Please sir, may I have some more?

Chicago's city council couldn't muster the votes to over-ride Mayor Daly's veto on an ordinance that would force "mega-retailers" (see - Wal-Mart) to pay higher wages.

This outcome, which I favor, gives me a chance to talk out of both sides of my mouth.

First, my problem with mandatory wages, especially those above minimum wage. The problem is the potential for a lose-lose situation. If a person is willing to work do a job for a given wage, and an employer is willing to hire someone for that wage, but a law exists that says the transaction can't take place, then both the potential employee and the employer lose. You may be willing to work, want to work and able to work, but because you and a potential employer agree that you're services are worth less than the law, or a union agreement allow, you aren't allowed to work. If an employer want's to hire someone for a given task, but it is of only marginal worth, they cannot seek out anyone to fill that need unless the value is above the law, or union, stated wage. Both sides lose. Not because of any evil master-plan, but because some (well intentioned) third party has decided what's best for you.

Quick aside, sports unions have perfected this. They've acutally made it impossible for an athlete to work for less than the several hundred thousand league minimum. If I'm an aging vet willing to work for $100k, possibly the last big income year of my life, and I can't because of the veterans minimum, I'm not sure I'm real jazzed with my union. Anyhoo...

Back to the minimum wage. As it stands, it's way, way to low. Even if it's just used as a guide line (which it mostly is, no one makes the minimum wage for any length of time, but everyone know's how their pay relates to the minimum wage) it's not an accurate measure of income to survive. The minimum wage should be scrapped or brought to a more reasonable level. I like the idea of using it not as a legal floor, but as a national guideline.

But, I can't get my stomach to take the idea that Congress get's an annual pay raise, while the minimum wage stays stagnant. Yes, yes, Congressfolk always make noise about not spending the money of small business owners, but those same business owners are also tax-payers. Well, Congress sure has no problem spending that money on themselves. Jackasses. So here's my proposal. Link Congressonal pay increases to the minimum wage. Minimum wage goes up, so do Congressional salaries. No minimum wage increase, no Congressional pay increase. One further note one Congressional salaries, I think the state they represent should pay the salary, not the nation. Makes much more sense to me. Whether they choose the former or the latter, I'm happy.

And that's what this is really all about anyway.

Wait, they've sold 23,000 of those things?

Segway recalls 23,500 Segways.

First, the article says there's competition. I didn't even know there was a market for Segways, much less competition for the space.

Among Segway's competitors in the electronic vehicle market are the Japanese company Sanyo (Charts) and U.S.-based Zap (Charts)

I also liked,

There have been six reports where the scooter has not operated properly, resulting in head and wrist injuries for users

So first you have to explain that you actually own a Segway, then you have to say that you somehow hurt yourself on it. I'd pay money to be there for that conversation.

Finally, a quick comment on the pictures (which came from their website). No way, no how anyone like the guy on the right owns one. My bet is that most users look like the guy with the orange shirt on the left, only they're never that close to an actual girl.

When three really equals two

Joe Scarborough's recent article in the Washington Monthly is not only yet another example of a Government Conservative coming out against the NeoGOP (I could fill this blog with examples, but I won't bore you), but he also backs into a point I've been trying to make for a while now. That we don't realy have three branches of government, what we have in today's USA are two branches of government, the Dems and the GOP. Needless to say, I think this is bad.

Using Scarborough's words as an example (and I'm not saying he means it my way).

The fact that both parties hated each another was healthy for our republic’s bottom line. A Democratic president who hates a Republican appropriations chairman is less likely to sign off on funding for the Midland Maggot Festival being held in the chairman’s home district.

And later,

But in Bush’s Washington, the capital is a much clubbier place where everyone in the White House knows someone on the Hill who worked with the Old Man, summered in Maine, or pledged DKE at Yale. The result? Chummy relationships, no vetoes, and record-breaking debts.

The first quote regarding the benefits of having the two parties controlling different branches describes what the founders intended as a constant state when creating the nation. Conflict between the branches was not supposed to be an occasional effect, rather the norm. Now we can only get the intended benefit when the Dems and the GOP happen to be in controlling conflict.

The second paragraph is an example of why the founders wanted to separate out the roles of Congress and the White House. But the two party, party first system exposes the loophole, and we've seen the consequenses.

What the founder's created was a system where Congress and the White House were at odds, with the Supreme Court acting as a sort of referee, giving us the fabled "checks and balances." Now with the two party system so dominant and pervasive, the only way you get checks and balances is if the two parties are in a position of conflict, as exemplified during the Clinton years. When one of the two parties controls both Congress and the White House, the only checks and balances we have are writing the checks to cover the growing negative account balances.

Until something happens to shake up the two party system (which is unlikely as the two parties would have to agree to anything that allowed this) American's have to come to grips with the fact that Congress, the White House, and even the Supreme Court are becoming irrelevant against the increasingly dominant two party, two branch system.

Rice Pudding

I thought Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's recent comment's on terrorism, and the link between Hussein and Binny were telling.

First the good news (sort of):

"I think it's clear that we are safe -- safer -- but not really yet safe,"

Then let's call this "War on Terror" a victory. We'll never be totally safe, we haven't been totally safe since, well...ever. But safer, that's great. Granted, I didn't know the goal was total safety, and yes, she didn't say "totally safe" but I think the word "totally" is superfluos, either your safe or your not. Kind of like being "totally pregnant." Anyway, safer is like totally awesome, and also a winning campaign platform, "Hey we won the war on terror!" Yes, yes, probably a touch hard to pull off with Binny running around free and all, but it's time to highlight some success.

Second, I was very interested in the Hussein/9/11 link, non-link.

"as far as we know," Saddam had no knowledge of or role in the Sept. 11 plot. "If you think that 9/11 was just about al Qaeda and the hijackers, then there's no connection to Iraq. But if you believe, as the president does and as I believe, that the problem is this ideology of hatred that has taken root, extremist ideology that has taken root in the Middle East, and that you have to go to the source and do something about the politics of that region.

Ahhhhh, now I get it. Yes, there was no direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (welcome to the show Mrs. Rice, we saved you a seat. It's right here next to the rest of the world - Stalin, we have one for you too). However, if you look at Iraq in a certain way, tilt your head to one side and kind of squint, then...then you can almost see a connection.

Sometimes I get a cramp trying to contort myself into position to follow the logic of this administration.

Something to make you feel better

Thomas Green at the Register says that apparantly it's really hard to make liquids go boom. Way out of my league, but for me it's win-win. Either it's true (win) or it's not and I think it is (ignorance is bliss = win).

Shhhhhh

Today, I give the 4th Amendment a break, and focus on the 1st. This post from Jacob Sullum over at Reason.com kicks off the 60-day blackout period for electioneering communications. This is part of the campaign to "clean up elections." Like most of what comes out of Congress and the White House, all it really does is tangentially address the issue (at best), while taking away a huge chunk of our rights, all the while missing the meat of the issue. Personally, I think you would get a much bigger bang (meaning closer elections with more turn-over if you got rid of gerrymandering - a politician is much less likely to be on the take if they know that people are watching and that they're not guaranteed re-election - but hey, suppressing free speech while not getting closer elections or more turn-over is much more fun). Isn't it intersting that the Feds tend to "solve" our problems by taking away our power and consolidating theirs (think injury award caps).

Anyway, dumb law. He uses the Wisconsin Right to Life group as his example and does a nice job with it.

Also worth noting, those screaming pro-abortion left wing whackos the ACLU supports the Wisconsin Right to Life group in their petition for an allowance. His synopsis of the ACLU's point does a great job of pointing out how the law of unintended consequences works.

Finally, I don't like the Supreme Courts reason for upholding the law. It's a negative burden of proof. You have to prove why your ad is ok rather than the state having to show why it's not. Huge, huge difference between the two, and the court should know that.

Hey everybody look. I'm going to defend Bush!

Report says that Bush say's "Jews are going to hell." I don't know what he really believes, but as described in the link I think the comment was clearly a joke.

Bin Landin wants to reunite the Rhineland!

"Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," says Bush.

If I were Poland, I'd look out.

But what's interesting is that W says it's very clear what the terrorist's want, but then he doesn't say what the terrorist's want. He does say, "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"' But he doesn't mention what they're saying. Which leads me to the question, "what do the terrorists want?" And are we talking about just Al Qaeda, or all terrorists?

