Prediction

Been years since she was "polled."

'M UP!

Head
left the pillow,
late already,
on time
out of reach
as I reached
for the phone
ringing.

Weekly Round-Up

Interesting week.

Mitt "He just looks Presidential" Romney hears voices. During the GOP debate, debate fans (Freaks and Geeks?) heard a voice from beyond give Gov Romney a "prompt" when answering a "trick" question from Tim Russert. Lots of ideas, Huffpo gets huffy, but me? Well, I'm going where no one dares go (I mean, this is what you don't pay me for right?). I say it was one of the Latter Day Saints. An unidentified whisper helping out Mormon Mitt? Gotta be. Poor Huck. He had to be there wondering why the Former Day Saints let him down. And by "down" I mean both financially and with the votes.

Feeling heady with the Big Guy in his head, Mitt of Arc then spouts off with,

Well, I'm not concerned about the voters.

Which is only fair, because it looks like the voters are less and less concerned with him.

Someone who won't be hearing from the Spirit in the Sky until she makes a "sorry" is ESPN Hostess with the Mostess (booze) Dana Jacobson. At a Celebrity Roast for Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic (its OK, I'll wait while you read that again...yup, not a misprint, I know, go figure) Ms Jacobson said some naughtys about Notre Dame, Touchdown Jesus, and the actual Jesus. Could it have been the booze talking? You decide. Yup.

Big deal in the Big House. The Supremes rule that inmates cannot sue for lost property. So what if Hacksaw Jones can't sue to get his shiv back you say? Read the comments.

The confusion in the courts comes because the immunity is mentioned in a section of the law that blocks lawsuits against the government over the "loss of goods, merchandise or other property" detained by customs or excise officers. The law then adds "or any other law enforcement officer."

"Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than 'any other law enforcement officer' " to show that it intended broad immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Therefore, the law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers."

That's right folks, according to Clarence "Strict Constructionist" Thomas, "any" law enforcement officer can take anything from you and you have not right to recourse. Now, I'm no legal scholar (I roll with the illegal scholars), but I thought I read somewhere about an Amendment that prevents just such a thing. But wouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know that? Lets see...its somewhere around here...what did I do with my pocket Constitution? Oh, that's right I lent it to Ron Paul when he crashed on my couch awhile back and we were rappin 'bout evolution. Hold on, I'll Google it. Here we go, Find Law says,

blah blah blah...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oooooh, I did, I did, I did taw a Fit Amentment. To my astigmatic eyes, it looks like you cannot just take something from a prisoner without due process, and private property cannot be taken "just 'cause," even if there's just cause. Seems to me that if Congress says "any" law enforcement officer can take anything with immunity, a "Strict Constructionist" should say, "nice law Congress, but take it back for a do over." Why not here? Maybe "Strict" is one of those slang words like when "bad" means "good." See, then it makes sense. "Strict Constructionist" means "Constitution don't matter." Who knew the Court was so hip?

Hip hurtin'? Got a script for your "medical" marijuana? Still gonna git the pink slip. And no I don't mean 'ludes (are those even still around? I'm way behind in my cool drug references).

Clearly someone was abusing their "medical Mary J" when they came up with the Britney Industrial Index. Single greatest economic idea I've ever heard, and yes McGinty that includes your idea in the 90's to move towards a "beanie baby based economy." I figure the Unknown Blogger Industrial Index is a solid $1.25, but once you factor in paid subscriptions to the H-blog, it skyrockets to $1.25.

All those "prescriptions" for wacky weed are making things hard for everyone (takes a lot of water to fill all those bongs). Nuclear power (siiiigh, again, the most expensive form of energy...ever) is once again in the news. Apparently those reactors are facing water shortages and may have to shut down. New cost, on top of the crazy, insane amount it costs already?

"Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour (ed note, no, no, no!)," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer."

Now that gets me steamed.

I Am Sub-Prime

The sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing tsk-tsk's started me thinking (good thing I had my Excedrin handy, thinking always gives me a headache). The general attitude seems to be "well, the borrowers should have known better" and, "obviously, borrowers should have known that those rates weren't forever" or even, "you simply cannot get a house for free."

OK, I hear and understand all of the above. But here's the thing. In a very real way, we are all sub-prime borrowers. Not because of any fallout regarding mortgages. Nope, not that simple. We're all involved because we, as voters, have all bought into the GOP notion that "deficits don't matter." (Well not all Americans. H-Blog readers are well aware of that this GOP notion is utter nonsense-quick examples here, here, here, and here. Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? H-blog, H-blog, yaaaaaaaay H-blog).

