evil will always be less than precise. The price of an innocent person having their email or internet footprint compromised to save one of these children even one more hour of this type of abuse is an absolute bargain. I am grateful for our rights in this amazingly wonderful country, but I also understand that there are things much more important than my rights and I'm willing to lay them down when the circumstances call for it.

It was a crazy day, I also bought an ab-blaster

North Carolina DA Mike Nifong says he, "maybe got carried away a little bit" discussing the case of three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a African American stripper.

Yes, maybe a touch carried away in torching the lives of three Duke students, their coach (resigned), and an entire sports program (suspended for the rest of the 2006 season).

Just reading some of Nifong's quotes for the Fox article in the last link.

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

And,

"I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."

Odd, with Mr Nifong's amazing gut, that all three students were cleared.

So now Mr Nifong may lose his lawyer license. Among the comments cited was this gem where he said "he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for 'a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl.'" That's at least somewhat ironic now, given all the media surrounding both the initial incident, and the current media all surrounding the fact that in Durham, a bunch of lacrosse players were incorrectly charged with raping a black girl by an out of control DA. Duke is now as much known for this incident as anything else. Congratulations Mr Nifong. Rarely have I ever witnessed such a complete failure in any endeavor. Just a loss across the board. Wow.

I really haven't been following any of this, but if the only thing Mr Nifong loses is his license to practice law...well that feels like a crime.

I know this will muddy the picture, but I have to point out that if any of these players were foreigners accused of anything having to do with terrorism, they would have not had the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to see the evidence against them (including the flawed DNA evidence), nor any type of jury by peers in front of a judge, and the rest of the tools and protections that freed these boys. The woman's accusation and Mr Nifong's gut would be more than enough to keep them locked up forever.

UPDATE: Nifong announced his surprise resignation today.

New Hydrapoll Released!

Don't be left out.

Are You a Kook?

So the war was illegal, but the occupation is legal? The UN security council extended the mandate for the US forces in Iraq as deranged anti-war types (including a healthy portion of the Democrat base) continue to chant slogans about illegal wars. I certainly understand that there are very good reasons to be opposed to Bush's decision to take out Saddam and liberate Iraq. However, as soon as you find yourself bemoaning the illegality of the invasion you have just crossed the line from well reasoned critic to indoctrinated fanatic. Let this serve as H-Blogs first self-test for the age old question, "Am I a kook?"

You see your Gypsy

In the "why can't I just just catch a break" category, W goes to Albania, gets treated like a rock star, get not one, not two, but three stamps issued in his honor, but somewhere in the adoring crowd of gypsies, tramps and thieves, a particularly guts person stole his watch. Why someone didn't say, "Hey Mr President, how 'bout you slip off that watch before you plunge into the crowd," is really the big mystery.

On the other hand, somewhere a new Gypsy King was crowned. If you stole the watch of the President of the United States, you have to move up the latter. Right? Plus, isn't that watch almost invaluable as a family asset? Can't you see for generations the watch displayed in a glass case above the fireplace, "Ahhhh, the watch that your great-great grandfather stole from the President of the United States. Someday that will be yours."

I don't know much about gypsies, for deeper analysis I turn to one Mr Stalin Malone. Now he knows gypsies. I still remember the day he successfully negotiated to buy a $5 t-shirt for $20 at the ruins of the Berlin Wall, and later gave a strange gypsy a pull of his Coke in the Czech Republic. Maybe this explains the unbreakable bond between W and Stalin, both are Gypsy Masters.

This story is sooo gay its the bomb

I'm reluctantly posting this because I'm 90% sure its some kind of hoax, but I love the imagery, so here goes.

Apparently the Pentagon asked for $7.5 million to create a Gay Bomb, and I'm not talking about "To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar." Some guy named Edward Hammond with Berkeley's Sunshine Project used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio and found a project to create this gay bomb and the Pentagon confirmed it. My guess is that "Gaydar" was too costly so we're stuck with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Anyway, the idea behind the bomb was to come up with chemicals that would not only turn you gay, but sexed up gay. So much so, that you would immediately stop fighting for you life in a war zone and start making out with your fellow soldiers and jump into the nearest foxhole.

