Thursday, January 31, 2008
So Embarrassed
[Update: Blogspot is having trouble with the embedded code, so a better link to this can be found here.]
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
OK. I'm Getting a Little Tired of This
Will first brings up pharmaceuticals:
In ABC's New Hampshire debate, McCain said: "Why shouldn't we be able to reimport drugs from Canada?" A conservative's answer is: That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which some medicines would be inexpensive but many others – new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals – would be unavailable. Setting drug prices by government fiat rather than market forces results in huge reductions of funding for research and development of new drugs. McCain's evident aim is to reduce pharmaceutical companies' profits. But if all those profits were subtracted from the nation's health care bill, the pharmaceutical component of that bill would be reduced only from 10 percent to 8 percent – and innovation would stop, taking a terrible toll in unnecessary suffering and premature death. When McCain explains that trade-off to voters, he will actually have engaged in straight talk.
Since when has it been a conservative principle to disallow, by law, the purchase of a legal product from outside the United States? He may argue that it imports price controls from Canada, but it's empirically obvious that American consumers are, comparatively, gouged when it comes to drug prices. To disallow the importation of drugs from other countries--again, by federal law--amounts to supporting price gouging by governmental fiat. The aim isn't to reduce profits for drug companies. The aim is to reduce costs to consumers. I doubt seriously that drug companies sell their products in Canada at a loss. As for the supposed cessation of innovation as a result of reduced profits...that's quite a stretch. Without innovation, drug companies will completely lose any competitive advantage in the market. They must innovate to survive. And if profit margins take a hit, they will have to find ways to be more productive and efficient. There is no evidence that drug companies can't be just as profitable with reduced consumer prices. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue airlines proved that handsome profits can be made in a presupposed zero-profit market. They just have better organizations and are profitable, in great part, because their competition is so poor.
Then there is McCain-Feingold:
McCain is, however, an unlikely conciliator because he is quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters, of opponents. He promiscuously accuses others of "corruption," the ubiquity of which he says justifies McCain-Feingold's expansive government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech.
"Denigrate the motives"...please. This isn't even a liberal or conservative position--unless ethics have somehow found themselves under the province of ideology. The system is corrupt. I presume Mr. Will is familiar with the Jack Abramoff scandals. And to take a supposed principled stand on free speech by saying anyone should be able to inject as much money into the political process in an attempt to, literally, buy influence is hardly noble. I do agree that, constitutionally, much of McCain-Feingold cannot stand. But the only reason the law was introduced and voted on is because Congress won't make the ethical reform steps voluntarily. They've become accustomed to a system reliant upon copious donations of money because it puts them at a distinct advantage over any future competitors for their office. In other words, they don't want competition or a level playing field. They want a system that weighs heavily in their favor--even if it means prostituting oneself to one's contributors on occasion. Hardly conservative or principled, I should think. McCain is right to roll his eyes at those who oppose the law but make no effort to voluntarily reform the system. (As an aside, I am greatly interested in just how long these men of great principle will hold to it if/when the Ds are getting the majority of campaign contributions).
The the closing gem:
Applause greets faux "straight talk" that brands as "bad" the industry responsible for the facts that polio is no longer a scourge, that childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, that depression and other mental illnesses are treatable diseases, that the rate of heart attacks and heart failures has been cut more than in half in 50 years.
Mr. Will has been one of my favorite columnists for a couple decades now, but this is dangerously close to hyperbole. Jonas Salk didn't work for Pfiser and, it should be noted, gave his patent to the world for free with the quote: "Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?" As for childhood leukemia, certainly drug companies have done much and deserve much credit, but they were hardly singularly responsible for the research and treatment. Thousands of university researchers have been involved for decades (yes, many of them from the generosity of drug company grants--but many more not). My friend's father was treated for leukemia by the University of Arizona and is happy to report complete remission due to their innovative work, not the work of a drug company.
And the further point is this. If McCain supported legislation that is disagreeable with conservatives such as Mr. Will, fine, reasonable people can disagree. But to take two or three of his stances in a political career spanning decades and reduce that to a portrait of his ideology is, quite frankly, absurd. As Mr. Will has written before, then Governor Reagan signed the largest tax increase in his state's history, expanded abortion rights, and signed no fault divorce into law--hardly conservative by today's standards. And, of course Teddy Roosevelt instituted the estate tax (now called the death tax) and railed against the gilded class. Neither of the aforementioned two could be seriously dubbed "not a conservative."
I'm a left-leaning independent (read: disgruntled Democrat) who favors the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, wants partial privatization of Social Security, supports NAFTA, and is very skeptical of unions. Still, I would say I'm liberal overall. And McCain, who has spent a 25 year career supporting smaller government, reduced taxes and spending (even when his party spent money like sorority girls with new credit cards), a supremely strong US military, pro-life legislation, free trade, and who may well kiss a picture of Reagan before he goes to sleep at night is not a closet liberal. Please. What happened to the GOP "big tent?"
