Thursday, January 31, 2008

So Embarrassed

Carmen is at it again...embarrassing me on camera no less...

[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

I'm going to take on George Will's criticism of McCain as a D in GOP clothing. It will most likely be paltry, but I'm getting sick of the conventional wisdom.

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.

Good Point

Buchanan gives a pretty succinct and damning attack line for the Ds vs. McCain.

Edwards Ends Campaign

John Edwards throws in the towel. Good. This will truly make it a binary choice for Ds now and let Hillarah and Big O go at it without the obligatory recognition of Edwards. According to the linked article, he won't immediately endorse either candidate. Not sure why, strategically. He should know better than anyone where both candidates stand on things and has been up close and personal with them more than any of us.

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

John McCain becomes the second man from my home state to get the GOP nomination in the last 50 years. Like the previous nominee, Barry Goldwater, he is an outspoken maverick with little to no reservations about calling a spade a spade, fighting for what he thinks is right, or being unpopular for a while if that's what it takes to get something done the right way. He even seriously jeopardized (and continues to jeopardize) his candidacy by being
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.

Kennedy's Endorsement Speech

In case you missed it.

Don't I Feel Like an Idiot

Wouldn't be the first time. (Actually, it's almost a habit). I wrote earlier about how Obama must win California and mentioned how Hillarah is beating Obama in Florida. That's true, but the Ds are boycotting FL this year because they moved up their primary earlier than the Ds wanted them to, so it's just a beauty contest until the general election. Kinda weird, but bad for Hillarah; good for Obama.

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

Tribute to Baahbrah

Heh.

Another Reason to Oppose Hillarah

Dogs around the nation could be baying and begging for us to stop the pain. Is there anything more annoying than the screeching of middle-aged American women? Maybe two cats f*cking in a trashcan...

[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]

Greenwald on Reid

I meant to link to this earlier. Greenwald launches a scathing criticism of Harry Reid's performance, and it might be a little too nice. Reid is a disaster, and a cowardly one at that. Pelosi isn't exactly a superstar Speaker of the House either.

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

Ted Kennedy--along with his son (Rep. in Massachusetts) and Caroline Kennedy--is supposed to announce his endorsement of Obama today around noon. It's not exactly shocking, but it does seem quite surprising that he wouldn't just stay neutral. According to the article, Ted Kennedy rejected a personal entreaty from Bill Clinton to do this. I'm sure the Obama camp has sought his endorsement as well, but still...stiff-arming Billary a week away from super Tuesday? It sure seems like many Ds are looking for a new direction and a new voice--and have found it in Obama.

My Friends

My friends, my friends, my phucking friends for the 501st phucking time, my friends!!!!! Hate to say it, but as much as I like McCain as a candidate and as my Senator, he is getting dangerously close to sounding like Giuliani in that he mentions only three things in a sentence, but with a bit of variety: "My friends, General Patreus is first cousin to Jesus Christ" or "My friends, pork barrel spending has got to stop." That's about it.

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

Now This is Funny

Of course, he had decent writers, but still... (I especially like number 8).

Hubble Telescope

Awesome Hubble Telescope pics here if you want 'em. They can be wallpaper pics for your desktop if you like.

Hillarah the Comedian

Does she think this is actually somewhere near funny? If so, it's not. It really, really, is not.

Wake Me When It's Over

Heh. Billy getting shreepy.

Critique of John Edwards

Charles Krauthammer calls John Edwards out. Ouch.

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

Polls will tell you it's a dead heat, but polls haven't been spectacularly accurate thus far (though more accurate on the GOP side than the D side). Florida is a winner take all state and the 4th largest in the Union, so it's obviously a huge win, but I don't know how it would necessarily make or break it for Johnny Mac or Sir Plastic--or the other candidates.

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

Huckabee talked about building up infrastructure (fine) but specifically mentioned widening I-95 in a populist way and Giuliani talked of having an Apollo program for alternative energy. Just seemed odd to hear GOP candidates talking about massive public works projects.

GOP Debate in FL

Truthfully, I thought all of the candidates did pretty well. No one really distinguished themselves, though Romney did better than he normally does since he didn't have to dance around his record as much as he normally does. (Full video and other clips can be found here).

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

One of my favorite drummers, Bernard "Perty" Purdie, joins David T. Walker--guitarist of Motown fame--to do an incredible rendition of "What's Going On." If you don't like this, you may have no soul.

Bill Gates and Capitalism

Interesting, but only mildly.