For example, when we fund a multi-gazillion dollar war solely on debt, we're signing on the "no money down" line of our nations mortgage loan.

When we continue to borrow, and assume that we will aways grow our way out of our debt payments, we're committing the "I'll always get raises to cover my spending" mistake that leads to taking on more debt than our nation's household can reasonably sustain.

When we continue to borrow thinking that we can always get others to finance our spending, we're committing the "Las Vegas homes will always go up in value" mistake of the real estate speculator who does OK in good times but goes busted in bad.

So before anyone gets too high and mighty on those who are going busted in sub-prime, I suggest taking a good long look in the mirror. By default, you're in just as deep (I say deeper) and you've fallen for the same "it will all work out, sign here" scam as those who bought their house with too much leverage. You bought the same, "it will cost you nothing" argument, the same, "you can always make the payments" argument, and the same, "someone will aways be there to buy it at a profit argument" argument. In the end, you accepted the same, "it all makes sense in the math, just sign here" argument. Why? Because we really didn't understand the math, because we trusted "experts" who were conflicted because they were profiting on our signature, and most importantly, because we wanted to. So show a little sympathy for the busted homeowners. Your heading in the same direction.

Bush's real, lasting, legacy will be that of the mortgage broker who got the nation to sign away the house. I wonder who was first in that line? Oh yes, thank you for signing Mr Malone, here's your free toaster.

Obama hearts Reagan

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from Sen Hillary Clinton (and the the inverse of "Behind every great man is a woman" Bill) for his recent quotes about President Reagan. Here's the actual transcript if you're bored enough to read it (hey, if you're reading this blog, you have to be close right?). Mostly Obama correctly identifies the GOP 'sascent, the problems with the Dems, the GOP's current problems and gives credit to Reagan for rallying the nation back in the day.

Interesting strategy on Clinton's part. Most polls show that voters don't really like either party, are fed up with the status quo (read, interparty fighting), and want change (read, from interparty fighting). So what does she do, attack the idea the the Stalin's Hero (where a then chubby VP Bush was famous for "I see noe-thing, I know noe-thing" and and younger hipper Cheney always said, "Staaaaaalin"), may have been an OK President, and that the GOP came to power. Yes, yes, the best way to show that you can work with the other party and move our nation forward is to attack the GOP's Father Figure ( That's all I wanted, something special, Something sacred in your eyes, For just one moment, to be bold and naked
At your side) (creepy how well that fits, right?).

As for Obama, I think he should stick to his guns (if the Dems didn't hate them and want to pry them from your cold dead hand that is) and keep on praising the Gipper. See, there were loads of Reagan Democrats back then and hey, they're queer*, they're here, deal with it. Not only does it potentially reignite that base, but it also reinforces his "See, I can work with the Republicans" message. It makes him less of a partisan. Normally that's a fatal move in the primaries, but again, not a lot of love for either party and the hackery that keeps coming down that pike. This particular election cynical (oops, I mean "cycle"), that may be the exact right move.

Quick side notes from the last debate. When did the debates become so filled with lame cliche's. To wit (or not to wit, that is the question).

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

And,

Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Awesome. I respectfully suggest next they go with,

I forgot more about how to move this nation forward than you'll ever learn.

Or,

I'll take you down Senator, take you down to China Town.

Ahhhhh, election season. Enjoy.




*queer (kwîr)adj. queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.

What? What did you think I meant?

Outsourcing Immigration

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?


*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

Disorderlies?

A Pennsylvania man was charged with "Disorderly Conduct" after writing the "f-word" (I won't write it here, I have a clean record and want to keep it that way) on the Memo line of a check he used to pay a parking conduct.

The man, David Binner, later apologized, and charges were dropped. OK, except I don't see how writing the "f-word" could possibly be considered "Disorderly Conduct." From the all powerful Wiki Disorderly Conduct comes when,

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

I don't see any of the above in writing a bad word in the Memo section of a check. Not even a little. In fact to me, and lets face it, that's all that really matters, it seems like a valid, if ineffective means of protest.

Also, what adult could really, honestly be insulted by some random person writing "f" in the memo section of a check? I mean, enough to file charges insulted? Sticks and stones and all that right?

