Last week state Republicans held their meeting at Saguaro High School in Scottsdale.
Senator John Huppenthal, who is running for Superintendent of Schools, decided to hang a banner. Instead of finding out if there was anyone who could help him hang it, he went to work himself, got an electric drill and drilled several holes in the wall for him to hang his banner on.
It's not that he caused much damage; the school administration has said the holes did not affect the building (though what else could they say since he holds their budget in his hands?) and the state Republican Party has offered to pay whatever repair costs there are. Rather it's about his mind set.
Public buildings are owned by all of us. Apparently he feels, as a state legislator that he has the right to damage them for his own purposes. I mean, if I were to visit your home as a guest and take out a power drill and drill holes in your wall, wouldn't you feel a little miffed? What if I pulled out a drill and drilled holes in your local school, police station or other public building? Certainly this would be vandalism, and if I did it I imagine I'd be cited for at least a misdemeanor.
At the very least, don't you think he should have asked permission, or even asked if there was already something there he could use to hang his banner on? Any normal person would, but apparently John Huppenthal believes that he is an unusually privileged person who doesn't have to live by the same rules that he so nonchalantly makes for other people to follow, to say nothing of common decency.
It's the same kind of mindset that Tom DeLay had some years back when he lit up a cigar in a non-smoking building, and when he was told he couldn't smoke there by order of the Federal Government, responded "I am the Federal Government." Apparenly Senator Huppenthal has forgotten that he serves in office at the invitation of the voters, and he no more owns public property than you or I do.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Andre Bauer: continuing South Carolina's march to the bottom
Remember a few weeks ago when the South Carolina legislature decided against impeaching Mark Sanford?
Probably the right decision. Sanford's personal infidelity, while salacious and an example of the hypocrisy of right wing politicians who get elected while preaching about 'family values,' was hardly an impeachable offense. His use of state resources to fund his travel may have been unacceptable but probably not all that different from what I suspect you'd find if you looked into some of his colleagues in the legislature there (or for that matter in other states.) Maybe something that should be looked into (after all, Congress has to live according to ethical rules far more stringent than many legislatures or state level office holders) but I doubt if the legislature there wanted to start down that road.
But the real reason it's a good thing they didn't impeach Sanford was that if they had it would have elevated Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer to the Governor's mansion in Columbia.
Bauer, who is in fact running for Governor this year let the mask slip when he said that people receiving Government assistance are like stray animals because they 'breed' and 'don't know any better.'.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told an audience in the town of Fountain Inn, according to the Greenville News. "You know why? Because they breed."
"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply," Bauer continued. "They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Keep in mind that South Carolina is a state with a 12% unemployment rate. So if someone lost their job, apparently the man who would be their next Governor thinks no more of them than the the animals housed at the dog pound. What will he propose as an alternative, given the failure of the current Governor and legislature to produce jobs in his state? Spay/neutering poor people, or forced euthanasia?
Yes, the mask slips off of conservatives sometimes. I never thought I'd say it, but I hope Mark Sanford stays in office for the rest of his term.
Probably the right decision. Sanford's personal infidelity, while salacious and an example of the hypocrisy of right wing politicians who get elected while preaching about 'family values,' was hardly an impeachable offense. His use of state resources to fund his travel may have been unacceptable but probably not all that different from what I suspect you'd find if you looked into some of his colleagues in the legislature there (or for that matter in other states.) Maybe something that should be looked into (after all, Congress has to live according to ethical rules far more stringent than many legislatures or state level office holders) but I doubt if the legislature there wanted to start down that road.
But the real reason it's a good thing they didn't impeach Sanford was that if they had it would have elevated Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer to the Governor's mansion in Columbia.
Bauer, who is in fact running for Governor this year let the mask slip when he said that people receiving Government assistance are like stray animals because they 'breed' and 'don't know any better.'.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told an audience in the town of Fountain Inn, according to the Greenville News. "You know why? Because they breed."
"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply," Bauer continued. "They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Keep in mind that South Carolina is a state with a 12% unemployment rate. So if someone lost their job, apparently the man who would be their next Governor thinks no more of them than the the animals housed at the dog pound. What will he propose as an alternative, given the failure of the current Governor and legislature to produce jobs in his state? Spay/neutering poor people, or forced euthanasia?
Yes, the mask slips off of conservatives sometimes. I never thought I'd say it, but I hope Mark Sanford stays in office for the rest of his term.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Get Health Care Done, Now.
The GOP and the paragons of the right hve been trumpeting the special election victory of Scott Brown in the Democratic state of Massachusetts as a reason why we should give up on the Obama agenda, starting with health care reform.
However, it means almost the opposite of this.