Unless the GOP wants to be the party known as corrupt, spending-happy, government expansionist, liberty-allergic, hypocritical, self-loathing homosexuals with a penchant for torture, they need to re-examine themselves and allow for someone like McCain to depart from his party's contemporary conventional wisdom once in a while--particularly when he honestly feels he is putting country above party.
Edwards Ends Campaign
Conceivably, he could be looking for a job with one of them and wants to hold off until after Super Tuesday to see if a clear winner starts to emerge. Robert Novak has already reported on rumors of Obama making him Atty General, but that's just chatter right now. It seems like he should urge his delegates to to go one way or the other prior to Super Tuesday though. I can't help but think that he likes one more than the other and, if concerned about his party, should say who he thinks will be best for his party and his country sooner than later. Hell, he owes it to his own supporters.
An Edwards endorsement won't make or break either of the two left, but if I were a supporter of his, I would at least like to know his opinion.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Man from Arizona
irretrievably supportive of an unpopular war.
No matter one's view of him on the issues or him as a person, it cannot be denied that this may be one of the great political comebacks in *all* of American history--particularly recent history. He was written off for dead in June and July by most everyone, including me (he was on the same flight as me from Phoenix to DC in late June--flying coach), was broke, had to shake up his staff, go into debt, swallow his pride, and fight. Now he has all but won in the most competitive GOP primary in decades--perhaps half a century or more--and could become leader of the free world.
Now, though praising him in all the above, I strongly disagree with him on a number of issues. In fact, pretty much his entire platform. I don't want him to be president and think many of his views are naive at best, disastrous and deadly at worst. But, I respect him and think he is a good man as a principled conservative.
So why do so many conservative pundits seem to loathe him? (Andrew Sullivan, a conservative himself, has a good roundup of GOP pundits here). A Senator who worships Reagan, has spent an entire career espousing fiscal discipline, smaller government, rights of the unborn, supremacy of US military strength, and free-trade doesn't qualify as a conservative anymore? Apparently, unless one espouses a scorched earth policy of "destroy the Ds, torture the enemy, and throw out the damn Mexicans" one isn't a conservative anymore.
Need I remind the GOP pundits that Reagan actually gave complete amnesty to illegal immigrants? Can anyone imagine Reagan supporting torture? Whatever...the GOP is in serious, serious disarray.
Don't I Feel Like an Idiot
Another interesting factoid about our screwy primary process...California delegates are based on a district by district basis. That's not screwy, but two districts can have dramatically different population counts (from what I understand). So California will likely be salamied up by the candidates. *And* independents can vote in the D primary but not the GOP primary in California. So independents, who normally lean toward Obama amongst the Ds, become critical for Hillarah and Big O--and on a district by district basis. This could get really weird.
What will be the impact of Ted Kennedy on the campaign? And now there is speculation about a potential Gore endorsement of Obama before Super Tuesday. What would that do? This election is damn near bizarre at this point.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Another Reason to Oppose Hillarah
[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]
Greenwald on Reid
Can you imagine LBJ or Tip O'Neill having trouble with a twit like W in the White House? They would have W begging them to stop humiliating him. Instead, the D leadership continues to cower to this cartoon of a president and actually help facilitate him in seizing power when it comes to FISA, the Iraq war, the War Powers Act, and the Patriot Act. Then, when a few D Senators take matters into their own hands on a hugely important issue and make a very principled stand, he actually threatens them! Amazing. And sad.
The D leadership is pathetic, and Greenwald is right to call Reid on it.
Kennedy Endorsement
My Friends
I've heard the same McCain lines and jokes for at least a decade (save the Patreus one, though it is starting to feel like a decade), so perhaps I'm jaded, but the GOP faithful is over 50% right: this guy can't win a general election this year. With sadness, I think even Hillarah could beat him. Love the guy, but dayam! Why didn't you GOPers vote for him in 2000?! It may well be too late now.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Hubble Telescope
Hillarah the Comedian
Critique of John Edwards
A cynical farce that is particularly galling to left-liberals of real authenticity. "The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."
It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world. But for 4 percent of the Nevada caucuses?
McCain and Romney in FL
A poor showing for Huckabee could be the end for him. I don't see him picking up a lot of votes in the super Tuesday primaries and he is, reportedly, running out of cash. Giuliani could definitely use a FL win, but if he finishes near the top, I can see him sticking it out until super Tuesday to see how he can do in NY and NJ. If Romney wins, I can see him start to look attractive in California and Illinois--maybe NY as well. If McCain wins, super Tuesday would seem to look more like a coronation, I should think but...in the end, I have no idea ;-). I take comfort in the fact that no one else seems to either.