So to recap, a man immaturely vented, someone immaturely claimed to be offended, the man was falsely charged with a crime, the man was either forced to apologize or did so honestly, and all is well.

The larger question, is why did anything happen besides cashing this man's check?

Whatch U Tonkin 'bout Willis?

OK, I'm no conspiracy buff (but really, can you be a "buff" of conspiracies? Wouldn't you be more of a conspiracy...monger...zealot...or even devotee?)...wait, where was I? Oh yes. I don't normally buy into conspiracies, especially the governmental kind (here's another aside. Who put the "mental" in "Governmental?")

OK, I've totally lost my point. So now I'll go directly to the post. A group called "The Federation of American Scientists" has just put out a press release claiming that they have proof the the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened.

Says Steven Aftergood,

What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record.

OK, OK, I admit it. I don't have a larger point to this post. I just thought of the headline when I read the article and had to use it. I also liked "Jive Tonkin."

Maybe I should just quit now and go to work for the National Enquirer?

And justice for all? Only if its convenient.

Wednesday night quick hit.

I was perusing this article about The Supremes (Robert's called Diana-which totally pissed off Thomas-who looks A-mazing in sequins) questions about an Indiana's voter ID law.

Here's the part that caught the eye of el-bloggerino. From Kennedy,

You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?

Now, I'm no Constitutional Scholar (but I do play on on the blogosphere) but I thought that Ross and Co don't decide law based on "convenience" but rather the other "c" word. Yes, "Constitutionality." From where I sit (brown couch, flannel bunny pj's), if said law is "Unconstitutional" it shouldn't really matter if it's convenient or inconvenient. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the "Constructionist" view of the US Constitution? Isn't that their job? If it's Unconstitutional for one person in the 300 million of us, then it should go away. For, by and of and all that.

Anyway, from the article it looked like the judges were more concerned with turning this into a convenient/inconvenient debate, rather than a debate about the Constitutionality of the Indiana Law. Just a touch troubling in the one building on the planet that's supposed to be devoted to that cute little document.

Pauly Sure?

I know my esteemed colleague M.C. Ginty already wrote about this, but being the spotlight hog that I am, I wanted to put in my own post.

I was a Pauler, not to be confused with the much more attractive Paulettes. As long time readers (Hi Ma!) know, I'm a small "g" government guy. Mr Paul was getting that message out, and, joy-o-joy's it was not only heard but cheered.

Then it came out that Mr Paul's wrote some letter's that nobody should cheer. So now I'm a Paul Bearer.

Lot's of hand-ringing going on in the strange world of Libertarian politics. Reason's folks go into it, and even cover some other's so I'll let them do it.

If you don't feel like clicking the link (odd how those new "lost body fat" commercials don't show blogging-I wonder how many clicks per pound?), I'll summarize. Mr Paul couldn't write that, TMR could be lying, doesn't detract from the message, old news, the Newsletters had his name but there's no proof he wrote them-lots of newsletters had ghost writers, blah blah blah.

Bottom line? Newsletter had his name on the top, its his mess. You can't run for leader of the free world and say that you couldn't even control what was going on in your own newsletter. If he didn't do it, he certainly didn't fire whoever did. That's what you do when you're the bossman and someone does something that appalls you (you even do it if it apples you). By not doing it, he condoned and in my humble opinion pushed the message. At that point, I don't care if you say it or not. It's on you.

It is for that very reason that today, officially, I'm done with Pauly. I don't support that message, so I cannot support that man. Yes, regardless of how appealing his other message is. I'm tired of playing the "support the bad guy to promote the good message" game. I don't support bad guys, no matter the message. No knots for me.

I do hope that the message that was well received doesn't go down with Mr Paul. Hopefully some non-homophobic, non-racist, non-lots-o-things will look around and think, "The small government message, strong it was. Too bad it is that young Paul took to the Dark Side, Hmmmm?" Then after that* Star Wars Geek gets trounced, hopefully someone normal will take up the message and we can all win.

Sorry M.C. (which, sadly was my rap name back in the day), didn't mean to "post you up," but I wanted to get my reaction directly on the record.



*Yup. Three italicized "that's." in one post. Now That's Incredible.

APAULed

Tough break today for the libertarian "message," thanks to the "messenger." Being an exceedingly cynical "small-l" libertarian means never having to say I'm sorry for Ron Paul.

But regrets? Some of them have a few. Andrew Sullivan, Arnold Kling, and Matt Welch at the bottom most closely share my sentiments.