A lot of the voters who voted for Obama last year and stayed home this year (or in some cases, even voted for Brown) did so because really not much is that different from if John McCain had won last year's election. Obama has hired far too many Wall Street bankers and Federal Reserve retreads to set the course for the nation's financial policy. The Bush wars are continuing. Little has been done on the environment. And health care reform has been continually dragged out and watered down to the point where it is almost unrecognizable. And even this looks like it may be taken off the table and replaced by a bill that everyone can agree on which may clip around the edges of the problem, say by getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion but probably leave loopholes that in the end will make it just 'feel-good window dressing.'
In fact, Brown himself made the best case for why the public still wants meaningful health care reform. He pointed out that the voters in Massachusetts already have universal coverage, so they would only be essentially paying extra taxes to extend to the rest of the United States a benefit they already enjoy. He specifically did not call for the repeal of the Massachusetts law, which despite its warts seems likely to remain in place. Well, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local" and Brown was able to take avantage of a progressive local law and turn it to his advantage. He also was very careful not to criticize the President directly, as Obama remains popular in Massachusetts.
The answer is to get health care reform finished. According to some reports, house and senate leaders were 'hours away' from an agreement when Brown's election caused some to get cold feet. They should go ahead and finish the agreement and push it through while Democrats still have sixty Senate votes.
The idea that moving to the center will save Democrats is foolishness. To win, Democrts have to give voters a reason to vote for them, and right now, they haven't yet. Throwing in the towel on health care would make the problem worse, not better.
However, it means almost the opposite of this.
A lot of the voters who voted for Obama last year and stayed home this year (or in some cases, even voted for Brown) did so because really not much is that different from if John McCain had won last year's election. Obama has hired far too many Wall Street bankers and Federal Reserve retreads to set the course for the nation's financial policy. The Bush wars are continuing. Little has been done on the environment. And health care reform has been continually dragged out and watered down to the point where it is almost unrecognizable. And even this looks like it may be taken off the table and replaced by a bill that everyone can agree on which may clip around the edges of the problem, say by getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion but probably leave loopholes that in the end will make it just 'feel-good window dressing.'
In fact, Brown himself made the best case for why the public still wants meaningful health care reform. He pointed out that the voters in Massachusetts already have universal coverage, so they would only be essentially paying extra taxes to extend to the rest of the United States a benefit they already enjoy. He specifically did not call for the repeal of the Massachusetts law, which despite its warts seems likely to remain in place. Well, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local" and Brown was able to take avantage of a progressive local law and turn it to his advantage. He also was very careful not to criticize the President directly, as Obama remains popular in Massachusetts.
The answer is to get health care reform finished. According to some reports, house and senate leaders were 'hours away' from an agreement when Brown's election caused some to get cold feet. They should go ahead and finish the agreement and push it through while Democrats still have sixty Senate votes.
The idea that moving to the center will save Democrats is foolishness. To win, Democrts have to give voters a reason to vote for them, and right now, they haven't yet. Throwing in the towel on health care would make the problem worse, not better.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Devil responds to Pat Robertson
credit to Jen Leist on facebook, who got this from William Schubert:
The Devil wrote a letter today to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in which he takes issue with Pat Robertson's characterization of his role in the Haitian earthquake disaster.
The letter reads,
Dear Pat Robertson,
I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.
But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.
Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?
If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.
You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.
Best, Satan
The Devil wrote a letter today to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in which he takes issue with Pat Robertson's characterization of his role in the Haitian earthquake disaster.
The letter reads,
Dear Pat Robertson,
I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.
But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.
Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?
If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll.
You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.
Best, Satan
Time for America to Come Together in our Best Effort
Let's forget about Rush and Pat and focus instead on what we can do right. This is a time when the United States can come together and show real leadership in the world, and do it for the right reasons.
The pictures we've all seen coming out of Haiti the past few days have been heart-rending, terrifying, gruesome, horrible, painful, and evoke so many other emotions, so diverse but all terrible.
President Obama showed real leadership in moving quickly to help the people of Haiti. He and Secretary Napolitano also showed compassion in suspending deportations to Haiti for eighteen months by granting TPS (temporary protected status) to Haitians currently in the United States; dumping a bunch more people into the current scene of devastation would be unhelpful at best and disastrous at worst. Yes, they are getting some heat from Nativist groups but the real test of leadership is the ability to make tough decisions because they are right.
Right now there is no functioning government there but American relief workers are working shoulder to shoulder with those from many other countries and with those Haitians who are able to help to treat the wounded, bury the dead and rescue the survivors. But that is only this week. Rebuilding Haiti will be a long term project. And the fact is, Haiti was in terrible shape even last Monday, the day before the earthquake. Rebuilding it won't just mean patching together the same concrete buildings that collapsed and killed tens of thousands on Tuesday. It will mean rebuilding it better. Certainly that begins with constructing buildings that will stand up the next time there is an earthquake, but it will mean more than that. It will mean creating a vibrant, dynamic economy, one where people can hope for a future for themselves and their kids in Haiti, instead of only dreaming of escaping in a small boat trying to sneak into the United States.