Can you imagine the pitch? "OK, I got this idea see. Let's create a bomb, but a non lethal one. All we have to do is turn the enemy gay. Right? You with me? But just gay isn't enough. Gay people want to live. We need gay's who want to love, and love right now. See? So we'll bomb 'em with some kind of chemical, A "gay" chemical, like...like lavender. Lavender makes you gay right? Then we need to get them all hot. Let's see, maybe we can deliver the load with leather pants? No, too hard to get the size right. Well hell, we'll just include another chemical that gets 'em all worked up. I know, let's use sweat. Gays like sweat right? Hey, I'm sweatin' right now, get some of this off my head, hurry. So now we have the perfect bomb, lavender and my sweat. We just some money for a lavender field and a treadmill. $7.5 million should do it. Who's with me? Come on boys, let's get 'em."

I'm entering this for a "Creepy Idea of the Year" even though it occurred in 1994.

Con-Vick?

I know, I know, Michael Vick hasn't been convicted of anything (and you won't see me jumping on, I just couldn't resist the title, and I have dibs on "Con-Vick-ted" if he goes down). However, things are heating up for young Michael as the feds have taken up the investigation into his alleged role in running a dog fighting ring.

Quick aside for a rant. ESPN Page 2 writer Bill Simmons argues that every professional sports team should hire a VP of Common Sense to keep GM's from making boneheaded moves-an idea I love. I also think that every pro athlete should make a member of his "posse" the official Jimmy the Cricket-or JC. After Mr Vick's run in with Miami Airport Security, he should have immediately hired a JC. Then said JC could have told Mr Vick that when you're a pro quarterback with a $130 million contract, maybe, just maybe, you should let the whole illegal dog fighting ring runner gig go. I think all athletes could benefit from a JC, probably wouldn't even have to pay much for the service, and in any case, what the JC saves in fines and public humiliation would surely cover their salary.

Anyway, all this hullabaloo around Mr Vick allegedly running an illegal dog fighting ring led to him abruptly canceling his annual camp, a move that is sure to enhance his reputation with the fans (apparently he's going for the rare "killer of dogs and children's dreams" combo).

Also, the same article has some excepts from a letter that Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank sent to season ticket holders, more of the letter here. Anyway, anytime you have to send a letter that asks, after defending your star QB from public persecution, that

"In the meantime, we want you to realize there are many examples of our organization impacting our community in a very positive manner."

And you also have to point out

the many charitable functions in which Atlanta players participate, and points out that the Atlanta Falcons Youth Foundation has to date provided more than $10 million in grants to Georgia-based nonprofit organizations.

You know things have gone horribly wrong for your organization and that you're in the midst of a PR nightmare. Keep in mind, all of this comes after a very disappointing season where you unexpectedly missed the playoffs and had to fire your head coach.

Again, I have no idea if he's guilty of anything other than really poor judgment in friends and hangouts, but things are going very badly for him right now. At a minimum, how can he concentrate on his job with a federal investigation hanging over him, and knowing that anyone who defends him will wind up like Washington Redskins RB Clinton Portis. And he needs to concentrate after last years set-back season. As of now, Vick's all alone and under the blade.

For those of you who care deeply about the topic of dog fighting, here's a link to the Humane Society's campaign against Amazon.com. Apparently Amazon.com sells dogfighting videos and Cock Fighting magazines.

Polls and market speak, W's value is dowwwwn.

The latest AP poll shows W again at his all time low with a 32% approval, which is also in line with his Hydrablog number. This alone isn't big or breaking news. Breaking it down, he has a 70% number with Republicans, a 25% number with Independents, and an 8 (yes 8) with Democrats.

Polls may lie, but markets rarely do. Take a look at this article. It implies that W's value in the market has declined from $25,000 for a photo to $5,000 in New Jersey. As a side note, I would love to see some real tracking on the value of photo ops with politicians and how much of an indicator that price is as for popularity and/or predictive of winning.