Election fallout, of course, will be zilch, as was the Paul candidacy as anything other than a freewheeling vehicle into mainstream cluck-cluckery.

Here's hoping the message has stronger and longer legs than the messenger; but that should have been the hope all along.

"Changing the 'Establishment'"

Saturday night the candidates--especially the Democrats--seemed to sing that tired song loud and long. Me? I was changing the channel back to Jags-Steelers. Anyway, here's George Will, calling it like I see it:

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment". . . .
Huckabee says that "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not
a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five
loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He
worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control
nuclear weapons?

Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world
market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of --
surging demand in India and China? Unrest in Nigeria's oil fields? No,
"corporate greed." That is Edwards's explanation of every unpleasantness.

Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to
change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity.

Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable . . . .

The way to achieve Edwards's and Huckabee's populist goal of
reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to
reduce the role of government in distributing money.

Chris Rock, Political Genius

Chris Rock makes a point about Presidential hopeful and NY Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I think America's ready for a woman president . . . just not that woman. Being married to somebody doesn't make you good at their job. I've been with my wife 10 years now. If she got up here right now, y'all wouldn't laugh. At all. You get on a plane tomorrow, you want the pilot's wife flying you?

Hard to argue against. We got our current President because he was someone's son. And look how great that turned out.

I mean think about it, just because Stalin's my friend doesn't mean he's a devastatingly handsome, witty, charming, smart and humble man like me. Would you trust him as your political guide? I think not.

Hmmm, can it be that Dynasties are actually bad? Should it be that you have to earn the Presidency?

Nawwww, just give me people I'm familiar with. Then I feel like I'm in the club.

Ayuh

From Dave Barry, "Swarming in the Land of Snow and Donuts," at miamiherald.com:

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- And so the eyeballs of the world turn to New Hampshire,
a tiny, flinty, gritty, Dunkin' Donuts-intensive state located mostly inside the
Arctic Circle. On Tuesday, the voters here will troop to the polls, where -- as
they have done every four years since 1952 -- they will turn around and troop
back home, because the polls, like virtually everything else here, are under 23
feet of snow.

But a few people, the truly flinty ones, will manage to actually
vote, and they will determine the course of this presidential race -- and, yes,
America's future -- for approximately two news cycles. Then the eyeballs of the
world will turn to either North or South Carolina (nobody is sure which) and the
people of New Hampshire will go back to their traditional flinty New England
lifestyle of sitting around eating doughnuts and waiting for the August
thaw.

When One Head is Better Than 50

Continuing my trek through the Bizzaro World that is the modern two party system, I stumbled upon this quote from allegedly Republican President George Bush regarding how the US should deal with greenhouse gasses.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?

Funny, I thought Republican's believed that the Great American Experiment was having 50 states trying 50 things and seeing what works best. Yes, yes McGinty you're probably right. W was trying to help the GOP distance itself from that well known disgrace Ronald Reagan who famously catered to the KKK when he made a speech referencing "States Rights." Whew. Now that the GOP is in danger of losing the White House, I guess it makes sense to try to out Democrat (another slur) the Democrats and get as far as possible from the RR (Granted, some might say that W already took the long walk off that short pier). Talk about two hearts living in just one mind. Just one mind, just one mind. Good to know that the Republic is dead, long live whoever holds the keys to the Federal Offices. Well, unless you're not quite born, then its all about giving the States the right to choose (see below).

Honestly, I have no idea what's the right thing to do with these gasses. For all I know, maybe we need more of them. I mean, isn't everyone always complaining about the lack of gas in America? Maybe W has a crazy solution to both problems. However, if the good people of California want to ignore the mad genius that is W and desire a tougher standard than the national one, I say let 'em. Then we can all see how it works out for them.

Now for some irresistible quick hits.

One, hearing W talk sincerely about the need for effective strategy is like hearing Brittney Spears talk sincerely about the need for effective family values.

Two, isn't W the same guy who says that the best way to handle the abortion issue is to let each state decide what's best for its citizens? Sooooooo, if you're keeping track at home (and if you're reading this blog you probably are, heck right now I'm in my jammies), that means that according to W, the need to protect the environment demands a sound national strategy, while the need to protect unborn children specifically doesn't require a sound national strategy. And I thought Gore was the one who was over the top on Global Warming. Poor Stalin. What to do when your hero W tries to out Gore Gore. Now that's...gory (ohhhhhhh, even I'm embarrassed by that one).