President Obama also turned to the source that many other Presidents have turned to when they need someone to coordinate efforts like this: former Presidents. He asked former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to help lead this. Not only does this show that this will be a non-partisan effort but he is showing that he trusts ex-presidents to show real leadership on behalf of the United States, as they have in the past (the Gerry Ford spend-your-retirement-on-the-golf-course model is now officially obsolete; even Republicans have to admit that when Jimmy Carter raised the bar for ex-Presidents it was a good thing.)
President Clinton has done things like this before (remember the Tsunami relief effort he headed with the elder President Bush.) He's also been involved in other international efforts, such as last year's retrieval from North Korea of two American journalists.
President George W. Bush has kept a low profile since leaving office (unlike his former Vice President.) So in a sense this is his 'rookie' assignment as an ex-President. And I wish him success. I certainly was very critical of 'Dubya' the whole time he was in office (and there are still things left over from his administration that we need to get to the bottom of,) but I'm willing to give him a clean slate as an ex-president (remember that even Richard Nixon had evolved into somewhat of a senior statesman by the time he died.) This is a good start, and to be honest even while he was President, and for all his warts, Bush Jr. did give significant non-military aid to very poor countries (including Haiti.)
This is a time for America to step forward and do what we can together.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
McGwire admission prompts the question: how big of a deal is it, anyway?
The revelation that Mark McGwire used steroids was, well about as surprising as the revelation that Conan O'Brien doesn't want to be demoted back to late nights on NBC. McGwire had admitted at the time to using androstenedione, a precursor to steroids back during his home run chase in 1998, and more recently had been accused by everyone from Jose Canseco (who talked about he and McGwire taking turns injecting each other in the butt when they were in Oakland) to members of the Senate who were outraged when McGwire appeared before them just to keep repeating 'I'm not here to talk about the past,'
To begin with, McGwire should have learned something from the andro episode. When he freely admitted to using andro, it made the headlines for a few days in 1998 and then disappeared into the 'deadlines,' or stories that have run their course and are out of sight and out of mind. If he'd done the same with steroids themselves it might be gone and forgotten by now.
More to the point though, McGwire's admission gives us a new opportunity to ask just how big a deal is it, and whether steroid users should be considered for the Hall of Fame. After all, just like in any sport, there have always been those who bent the rules to gain a competitive edge in baseball.
Gaylord Perry admitted to doctoring baseballs-- a major type of cheating by pitchers. He's in the Hall of Fame. Perry may be the only Hall of Famer to have been so open about his cheating but only an intentionally blind idealist will assume that he's the only one there who ever did. Pitchers have been scuffing balls and batters have been corking bats since-- well, the game was invented. We seem to be worried about how many home runs hopped out of there because of steroids but we seem less worried about how many got their extra oomph from a corked bat. In fact, an interesting case can be made by looking at Sammie Sosa (who during 1998 played Mickey Mantle to McGwire's Roger Maris impression.) Though Sosa has been accused at times of using steroids-- mainly based on his home run statistics and no other evidence (maybe he's just that good,) Sosa was caught once using a corked bat. Overall this is considered an unbecoming but relatively minor breech of baseball's ettiquette-- Sosa was suspended five games. But because of the unproven allegations of steroids it's almost a given that some sportswriters will, fairly or not, cite the corked bat episode as an excuse to not vote for Sosa, even though the real reason will be suspicion about whether he may have used steroids.
I'm not sure that coming clean earlier would have helped McGwire as it helped Perry. The culture has changed. When Perry came clean, his admission of cheating was balanced to a degree by his honesty in doing it. But when McGwire's 'bash brother' (or as we now know, 'stash brother') Jose Canseco admitted to using steroids, he was made out to be a buffoon (which he actually was, but his honesty was not only rewarding but has been borne out by events.) Maybe it's because Canseco named names, including McGwire's.
But be that as it may, we have to ask whether steroids are such an ultimate crime, or whether we should think of them more like a corked bat or a scuffed ball. In the overall scheme of the game, not that big of a deal.
To begin with, McGwire should have learned something from the andro episode. When he freely admitted to using andro, it made the headlines for a few days in 1998 and then disappeared into the 'deadlines,' or stories that have run their course and are out of sight and out of mind. If he'd done the same with steroids themselves it might be gone and forgotten by now.
More to the point though, McGwire's admission gives us a new opportunity to ask just how big a deal is it, and whether steroid users should be considered for the Hall of Fame. After all, just like in any sport, there have always been those who bent the rules to gain a competitive edge in baseball.