"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

Pretty well done. A trifle over-dramatic and, maybe, even unfair. But not too terribly.

The Liberal Reagan Argument...Again

This time from John O'Sullivan, an Aussie. He's remarking on Obama's comment of Reagan being a politically transformational figure--which is, of course, true. As I mentioned before, the Ds have lost 5 of the last 7 general elections since Reagan and, since Reagan, NO ONE in the U.S. is afraid to call themselves "conservatives" while "liberal" has become a tag of slander--on par with "child molester" or "heathen." And Liberals still cower to it! Even now, with what might be the worst president in 100 years as the face of conservative Republicans, the "L-word" is avoided like the plague amongst Liberals.

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

Yet again, they are first on the scene. Bill is in. From the article:

"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

Mickey Kaus proposes a long-shot of sorts for Obama: go after affirmative action. The idea, or so it seems, is to make affirmative action based upon class vs. race. I'm not so sure about this one. Tricky would be a gross understatement. A nuclear minefield seems more like it. Elements of affirmative action could be re-written as assisting economically disadvantaged vs. certain skin pigmentations, sure (and it probably should be). But the whole thing can't be re-written--or, at least, I don't see how it can be.

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

In Columbia, South Carolina's endorsement of Obama, they make the case a good number of us have made:

"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

They are out following Billary. From the article:

"“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

Speaking of CNN Personnel

Am I the only one who thinks Joe Johns comes across as a total douchebag?

Black Women a bit Angry with CNN

They should be angry. This constant barrage of identity politics is getting really old, isn't it? This sort of thing has much to do with polling and political "analysis." as well, I'm convinced. When CNN puts on Bill Schneider, I cringe every time.

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

Obama must, must, must win California on Super Tuesday. You might be thinking "Thank you, Captain Obvious," but it can't be overstated, in my view. Hillarah is killing him in Florida. And, though it sounds ugly, the constituancy there doesn't bode well for him. Let's be honest: Latinos have proven tough for him to win over, rumors of Obama being associated with Farrakhan still circulate (untrue, of course), and the geriatrics luuuuuuuuuuuuv that Hillrah--particularly the old women.

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...

Duncan Hunter also dropped out of the race a couple days ago. I honestly forgot he was in the race--and I follow these things pretty closely. Who did he endorse? No one--and I doubt his 1% support in SC will push the election too terribly one way or the other should he decide to.

Fred Thompson Drops Out

Confirmed by CNN. Hard to see him continuing after SC and it never seemed like he really wanted it, truthfully, until SC. If he endorses McCain, it seems like it would be over for the GOP (ironically, almost, since it has been more fluid than the Ds and Obama/Hillarah is still waiting for Super Tuesday).

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

The Economist paints a bleak picture, or at least takes a few bleak snapshots. They are not predicting gloom and doom but, at a minimum, this is a correction. It could possibly be a slowdown or the beginning of a recession as well. Whatever the case, your 401K and the world economy might well be taking a few lumps. Let's hope not too many.

What Obama Said

Jake Tapper gives an analysis. I'll be a spoiler and tell you what you already suspect. Billary was distorting the truth--aka lying.

Fire Hillarah's Wardrobe People

I'm hardly a fashion queen, but who picked out Hillarah's pantsuit last night? She looked fine from the shoulders up, but today's camera coverage captures more than that. Her ass looked like a cathedral bell from behind and the suit was so stifling on her torso that she looked like a stiff, brown turd with eyes when she was sitting in the chair.

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

I won't get into specifics for this post, but I will say this. It was the most demoralizing of the debates. Hillarah has likely succeeded in making Obama a candidate vs. a candidate + a movement.

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

Gabor Steingart is not encouraged, and it's hard to refute him much. I sure hope he is wrong, however, and millions around the world do too. And yes, I do believe it is important to think of how the world views us.

Google to Buy the NYT?

John Ellis presents the hypothetical. (I didn't realize how bad the NYT was hurting).

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

Jay Rosen is being more anti-media than most anti-media people, it seems. And he has quite an argument...rather depressing.

This Can Only End in Tears

Microsoft is going to get into the virtualization game. Of course, it's been around for years now--decades if you include mainframes and high-end Sun systems, but it's still treated as a "hot new field." Maybe MS is right though. Many in the old guard that still strangle the IT field with incompetency will only pay attention to a technology when MS does. So why not wait till the technology is more mature, then steal it? Oh, and make it crappier and much more expensive too. It's the MS way.