I pay some sort of attention to this, and I have to admit, I have no clear answer to the question. Yes, yes, they hate us, but hatred is hardly an "intent." And, yes Israel is a problem for them, but I've also heard that maybe Israel is a red herring. But even if getting rid of Israel is their clearly spoken intent, are we at war with Iraq to defend Israel? Do they want to destroy the US? I don't think I've heard that. I have heard that they want us to stop meddling in the region. I've also heard that Binny wants to take over Saudi, so maybe we're at war to protect the Saudi government and their territorial integrity. Neither Hilter nor Lenin were big fans of Democracy, maybe the terrorists want to overturn democracy? But there's only one real democracy in the region and that's Israel, so I'm not sure that's it. I'm honestly not trying to be coy here, I'm not sure I do know what the clearly spoken intent is of the terrorists, or even who constitutes the voices I should be hearing.

What I do know is that when someone tells me something is obvious, but doesn't tell me what it is, well, either they don't know or I'm being manipulated. It would be real easy for W to say, "The terrorists have made their intention clear, they want 'blank,' and we're not going to let them have it." But he didn't. He left a pause there for all of us to fill in and everyone could be right. Honestly (again with that word) I would have loved it if he filled it in, give me a reason, give me a solid "why," or just plain lead for crying out loud.

Interesting data regarding Justice Department Terrorist Arrests

First, how's that for a boring header? Two, having been married for more than a decade I've learned that when I'm not sure if something is good or bad from the wifes perspective, to lable it "interesting." So this bit of news is "interesting"

It seem's that the Justice Department is prosecuting terrorists at about the same level as pre-9/11. I think this is good news and it makes sense. There are several possible reasons mentioned, but I'll add some more (hey that's what you don't pay me for). One, it may indicate that the knee-jerk "we're afraid, arrest everyone!" mentality may be waning, which is great news for a nation that hopefully has found it's spine. Two, it may also show that real police work is being done. One would expect that as law enforcement agents do better detective work, arrests go down (you get less false positives with better research), more potential good news.
Finally, maybe the Justice Department has decided to spend it's time investigating crimes that have a higher chance of affecting the lives of Americans than a terrorist attack. Nation-wide the total number of people who have died in a terrorist attack over the last 20 years is less than those that die from many more mundane reasons each year (yes-this is totally unsubstaciated, but here's how I arrive at my guess. About 3,000 people died on 9/11, add to that the couple of hundred at OK and the several at the first WTC attack. Estimate a total of 4000. There were 17,000 drunk driving fatalities in 2005 Madd. And there were 18,000 people murdered in 1997. I could take this out farther (further?), but I think I've illustrated my point).

But I think the thing that best describes the decline is this. I'm just not convinced that there was this massive, conserted, constant terrorist plot against the US. The reaction to 9/11 always , understandibly, seemed more emotional that factual. Yes, there are those who wish either to do harm to, or that harm would come to, the US, but how many really have both the will and the capability to do something? Here are the attacks I remember. Oklahoma 1995 (domestic not-al Quaeda affiliated-remember those simpler times) the first attempt on the World Trade Center 1993, 9/11 2001 (I left out the Cole attack 2000. I'm not sure how to categorize it. It was an attack on a military vessel and usually terrorism is reserved for non-military targets - I leave it to you to decide). Sooooo, the fact that the Justice Department isn't arresting a lot of terrorists with designs on the US, is that there just may not be a lot of terrorsts with designs on the US.

Finally, take the last sentence,

"An empirical study like TRAC's cuts through the rhetoric, lets us see just how many terrorists are being brought to justice," Aftergood said. "The data suggest that some of the official rhetoric is misleading."

Ironically, that statement is misleading. It makes it sound like maybe not much is being done to arrest terrorist afterall. What it doesn't say is that no one knows how many terrorist exist to arrest. Maybe lots is being done, and the Justice Department is doing a great job because they've arrested 90% of the possible terrorist pool. Or maybe they're doing a terrible job because they've only arrested 5% of the pool. No one knows. So TRAC's empical study doesn't cut through the rhetoric, and Aftergood is only adding to the rhetoric. This report has lots of numbers, but it doesn't really tell the reader anything. The reader can speculate, as I've done through this entire post, the report can give the reader ideas, maybe spark some new thoughts, but it's hardly a report card as it does not give you the whole picture (nor could it). But as it stands, its like me telling Stalin that MFJ took a test and got five right. Stalin has no idea if that's good or bad, five out of five is great, five out of 100 is terrible. Don't get fooled by numbers alone, get fooled by me. It's better for both of us.

Save the Drama for Your Ma Ma

I admit that I may not be the best blogger, but at least I'm not this guy.

Key quote, "This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker."

Two things. First the minor. That is exactly the kind of hyperbole that normally brings the left under justified mockery. Still not sure why the right continues to adopt those wildly successful liberal tactics, but at least they're having the same success.

Second, while we're in the middle of two actual wars where people are actually fighting and dying, I cringe at the statement. To be fair, I also cringe whenever some athlete or commentator refers to a game as a "war." I fairly certain that Sean Hannity doesn't actually want someone to die to prevent the dems from taking over the House, and I'm sure he isn't planning on it, it's some weak attempt at a motivational speech. But seriously, doesn't he have the chip in his brain that says, "maybe we should go with a different allegory."

Anyway, I don't know much about the guy, he seems like a derivative of Limbaugh, and like all derivatives he's not nearly as good as the real thing.

Which means I did pass 10th grade science

So Pluto's not a planet. Meaning the old helper My Very Elegant Mother Just Baked Us Nine Planets is a bit more Brothers Grimm, as now My Very Elegant Mother Just Baked Us Nine.

Also like, "'It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist,' she said, drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella."

And you say astronomers don't know how to PAAAAR-TEY!

The day after

The FDA approved the morning after, or Plan "B" pill for over-the-counter sales if you're 18 or older.

All in all, I think its a fair compromise given all the issues. However, I don't buy the "I’m convinced adolescents are a different group, they require special analyses, sometimes special data," argument, for most other things, pesticide levels in baby food for example, they use the same data and but just adjust the ratio based on weight. Not being a scientist I can't discuss if its safe for 14 year olds, but what does make the 18 age limit acceptable is that it fits in with existing law. If you're 18 you can get an abortion, and since this is "abortion like" at least 18 fits the scale.

What is interesting is where Plan B fits in on the abortion discussion. It doesn't work if you're already pregnant, but it does prevent the normal path of pregnancy. I, myself am pro-life, but I have to admit this is a real gray area. Which is probably why its moving along. It's not ending a life, but it does prevent one from starting. If it comes down to it, I'm against it, but I have to admit it doesn't cause me nearly the angst of a "true" abortion, at the Plan B level its more philosophical.

Long-term, this should dramatically decrease the number of "true" abortions and, I think, actual births. While most moms would not abort an unplanned pregnancy, I do think a large percentage of those same moms would take the Plan B pills. Also, as the number of abortions decrease, how does this shape Roe v. Wade. If the number is small enough, and Plan B exists, it seems like it would be really hard for Planned Parenthood or NOW to make their case. Also, if the number is small enough, how much pressure will there really be to overturn Roe? Personally, I think Roe stands, if it doesn't fall before the effects of Plan B are felt. With all the issues facing the nation, I'm not convinced that the public outrage will be enough to muster the will to change it. Of course the same exact arguemtent could be made about saving it. A group gets the judges nominated to overturn it, and not enough outrage exists to fight it. In fact, down the road, I don't even think its a question Presidential hopefuls even have to answer. So if the right judges were "slipped in" Roe would surely fall, and with Plan B, most American's would say, "Hey, you have your window" and that would hit the threshold for overturning Roe.

There, a nice, circular stream of thought post. In the end, I'm now covinced Plan B will be good for folks like me who want to see the end of abortion on demand.

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."

I just love it when a plan comes together.

Article in the Guardian quotes from the Chatham House a think tank that bills itself as, "one of the world's leading organizations for the analysis of international issues."

To channel Chrissy snow, the article says the think tank says that when the US took out the Taliban the Saddam it created a power vacuum that Iran was ready willing and able to fill, giving them more power and influence in the region than previously possible. Maybe this changes if Afghanistan and Iraq stablize, but even then it will be awhile before either nation is able to check Iran on their own.