Gaylord Perry admitted to doctoring baseballs-- a major type of cheating by pitchers. He's in the Hall of Fame. Perry may be the only Hall of Famer to have been so open about his cheating but only an intentionally blind idealist will assume that he's the only one there who ever did. Pitchers have been scuffing balls and batters have been corking bats since-- well, the game was invented. We seem to be worried about how many home runs hopped out of there because of steroids but we seem less worried about how many got their extra oomph from a corked bat. In fact, an interesting case can be made by looking at Sammie Sosa (who during 1998 played Mickey Mantle to McGwire's Roger Maris impression.) Though Sosa has been accused at times of using steroids-- mainly based on his home run statistics and no other evidence (maybe he's just that good,) Sosa was caught once using a corked bat. Overall this is considered an unbecoming but relatively minor breech of baseball's ettiquette-- Sosa was suspended five games. But because of the unproven allegations of steroids it's almost a given that some sportswriters will, fairly or not, cite the corked bat episode as an excuse to not vote for Sosa, even though the real reason will be suspicion about whether he may have used steroids.
I'm not sure that coming clean earlier would have helped McGwire as it helped Perry. The culture has changed. When Perry came clean, his admission of cheating was balanced to a degree by his honesty in doing it. But when McGwire's 'bash brother' (or as we now know, 'stash brother') Jose Canseco admitted to using steroids, he was made out to be a buffoon (which he actually was, but his honesty was not only rewarding but has been borne out by events.) Maybe it's because Canseco named names, including McGwire's.
But be that as it may, we have to ask whether steroids are such an ultimate crime, or whether we should think of them more like a corked bat or a scuffed ball. In the overall scheme of the game, not that big of a deal.
Monday, January 11, 2010
When is a murder not a murder? When a kook gets the judge to go along with him
When is a murder not a murder?
I guess when the victim is a doctor who performs abortions and the murderer is a fanatic who thinks he's justified in shooting an unarmed man point blank in the forehead.
The judge in the case of Scott Roeder, who has admitted to planning the killing and then shooting Dr. George Tiller in the head at Tiller's church last May while Tiller was serving as an usher, ruled Friday that Roeder could argue that he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, not because of any facts in the case suggesting it was anything other than a premeditated homicide, but because Roeder thought that his action would 'save unborn children.'
So does that mean if you are motivated by a political belief the illegal, even up to and including murder, is now the legal and acceptable? What's next? If the holocaust museum shooter had survived (he died the other day) he should be able to plead guilty to a lesser charge than murder because in his mind killing a black man working for a Jewish client would be justified? Maybe they should water down the charges against the Christmas Day bomber too because he thought what he was doing was right in the name of Allah?
I guess when the victim is a doctor who performs abortions and the murderer is a fanatic who thinks he's justified in shooting an unarmed man point blank in the forehead.
The judge in the case of Scott Roeder, who has admitted to planning the killing and then shooting Dr. George Tiller in the head at Tiller's church last May while Tiller was serving as an usher, ruled Friday that Roeder could argue that he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, not because of any facts in the case suggesting it was anything other than a premeditated homicide, but because Roeder thought that his action would 'save unborn children.'
So does that mean if you are motivated by a political belief the illegal, even up to and including murder, is now the legal and acceptable? What's next? If the holocaust museum shooter had survived (he died the other day) he should be able to plead guilty to a lesser charge than murder because in his mind killing a black man working for a Jewish client would be justified? Maybe they should water down the charges against the Christmas Day bomber too because he thought what he was doing was right in the name of Allah?
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Lieberman even more unpopular than Dodd
The news yesterday out of Connecticut was the Chris Dodd is retiring instead of running for re-election.
What is more interesting is that there is one politician in that state even Dodd could beat: his seatmate, Joe Lieberman.
PPP (D) released some more data from its polling in Connecticut (522 RVs, 1/4-5, MoE +/- 4.3%), showing a precipitous drop in Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I) approval rating. It now stands at just 25 percent, with 67 percent disapproving. By comparison, that's lower than even Chris Dodd's showing at 29 percent approval.
Digging deeper, PPP finds that 81 percent of Democrats disapprove of Lieberman. Among Republicans, 39 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove; among indies the split is 32 / 61. Lieberman is up again in 2012
Dodd of course has gotten smacked with his push to allow AIG executives to collect multimillion dollar bonuses even as the Federal treasury was spending billions to clean up the mess they made, and also for the question of whether his Countrywide mortgage may have gotten a preferred rate because he was too cozy with the banks and the mortgage industry. But even with that baggage, Dodd is still more popular in his homestate than Joe of the 'Party of Joe.' And until the health care vote, Lieberman hadn't made a lot of waves. What has clearly made the difference was his waffling and watering down of health care legislation (note also that while he has net unfavorables with everyone, he's the closest to breaking even with Republicans.)
What is more interesting is that there is one politician in that state even Dodd could beat: his seatmate, Joe Lieberman.
PPP (D) released some more data from its polling in Connecticut (522 RVs, 1/4-5, MoE +/- 4.3%), showing a precipitous drop in Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I) approval rating. It now stands at just 25 percent, with 67 percent disapproving. By comparison, that's lower than even Chris Dodd's showing at 29 percent approval.