Elections in Pakistan

Musharraf says he will not cling to power. I hope not, but who will come to power if not him? The future of Islam and politics of Islamic nations has been concentrated in central Asia for decades now (though many are still slow to see it and think of the Middle East when they think of Islam). I can only hope things get better, of course, but I don't think it unreasonable to be a trifle skeptical either.

You Go Girl

The Mayor of the ATL tells Billy to STFU.

Thanks Bill

Billy is so hell-bent on getting Hillarah in the White House that he is splitting the Democratic Party to do it. Knocking down the most exciting D candidate since Bobby Kennedy so that he can get his ass back to the White House--what grace.

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.

Ichhh

Not a way to go...

Sir Edward the Tenacious

John Edwards doesn't give up easily. He publicly states that he "got his butt kicked" in Nevada, but still presses on. At some point it has to seem nutz to continue, but...Super Tuesday isn't that far away, I suppose. Unless a miracle happens, I can't see him going past that though, and the Obama/Clinton choice (if it's still a viable one) will be interesting to watch. More interesting still will be who he endorses.

Hillary's Funeral

No, not that Hillary. Sir Edmund Hillary. Quite a man.

Ellen vs. God

Wow. Ellen DeGeneres dethrones Oprah? I don't exactly pay attention to the Ovary Hour of talk shows, but I thought Oprah was Empress Supreme...

The Young Lady isn't Impressed

Heh.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

McCain wins South Carolina

And.......a bit of good news. Actually, a lot of good news. McCain gets vindication, somewhat, 8 years later. I disagree with him on a number of things, but I have always respected him [though his pandering to the Christianists earlier didn't sit well with me].

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

Dark days. I felt I had overdone it when I posted this one, but no longer. Hillarah is a nasty, lying, slimy bitch--period. Look here for a first-hand account of the way her campaign is run. Was it her doing it? Of course not. It never is. That's the trick. Capone never killed anyone, it was always someone else. And, of course, she can never be wrong that way. I'm sure she feels awful for the handicapped man that was wheeled over to her corner against her will, but hey--it wasn't her and, besides, she'll make sure the gimp gets a tax break or something later.

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

Or so it seems--likely, obviously so. So Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain wins New Hampshire, Romney wins Wyoming and Nevada, and South Carolina looks to go to either McCain or Huckabee. At this rate, the GOP front-runner might be hard to discern *after* super Tuesday.

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

I've posted one of Clive Davis' links recently, and in it I mention that he normally talks about things other than music--and he does--but he has such a depth of understanding of what is out there music-wise that I am often left embarrassed. I'm a weekend warrior guitarist in a jazzish band and play publicly, so I should know a few things in the music scene. But I just don't seem to be able to keep up with Clive when it comes to finding the tastefully obscure. His latest youtube.com find, though not exactly my cup of tea, is here:

Friday, January 18, 2008

Getting a bit creepier--kinda

Human embryos have now almost been created from human cells. We all knew the day was coming, but it's now rapidly approaching, apparently (the results have some scientists skeptical, from the article). Still, if a monkey embryo can be created (as your devoted blogger pointed to), it's gonna happen soon.

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

The Clinton machine suffers a defeat in trying to stop people from voting. Think of the irony in that--seriously. Filing a lawsuit trying to stop people from being able to more easily vote because they might vote for the "wrong" person... Can you seriously say you are a Democrat interested in enfranchising Americans and do that? I don't see how but, fortunately, the measure failed.

Bush the Keynesian

Whatever, Dude. Paint me pessimist, but I have a veeeeeeeeery strong suspicion that this will get phuXX0red 8 ways from Tuesday before it's over. Between W, Pelosi, and Reid...this can only end in tears.

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.

Andrew Finds Another

Pretty Cool Civil War Clip. The American Civil War in four minutes:



Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan

RIP Bobby Fischer

Or at least rest. Dead at 64. No cause of death was given. Rarely have we seen such genius and derangement in a single person.

Vive le capitalisme

Amazon being fined by the French Government for making books cheaper for their citizens. Sarkozy should have a field day with this one.

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

Slashdot reports that, apparently, the DoD is considering making weapons systems based upon smell. Seems a trifle far-fetched and difficult to use, tactically, but who knows? Personally, I would nominate my brother's dog--she has flatulence that would make a train take a dirt road.