So to recap, years before either Afghanistan or Iran stablilize (best case scenario) and years after that before they are capable of countering Iran on their own. Thus, even under best case planning, Iran (a potential nuclear power, known sponsor of terrorism and all around good guy) has a potential run of decades to do their thing.

Ahhh, the sweet smell of success.

Because everyone knows that kids playing basketball in the front yard is a turn-off to prospective buyers

This debate, disallowing basketball hoops in the front yard of homes in University Park, has actually been going on for years. I've always thought it was dumb.

A few things to keep in mind when reading this.

One, University Park is a city, not a deed restricted neighborhood.

Two, this city is something like 95% Republican. You know, small government, less regulation types.

Three, this city is sports crazy. I've never understood the attack on basketball hoops in a town where basketball games regularly sell out and during the playoffs "Go Scotts" (the HS mascot)signs dominate lawns.

Four, check out the fine. Up to $2000 a day! I wonder what matrix the town town used to come up with that fine? Where does $2000 a day for a basketball hoop stand against other fines? Does anyone think its excessive that if a family forgets to bring in the hoop and goes on a two week vacation that it could cost the family $28 grand?

Just plain silly.

Straight from the horse's mouth

BUSH: What did Iraq: have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of...the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize.

Full transcript here.

OK Stalin, Bush himself says no link. That statement has to mean something to you. While I hope this finally ends the Hussein-Al Qaeda-9/11 discussion, with something like 50% of American's And one Hydrablog blogger) thinking we went to war in Iraq because Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attack, I doubt it.

Makes sense, given how well it worked out last time

According to this story, VP Dick Cheney is bypassing the CIA on information regarding Iran and instead relying on one of the guys he bypassed CIA intellegence for leading up to the Iraq war, Abram Shulsky. Two possible reasons for this. One, "It's different this time" or two, "Ok, so it was a disaster last time, but the idea is due, man, it's due!"

Later the article says:

"In the build-up to the Iraq war, Cheney relied on intelligence almost exclusively from the OSP, which leveled allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was later debunked, but no OSP or DOD officials were held accountable for what many believe was a "deliberate effort" to mislead the nation into war."

No surprise here, there is no accountability in this White House. In fact, if you lucky enough to really screw up, you get a medal.

I have a hard time imagining we have the ability to invade Iran, much less the will, but I guess we'll see.

I'd say I was surprised, but I'd be lying

Looks like $4.7 billion in direct aid to Columbia and appx $40 billion annually have put a combined strangle hold on cocaine over "past quarter century shows that the price of cocaine has tumbled and that purity remains high, signs that the drug is as available as ever."

Stay the course...

(PS. Yes Stalin, I know that every Pres since Nixon has made a big deal about the "war on drugs." "Stay the course" is my new phrase for general ineptitude and a refusal to create a successful plan based on facts. I'm sure I'll be using for either President Clinton or McCain.)

Cato puts Liberal in Libertarian

Interesting smackdown happening over at Cato over a Weekly Standard article.

So what do conservatives do when it's not liberals squacking but other conservatives?

Just to pre-empt the inevitable debate, I support team Cato -Go Mighty Bald Eagles!- and Stalin probably supports team Weekly Standard -Go Big Brother!- ratings will be all about the swing viewers.

Dog's don't kill people, people kill people

Cato has a post 'bout a Kansas City law to ban and euthanise all "Pit Bulls." The original article states that a 71 year old citizen was attacked and killed by a pit bull, but it doesn't mention how many other deaths have occured due to pit bulls, nor does it mention what percentage of dog maulings are from pit bulls, or what percentage of the pit bull population mauls people in KC. So I did some digging, and as near as I can tell here's your reason, 'After I saw the photos on TV of that man in Independence after he was attacked, I thought it was necessary to have a pit bull ban in North Kansas City,' Martino said. 'I want to be proactive rather than reactive.' say's the Councilman. Genius. Also, I think this is the guy he's referring to.

Also, here's the story on the 71 year old lady, Jimmie McConnell. Very, very sad. And I don't mean this in that off handed politician way. This poor nice lady was gardening when she was mauled. Horrific only just describes that day. The mistake was that nothing happened to prevent the attack she felt was coming. The council should be focusing on how this lady was let down.

This seem's like a situation where something needs to be done to peanalize irresponsible owners, not ban and euthanise houshold pets.

Take it fine, but at least pay me

Being the greenie that I am I do think the Endangered Species Act is a well intentioned idea gone awry. But, it needs to be fixed. As it currnently stands the Act runs smack into one of my least favorite governmental provisions, Eminent Domain, only it's worse. In this Slate.com article economist Tim Harford (one of my faves-see when I was a lad I was uncool and into comic books, now I'm uncool and into economics) makes a point that conservation laws can actually cause more damage to what is being protected than no laws. He then ends the article with the idea that governments should just buy the land they want to protect. Land purchase is the standard argument put forth by those who want to end the Act and I have to admit I agree. Preventing a landowner from developing his land as he sees fit amounts to a "taking" without compensation. Kind of a double whammy. We're effectively taking your land, but we're not going to compensate you for it. In fact, in some areas the vaunted triple whammy applies thanks to developers and realtors. Thanks to their efforts undeveloped land is taxed higher than developed land which is pretty egregious.

Presenting both sides of this debate I should point out that landowners are handicapped by how they can develop their land all the time through zoning laws. While there exists a difference between some development and no development the basic concept is the same, I can't decide to turn my suburban lot at the end of the cul-de-sac into a landfill, thus I'm restricted so pay me.

I'm not a black-and-white type so I'm comfortable with the inhernent shades of gray that supporting, or more accurately complaining about, zoning laws and pushing for governmental compensation for enforcing the ESA bring about.

"When the press behaved in an amateurish fashion, it was generally because they were relying on amateurish investigation by the police and prosecutor"

See Stalin, the media's not biased and mistakes aren't their fault. What you see is the result of how things are presented to them. The media is like a computer, garbage in-garbage out. They're not responsible for distilling anything, in fact it would be insulting if they applied their superior intellect when reporting on the events surrounding us poor dumb yokelsh.

I feel I understand the media better. When their reporting is bad, it's because someone is doing a bad job of giving them information, but when reporting is rational it's because the press got wise and became "sharper and more skeptical" (one can think Slate.com's Jack Shafer is off on this, but it's almost exactly what happend with the Iraqi war). Which makes sense. I think we can all agree that the right time to be sensationalistic and mentally slow is when a crisis is first happening. Then after a while, when things have calmed down, that's the time to get sharp and skeptical. I've always said, if I'm on a sinking boat I plan to run around in a panic and push old ladies down in a desperate attempt to get to a life-boat. Then when I'm safe at shore, I'll calmly review my actions and investigate what I should have done and what I should do going forward. See panic when everyone else is panking, be calm when everyone else is calm.

I mean it works for the press, and we all know how much they're looked up to.

I thought all news was fake

FCC says its going to investigate the use of packaged "news" stories created by third parties, pushing an agenda made to look like actual news stories put together by local affiliates. These are introduced by the anchor and no indication is given that viewers are watching what is essentially a commercial.

Personally I hope the FCC bans them, but we'll see. Maybe that new "indecency" fine can be put to good use.

“I think every decade has an iconic blonde — like Marilyn Monroe or Princess Diana — and right now, I’m that icon.”

Paris Hilton.

Kind of makes sense. In her day, nearly every man fantasized about sleeping with Marilyn Monroe. Today, with Paris, nearly every man has.

Ramsey Tragedy

I have to admit I didn't follow the JonBenet Ramsey tragedy at all, but unless you were the unibomber you couldn't help but get the basics, which I won't go into here. It looks like they finally found the murderer, and it wasn't Mr. Ramsey. My point with this blog is that the American public was absolutely convinced that the father and possibly mother were responsible, and there were persisitant rumors of even more disturbed things going on. While I can never have proof, my gut says if there were some kind of election for Mr. Ramsey guilt or innocence he would have been voted guilty.

This is why we have courts, protections and process. Those who argue for lesser court protections in the name of quick "justice" need to remember that the public does get things wrong. Furthermore, what information we get is often wrong. And that hysteria, and/or the need to find someone "guilty" severly biases the court of public opinion. This notion that if you can get 51% of the people to agree then it must be right is misguided. The bottom line is while we live in a democracy, the democracy only works with a strong, somewhat undemocratic court system.