Digging deeper, PPP finds that 81 percent of Democrats disapprove of Lieberman. Among Republicans, 39 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove; among indies the split is 32 / 61. Lieberman is up again in 2012
Dodd of course has gotten smacked with his push to allow AIG executives to collect multimillion dollar bonuses even as the Federal treasury was spending billions to clean up the mess they made, and also for the question of whether his Countrywide mortgage may have gotten a preferred rate because he was too cozy with the banks and the mortgage industry. But even with that baggage, Dodd is still more popular in his homestate than Joe of the 'Party of Joe.' And until the health care vote, Lieberman hadn't made a lot of waves. What has clearly made the difference was his waffling and watering down of health care legislation (note also that while he has net unfavorables with everyone, he's the closest to breaking even with Republicans.)
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Sheriff of Nottingham hasn't read his own book, says he doesn't understand the fourth amendment
You'd think if your name was on a book you'd at least want to have read it, right?
I guess not if you're the Sheriff of Nottingham.
That's right, in a deposition today, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he hasn't read and is unfamiliar with what is in a book that he co-authored (in other words he had a ghostwriter.)
He also said he is largely unfamiliar with the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In case you'd forgotten that is the one that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Maybe just a little relevant to his job description since he is the one making searches and seizures, wouldn't you think?
I guess not if you're the Sheriff of Nottingham.
That's right, in a deposition today, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he hasn't read and is unfamiliar with what is in a book that he co-authored (in other words he had a ghostwriter.)
He also said he is largely unfamiliar with the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In case you'd forgotten that is the one that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Maybe just a little relevant to his job description since he is the one making searches and seizures, wouldn't you think?
Democrats are right to lock Republicans out of health reform conference committee
Normally, I'd be in favor of following protocol involving conference committees. President Obama was elected on a promise to make Washington a more civil place, and it is absolutely certain that Democrats will therefore receive some flak for bypassing the conference committee and excluding Republicans from the final negotiation on health care.
WASHINGTON – House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said Monday, a move that will exclude Republican lawmakers and reduce their ability to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses....
Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House, a structure that gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
These officials said there are no plans to appoint a formal House-Senate conference committee, the method Congress most often uses to reconcile differing bills. Under that customary format, a committee chairman is appointed to preside, and other senior lawmakers from both parties and houses participate in typically perfunctory public meetings while the meaningful negotiations occur behind closed doors.
In this case though the White House, Reid and Pelosi are absolutely right. If there was a chance of reaching a consensus that Republicans could support then they should work with Republicans. But since it is now abundantly clear that the GOP is fixated on a single goal-- to defeat the bill-- there is no point in watering it down even further than it already has been in exchange for exactly nothing, because that's how much support any compromise with Republicans would get from the right side of the aisle.
Consider last year's stimulus bill early in the Obama administration when we were literally teetering on the brink of a total financial collapse and a second Great Depression. President Obama broke precedent by traveling to Capitol Hill to meet with Congress, including several meetings with Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate. Democrats made numerous changes in the bill to accomodate Republicans. We ended up with a watered-down stimulus (one reason economists are now saying we should pass another one this year) that was 43% tax cuts (including several breaks that Republicans specifically asked be included) and money that was supposed to be spent on needed school construction and renovation (and which would certainly have created jobs and boosted the local economy everywhere) was axed to keep Republicans happy. The price for the vote of Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) was to get rid of funding for pandemic preparedness.
So after reaching out to Republicans and making all of these concessions, how many Republicans actually voted for the bill? Zero in the House and three in the Senate.
When the health care reform bill was in committee, the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee entertained and ultimately accepted over 200 amendments proposed by Republicans. But even with the amendments in the bill, every single Republican voted against it. Then Senator Max Baucus spent the summer meeting with three Republican Senators to try and craft a bipartisan bill. He at least did get one Republican on his committee to vote for the final committee bill-- Maine's Olympia Snowe. But in the process all of the compromises that were written into his committee's bill-- most notably the lack of a public option-- were supported by Republicans but in the end they voted against the finished product.
So then during the floor debate in the House and especially in the Senate we saw Republicans do everything they could, not to reach an accord on the bill, but simply to delay the bill. And in the end, stripped of a public option and with abortion language that undermines the stated promise to end gender discrimination in pricing in order to placate Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, the bill passed with one Republican vote in the house and none in the Senate.
It is now abundantly clear that rather than trying to help craft a health reform bill that is more to their liking, Republicans, who would need to prevent Democrats in the Senate from reaching sixty votes on the final passage of the conference committee bill have instead bet the farm on making it fail. Their best hope is to try and delay the bill until some Democrat breaks ranks, or maybe they are hoping that Robert Byrd has a heart attack next month, or heck who knows what they are hoping, anything to make it fail.
Under these circumstances there is no reason at all to talk to Republicans. They will vote against it anyway and their entire agenda is delay, not serious negotiation. You'd have a better chance of trying to convince the chief Ayatollah of Iran to become a Mormon.