Three, I was trying to find a way to work C&C Music Factory's "Things That Make You Go Hmmm" into this post. But I was honestly embarrassed by the opening verse.

I was at the crib, sittin' by the fireplace
Drinkin' cocoa on the bear skin rug.

This is a rap song mind you, and this guy is boasting about sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on a bear skin rug. And you thought Barry Manilow songs were gay.

Fix Fact

From Radley Balko, "Death by Drug War," at The Agitator:

Washington State has a law allowing prosecutors to impose a special homicide charge on people who supply drugs to overdose victims. The problem is that the law itself may be causing more overdose deaths.

The state of Washington’s position is clear: If someone calls 911 when
a friend is overdosing, not only does the witness risk charges for possessing or
selling drugs (which 911 callers in these situations have feared since the
passage of the Controlled Substances Act), but he or she could be charged with
homicide, too. The end result? Overdose victims—who might survive with prompt
medical care—may be abandoned and left to die.

When you think about how the law would be applied, it’s far more likely to
catch teens and college kids who share illicit drugs with friends making just
such a decision than it is to catch any major drug dealer. I doubt many people
overdose with their dealers . . .

*****

And it makes another case for legalizing the possession and sale of drugs. There's no upside for any drug dealer, let alone a legitimized one, to let customers fix under his roof. Dope and coke ain't alcohol; fiends and base heads, they ain't Otis Campbell, coming or going, so a dealer's going to get them in and out fast, and let 'em get back to wherever they'd be, being who they choose to be, laws or no. Just with a lot less drama on the street.

Waffles

What have you changed your mind about?

Legalization: "If drugs were legalized, there would be a drug spot in every corner. It wouldn't be a Starbucks. It'd be Weedbucks. McDonald's? McCokeald's. Krispy Kreme? Kracky Kreme."

--Chris Rock, "Never Scared"

Drug use should be entirely the user's business if he or she is of age and the rest of us are able to go on with our lives. But if drugs were legalized, where would the business of drugs be done, and who would do it?

My guess "then": on the same corners and by the same kids doing it today.

My take today: Drug dealers--the mid-and upper-level dealers, at least--would by choice begin to take their business off the corners, away from the kids, and into storefronts, leaving the smaller and less savvy dealers literally and figuratively out in the cold; or taking heat from the cops, who with increasingly less resistance would have more success directing drug traffic away from neighborhoods.

Success in many cities would come slowly. In any "war," there always will be dead-enders who only know what they know, "getting" who's "got to be got." Store-front stickups and truck jackings, along with good-ol'-fashioned payback, initially will keep more than a little violence in the game. Street trade would be clung to by some (especially during "after hours," assuming drugs only could be sold legally at certain times, as alcohol is today); and in certain areas of cities, it'd be expedient to tolerate street trade 'til the presumably wealthier storefront dealers (both those off the street and competitors new to the trade) put them out of business with stronger drugs in steadier supply, cleaner and safer surroundings in which anything you find in a 7-11 could be sold, and, eventually, the best prices.

Who, in addition to dealers exercising their Second Amendment rights, would make the storefronts safe for business? Cops, on-duty and off. A dollar's a dollar for everybody if it's legal.

What have you changed your mind about?

Make Use

Make use of the things around you.
This light rain
Outside the window, for one.
This cigarette between my fingers,
These feet on the couch.
The faint sound of rock-and-roll,
The red Ferrari in my head.
The woman bumping
Drunkenly around in the kitchen . . .
Put it all in,
Make use.

Raymond Carver, "Sunday Night"

Not So Fast

From Dan Le Batard, "For Dolphins, Change Not Always For Better," at miamiherald.com

"Parcells is more credible and famous than the guy he just fired. Better at discovering talent? That one remains to be seen. The same year Mueller found Hall of Famer Walter Jones and Shawn Springs, Parcells took James Farrior. So Parcells got one Pro Bowl appearance from his pick while Mueller got nine. Mueller found Ahman Green in the third round in 1998. He's pretty good at this. But neither Mueller nor Parcells is smarter than everyone else, even though Parcells seems to think he is and the fan base applauds because it so desperately wants him to be.

Firing Mueller and maybe Cameron will be celebrated even though they weren't given a fair or even reasonable amount of time.

But try to remember this as the building falls with an explosion and a mushroom cloud of dust and noise.

A wrecking ball offers the promise of something new and hopeful.

But by itself, it doesn't fix a thing."