While the Ramsey's lives were destroyed when their daughter was murdered, and then further devestated when the public relentlessly hounded them as the murderers, at least they never went to jail.

Dukakis cried last night (well a week ago, but I was out of town so...whatever)

While I was out I missed yet another injustice perpretrated against the Greek peoples. So You Think You Can Dance voted of the brilliant Greek dancer Natalie Fotopoulos. You know, I just don't understand. We give you people democracy, yet every chance you get you torment us with your votes against us. First there was the Duke, and now poor Natalie feels the selfish sting of your ingratitude.

For shame people, for shame...

The war on terror is a battle of convenience

Just to throw out a philosophical argument, it seems that the "global war on terror" is more about inconvenience than effect. Take travel. One way to get to near perfect security is to not allow any take-on's or checked baggage. Just send what you need ahead. Wildly inconvenient on planning your travels, but very safe and there would be no need for background checks, x-ray machines or invasive searches of your stuff, but think about how much faster the lines would move and as an added bonus it would cripple the drug trade. Plus, while it seems like a hassle now, I'm 100% positive some entrepreneur somewhere would find a way to handle the hassle on the cheap.

Or imagine if rather than just seemlessly flicking a switch to monitor all your calls, someone had to come by your house and install the federally approved data recorder in your home. Do you think people would be as blase about governmental monitoring if were an invasive process, and not invisible as it is now?

Because giving up our privacy (and by my count our rights and our security) does not get a check-mark for "inconvenient" it happens easily and with our consent.

Because giving up the "security" of traveling with our stuff gets a check-mark for inconvenient, we are willing to sacrifice our actual security.

Those who wish to do us harm sleep on the dirt in caves, convenience is not their real concern.

Well duh, the Jews control the media

While I agree with Israel, the article is right there was a noticible lack of debate on the topic.

MINO's

Someone soon is going to jump on the concept of MINO's or Minority in Name Only. As the Hispanic popluation continues to grow, at some point they can't, as a group, be considered a "minority." According to this AP article, hispanics make up 14.5% of the population, and non-hispanic whites are a "minority" in four states plus DC. Clearly, no matter what, non-hispanic whites will never merit "minority" status, but when does a named minority group lose it's status. Is it nation wide? At the state level? Can you qualify for minority perks at the federal level, but not at the state level? Since Texas is one of the states where non-hispanic whites are a minority, I'm assuming that statistically hispanics are not a "minority." Does this affect hispanic preferential hiring agreements with fire and police departments? Like I said, whites will never get overt preferential hiring status, but should hispanics get to keep theirs when they're no longer a statistical minority?

My bet is that minority status is a forever lable, there's too much at stake to give it up. But while immigration is a non-sensical platform, a politician could get the same boost from his targeted base from taking up the more rational argument for taking away minority status from hispanics, freeing them of the lable, freeing up tax dollars, and getting rid of hiring/admission quotas. The obvious counter to this is to furhter segment "hispanic." "Cuban's aren't Mexican's" and will be the chant, and you will be called racist for grouping them together. Fun, fun, fun.

In any case I get the copyright on MINO's. You read the it here first.

Leibercrats

Thinking more on Leiberman, his strategy and problems are striking similar to the dems in general. Afraid to make a stand (burn the boats and run as dem-forcing the voters to make a real decision), after all it may fail, mostly hoping the other side makes some mistakes and lets him win, and basically hoping for things instead of making them happen. Leib's is changing that, late and reluctantly, but up until the primary he ran his campaign exactly like Kerry ran his.

The GOP may have screwed up so badly that the dems will gain the house, but it will be hard to say "the dems won the house" its more likely that the "gop lost the house."

Miss me?

Well I've been out for the last 10 days, at least not much happened...

In no particular order, here are my quick thoughts on the news I managed to see over the last week and a half. Going to try to go fast without a lot of links. You were there, you can remember.

Mel...Kiss My Grits!
So Mel went on a drunken anti-Semtic, sexist rant. Wow, who saw that coming? Well I mean besides some controversial film that supposedly had anti-semitic undertones. While I can't speak to this (never saw the movie. I prefer my gore to be dished out by the son of a husbandless woman who uses a chainsaw to cast out sexed up teens and who can't be killed, sort of the same, but not really) but I'm imagining all those who dismissed the case that the movie might be somewhat anti-semetic feel a little...I don't know...silly for so ardently defending a man they never met who's father is a holocaust denier? Personally I think this speaks volumes about people. Folks like to defend or attack people they don't know, like they've know them for years. JLo's a real gem, JLo's a whore. Kerry's a hero, Kerry's a coward. Terrel Owens is a great team mate, Terrel Owens is a cancer. And people get really tied to these points. Some of the most heated arguements I've ever been in involve the "true" personalities of people I've never met. Really silly when you get down to it. The reality is that we don't even know the tips of famous people. For all I really know Arnold Swhatrzernagger is a total wimp, but man can he deliver a stare. As for Mel...I don't know. .13 or whatever hardly counts as drunken stupor, but mix in fear of getting busted, shame, etc, and oh yeah we've all said things and thought, "Wow, where did that come from?" I'd care more if I was a jewish friend of his, but then I'd probably have more to go on too right? Have to say this, one of the great apologies of all time. Not one of those, "To the extent my words may have inadvertantly offended anyone, I apologize" types of weenie apologies. But then he is an award winning actor, writer, director. Quick note, I thought it was interesting that it's been something like three years since Mel said he'd do a film on the holocaust and nothing, nada, zips been done. It's not like he can't greenlight a project...

Leibs Loses.
This was the expected outcome as soon as he made the motions way back when to run as an independent. As soon as he stepped into that second canoe his fate was sealed. This way not voting for Leibs could be protest vote and not one voter had to really decide what they wanted. They could all yell at Leibs for being too cozy with W, and still vote for him in November. I would have been shocked if he lost as a Dem, and will still be somewhat surprised if he loses in Novemember. I do think he's exposed now, and the anti-Leib forces now have the mo'. US voters tend to punish those who try to have it both ways or get cute. Personally, I think he should have put the voters to the test, burned the boats and ran as a Dem. If he wins, he puts all this noise behind him, if he loses, at least he has his dignity. Real quick, I don't get this stuff about "fringe" CT voters punishing him for his war stance. Last poll I saw, most American's now think the war was a mistake, and want the troops home yesterday. Polls move with the wind, and maybe Leibs got caught in a gale, but right now, the majority opinion moved him out.

London Calling.
Interesting thing 'bout the London terror catch, it happened the old fashioned way, good cops doing good investigations. And that's great. As far as it's reported so far, no one was tortured and no nation's were invaded. Imagine that. I'm betting I could buy a lot of good cops for $1 trillion. I'm also betting $1 trillion could buy a lot of machines that could catch bomb making material, both carry-on and checked. I may even several hundred billion left over to do something about the ports. I'm not sure how Iraq will pan out, but I do know that I'd feel a whole heck of a lot safer if that $1 trillion was spent in the above manner. Throw in something to get us off foreign oil and I'd be postively giddy.

Random crazy thought for the day.
Hezbollah's showing how to fight a stronger enemy. Win the hearts of the people. Use Iranian oil money to build hospitals, pay for funerals, give loans, etc. This bears watching. One way to get to America would be to do the same with our disenfranchised. Funnel money either from drugs or oil into a real campaign to separate them from the rest of the nation by giving them what they want for free, and making them feel like someone cares about them. In fact, this is just begging to happen in England and France where the schizm is already larger and angrier. I'm not saying it will, but if it's successful in Lebanon, it will happen again, its a good plan. A long-burn plan for sure, but one that has a real chance of working. You can't beat the US from without, someone will try to do it from within.

The Blogger's Solution to doping

I agree with Muscles, too much glory (reward) for cheating. My solution is simple, if you test false, or can be proven to have taken, banned substances all your accomplishments/records/awards are erased, period. After you serve you're suspension you start again as a rookie. So if you cheat, all you did before that moment is gone.

Take the glory away, raise the stakes.

Tri Harder (Or: The Trouble With Trilogies)

From The Guardian:

"If you read between the lines, it's evident as well that Superman Returns was cunningly conceived as a belated threequel to the first two Christopher Reeve outings of nearly 30 years ago. "

Say it ain't soil'd Floyd

Looks like Tour de France winner Floyd Landis failed his drug test. To be fair, there will be another test done on his "B" sample, but I can't remember a time where the "B" sample didn't confirm the "A." But here's hoping.