Alabi on the GOP Debate
GOP Debate in FL
I did enjoy hearing him speak of the "no religious test" clause in the Constitution when he has repeatedly talked of how important it is to have a "man of faith" in the White House, however. Believing Jesus hung out with Native Americans in Missouri is ok--and out of bounds for consideration of a president--but not believing Jesus was the son of God...that's beyond the pale, apparently.
The two things all candidates seemed to agree on, save Ron Paul, were (1) the Iraq War was a good idea, just poorly managed, and (2) Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic candidate. On the first point, I can only see McCain winning a general election with that message--and it would still be a very, very tough sell. On the second point...we'll just have to wait and see (though I get the feeling they are hoping beyond hope that they get to run against Hillarah and not Obama).
Thursday, January 24, 2008
How We Miss Marvin
Bill Gates and Capitalism
"Three weeks ago, on a flight home from a New Zealand vacation, Mr. Gates took out a yellow pad of paper and listed ideas about why capitalism, while so good for so many, is failing much of the world. He refined those thoughts into the speech he will give today at the annual Davos conference of world leaders in business, politics and nonprofit organizations."
Bill Gates is a smart man and has, apparently, done a lot of reading on the subject, so I'm not sure how he proposes escaping the obvious weakness of capitalism: government. It's been widely accepted that capitalism needs at least a relatively good, stable government with at least a goodly amount of personal freedom to survive. Preferably, capitalism exists in a good, stable government that allows for a free society and provides a well-educated public. Lacking decent government and at least a decent amount of personal freedom, it doesn't have a chance. The very nature of capitalism is to have all the people in a society relatively free to engage in buying and selling goods without being restricted or disadvantaged.
So, though noble of Gates (and one must credit the enormous amount of money he has given in his philanthropic efforts), I don't see how retooling capitalism somehow will make a bit of difference, quite honestly. I would like to believe it can change a bit to help the impoverished, but if the impoverished live in bad/weak/corrupt governments (as the vast majority of them do), I can't see it happening.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Cowboys as the 3rd Reich
The Liberal Reagan Argument...Again
That is Reagan's legacy. To refuse to acknowledge it is to refuse to see reality. And perhaps that is why it hurts the Ds so much. Reagan, that supposed dawdling, ignorant buffoon, got the best of the Left and still--from the grave--can expose their weaknesses and win politically.
Can Obama do the same as Reagan from the Left? Not if Billary have anything to do with it.
The Onion Has the Story
"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."
And the truth shall set you free.
Mickey Has an Idea
And what if it doesn't work and Obama still loses? Obama would own it for the rest of his life, be possibly deemed a sell-out by millions of blacks and, ironically, possibly never have another chance at the presidency because he would be deemed suspect with minority voters.
It would be interesting though...no denying that.
50 + 1
"The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win."
The absolute best one can hope for with Billary in the White House is a handful of hard-fought victories. That's it. No more. No crossover Republicans, no working majority, and a guaranteed poisonous, bickering Washington. And, sadly, the Ds would think of it as a great victory. They've lost 5 of the last 7 general elections and want to nominate the single candidate that can get the GOP band back together--at a time when the GOP is in a near-civil war.
50+1--great strategy, Ds. You are a pathetic lot.
Truth Squad in SC
"“It’s distressing to me that we have to follow the former president of the United States to make him tell the truth,” said Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the S.C. Democratic Party and an Obama supporter. “I know he loves his wife, but we hope he loves his country, too.”"
Depressing, indeed.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Black Women a bit Angry with CNN
That bloviating windbag does nothing but smugly report on how he can read a graph. "Amongst black, lesbian Haitians, Obama wins by 67%, but look at Puerto Rican lesbians that work in the service industry....Obama only wins by 47%!" Then, of course, the seemingly obligatory "Ohhhh" from the accompanying failed actor/model turned reporter as if he's given insight to anything at all. It's divisivness on steroids and it only continues.
I'm glad some black women out there told CNN to shove it.
Obama in California
California happens to have quite a few Latinos as well, and Clinton is beating the pants off of him in polls thus far. So his campaign better make a full-court press. Get as many Latinos in front of him as possible. Court the unions, get him on a surfboard, even roll out the celebrities if you have to, but get; up; California's; ass. What really worries me is that he pretty much has to stay in SC until the 26th, leaving a little over a week to campaign there.
If he surrenders CA and tries to win the Southern and Midwest states, I don't think he can win. Hillarah will likely walk through NY and, if she has won the 1st, 3rd, and 4th largest states in the union...hard--if not impossible--to make it up with the smaller states.
By the way...
Fred Thompson Drops Out
McCain is running strong in Florida against Giuliani and Romney and, if he wins, not only will it will be the first "large state" contest he's won, but the second southern state he's won--making Huckabee a tough case to make, I should think. Particularly since McCain is polling so high in California and has already won in New England.