Combined, my bet is that you will see the current crop of GOP hopefuls start to really distance themselves, and eventually turn outright on W. While a 70 number is high in the GOP, you can't win with 25 and 8 for the other groups. A candidate needs Independents and Democrats to win, even if that means sacrificing some of the 70. You got a hint of this during the last GOP debate. My bet is that the candidates are crunching the data to see how their various methods of distancing themselves, and taking tentative jabs at W went. If it's not killing them, they will keep ramping up efforts on distance and jabs until its full out. The goal will be to trade one person from the 70 for three or more from the Independents and Democrats.

Bottom line...W's hurting. He's like wounded piranha, and the rest of the GOP piranha school is poised to devour him.

Immigration Idea

Much like Muscles For Justice in Drives Ed, the Immigration Bill failed. Not much to add, only that I continue to be surprised by how quickly this issue became a hot button and how emotional it is. As always, I think that the "immigration crisis" is a created phenomenon.

However, looking at it, I do have one question. Why is the ability to work tied to citizenship? Seems like we can have a guest worker program (I'm for open borders on working, but I'll take this as a step) that has nothing to do with citizenship. This way the US can have the benefit of cheap labor that expands the market of available goods and services or all Americans and the benefit of taxing that labor (which in theory lessens the burden on all of us, but in reality just means more moolah for the feds to spend), while letting immigrants keep their original citizenship. This means less worry for us and allows a country like Mexico to actually grow its middle class and strengthen its own economy. I know that the argument is that all foreigners want citizenship, but I'm not sure that's the case. I think they want citizenship so they can have access to jobs. If you could travel freely across the border, you could live well in Mexico and work in the US, and I bet most would choose something like that. I could be wrong, but bifurcating the two will prove it.

The GOP should accept this idea as it helps business but doesn't add to the Democratic Party's voter rolls. Loosening the worker restrictions would also allow the government to keep better track of immigrants and immigrants are incentivised to take this legal route over the illegal one. There is not threat of "Amnesty" because this has nothing to do with legalization. And just for kicks, the GOP could still rally around blowing billions on a wall to keep out those workers without permission to work here (and now use some of the new tax revenue to build said boondoggle).

Sometimes deconstructing thing makes them more plausible. We don't always need 15 volume laws that try to accomplish everything to everyone. Simpler is better.

Pardon me?

Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has received his sentence, 30 months (plus a quick primer on sentencing guidelines), all the talk is about will he/won't he be pardoned. I will admit here that the actual crime and sentencing acts are waaaay out of my area of expertise. Maybe it was huge, maybe it was minor, maybe 30 months is excessive, maybe its too light. No idea. Also, I understand that the Presidents powers of Pardation (my word) are unlimited, but as this article points out, there are "guidelines" (by way of note, anytime you see guidelines in quotes, the quotes mean "these marks render the world guidelines totally meaningless. Do what you want, and have fun"). Anyway, here they are.

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

My take is that pardons are like national parks. Presidents name national parks and give out pardons at the last minutes as "gifts" to the nation, to establish legacy, and to pay back debts, so I don't get too worked up about them. But at my core, I like parks, don't like the power of the pardon.

In any case, I do feel that government officials should be exempt from pardation (I'm going to keep using the word in hopes that it becomes part of the national dialog). It creates a scenario where someone could lie under oath, or commit some other crime at the behest of the President, with the President saying, "Don't worry, I'll pardon you." And, even if that is not the case, it could be inferred, or perhaps worse, look that way to the public, killing the public trust. Such a powerful tool and incentive creates both too tempting an option and too dangerous a perception.
I also understand that this "solution" could also create a scenario where Congress uses its legal powers to harass the Executive branch, and that pardation keeps that potential at bay. That's really the only real use for Pardons. Kind of like diplomatic immunity.

What I do find interesting are the Republican answers to the "Would you pardon Libby" question. The next generation of GOP hopefuls seem to continue the trend of an all powerful White House. Keep in mind, all of this comes before the outcome of any Libby appeal.

Mitt Romney: Tries, as usual to have it both ways.

noting that during his four years as governor, he didn't pardon anybody "because I didn't want to overturn a jury."But, he said a pardon for Libby would be "worth looking at"because the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, "clearly abused prosecutorial discretion" by going after Libby when Fitzgerald knew he was not the original source of the leak.