Real quick, I'm of the opinion that all cyclists dope, as do most athletes. Still loved the race this year, but his historic ride was tainted by my thoughts that the only way he could have done that is if he's on steroids. Now it looks like he was.

Better still is his mother's reaction.

Arlene Landis, his mother, said Thursday that she wouldn't blame her son if he was taking medication to treat the pain in his injured hip, but "if it's something worse than that, then he doesn't deserve to win. [italics mine]"

"I didn't talk to him since that hit the fan, but I'm keeping things even keel until I know what the facts are," she said in a phone interview from her home in Farmersville, Pa. "I know that this is a temptation to every rider but I'm not going to jump to conclusions ... It disappoints me. [italics mine]"

Now that's hard-core. You could show my mom actual video footage of me injecting steroids into my ass and she would deny it. She'd also launch into a long rant about conspiracies, how everyone does it, and a solid 15 minutes of indecipherable (except for the cuss words-those you could make out clearly) screaming. Those menonites are a hard crew.

The Hydrablog/Specter Bill

Here's a copy of the Anti-Signing Statement Bill intorduced by Arlen Specter. No one's giving it a chance. Makes sense, when party politics rule there's no room for Constitutional divisions of power, just mucks up the works.

Also, here's McCain telegraphing how he'll vote. Personally I think McCain is done. His strategy of hitching his wagon to the Bush anchor will probably backfire. He's hemmoraging the Democratic and Independent voters he had in 2000 and, increasingly, this maverick is looking like a lackey. W said the anti-torture bill doesn't apply if he doesn't think it does. This was a bill written by a former torture victim who worked to insure a veto proof majority only to see it completely eviscerated at the end, yet he does nothing. I backed McCain in 2000 but I just don't see voting for him in 2008. The good news for him, I guess, is that it looks like Gore's the top contender for the Dems.

Sometimes I feel like crying.

More Selling

More information about the White House's plans for alleged terrorists, "The bill would also bar “statements obtained by the use of torture” from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coercion was used would be admissible unless a military judge found it 'unreliable.'"

CNN's version just had the first sentence but left the key clause about "coersion" out of the article.

Notice that the judge only rules if the information is "unreliable" not if the information was obtained through "torture" or "coersion." Also note that, according to the administration, waterboarding, a "coersive" technique that mimicks drowning-and can cause permanent injury or death, is not considered "torture."

The selling continues...

"The senators have said they would support establishing a system based on the military's own court-martial practices and had been told the White House would support such a move. But senior officials from the Pentagon and Justice Department testified earlier this month that the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be too lenient on terror suspects and could expose classified information."

And here, note, "Rather than requiring a speedy trial for enemy combatants, the draft says they 'may be tried and punished at any time without limitations,'"

Unlimited detention without trial, how Amerikan.

ABORTION IS MURDER!

Sort of.

The Senate passed a bill making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines so she can get an abortion. At least I think so, the article just references "girls"-great reporting.

While I think there's a minor -ha- point to be made here about the nature of laws in this country. If somethings not a crime in one state, how can it be a crime to travel to that state to do it? Using this logic, why isn't it a crime for a Texan to gamble in Nevada?

Anyway, what really sticks out about this bill is that once again, the girl is exempt from punishment. If a state feels that abortion is murder, and wants to reach out and punish a legal activity in another, then surely all involved must be punished. Punishing minors as adults for murder isn't a new concept, nor is reserved solely for murder, so why the carve-out? As it stands, the 16 year old boyfriend gets hit with fines and jail, but the girl doesn't. How's that make sense? Also, if states can hold bartenders liable for serving drinks to people who subsequently get a DUI, why not charge the parents? They raised the little harlot, why aren't they on the hook? Also, when W says "...and jeopardizes the lives of young women" is he referring to the likelihood of getting into a car accident? Because as near as I can tell, getting an abortion has a real low mortality rate.

I freely admit I'm adamantly pro-life, I'm just not stupid law pro-life.

I also love how the Senate refused to dole out more money for sex ed. If the goal is to reduce abortions (a great goal) then take the steps to do it. Don't hole up in a fantasy land where kids aren't having sex. If you want to save a life, take the steps to save a life. Don't make political pawns out of young girls , or more accurately their boyfriends, by punishing them without educating them.

"Punishment without Education!" That's my new catch-phrase for anti-sex ed/pro-life crowd.

Arlen Spector is a Hyrablog Fan!

Taking my advice that the legality of Signing Statements belongs in the courts, Arlen Spector is preparing to take W to court.

Maybe we should file a "friend of the court" document.

Fun with words

Tony Snow backed off his assertion that Bush vetoed the Stem Cell bill because he felt it was the Federal Government financing murder (to paraphrase). I guess they felt that "murder" was to radical a word.

Instead, Snow says, the President feels that its wrong for the Feds to finance something that results in the "destruction of human life."

I actually liked his first reason better. Mostly because I think it was the truth. Truthful radicalism is great, we need more of it. However, Snow's new wording is just goofy. Does anyone really not equate "destruction of human life" with murder? Did W really think to himself, "This will result in the destruction of human life, but it's not murder." Or is a sentence like "The Hutus just destroyed a bunch of human life in Rwanda" really any different than "The Hutus murdered 800,000 Tutsi's?" Furthermore, how can the guy who signed more death warrants than any other American in modern history have any qualms about using state money for the "destruction of human life?" And doesn't War destroy human life, often innocent human life at that?

I get that the scientific community reamed Bush for the veto and called him a simpleton, but let's be honest, they're not the first to call him that. I'm no Bush fan, but when he vetoed the stem cell bill, I thought he was at least being honest, I think he does think its murder, and that's fine. He should have stuck to his guns, kept the debate about when human life begins, societies responsibility to protect life and the applications to abortion going. Not only that, but his conservative base appreciated his wording, why backtrack?

All this, dare I say, Orwellian wordsmithing just hurts his credibility even more.

It's all fun and games until the Hitler comparison's come out

Sen. Inhofe's not a beliver in the Global Warming debate. What better way to debate the issue than to compare Greenies to Nazi's.

More for the coming drug post

Pot's not a "gateway" drug, much like you can't get addicted to crack after just one use. Article also says is looks like smoking pot may not have the same link to cancer as cigarettes.

Lot's of wasted money and lot's of wasted lives in the wake of a largely innefectual anti-drug crusade.

The Buckster Disses Bush

Another respected conservative speaks out against Bush. This is on the heels of George Will's article blasting the administration.

Again, there's a real issue brewing between the traditional conservatives and the social conservatives.

Signing off

The American Bar Association is after W for his use of signing statements. While I'm no legal scholar, I do agree with their point that it oversteps constitutional provision on three equal branches. The White House contends that W's siging statements clarify the constitutionality of congressional laws, a point clarified by Clinton during his days as the big P.

From a DOJ brief: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority"

So just so I'm clear with Stalin, I'm not saying W invented this, actually Monroe had the first, rather, like most things excess may ruin the fun for everyone.

What I don't understand about signing statements, at least the way I remember civics class, is Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial decides their constitutional legality. So if the Executive is concerned about a Congressional law infringing on it's power, then the Executive should take the law in question to the Court. Thus if the President feels that the anti-torture law passed by Congress infringes on his Commander-in-Chief powers, then he should take it to court. Not say,

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

W can't decide the constitutionality of the law, he explicitly does not have the power, before he was "the decider," he was "the enforcer." He can't elevate himself above the courts, and doing so in reference to Congress places the Executive above both of those branches. Not how things work here, at least I hope not.

It's just a weird form of civil disobedience.

CO immigration and Co's.

Colorado just passed a wave of immigration bill's all expected to be signed by the Guv. These merit attention as CO is concidered a preview of what state's may do nation-wide.

Most are harmless, "get money owed by feds," some that aren't exactly "look out for our fellow man" types with the potential to cause more harm than good, mandating that CO only provide those services that are federally mandated, one that officially complains to the feds for the immigration problem. All of these are boiler plate bills. I do like the ones that make it a crime to extort from illegals, or threaten documents that allow workers to be here. Nice touch, I hope these also serve as a model for other states.