WASHINGTON – House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said Monday, a move that will exclude Republican lawmakers and reduce their ability to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses....
Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House, a structure that gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
These officials said there are no plans to appoint a formal House-Senate conference committee, the method Congress most often uses to reconcile differing bills. Under that customary format, a committee chairman is appointed to preside, and other senior lawmakers from both parties and houses participate in typically perfunctory public meetings while the meaningful negotiations occur behind closed doors.
In this case though the White House, Reid and Pelosi are absolutely right. If there was a chance of reaching a consensus that Republicans could support then they should work with Republicans. But since it is now abundantly clear that the GOP is fixated on a single goal-- to defeat the bill-- there is no point in watering it down even further than it already has been in exchange for exactly nothing, because that's how much support any compromise with Republicans would get from the right side of the aisle.
Consider last year's stimulus bill early in the Obama administration when we were literally teetering on the brink of a total financial collapse and a second Great Depression. President Obama broke precedent by traveling to Capitol Hill to meet with Congress, including several meetings with Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate. Democrats made numerous changes in the bill to accomodate Republicans. We ended up with a watered-down stimulus (one reason economists are now saying we should pass another one this year) that was 43% tax cuts (including several breaks that Republicans specifically asked be included) and money that was supposed to be spent on needed school construction and renovation (and which would certainly have created jobs and boosted the local economy everywhere) was axed to keep Republicans happy. The price for the vote of Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) was to get rid of funding for pandemic preparedness.
So after reaching out to Republicans and making all of these concessions, how many Republicans actually voted for the bill? Zero in the House and three in the Senate.
When the health care reform bill was in committee, the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee entertained and ultimately accepted over 200 amendments proposed by Republicans. But even with the amendments in the bill, every single Republican voted against it. Then Senator Max Baucus spent the summer meeting with three Republican Senators to try and craft a bipartisan bill. He at least did get one Republican on his committee to vote for the final committee bill-- Maine's Olympia Snowe. But in the process all of the compromises that were written into his committee's bill-- most notably the lack of a public option-- were supported by Republicans but in the end they voted against the finished product.
So then during the floor debate in the House and especially in the Senate we saw Republicans do everything they could, not to reach an accord on the bill, but simply to delay the bill. And in the end, stripped of a public option and with abortion language that undermines the stated promise to end gender discrimination in pricing in order to placate Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, the bill passed with one Republican vote in the house and none in the Senate.
It is now abundantly clear that rather than trying to help craft a health reform bill that is more to their liking, Republicans, who would need to prevent Democrats in the Senate from reaching sixty votes on the final passage of the conference committee bill have instead bet the farm on making it fail. Their best hope is to try and delay the bill until some Democrat breaks ranks, or maybe they are hoping that Robert Byrd has a heart attack next month, or heck who knows what they are hoping, anything to make it fail.
Under these circumstances there is no reason at all to talk to Republicans. They will vote against it anyway and their entire agenda is delay, not serious negotiation. You'd have a better chance of trying to convince the chief Ayatollah of Iran to become a Mormon.
Monday, January 04, 2010
How you could scientifically test Intelligent Design
An argument has been raging over the idea of teaching 'intelligent design,' i.e. introducing into science lessons the idea that a Creator could have directed the process of evolution. The reason why I've opposed teaching it in a science class is because for something to qualify as science there has to be scientific evidence. Recent advances in science (notably the Human Genome project) have given us the tools we could use to actually test whether random chance is sufficient to explain evolution or if it is insufficient; if it is insufficient that would provide some hard scientific evidence at least of some other influence which accelerated the process. I've contemplated how this could be tested scientifically for years, hence the following post:
Recently I've discovered the joy of facebook (well, specifically, I had it thrust upon me one day about a month ago when my precocious thirteen year old decided I should be on it and came up to me and announced, "Dad, you have a facebook. What's your password?") It's actually been great though, as I've discovered people from all different phases of my life. So yes, if you've noticed a recent drop in blog volume that may be one reason why (as well as the fact that I'm in the process of writing a math book.) Blogging however has some specific and useful qualities and one of them is it gives me room to lay out some deeper thoughts (hence the name of this blog.)
On facebook, There is a page for the U.S. Constitution (yes, I'm a fan.) Often there are discussions there about the topic of 'Intelligent design' (I'm not sure why they show up so often on the U.S. Constitution message board but they do.) Intelligent Design is the idea that while life may evolve, the process of evolution itself (or whatever other method one ascribes to explain the diversity of life) is directed by the unseen hand of an intelligent Creator. In other words, it's a continuation of the debate that has raged since Darwin first published his work more than 150 years ago.
I'd like to first quote a rebuttal I gave to one proponent and then expand on an idea that I alluded to in the comment.
The rebuttal is as follows:
It's not that science does not look at all possibilities, it's that what is taught as basic knowlege in a science class is theory backed by evidence.