White Working Class

EJ Dionne states the obvious and admonishes the Ds not to "ignore" the white working class. I get his point about how "race" became an issue for a few days after Hillarah's campaign made it one, but seriously...does he honestly think the candidates are ignoring them? Plus, He indicates that he's seen John Edwards at least a few times. I think Edwards has said "fight for the middle class" well over a thousand times in the last several months and it's not exactly working out for him.

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

But, again, I'm not really sure just what he is saying. Quote:

"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

A "visionary minimalist." The article is in quite the college-essay style, but worth a read. In the end, he seems to be saying that Obama is quintessentially American: a pragmatic idealist. The lone philosophical school attributed to the US is the pragmatic school and--comparative to other schools--it is rather boring, truthfully. But, when it comes to government, I would rather have ideas inspired by John Dewey than Friedrich Nietzsche.

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

Please watch it in full and ask yourself if we want another president who can never do anything wrong.

The. Greatest. Modern. Blues. Piece. Ever.

There, I said it. This will be outdated in a few years, perhaps, but that assumes (1) I'm still alive and (2) anyone cares to revisit the subject a few years from now.

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?

Andrew Sullivan is, basically, my unpaid internet-reader and I steal from him constantly. Therefore, as a qualified fan, I know that he battles and chides Hugh Hewitt constantly--and Hewitt is easy to battle. So how on earth could Andrew miss this gem?

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

I simply don't know how I missed this one as a loyal reader, but plugging the Onion yet again:


Condoleezza Rice To Voyage East

Good Gorgonzola is this good!

Does Mitt Hate Homos Enough?

Relax, it's a parody:


Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

Slimy, Nasty, Lying Bitch

Of course, I'm talking about Hillarah, whose campaign tactics seem to be "kill the darkie to save the darkies." Look here, here, here, and here.

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

Koo Kaphuckin Koo! Tom Cruise on his scientology beliefs here.

[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan - yes, I know I need to read more blogs]

Hitch's Second to Last Article

I called Christopher Hitchens' article from last week "kinda lame" and felt it necessary to explain why.

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

His last article was kinda lame, but this one is pretty good. The part I like best (though hard to single out--I liked it all) is thus:

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

A dead heat. Many have said that if Romney doesn't win here, he's done. I'm not so sure. If he finishes a close second, it will be the third time he has finished in second and picked up some delegates. Plus, he's loaded with cash. I'm not sure he will just go away. Maybe after super Tuesday if McCain or Huckabee look like clear winners, but I'm not predicting anything anymore.

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

Crooks and Liars posts video of Dave Letterman on today's politics. Pretty good stuff.

[Update: Loaded it up to youtube and embedding it below]

How to Write over 2000 Words and Say Nothing

Andrew Sullivan links to this article, by Ronald Brownstein, talking about "beer track" and "wine track" voters, and Andrew seems to think it useful. I'm not sure why. I was waiting for Brownstein to talk about how Hillarah wins with Haitian lesbians in the furniture business by 59%, but Obama wins with left-handed Tongan welders by 57%. In the end, Brownstein says 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

Remember the embassy Ron Paul mentioned--the one bigger than the Vatican? Well, apparently, it's a firetrap. It's already $200 million dollars over budget, almost 6 months behind schedule, and, of course, never should have been built in the first place.

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

Not a lot of love lost, apparently. (Not work safe if not wearing headphones).

Grapelli

I miss him.

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

And a Peek into Common French Intelligence

Not the same format, but wow!

Voter Turnout

Maybe it's good that most don't vote [sigh]. But if Americans are worried about their jobs being outsourced...seems like EDUCATION might be called for.



And, not to be out-done, the UK has a few dim bulbs as well:

The TSA is *Still* a Farse

Bruce Schneier posts an article about a 5 year old boy being searched as a potential terrorist because his name matches someone on the no-fly list. The name? Michael Gardner. Whitepages.com has over 300 Michael Gardners in their records and has 42 Michael Gardners just in the state of Washington (where the little jihadist lives). Plus, HE'S 5 YEARS OLD! Schneier said it best:

"...[T]o the TSA, following procedure is more important than common sense."

I Miss Joe

For the life of me, I don't know why he didn't do better. In 2000--sure, different times. But now? Particularly when Hillarah is the only one doing well that can really be called an establishment candidate, it seems like perfect timing for him. Maybe his long time in the Senate made him look like one of the Washington regulars...I don't know. But how does this guy (below) lose for the Ds? I can't see him losing to anyone the GOP has up there, personally. And I think he had the best outlook on the Iraqi war, the Middle East problems, and Terrorism--by far.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Huckster and Colbert

Say what you want about Huckabee, but he has a sense of humor (and doesn't laugh like an inbred shit-shoveler with asthma). We could have worse candidates for damn sure.