There are a few that really rankle me. These are the the bill's that place the onus on business to prove that they don't have any illegals working for them, and to vet each employee for legal/illegal status. One, I'm no expert on any document. If someone hands me a forged doc, am I responsible? Do I have to hire extra people, or incur additional expense to insure legal status? Thanks for the new taxes guys. Especially because I already pay the tax that's supposed to enforce these laws. Why do I have to pay more because someone else isn't doing their job. What's next, mandatory employee drug testing at my expense? How about verifying that no employee commits a crime. Not only that, but I get peanalized if I hire someone who I think is legal. Why is it my business' duty to enforce the laws? Shouldn't I just be able to hire people and let the enforcement agencies do their job and tell me when someone's illegal? Actually, why must I presume guilt on all of my employees? Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" something of a cornerstone of our American society. As this law is written, if I hire Muscles for some rescue work, eventhough I've know him for decades, I have to verify his legal status.

I don't like this trend of pushing enforcement onto business. Government should do their job and leave me free to do mine. Hitting my profitability with a "back up the government's ineptitude" tax just adds insult to injury.

Holy Cow! Stalin was right, the media is biased

Journalism hit an all time high as far as college majors (at least in 2005). I guess some people are a glutton for punishment.

The Devil is in the Details

From Comic Book Resources, Re: Cartoon Network's Hellboy cartoon premiering in February:

"A traditional Hellboy scenario, to be sure, but, disappointingly, the finished results are far from a traditional Hellboy experience. The entire look of the film, from the characters to the background, diverges greatly from [creator Mike] Mignola's comic style. Hellboy and Abe Sapien closely resemble their comic origins; there is no mistaking who's who, but they've been redrawn to reflect the styles of more typical American animation. Liz Sherman, however, has been radically modified, seen in 'Sword of Storms' as a petite, Lara Croftian type who looks as though she could be a guest star in Cartoon Network's 'Teen Titans.'"

Sight unseen, I say "What's the problem?" Yeah, Mignola has a signature style, but the live-action movie did more than right by the material, it being one of the best--and by far the most underrated--comic book adaptations. And DC seemed to get a lot of narrative mileage since the Batman cartoon out of an animation style far removed from their characters' current comic book looks. Also, as the Hellboy cartoon's producer says of the choice to create new stories for the cartoons: " . . . the fans have the comics. Why give it to them again?"

That said, I'd love to see a live-action sequel, which according to the article won't be anytime soon.

It's Not The Real Thing

From ESPN.com's Bill Simmons:

"You're not allowed to complain about four things in life: nudity, free food, free drinks and fantasy football. So why would I want to tinker with the latter, a multibillion-dollar business that brings us so much joy? Because we screwed this up from the beginning, that's why.

You know how pro sports were totally messed up in the '40s and '50s, back when the NBA had no shot clock, hockey goalies didn't have masks and football players went all 60 minutes? Back then, fans thought everything was fine, right? That's where fantasy is: great concept, semisuccessful execution, tons of potential. It's not Kathy Griffin's face; we don't have to renovate everything, we just need to make some adjustments. And I'm more than willing to be the Winston Wolfe of the whole thing."

What Would Jesus Buy?

The Christian themed market is now more than $4 billion strong. I think its great, seriously. If you think losing a golfball helps spread the gospel then more power to you. But I do have some questions around just what a "Christian" product is. Is it like organic, where certain standards have to be met? For example, is something Christian if it's produced in athiest China? Can you just slap a bible quote on something for it to be considered Christian? Can you run a Christian product company if you're on your third marriage? What's the proper way to dispose of a Christian product? I assume tossing it in the trash doesn't show the proper respect, so what should one do, or, I guess, What Would Jesus Do?

Personally, I'm not sure merchandising Jesus is the best idea, but at least this shows that Christians are freer in the marketing of their beliefs than the Muslims. Score one for free markets.

How Gay Marriage helps the economy

Aside from being the right thing to do, allowing gay marriage also helps the economy. In MA, where the gays can marry, they can also separate (as the founding couple just announced), and get divorced. Think of all the extra legal, accounting, therapy, and other bills having a whole new class of folks who can divorce will generate. We all know that marriage is bad for the economy, instead of owning two houses, with two refrigerators, two big sreen tv's, etc, married coupes share one house, one refirgerator, one big screen tv, etc. All this sharing shrinks consumption, which shrinks revenue, which shrinks profits, which shrinks salaries and even jobs, all bad for the economy. In fact the only good thing, economically, about marriage is the divorce, which brings a flurry of spending (got to buy and furnish that new bachelor pad), and all the fees that surround the process. Now that the gays can get divorced think of the boom (we all know that a gay man spends more on his house than a striaght one) that is surely coming. Since they've already been living together the damage of sharing is already priced into the system, now it's all upside! Hooray the gay's, and their future divorces! Bye, bye, turns into buy, buy, which means buy, buy stocks.

A floundering flailing girl-fight

This is what I picture when I think about the GOP. It's like they're desperate to get something to stick going into November, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with any real issue facing the nation. They're the party in power, they're the ones who are supposed to be getting things done, they're the ones constantly reminding us that "We're at War," and they're spending their time one this American Values drivel. Now we get an attempt to bar Judges from ruling on the legality of "Under God" in the Pledge. This is because a line that was added to the pledge in 1952 is apparantly needed to "defend America's founding principles." I guess if 1952 was when the nation was founded, and a purely political move to demonstrate how we're not like communist athiest USSR means anything, sure. But I'm just curious, what about the founding principles of the "three branches of government" and "checks and balances?"

We're at a time when Afganistan is deteriorating, and attacks in Iraq are on a dramatic increase ("Last throes" anyone?), Iran is gone completey antagonistic and is going nuclear, nuclear N. Korea is launching missiles, Japan is making noises about bombing N. Korea and altering it's constitution to allow a military (China will love that), Israel is moving towards all-out war and this is what the House GOP is spending it's time on? Seriously?

Again, everyone complains about "legislating from the bench," but I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the real danger is "judiciating from the chamber."

Knock Knock

Cato has an interactive webpage showing paramilitary style no-knock invasions of private houses laid out against a map of the US. I hope they at least stop to wipe their feet on the Fourth Amendment on the way in*. It's also interesting to note that, to the best of my knowledge, no one was penalized, charged, or reprimanded in any of the cases involving "wrong addresses" even when they resulted in the death of an innocent. If you want to dig deeper, Radley Balco has been following this closely on his site, www.theagitator.com.

*My attempt at inflamatory rhetoric. I have to work on it, but thought I'd get some quick practice in.

Naming rights

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid declare Iraq a civil war. I expect more Dems and the like to try, over the next few weeks, to make the concept that Iraq had decended into civil war, or "Iraqi Civil War," stick with American's. I also expect the GOP and the like to bitterly contest this observation.

This will be key to the Dem's attempt to retke the House. If they can get American's to accept that Bush has bungled this so badly that civil war has broken out it will greatly damage his standing as a "War President" and/or Commander in Chief. These titles have greatly helped him in the past, and I believe that the Dems see tainting those titles as keys to winning in November.

Check Your Local Listings

From USAToday.com's Pop Candy:

"- RollingStone.com has posted video of Elvis Costello and Billie Joe Armstrong performing Alison on Decades Rock Live. The special, which also features Costello performing with Fiona Apple and Death Cab for Cutie, airs July 21 on VH1 Classic. (Here's a fan-filmed video of Costello and Armstrong playing Green Day's Good Riddance at the show.)"

Muscles for Justice, Quarter Century Ahead of Time

Big day in Congress

Here's what happened in Congress yesterday.

The Gay Marriage Amendment failed today. Hopefully this Amendment is losing steam. But here's where I ashamed to admit that either I don't remember my civics classes like I used to, or my math skills are poorer than I thought. Article says this vote failed, 236-187, 47 votes shy of 2/3's needed. Last year it failed 227-186, or 39 votes shy. How's that work? The bad guys picked up 9 votes and are farther away. Oh, well maybe it's bad journalism.

Also, one of my issues was formally re-intorduced, getting rid of the penny. Almost no chance of it passing, but still, its fun to tilt at windmills.

And of course, a Stem-cell research bill sits on the President's desk awaiting veto.

Gay Marriage and Stem-cells are part of a new-fangled "Contract with America" called "American Values Agenda." I think what it shows is the nation needs more than two parties. An "American Values" party would do well, and would allow government conservatives (Republicans/Libertarians) and big-government social conservatives (AV's) to finally split up, giving constituents of each a real voice in Congress.

Families--THEY'RE The Real Muscles For Justice!