I personally do believe that God directed the process of evolution, but unless I can show some hard scientific evidence (fossil record, DNA or otherwise) then that is my opinion (and maybe even the opinion of hundreds of millions of people) but that doesn't in itself make it science.
As a matter of fact, I did once design an experiment that could actually test intelligent design but as far as I know it or any other experiment to test the same have never been carried out. Until there is experimental evidence it's not science.
Which brings us to the question HOW WOULD YOU TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
A proper scientific experiment has to meet certain criteria. It must be replicable (i.e. someone else should be able to do the same experiment that you are doing, and get the same results); it must include a hypothesis before you actually produce any results stating clearly what you are theorizing and what results you would expect to see if your hypothesis is correct; and it must be consistent with what has previously been observed or discovered scientifically.
With the opening up of the genome, I have an idea for how you could test intelligent design. Granted, it's a rudimentary idea and one which would require extensive computer modeling, very complex calculations and certainly some guesswork in which you could only look at a high and a low end, but nonetheless it is an idea that could be tested scientifically.
Suppose we have the genome of a human and the genome of a simple eukaryotic cellular organism similar to the earliest eukaryotic cells on earth (both of which thanks to science including the Human Genome Project, we do have.) We could then use mathematical modeling to model how many random mutations the DNA of the eukaryotic cell would have to go through to produce a human (or a rat, monkey or elephant if you prefer.) You could also determine (and this is where some level of guesswork comes in, especially given our less than perfect knowlege of science) how many generations you would go through in going from a cell billions of years old to a modern day human.
Once you had that number and you've already used supercomputers to model the number of mutations you could get a number for the requisite number of mutations per generation (or heck, maybe it's generations per mutation-- I'm just suggesting a design for the experiment; someone else will have to crunch the numbers.)
NOW YOU NEED TO SEE IF THIS NUMBER IS HIGHER THAN THE RATE AT WHICH MUTATION WOULD HAPPEN BY PURELY RANDOM CHANCE. To do this you take a known species of bacteria and place one group in an unstressed and another in a stressed environment (such as heat or cold or the presence of a toxic chemical.) Some degree of natural selection would take place in the second group. You then measure the number of generations the bacteria go through and then find the genome of the end product of both the stressed and unstressed groups. If the number of mutations per generation is comparable to the mathematical model you had before (which should lie between these numbers given that the natural environment is sometimes, but not always stressed) then it would suggest that evolution happened by random occurrence. On the other hand if the mathematical model for the rate at which mutations had to occur was significantly larger than the range you have (say, even faster than rate of mutation of the stressed bacteria) then you will have produced scientific evidence that evolution by random mutation alone would be insufficient to explain the difference between eukaryotes and humans.
Would this solve the debate? No. Regardless of the results, you can be sure of that (either one side would say that the Creator didn't want to be detected and therefore fooled with the experiment, or the other would say that the lower than needed rate of mutation in the experiment might be explicable by something other than a Creator, such as contamination in the laboratory.) And both sides would certainly point to the guesswork and unknowns involved if they didn't like the results.
Conceded. But the unknowns and guesswork are based on things we don't know yet in science, but as science evolves (yes, science does evolve) we will have fewer guesses and more certainty.
The Genome project however has at least given us a WAY that we COULD try to test Intelligent Design. And until and unless it is tested and some evidence is found, it is not appropriate to teach it in a science class.
Recently I've discovered the joy of facebook (well, specifically, I had it thrust upon me one day about a month ago when my precocious thirteen year old decided I should be on it and came up to me and announced, "Dad, you have a facebook. What's your password?") It's actually been great though, as I've discovered people from all different phases of my life. So yes, if you've noticed a recent drop in blog volume that may be one reason why (as well as the fact that I'm in the process of writing a math book.) Blogging however has some specific and useful qualities and one of them is it gives me room to lay out some deeper thoughts (hence the name of this blog.)
On facebook, There is a page for the U.S. Constitution (yes, I'm a fan.) Often there are discussions there about the topic of 'Intelligent design' (I'm not sure why they show up so often on the U.S. Constitution message board but they do.) Intelligent Design is the idea that while life may evolve, the process of evolution itself (or whatever other method one ascribes to explain the diversity of life) is directed by the unseen hand of an intelligent Creator. In other words, it's a continuation of the debate that has raged since Darwin first published his work more than 150 years ago.
I'd like to first quote a rebuttal I gave to one proponent and then expand on an idea that I alluded to in the comment.
The rebuttal is as follows:
It's not that science does not look at all possibilities, it's that what is taught as basic knowlege in a science class is theory backed by evidence.
I personally do believe that God directed the process of evolution, but unless I can show some hard scientific evidence (fossil record, DNA or otherwise) then that is my opinion (and maybe even the opinion of hundreds of millions of people) but that doesn't in itself make it science.
As a matter of fact, I did once design an experiment that could actually test intelligent design but as far as I know it or any other experiment to test the same have never been carried out. Until there is experimental evidence it's not science.