This is a great quote because, one, as I said it is classic Mit "Both Ways" Romney. Two, it shows that Mr Romney believes that he has a better grasp of the case than the Judge and Jury. Thus, he feels he may need to sweep in and correct this terrible wrong. Unilaterally, and uniquely correcting a wrong will be the typical answer from the others.

Rudy Guilani: At least Mr Guiliani says he will wait for the appeals process to work, but then renders it meaningless by announcing that he feels the sentence was

"way out of line." Adding, "I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment."

See, if the Court of Appeals finds his way then the ruling will stand, if they find in a way that displeases him, he will overturn it. Love that respect for Checks and Balances. Also, does this mean that Mr Giuliani will personally review all court cases and determine if the punishment was "excessive?"

John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter: Dodged it, but left open the "Rudy Out" of waiting to see what the appeals process brings. Why does it matter?

Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore: No pardon for Mr Libby. But these guys have about as much chance of winning as I do.

Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo: It's Pardon Time! Whoo Hoo! Uh, oh, according to polls these guys are on the Paul/Gilmore boat to "waitingtodropoutville."

Why is it that not one potential winner said, "This man was charged and tried before of jury of his peers. He had the ability to find top notch defense, made said defense and was found guilty. He was then sentenced. I believe the sentence was too harsh, and will work with Congress to rationalize the sentencing of all Americans facing Mr Libby's crimes. But the pardation of one man will not change what allowed this excessive punishment to occur." None of the frontrunners showed any respect for Checks and Balances, and from reading the transcript, all seemed to go right for the unilateral and unchecked power of whim.

All I'm saying is that I find this very interesting.

Yet Another Reason Why Tom Brady Is Not That Bright

So you think Tom Brady is a genius in the mold of Steve Young? If the last two playoff games of '06 weren't enough to change your tune (he won one of them, but didn't deserve to), then how about this. There is a reason why super models aren't allowed to teach college courses. There is also a reason why they aren't allowed to be spokespeople for substantive causes. "Today, no one is a virgin when they get married" as a public statement will help you understand why. Clearly, Gisele isn't going to be putting together any complicated puzzles in the near future (she may need a little help opening her Happy Meals as well). So who signs up for endless evenings of conversation with her? Stephen Hawking? No. Tom Brady. There may be a few reasons to put Gisele in your five, but stimulating intellectual conversation ain't one of 'em. The evidence just keeps mounting against simple Tom.

But Eliot Spitzer says its right

Democratic NY Governor Eliot Spitzer signed into law a bill that effectively legalizes ticket scalping by removing the limit to how much above face value brokers can charge. The free market rejoices!

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world indeed.

Bush says market is wrong

A small meat packer is looking to test all of its meat for Mad Cow disease. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows and then advertise their meat as "safe." Great idea. The market, both domestic and foreign is concerned with Mad Cow disease (or at least Creekstone feels that it is), and Creekstone is going to use the same test that feds use (only the feds test about 1% of all meat).

This is great. Everyone complains about lousy FDA standards and testing, and here a private company is stepping up to provide the service. In essence, the private sector wants to take on a government service. Awesome. They take the risk, if they cannot pass on the cost, or are wrong about the markets desire for this information, they take the hit, if they're right, they get the reward (but probably short lived. If Creekstone is right, other companies would quickly follow, but again, that's on Creekstone). Plus, they're heavily incentivised to do it right. Announcing this program, then doing it wrong would kill the business.

What's not great?

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

Why?

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

To which I say...huh? It's the same test the FDA uses. Clearly, Creekstone has no interest in doing anything to harm the industry...its their industry. Plus, if Creekstone has a false positive, the damage directly and powerfully harms them. They have the highest interest in making sure the test is done correctly, a Creekstone false positive hammers them.

Why is W so opposed to letting the market work this out? It takes the pressure off of the FDA, if the model works, this could potentially save the taxpayers money or allow the FDA to shift resources to other areas. Its an easy "yes" to anyone who truly supports a free market and small government. I don't want to be cynical, but the only reason I can come up with for W's hex is that the,

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

My bet is that they make loads of contributions too. But that's just me.