From The Palm Beach Post:


"WEST PALM BEACH -- While covering his head amid the barrage of flying fists and feet, his legs bound with a jump-rope by children half his size, a bruised and bloodied Craig Mack had a sudden realization, police say: He'd picked the wrong family to mess with.

Mack arrived at the Perez family home at 611 28th St. Monday night just as an exhausted Mateo Perez was getting home from a 12-hour day of landscaping and cleaning buildings. Mack probably figured he could swipe Perez's wallet and get away without much of a fight, police said.

But he didn't count on having to brawl with the rest of the Perez clan: Candelaria, the 4-foot-9 housewife with a wicked right hook she honed as a girl on the streets of Guatemala; daughter Imelta, the mellow 13-year-old who never dreamed she would take a chair to a robber's head and tie him up; and son Juan, the 10-year-old Miami Heat fanatic who traded his basketball for a stick to whip an attacker."

Lost in the Caribbean [SPOILERS]

Big movie fun, but between my theater's busted first reel and a bathroom break, I'm still a bit behind on the plot: Jack is after the key to the Dead Man's Chest to escape the curse of the Flying Dutchman, and Will is after Jack's compass to barter his and Elizabeth's freedom from the East India Company, so why at the end doesn't Jack just jump up and down on Davy Jones' heart 'til it stops beating? Won't that end the curse? Is the "bargain" Jack talks about at the end to save Will's father, the undead Bootstrap Bill?

Just writing this is more fun than I've had at the movies in years.

Ohhhhh, SNAP!

The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics

From TPMCafe:

". . . a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."

Bad press

Folks are always looking for reasons whey the news out of Iraq is always bad, besides, you know, that its pretty crummy over there. Well it may be because of this.

No Justice, No peace...

In the process of writing an "I agree" comment to Stalin's entry, I realized that I'm not sure I do. And since unlike Stalin, I'm not a follower, I decided to start a new thread.

Here's the hard part. I do agree with Israel on this one, sort of. I agree in the sense that every nation must protect it's citizens, period. Given today's tools, strategies, thoughts, and environment, they get to invade a state that sponsors terrorist action against them. The question is, is it the right move? For a parallel, I turn to US/Iraq/Afghanistan. If you take the view that we invaded Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks, then let's review. 9/11 saw about 3000 US casualties, Iraq (2,539 dead and 39,050 injured)/Afgahanistan (308/924) wars are more costly in that sense. Also, cost to date of the two wars is projected to hit $811 billion. Factor in the severe damage that the Iraq war is causing to US relationships, image, and negotiations, the question is, was it the best path? Furthermore, even if it was, it certainly is not repeatable, something N.Korea figured out early, and Iran and potentially Pakistan have also discovered. So what we do next time? Same for Israel.

Before, I move on, a quick aside. It's the unique nature of terrorism, and state sponsored terrorism, that make it such a difficult problem. Let's imagine Ihateamericaistan is a state sponsor of the stupidjackass terrorism group. The citizens of Ihateamericaistan really have nothing to do with greater US Ihateamericaistan relations, nor do they have any say over what the government does, and in fact, they may be neutral or even like the US. Yet in order to protect US interests, the US invades Ihateamericaistan. The citizens bear the brunt of that attack, and does this turn neutral/favorable Ihateamericaistani's into pro or anti US types, and are they more or less willing to help the terrorists they previously had nothing to do with? This is the dillemma facing Israel. In order to stop state sponsored terrorism, they have to kill/injure lots of civillians, giving the survivors a real reason to hate Israel and help the terrorists, and to continue to support their dictator in his quest to rid the region of Israel. Terrorists may actually do more damage in creating no-win situations for their targets than actual physical damage against them. In its best day, Al Qaeda could not have imagined the damage that their attack caused the US, not in bringing down the towers, but in everything that happened after. I've said in the past this is a conflict about ideals, not land. I'm starting to think that winning it will be mental not physical as well. How do we beat the position they put us in?

So what to do. I don't have a good answer, but I know a crummy situation when I see it, and Israel and the US are in crummy situations. What if the US spent $811 billion in finding a substitute to oil? Taking away the funds that support terrorists, and the political leverage that Iran has because it supplies a crucial part of our lives may help. Not only would it starve Iran of the funds to support terrorsts and keep its citizens at bay, but it would free the US to act without fear of losing the economic, strategic, and stability benifits that oil provides. Or is the answer in just air attacking sites in the state that sponosors terrorists, and not enganging in a ground war? Do you assasinate foreign leaders? I don't know. My point is that the debate aroudn Iraq isn't was it good v. was it bad, it's not two dimentional. Just as you can't view Israel in should it v. shouldn't it in regards to Lebanon. I get what they did, and mostly support it. However, what all free nations need is a repeatable tool for dealing with terrorists hiding in other nations.

It's not invasion, so what is it?

Supermath [SPOILERS]

It's a storytelling problem if it has to be explained, but anyway, what if the Superman II kiss wiped away Lois' memory not only of Superman's secret identity, but the whole movie? It'd explain how she moved on so quickly.

Hey Muscles, this is why I was a seller

White House says it will abide by Geneva Conventions, it just wants to rewrite parts of it. It's the equivialant of the singing statement on the anti-Torture law he signed. "Sure, the US will abide by the Geneval Convetions, Congress is just going to unilateraly re-write parts of it to suit our desires."

I'm willing to wait and see how this develops, but so far this stock is plummeting.

Stalin Malone...explained

What's up doc?

I found several things in this Slate piece about medical malpractice interesting.

The basic idea is that people, like our resident award capper Mr. Malone, are being sold a myth by politicians when it comes to curbing damages on malpractice suits. The idea that all these runaway jury awards are killing the medical industry and driving up health insurance is, depending on how hard you want to go, either wrong or a lie unless you consider one half of one percent debilitating. Nope, it turns out that there's real evidence of malpractice, imagine that. No conspiracy, just people doing wrong and getting punished. Could it be that the legal system works? The article also shows how the market can do far more to lower medical insurance than Congress. Anesthesiologists went from having the highest and most claims to actually decreasing claims and insurance when they decided to take action, something that I guarantee all the state award caps, and/or any future national law, won't accomplish.

What I find particularly interesting 'bout this whole "let's cap awards" movement is that combined with the new FCC fines for naughty words it highlights two issues. Hypocracy, which is nothing new, and the arbitrary nature of punishment in Amercian law. In the article is an example of the kind of language that proponents of the FCC fine increase use, "We hope that the hefty fines will cause the multibillion dollar broadcast networks finally to take the law seriously." Ok, it's a defensible position, but it's also the exact language that attorneys use when arguing for jury awards against multi-billion dollar company's who's faulty products cause damage to customers. However, the GOP, in pushing it's cap agenda routinely say's that's a bad argument, and a clear sign of runaway juries or lottery victories. So the GOP says high fines bad when people get the award, and good when the governement gets the award. "Got to teach them a lesson" for saying bad words, "Got to stop people from cashing in" when it comes to us getting damaged. In essence you have two laws with contradictory mandates, creating mirror image problems. Now big corporations have fines set too low to matter, and broadcast corporations give the Feds lottery victories. Hypocracy, we love you.

Also note that the Feds have now arbitrarily decided that saying a naughty word is worth millions in peanalties, while medical malpractice or knowingly putting out a harmful product that results in permanent injury or death is capped out at $300k. This is particulary interesting given that the FCC is a political, not legal, organization prone to political motives and not bound by such hassles as "evidence," "witnesses" or "laywers." Take the recent record $3.3 million fine levied against CBS for an episode of "Without a Trace" based solely on what the article calls "manufactured" evidence, and what I call "hoax." Talk about frivolous and my bet is that that claim wouldn't survive a legal challenge. Good thing a government tribunal metes out the fines. At least docs and corps get a trial by jury, and the citizen has to make a claim in court. Someone please show me how this makes sense.

No Justice, No Peace

Lebanon and Syria have continued to allow Hezbollah to operate against Israel from their territory. As a result, Israeli civilians have been killed and now Israeli soldiers have been taken prisoner. Lebanon claims that they should not be held accountable for Hezbollah actions and Europe appears to agree. The US was correct to consider any country knowingly providing a home for Al-Qaeda an enemy state at war with us. And so too is Israel correct to assume the same of Lebanon and Syria. The Europeans have accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force". The reality is the opposite. Israel has been remarkably restrained as they have attempted to trade land for peace and been rewarded with violence time and time again. Let Europe turn their security over to China and Russia and see if that protects them from Iran.