I suppose Thompson could endorse Giuliani, but I just can't see it. He's run a weak campaign and Biden's criticism of "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" hasn't proven to be too off the mark. Romney...that would be news if he threw support his way. Then again, Thompson could just sit back and wait a bit or just not endorse anyone. Who knows with this election?
World Markets
What Obama Said
Fire Hillarah's Wardrobe People
Of course it's hard to hide a broad ass and Hillarah is a little stiff herself, so...only so much you can do. But I have to think there is something that can be done better.
The SC Debate
The question for us, however, and I don't feel as if I'm exaggerating, is this: Do we want a candidate and a president who will distort, vilify, lie, slander, manipulate, and coerce to win? A person who's personal ambition to become president is so strong that she will put it above her party and her country--truth be damned. A person who will attempt to destroy the strongest candidate her party has had in decades to fulfill this personal ambition. In other words, a person who will embrace a policy of "ends justify the means" that is normally ascribed to the worst tyrants and despots of history. Do we really want that? And to see her husband, a former president, help facilitate this...it's just so vulgar and depressing.
I still think Obama can win, but odds are starting to line up against him. If Hillarah goes on to win, I will vote for Hillarah over Huckabee, but no one else.
A German Take on Obama
Google to Buy the NYT?
The AOL/Time Warner merger was a disaster, of course, but AOL sucked from the beginning--it just took the suits a while to figure that out. Google doesn't suck, and buying the NYT is very minor comparative to merging with a major TV and print conglomerate.
If Internet companies start to merge with traditional media more, I should think it would happen this way, i.e. Internet/technology companies moving into traditional media and not the other way around (see: MSNBC and iTunes). For whatever reason, traditional media seems to stumble when they try to move other way. I suspect it's because they just don't understand the Internet business.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A Reporter's Take on Media Coverage
This Can Only End in Tears
Elections in Pakistan
Thanks Bill
I've said it before, if the Ds nominate Hillarah, they not only risk losing an election, they risk losing a generation. But that doesn't matter to Billy, apparently.
Sir Edward the Tenacious
Ellen vs. God
Saturday, January 19, 2008
McCain wins South Carolina
When he hit rock bottom in June/July, he may have finally remembered who he was. I am only too happy to be wrong about his future and hope that he goes on to win the GOP crown--despite the will of many in the GOP. And if it's him vs. Hillarah...guess where my vote will go.
Clinton Wins Nevada
That's the math. Ends justify the means. We will kill the darkie to save the darkies, coerce the gotard to save the gotards, fan the flames of minority-on-minority tension to bridge it later, disenfranchise black women to save all women. It's a hard ball world, ya know--gotta know how to play it.
Mark my words. Hillarah, if she goes on to be President (and I actually think McCain would beat her in a general election) will do NOTHING substantive on the Iraq war--we will be there till at least the end of her first term. Her health care reform will be a disaster, and we will be stuck not in the 90s, but the 60s. If anyone reading this has thought that I have been completely full of crap in everything I've ever thought, at least listen to me and believe me now--she is a disaster that walks like a woman. Do NOT support this bumbling mess of divisiveness, incompetency, cruelty, and ignobility. Please.
And if you still don't believe me, give me 1, yes 1, substantive issue she has delivered us in her "35 years of experience" that differentiates her better than her competition. 1. Again, 1. I await any and all replies.
Romney wins Nevada--and the Soap Opera Contiues
I can't see McCain losing Arizona or California. Huckabee will be, obviously, hard to beat in Arkansas and will be formidable in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama (though Rich Lowry doesn't think he has a chance, ultimately). In New York and New England...seems like a fight to the death between Romney (Gov of Massachusetts), Giuliani (Mayor of NY and hero of 9/11), and McCain (winner of NH primary and appealing to Independents). MN and ND...who knows? And, of course, Giuliani has a great shot in FL prior to super Tuesday and that could upset the whole thing. But if McCain wins FL and SC, then goes on to win CA...seems like there will be a pseudo-clear winner at that point. A candidate that can win in the North East, the South, and the West...? Hard not to get behind him.
But I have no idea. It's just exciting to see that there is real competition in a democracy vs a coronation of the candidate who has "earned his turn." The only thing that would make this more interesting is if a woman or a minority were running along side of them.
Clive Again
Friday, January 18, 2008
Getting a bit creepier--kinda
The Vatican is opposed, of course, calling it the "worst type of exploitation of the human being". Using little boys for a shwantz-hammock is cool, but making stem cells in the interest of curing disease....how awful!