I'm in the Big Leagues Now

Andrew Sullivan published a letter of mine! I am now being read around the world!!!! (And yes, I know no one really cares ;-).

Meghan McCain

Whoever went on that date with her has cajones. I would be terrified to be within 20 feet of John McCain's daughter. Her blog is here and, somehow, I don't see her running for office later.

Richardson Calls it Quits

I'm not sure why he even went on to NH, truthfully, though it was only another 5 days away so--what the hell, I guess. I was a little harsh on him here, though I don't think I was too far off. My suspicion (and hope) is that he is a little better of a politician than he is a campaigner, but him as VP...? I don't see it. Who does he energize or excite? I don't see him delivering Western states either. Maybe New Mexico, but who cares about that? I would trade NM for Tijuana tomorrow.

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

So disappointing. Andrew Cuomo makes an innocent remark and people think he might be giving a semi-racist back-handed slap at Obama. Relax people. There are more important things going on. Like, say, the gum wrapper I saw on the sidewalk this morning, or the dimples on my butt. This is part of the reason we could use Obama in the White House.

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

Most all of us are already sick of it, I should imagine. Shortly, we may have no choice but to either go numb to it or turn away from it. Of course, I speak of "Change." Obama started it with the "Change We Can Believe In" slogan and--with his popularity--now has every other candidate talking about it as if it were their campaign slogan from the beginning. Even Romney, the pre-packaged, GOP machine candidate-with-handlebars-in-a-handsome-carrying-case is calling himself an agent of change. Blech.

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

Not shocking that George Will could do it better than me. I've been reading him since I was a teenager and, 20-something years later, still enjoy it. My favorite part:

"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

Suppose I could lend opinion 2 billion and 14 on the subject, but it will hardly stand out. I don't really know what to say about it overall except the one obvious point: no one knows where this is going. We can follow the polls, make our predictions, go with our gut feelings, etc., but this is far too big for any one pundit or group to really define or understand. Even the most able pollsters have to be almost completely baffled right now--which suits me fine. The less relevant the polls, the better, IMHO.

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

Clive Davis always finds the best clips if you're into music beyond what is on the radio. (He mostly writes about things other than music, however--you should check him out). Charlie Parker with Coleman Hawkins, Buddy Rich, Ray Brown, and Hank Jones? There has to be a couple hundred or so albums between those guys.

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

From the 2004 Senatorial debate in Illinois (below). Perhaps I was a little hard on Gov. Richardson. For he is nowhere near Keyes. If any of you have never had the impulse to kick a man in the face, perhaps it will come to you for a brief moment today:




[Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan]

Monday, January 7, 2008

It's Gotta Hurt

Hillarah is having a hard time keeping her supporters in NH from leaving the building.

Richardson, sadly, is a Douche

But it's not all his fault--more on that later. Go to about the 1:00 mark of the youtube clip and then wait for the doozy: he's going to work out an agreement with the Soviet Union. Of course they haven't existed for about 20 years, but we know what he meant. When I read about Richardson early last year, I liked him for the most part. But the more he talked, the more he sounded like a douche nozzle.

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!

I have given Huckabee the benefit of the doubt and I still like the fact that he's beating the Plastic One, but this is a bridge too far. Save it for the pulpit, Governor.

[Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan]

Saturday, January 5, 2008

I HAVE A NEW READER!

No idea how he found me, but I actually got a reader from someone I don't know or owe money to. And...he actually gave me a nice comment on the meager post. Here is his site. Here is the post. And here is an awesome pic he has on his blog (a pretty good blog too--extra bonus).

ObamaRama

Video of the NH Democratic Party Dinner can be found here. Best part is you can fast forward through the first half (just drag the bar to a different spot to get to where you want). Most notable parts are Hillarah getting semi (or mostly) booed twice. It wasn't all that audible in the video, but according to first hand accounts, it was quite noticeable.

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

Rush is aghast that anyone could or would support McCain or Huckabee since they aren't "real" Conservatives. It reminded me of an article George Will wrote some time back and, with all the GOP fixation on Reagan, seems all to apropos right now. From the article:

"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

Sorry, but this can be called nothing but. Not only did he not congratulate Obama last night, he didn't even mention him! Now his campaign manager is calling Obama a corporate sellout?

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.