Bloody mess

On a blood kick, must have something to do with that weird bat that bit me.

Anyway, interesting article on medical ethics involving new critical care techniques. At issue, some folks think they have new ways to save lives, the FDA says it needs testing, which raises the question, "How do you get permission to test a new product or method on someone who is unconscious?" Toughie. The plan now, is since you can't, don't (there's a plan, but I don't see it really working. So in the end, consent is forced). Personally, I don't like it. First let me say that I understand that there was a truly exhaustive review process.

Before starting the research at each site, researchers complete a "community consultation" process. Local organizers try to notify the public about the study and gauge the reaction through public meetings, telephone surveys, Internet postings and advertisements, and through reports in local news media. Anyone who objects can get a special bracelet to alert medical workers that they refuse to participate.

The project proceeds only after also being vetted by a set of local independent reviewers known as an institutional review board. Another group of independent advisers known as a data safety monitoring board will periodically review the study for any signs of problems.

Again, I'm not a fan, but I doubt I'll get one of those cool bracelets. But if there were lots of tests and the bracelets were all different colors, I could relive my high school days. Anyway, this process seems like its taking the long way round. Rather than canvas a city like Dallas, and expecting to get anything close to market awareness and real consent without spending months and millions, why not find high risk groups and target them. Emergency personnel, NASCAR drivers, and military folks are all much smaller groups with much higher need. You can reach them all fast, and still get the tests done. Doing the presentation in Iraq, getting consent (or handing out bracelets), and starting the tests is a much faster and cheaper prospect than doing the same in Seattle. Also, you can bet there will be lawsuits the first time someone who received one of the tested procedures/medicines or a placebo dies. It would be hard to prove they saw any of the advertising and had a real chance to "opt out."

The current plan is troublesome in many ways. All of the issues are alleviated by finding smaller, higher risk groups to test.

Plus, I'm interested to see what our resident hemopussy thinks of all this.

Extra Credit

The Federal Reserve Board proposed a new set of rules for Credit Card companies. It's a long notice but here are the ones I like. You can read it for yourself and find others you may like, think of it as a real boring scavenger hunt.

• Increasing the list of things that require advance notice. One example is that of penalty charges. WaPo says that you may not find out until you get your bill that you've been penalized because of paying late (get that one), going over their credit limits (who doesn't do this, and since you don't get notification for smaller infringements, you may not know when this happened) or falling behind with another lender (that just sucks, I get it, but notification would help people make wiser decisions in a crisis).
• Require that monthly statements show interest charges for different transactions and fees. Again, nothing wrong with charging different amounts, and nothing wrong with helping the customer understand this so they can make better decisions.
• Adding to the monthly statement information regarding how much interest and fees have been paid year to date. Again, just providing useful information.
  
• This is my favorite. The proposal would require that creditors show how long and how expensive it would be to pay off the debt making only the minimum payment.
• This is the most disturbing and itcorrects an issue that I didn't even know about. Again from WaPo. The new regs would "require companies to apply payments to the debt carrying the highest interest rate. Many companies now apply payments to the least costly debt, thus forcing customers to pay more in interest." If I did this with my customers, I wouldn't have customers. Clearly banks do, but my bet is that their customers don't know about this practice.
• Finally, while I'm rarely a fan of Congress tacking on extra things. Sen Levin is right to look into the practice of charging interest on payments already made. Whether that's better left as a disclosure issue that banks can compete on (my vote, I also think that as soon as its brought to the customers attention, the practice will evaporate. Again, that "practice" is just plain wrong), or made illegal is borderline irrelevant. Sometimes when you get too cute, you get burned. This feels way too cute, and maybe its best for the banks to get burned, and lose the ability all together.

The Credit Card companies are getting hip to the idea of getting burned, and are fully endorsing the Fed's proposals. Good move on their part.

I'm always, always a fan of more and clearer disclosure. The free market works best when all parties have access to information. The consumer needs the information to make the wisest choice, and the bank has a better relationship with its customer. Anytime someone doesn't want to tell you something, there's a reason and you should avoid the situation.