Batman Has Something He Wants To Say, Everybody

"I don't think ... taking away small amounts of prescription drugs from seniors crossing back from Canada, et cetera, is the right thing do,"

Sen. David Vitter (R) Lousiana. I can't say I know much abut Vitter, but I like his thoughts on this one. He was speaking about his voting for a Senate measure that would ban Customs and Border agents from seizing perscription drugs puchased in Canada from US citizens.

I wasn't even aware that this bill was up, nor was I aware that the House passed a similiar measure. Now it's up to W.

The Quiz

The Limit

From the article:

"From the outset, President Bush declared that the battle against al-Qaeda would be a war like no other, fought by new rules against new enemies not entitled to the old protections afforded to either prisoners of war or criminal defendants.

The White House acknowledgment on Tuesday that a key clause of the Geneva Conventions applies to al-Qaeda detainees, as a recent Supreme Court ruling affirmed, is only the latest step in the gradual erosion of the administration’s aggressive legal stance."

UBlo: buyin' or sellin'?

House of Cards

The House voted today on a bill that outlaws internet gambling. Well, sort of. It allows states to run lotteries on-line and allows people to bet on horseracing. Somehow lotteries and ponies are safe forms of "crack cocaine."

Anyway, not sure why Congress, again, is sticking it's nose in our business. Make it legal, bring that business on-shore, and collect taxes, create jobs, and provide a service that American's clearly want. In fact, one of the main beefs that people have with allowing gambling is that, supposedly, bad sorts hang out around casinos. Well, internet gambling takes care of that. All the revenue, none of the hassle.

People want to gamble, let them. People spend too much money gambling, that's their problem. Are the feds going to tell me when I've bought too much on Ebay? How about if I buy a new car I can't really afford? What's next, putting a cap on my credit card limit, or telling me I'm too extended on that second mortgage. How about doing something about all those no interest for six months credit cards I keep getting pre-approved for? Lot's of people lose their homes because they can't make the payments. It's sad, but it's also on them. Why is gambling any different (well except for lotteries and ponies-no one ever overextends on them. Nope, no compulsive gamblers ever get into trouble on those two, that must be why they get a special carve-out). This isn't the government protecting us, it's the Feds arbitrarily deciding which businesses get to survive, and which go under. Which entreprenuers get to make money, and which have to lose. Who gets a job, and who loses one. Talk about slapping away the invisible hand.

Also note that states have the right to decide if they want to allow bricks and mortar casino gambling within the state, but under the House law they have no say in internet gambling.

The good news is that it doesn't look like the Senate will pick this up. The bad news is that the House will keep passing it, at 317-93, it's going to be around for awhile.

Bet on it.

Real Men Don't Play Soccer

I was thrilled to read this article and find out that for once I am not alone. Soccer is a great sport in theory, but in practice it is just plain silly. You'd think every game was being played on an active fault line the way these guys can't stay on their feet. The amount of diving and flopping is simply pathetic. Take a page from a man's sport - hockey. If a guy flops he's penalized...or better yet...shot. And I don't care how good you think you are...two names please. You know darn well that if you are an American there was only one thing about this World Cup that provided any entertainment at all...watching France lose. And the only surprise in that match was when France came out for the second half.

Don't get me wrong. If you call me tomorrow for some pick up on the pitch, I'm there. But if you end up on the ground it's because you got beat...not fouled. Welcome to America.

Comic geek alert!

This review of Superman has some potential spoiler info, so read forth with caution.

The good. The special effects are amazing. Best flight sequences I've ever seen. I completely bought in. Pretty much all special affects were outstanding. I thought Brandon Routh was a decent Superman/Kent. I like Kevin Spacey's Luthor, and Parker Posey (but she's usually a scene stealer-check out "Best in Show"). I also liked the way it tried to keep the story going from the original movies (I called the final scene-thus confirming my comic geek status). Unfortunately, by picking up after the second movie, (and wisely rendering numbers 3 and 4 a comic never-happened) Superman Returns ran smack into the power of the "Threequal" curse. You just shouldn't mess around with this kind of magic. The movie was doomed before the camera's even rolled.

The bad. I hated the story. (Here come the spoilers) Superman has a kid? I have a general rule agianst introducing kids to movies (think Temple of Doom) or shows in general (I have a 2 season rule for when kids get randomly introduced to TV shows. When you see a kid come into a sitcom, it has two years tops left before its off the air. Brady Bunch, Family Ties, even DiCaprio couln't beat the rule on Growing Pains. If you could bet on this stuff I'd make millions. Except for The Cosby Show-he brought in a new kid every season, I'd have gone broke betting against him-anyway, where was I?) Right, the kid. So here's how it works. Veteran reporter Lois lane, who looks like she's 22 in the movie (Meaning she was in her late teens when she was with the big S), slept with Superman before he left for 5 years. Thus, the kid is about 4, but like all movie/TV kids looks and acts approximately twice his suposed age (This is common. Baby born one season, off to kindergarten next-Family Ties took this to a new level. That kid was off to college by the end of the second season after she was born). Only now she has a fiance who thinks the kid is his. So Lois must have waited, like, zero days until she hooked up with the guy, that or he's Forrest Gump gullible. This whole triangle is less realistic than a man in tights flying around saving everyone. I just couldn't get past this, I hated it. Seriously. The villan plot was fine. Luthor does his evil genius thing, that worked. Also, as you can probably guess, I thought Lois Lane was completely miscast. They should have gone with someone older and more believable as a verteran reporter.

Overall, Superman Returns, or Superman III if you like, was a big dissapointment. I can't completely pan it because the afore mentioned special effects make you believe, but the story makes you disbelieve.

Biofuel? How corny.

Recent article in the Washington Post gathered a lot of attention environmental/fuel debate.

The gist is that WaPo says that biofuels are not the answer because even using all the current US cropland to produce the fuel won't cover our projected gas needs. And using all of our crop land for fuel is bad because people will starve.

My first thought after reading this article was, "Who's out there saying that biofuel will completely replace gas? Who is this article debating?" And, "what kind of moron really thinks that it's being seriously debated to use our farm land for fuel only."

I'm fairly plugged in to the alternative fuel debate, and I've never heard anyone serious saying that biofuel will replace gas. It's always phrased as "biofuel can help replace our reliance on gas and reduce our C02 emmissions." That point was never discussed in the article, it was sort of an all or nothing debate. "Will using all our crop land replace our reliance on gas? And is it worth starving? No. Thus, biofuel is a 'False Hope.'"

But let's look at the debate another way. Biofuel will help replace gas. It won't be a magic bullet, in fact there probably won't be any kind of exact replacement for gas, and that's a good thing. Why would any rational person want to replace one monopoly, with all the economic turmoil that comes with it, with another? Ideally, in the future transport fuel will be a basket of products. Corn based fuel, sugar based, cooking by-product fuel, gas, hydrogen, etc. Because gas is a crucial product it makes sense to have multiple sources coming from multiple areas. Rather than have the stock market tank everytime crude prices increase, imagine that when crude goes up, maybe corn/sugar/switchgrass prices go down due to a bumper crop. This smoothes the market. A basket also decreases the amount of pricing (and political) power that any one provider possesses. Furthermore, giving consumers more choices is generally considered good for the consumer and the economy. In the end, our national security (economic, political, and physical), is enhansed by searching for a basket of transport fuel options, rather than seeking another single source fuel.

These choices may also be regional. Maybe more corn based gas in the midwest, more traditional gas in the northeast, more cooking waste fuel for city based delivery fleets, hydrogen for high-tech/high income regions, etc. This isn't that far fetched. Biodiesel can run in a regular diesel truck with zero modifications. GM has a "flexifuel" truck that can run on ethanol or normal gas.

I agree with WaPo, biofuel will not completely replace gas, but it can be a part of a much better solution (a diverse basket of fuel options). Anytime someone only presents one side of a debate, and argues against a point that no one is really discussing, beware. Here's what we do know. Oil prices are going up, oil is controlled by people who don't like us, oil is finite (although Limbaugh disagrees). Sitting around waiting/hoping/only searching for an exact replacement for oil is a bad idea. Plus, another monopolistic commoditiy is actually bad for the economy, security, and stablility.