I'm mostly supportive, of course, but it is kinda creepy to me--I'll be honest. I find it anything but exploitive, but it is potentially dangerous (as any great advance in science is: see nuclear technology). But stopping science has seemed to always prove poisonous and futile. The Church still doesn't seem to have learned this, but these are the same people that only recently pardoned Galileo. One thing the church and I have absolutely in common: it doesn't matter what we think; it's going to happen anyway. Seems like we should just pay attention to it and hope it yields some fantastic things--as it seems to be able to.
Werd
Bush the Keynesian
It's fascinating, however, to see how the GOP *still* gets a pass on who they have been for years now: Keynesians. Yes, Keynsians--even after Keynesian economics were no longer viable in the late 1970s when high inflation and high unemployment were both realities.
It's Keynes with a twist: the state should subsidize the minority at the top of the economy vs. the general population. It is done by tax policy and by subsidy in varying forms--from property tax breaks to infrastructure improvements, to discounts in their tax bill--but the intent is to make life easier for people and organizations with most of the economic wealth. The bet is that they will use the money to expand their businesses and investments, thereby helping the economy as a whole. And deficits be damned.
Problem is, in following with the oldest of capitalist laws, these people will look after their own self interests--not that of the economy, the country, or even their own company. Look no further than the CEO of Countrywide mortgages leaving with $115 million after he ran the company into the ground and lost 11,000 employees. That's over $10,000 per lost employee. And look here for another small sampling of CEOs winning the lottery every year in compensation--whether they make money or not.
Do I blame those CEOs for taking the deals? Of course not. If people are stupid enough to give you that kind of money, take it. But I do blame lawmakers who think that continuing to subsidize idiocy and incompetence is a good idea.
What Bush is saying now (and many in Congress, let's be fair), is "Our business leaders, Congress, and yours truly have been so incompetent and screwed things up so badly, we are going to go even further into debt by doing the same things, but in an accelerated fashion."
No thanks. Instead of propping up the failures, why not take away their first-class club membership instead? Quit writing them checks, let shareholders vote on public executive salaries, quit spending money like a sorority girl with a new credit card, and let these "Captains of Industry" pay taxes like the rest of us. What we don't need is to--literally--reward failure.
RIP Bobby Fischer
Vive le capitalisme
Kentucky's Creation Museum

Wow. I'm supposed to go to a wedding in Cincinnati this summer and this museum is rather close. I smell field trip. Be sure to check out the photo tour as well.
Smell as a Weapon
White Working Class
The working class of the country most certainly do need to be courted, but the GOP proved that coming at them with a basket full of goodies isn't necessary. American flags, football, and gushy talk about being "real" Americans will suffice--though I sincerely hope that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
Hitch is not Impressed
"Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton's heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same.
What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?"
First, when did Obama ever once even intimate that we should vote for him because of, or because we can look beyond, the hue of his skin? Honestly, I would really like to see it. Obama is interesting and unique specifically because he is making race a non-issue (or at least tried to until Hillarah made it one).Second--though quite obviously regrettably--pigmentation can, and does, matter. Prejudices and social norms don't disappear with a stroke of a pen, or a few books, or a DNA sequencing over the course of a few decades when faced with combating thousands of years of human society. And that skin color is part of who the man is--like it or not, Hitchens. It is not part of who he is innately, of course, but part of his life experiences in how society treated him every goddamm day of his life. To not be happy (or at least interested) that he is, quite realistically, on the verge of becoming the very symbol of America's mainstream is a trifle bit unfair of a request.
A Former Collegue's Take on Obama
In the end, I think what makes Obama attractive to so many (or at least to me), is that he can clearly see much better times ahead but remains grounded. He doesn't resort to the romantic, and sometimes even childish, mysticism of Reagan. His specific policy papers are quite boring and pedantic sometimes. But he doesn't limit government success as a series of plans the way Hillarah does, and he doesn't define political success as victory over one's enemies the way Edwards and Giuliani do.
He sees Iraq, quite rightly, as a diversion away from the terror threat. He doesn't view it as an ignoble endeavor, just an unintelligent and un-pragmatic one. And with Al Quaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood stretching from Morocco to the Philippines--and every country in between--it does make one wonder just how much safer we would be even if everything went smoothly in Iraq. And even that assumes there is an Iraq, or Iraqis, left to "win" against. McCain seems to reduce Iraq as a test of America's will to fight and still thinks Vietnam is a war we not only should have won but, apparently, one that we should have fought. When Obama says he is not against all wars, just dumb wars, he is already past McCain in maturity.
As for Obama vs. Romney or Huckabee...too easy of an argument. In short, what candidate is really better than Obama, I suppose, would be the question. To my eyes, I don't see one.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Blech
The. Greatest. Modern. Blues. Piece. Ever.
Anyone who plays guitar knows how hard it is to play like this (below). The octaves at around the 4 min mark are close to impossible to play, but no one knows that until they try to replicate it. Soul, blues, modernity, blues, blues, and touch of a genius, may I present none other than Stevie Ray Vaughan, the one so many of us come back to:
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
How Did Andrew Miss This One?
People would actually pay tall money to go on a cruise with Sir Douche and the Nozzles? I wouldn't go on a cruise featuring Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan, Clive Davis, and The Woman With the Perfect Ass--and I like them. I mean, just look at these guys!

Now that's a party! If one goes on a cruise with these debutantes...time to think about ending one's life--seriously. At a minimum, just sit in your house, watch Fox News, and talk about the hippies next door as if someone cares. But leave your money for your children--they still have a chance.
Secretary Rice to Visit Yellow Apes
Slimy, Nasty, Lying Bitch
Oh, but might I tremble in the glorious shadow cast upon me from thine soaring intellect, Ms. Hillary? Let me but sup from the bounteous feast of thine wisdom, M'Lady. Sure MLK was a good darkie, but it took an enlightened white man to make it all really happen! Chortle chortle....silly Negro.
THAT is her "experience" and outlook on things (and do be careful not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for, uhhhhhh....nothing apparent, Senator). Not a day, not a moment, not a second, did Obama compare himself with either JFK or MLK. Never. In fact, I dare any Hillarah supporter out there to bring the evidence. Saying "words matter" compares him to JFK or MLK? Are you kidding?! Words do matter. And I like how Obama says them without resorting to patronage and delivering me the Message Of The Day in veeeeeeery slooooooooow woooooooords the way Hillarah does as if I'm a semi-retarded chimp in need of a master.
So allow me to be the anti-MLK and say, Go phuk yourself, Hillarah! Actually, in her style, "Suuuuuuuuuuck. Myyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick!" You too, Billy. How clear is that? And read it as fast as you want.
Blame Michigan

If this guy goes on to be Pres. Now, Romney is definitely not going away. He would have to get trounced on Super Tuesday and I can't see that happening. The Super-MoMo cyborg wins a state on "hrrrrrm, haaaaa. hrmmm hrmm ha haaa. And let us not forget about hrmmmm haaaa, cliche, cliche haaaaa." In case you were wondering why Michigan sux--look no further. "Mitt wins in the Mitten state! Get it?!" [cough] douchebags! [cough]
Three Words
[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan - yes, I know I need to read more blogs]
Hitch's Second to Last Article
First, "kinda lame" isn't exactly a phrase thought to be carved out by the finely-milled edge of a critic's surgical toolery, but this is a blog. More on topic, Hitchens seems to be talking about "our" obsession with Obama's skin color and the undue solipsism we practice on ourselves for seeing beyond it. He goes on to talk about Obama's crackpot church with a "decidedly ethnic character." Whatever.
If you want to ask about Obama's church, fine--ask away--it's not out of bounds. But I think Hitchens misses the larger point: Obama, himself, has made race a non-issue. He, more or less, told Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to phuXX0r off--or, at least to the effect of, "I don't need you to validate me." That is why his politics are different. When Hitchens asks the rhetorical question of why we didn't support Angela Davis or Jesse Jackson and then answers it with his own rhetorical question/answer of: "Was it the politics?", the immediate answer of "Why yes!" comes to mind. Obama is proving that he is bigger than his pigmentation.
And Hitchens sees that himself, but gives a very qualified, and dismissive, nod of agreement to it. In the end, I'm not sure what he is saying, quite frankly. Is he saying Obama is still playing the race card...kind-of? Maybe that "we" are obsessing about his race? Or maybe we're giving him a pass on his religion because he's black...? I don't know. But Hitchens is normally a much better writer and, perhaps, he is having trouble swallowing his terrifically wrong assessment of three months ago:
"Sen. Obama cannot possibly believe, and doesn't even act as if he believes, that he can be elected president of the United States next year."
Really....? And you said that why, dear Christopher? Why exactly did you say that? And why are you now, how does one put it..., wrong as W at a Toastmasters convention?
Hitch on Hillarah
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency.
Monday, January 14, 2008
GOP in Michigan
One thing I do maintain, however; if McCain comes out on top--guaranteed D in the White House. Mo Udall put it best: "Arizona is the one state where mothers tell their sons, 'you cannot grow up to be president'."
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Letterman's Take on Politics
[Update: Loaded it up to youtube and embedding it below]
How to Write over 2000 Words and Say Nothing
It's because the approach Brownstein takes is *exactly* what is wrong with American politics and even American political science. The most awful class I had to take in college was a mandatory 301 class that taught the magic of polls. Not only did the professor have to wear a necktie to keep the foreskin from going up over his head, he and the curriculum treated people as if we are static elements that can be near-perfectly counted if you did so in just such a way. It is exactly the wrong approach.
To guide one's politics by polls is to take a "tail-wagging-the-dog" approach wherein politicians are always reacting to the presumed past in a narrowly focused way. "Voters are concerned about the economy/environment/terrorism threat/etc., ergo, we should talk about X." No....you, the politician, need to talk about the economy and get the voters to talk about it. You need to talk about the environment and get voters to think about it. You need to talk about torture and civil liberties and get voters to respond to it. If they don't want to come along with your ideas, fine, that's the way it works. But this continued focus-group/polling approach is what creates small-minded, wonky, pedantic drivel instead of substantive legislation.
Obama doesn't win votes based on his 1,036,723-point plans. He wins on ideas and, yes, outstanding oratory skills. And just what is wrong with that? Why should we be afraid of ideas? What is wrong with inspired oratory? Of course it doesn't translate into action, but it sure as hell can inspire action and no president--no matter the skill or industry--can do anything alone. The absolute quickest way Obama can hand the nomination to Hillarah is to try to out-wonk her. Instead, all he has to do is say, to the effect, "All of my plans and ideas are up on my website, freely available, and if you don't want to download them off the net, we will be happy to mail them to you." Then continue to talk about his ideas, and inspire, and lead. Yes, lead.
I am certainly not saying that Obama doesn't need to avoid dirtying himself in details. When asked about his views and plans regarding the economy, answer--and do it directly. But don't pull a Hillarah and put forth a wonky plan as a panacea. And I'm not saying polls have no use--they can be very useful tools at times. But Bill Clinton's largest accomplishments--welfare reform, free-trade, and a budget surplus--happened despite opposition to the ideas in the country and/or his party. On those issues, for better or worse, he led. And that's what we need; not salami-slicing the population and calculating one's statements to win over the majority of those "groups."
Paging Dr. Paul
Can we do nothing right anymore? Can anyone even begin to imagine building the Panama Canal or Hoover Dam today? What happened to us?
[Hat Tip: Huffington Post]
Snoop Dog and Bill O'Reily
Grapelli
Sadly, I never got to see him perform live. But the man who did everything from playing with Django Reinhart to teaching Mark O'Connor is still on youtube, so check him out--and get a couple of his albums if you want to play music.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Voter Turnout
And, not to be out-done, the UK has a few dim bulbs as well:
The TSA is *Still* a Farse
"...[T]o the TSA, following procedure is more important than common sense."
I Miss Joe
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Huckster and Colbert
I'm in the Big Leagues Now
Meghan McCain
Richardson Calls it Quits
People in AZ, CO, NV, and UT couldn't give two shits about the governor of NM--and why should they? People in NM don't give a damn about our governors either. The Mountain states are largely conservative and don't have much of an electoral count, and the Left Coast (with 72 electoral votes between the three states) is as removed from Western States as it is from the Midwest, politically.
I don't know if he wants the job or not, but Biden would be a much better choice. As a Westerner myself, Biden seems more Western than Richardson in temperament and delivery. You have to swagger as a Westerner--Richardson bobbles and sways. And you have to get to the point when asked a question--preferably quickly--not talk about energy independence and refuge for unicorns in the Gumdrop Forest when asked a question about Iraq.
This Hyper-Sensative Country of Ours
Kerry endorses Obama

Ready? 1, 2, 3, yawn. Nice touch of class though in not supporting your former running mate. Should have just stayed out of it, Senator. At a minimum, wait until super Tuesday is over to see if Edwards is still a distant third.
Revulsion of Cliches
I'm not so sure any of us want change so much as better. Candidates are rapidly making the term of "change" meaningless anyhow by talking about it as if it's synonymous with "cool" or "the best." It reminds me of an executive in my former company that had us read a ridiculous self-help book that made the mind-bending suggestion that one needs to "think outside the box" [GASP] and offered a system in how to do so. Naturally, the same executive didn't see the obvious irony of following a system that keeps one from following a system. Similarly, Romney, Clinton, and Edwards don't see how following the leader shows their lack of leadership (note how McCain has largely stayed away from this, btw).
Interestingly, however, with candidates in both parties trying to wave the Change banner, it reveals what may well be Ws greatest legacy--a complete dismantling of the two party's power structures and a re-writing of their platforms. For his administration has been so awful, odious, and destructive--and the Ds have been so pusillanimous, disarrayed, and impotent in their opposition--that millions of Americans are saying give me anything better than this. Anything. I'm hopeful we will get it.
A Better Summary of the Elections
"Led Zeppelin's recent reunion concert in London exemplified a tiresome phenomenon -- geezer rock groups catering to baby boomer nostalgia. Speaking of the boomers' inexhaustible fascination with themselves, Bill Clinton has transformed his wife's campaign into his narcissism tour. As The New York Times dryly described a New Hampshire appearance the day after her Iowa rejection: "He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife."
Election 2008 - NH
What cannot be denied, however, is that there is definitely a change in the zeitgeist here in the US. Political parties are being redrawn right now. A generation is losing power while the younger generations are still trying to define themselves, politically. The candidates winning over America are the anti-candidates: a young, ethnically mixed man raised by a single mother, an affable Baptist preacher that started out polling below the margin of error, and an old, maverick war hero that is sometimes more unpopular in his own party than in the opposition's.
I see Hillarah's win in NH as an aberration--I really do. I don't dismiss the chance that she could win the D nomination, but it will be the last gasp of a generation if she does. Both parties are being rebuilt now, as we speak. The Ds have been trying to repair themselves for decades now, so I suspect they will get there quicker than the GOP, but I don't know that and neither does anyone right now.
And actually, another thing that I don't think can be denied: this is, by far, the most exciting election in my adult life (now 37). I suspect that it may well be the most interesting election since at least 1968. It seems that, for the first time in decades, the majority of voters are choosing a candidate they can really be for vs. a candidate that is the lessor of two evils. And for a political junkie like me, it will be something to remember for a looooooooong time.
Leave it to Clive
I found this while I was perusing as well. Dizzy Gillespie with Louis Armstrong on the Jackie Gleason Show. I was born way too late, alas.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Obama and Keyes
[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]
Monday, January 7, 2008
It's Gotta Hurt
Richardson, sadly, is a Douche
In debate after debate, the question would be something like "What should we do about Darfur, Governor?" And the answer would be some sort of glancing blow about a no fly zone and diplomacy and then, chasing the yellow light, he would go through a laundry list of items like energy independence, higher teacher salaries, better education, free blow jobs for Iraqi war veterans, and unicorns and rainbows and butterflies flitting about the evergreen lea. He could never be taken seriously.
I will standby what I've said for many years. New Mexico is the most awful state in the union. Pick a state and I would rather live there. Pick a ring of Hell and I will consider it. New Mexico sucks the life out of a person and, apparently, their intellect as well. I should have known better.
Whoa there, Huckster!
[Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan]
Saturday, January 5, 2008
I HAVE A NEW READER!
ObamaRama
Rather notable as well, Obama leads in NH by 10 points over Hillarah in the latest Rassmussen poll. They had Hillarah up by 3 just two weeks ago. This thing is over. Once Obama wins NH, he will walk through SC and super Tuesday on February 5th, I should think, will just be a coronation.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Ending the 60's dorm room fights Redux
"Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state's history and the nation's most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages -- the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.
Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today's fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan."
Rush, Ronny Reagan is not coming back, sorry. Go take a pill (actually, don't), and face the reality that is now: you will only continue to be less and less relevant.
The Pettiness of Edwards
First, this seems to be dumb, dumb, and more dumb. If Obama goes on to win the nomination and, particularly the Presidency, he could write himself out of the national scene for years--if not forever. Perhaps he sincerely believes it's worth the cost. Who knows?
But what Edwards doesn't seem to understand is, to my view, the following:
1) His populist message about fighting for the working man comes across as patronizing and bullying to a lot of us. Uncle Saint John will fight the big bad guy for us dirty people too weak to fight. I don't doubt his sincerity, but damn. We don't need to fight union busters anymore, do we? And...I can take care of myself pretty well--thanks though.
2) Most of the people in this country work for major corporations. I just left the last company I worked for (a Fortune 100 Company) because I was dissatisfied with it, not because of inherent evil. They gave me a good salary, good benefits, good working environment, etc. I realize that there are many not so fortunate, but a more reasonable approach and softer touch (such as Obama saying American corporations can't hide in the Caribbean for tax purposes) seems a better way to go. Edwards sounds like he wants to storm the Bastille and I'm not so sure that is what is necessary.
3) Class warfare is the stuff of decades past. General Motors isn't sending henchman to bust up picket lines any longer. Bill Gates doesn't make his billions by raping the earth and employing 12 year olds. Obama's approach is so much saner. Transparency in government, fair tax laws, and an expanded safety net in the way of health care. That tackles lobbyists, tax relief, and public welfare without a call to arms. If a corporation is a good citizen and obeys the laws, what's wrong with them making money? I'm *glad* Google makes a lot of money. I'm glad New Belgium Brewers make a lot of money. And I'm sure as hell glad that the company that writes my paycheck makes a lot of money. Just convince me you're not a corporate whore like so many in politics--that's all I need.
4) Edwards' rubric sounds like the New Deal and The Great Society reheated. Neither are looked upon with much fondness any longer--particularly the latter.
I do believe that Edwards is a good man with some good ideas, and this loss in Iowa has to be like a blow to the gut. He's been campaigning there, effectively, for years now and built a very solid organization. But I hope he takes a deep breath and rethinks his tactics and delivery a bit. The Ds (and the country) could use him. But they won't want him if he's viewed as a divisive, arrogant prick.