Which brings us to the question HOW WOULD YOU TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
A proper scientific experiment has to meet certain criteria. It must be replicable (i.e. someone else should be able to do the same experiment that you are doing, and get the same results); it must include a hypothesis before you actually produce any results stating clearly what you are theorizing and what results you would expect to see if your hypothesis is correct; and it must be consistent with what has previously been observed or discovered scientifically.
With the opening up of the genome, I have an idea for how you could test intelligent design. Granted, it's a rudimentary idea and one which would require extensive computer modeling, very complex calculations and certainly some guesswork in which you could only look at a high and a low end, but nonetheless it is an idea that could be tested scientifically.
Suppose we have the genome of a human and the genome of a simple eukaryotic cellular organism similar to the earliest eukaryotic cells on earth (both of which thanks to science including the Human Genome Project, we do have.) We could then use mathematical modeling to model how many random mutations the DNA of the eukaryotic cell would have to go through to produce a human (or a rat, monkey or elephant if you prefer.) You could also determine (and this is where some level of guesswork comes in, especially given our less than perfect knowlege of science) how many generations you would go through in going from a cell billions of years old to a modern day human.
Once you had that number and you've already used supercomputers to model the number of mutations you could get a number for the requisite number of mutations per generation (or heck, maybe it's generations per mutation-- I'm just suggesting a design for the experiment; someone else will have to crunch the numbers.)
NOW YOU NEED TO SEE IF THIS NUMBER IS HIGHER THAN THE RATE AT WHICH MUTATION WOULD HAPPEN BY PURELY RANDOM CHANCE. To do this you take a known species of bacteria and place one group in an unstressed and another in a stressed environment (such as heat or cold or the presence of a toxic chemical.) Some degree of natural selection would take place in the second group. You then measure the number of generations the bacteria go through and then find the genome of the end product of both the stressed and unstressed groups. If the number of mutations per generation is comparable to the mathematical model you had before (which should lie between these numbers given that the natural environment is sometimes, but not always stressed) then it would suggest that evolution happened by random occurrence. On the other hand if the mathematical model for the rate at which mutations had to occur was significantly larger than the range you have (say, even faster than rate of mutation of the stressed bacteria) then you will have produced scientific evidence that evolution by random mutation alone would be insufficient to explain the difference between eukaryotes and humans.
Would this solve the debate? No. Regardless of the results, you can be sure of that (either one side would say that the Creator didn't want to be detected and therefore fooled with the experiment, or the other would say that the lower than needed rate of mutation in the experiment might be explicable by something other than a Creator, such as contamination in the laboratory.) And both sides would certainly point to the guesswork and unknowns involved if they didn't like the results.
Conceded. But the unknowns and guesswork are based on things we don't know yet in science, but as science evolves (yes, science does evolve) we will have fewer guesses and more certainty.
The Genome project however has at least given us a WAY that we COULD try to test Intelligent Design. And until and unless it is tested and some evidence is found, it is not appropriate to teach it in a science class.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Confirm Errol Southers, NOW!
Last week's attack on a Detroit-bound flight that originated in the Netherlands (and was thankfully stopped in progress by quick-reacting passengers) could have, as we have been told ad nauseum, been prevented by better communication between American and Dutch authorities.
A month ago Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father told the American consulate that his son had taken up with radical Islamists. The Homeland Security Department did what they should have done and placed him on a terrorist watch list, meaning that he would be subjected to additional security measures if he tried to board a plane. Only the TSA didn't communicate with the Dutch authorities, who failed to detect explosive material on Abdulmutallab when he passed through a security inspection in Amsterdam.
Why didn't the TSA do it's job? MAYBE BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE AT THE HELM? That's right, the position of TSA director is vacant.
There is a nominee, and a counter-terrorism expert at that. The person the Obama administration nominated for the job is Errol Southers, who is eminently qualified to deal with terrorism, as a former special agent with the FBI, the Los Angeles airport assistant chief for security and intelligence, the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events and most recently the deputy director of homeland security for the state of California.
Two Senate committees have already approved Southers by a bipartisan vote. This should be a no-brainer.
Enter DeMint, one of the most combatative conservatives in the Senate. He has single-handedly blocked the nomination over the specific issue of preventing TSA workers from exercising their right to vote on whether they want to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement.
So thanks to DeMint, instead of having a highly qualified expert on terrorism running the TSA, someone who certainly would have attended to the detail of letting the Dutch know who they should pay closer attention to during an inspection, we instead have a vacancy in this critical position.
Thankfully, no one lost their life in this attack. But had 279 passengers and crew in the plane, and perhaps hundreds more on the ground died in the attack, it would be fair to ask whether Jim DeMint was at fault.
The Senate should vote to confirm Errol Southers IMMEDIATELY!
A month ago Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's father told the American consulate that his son had taken up with radical Islamists. The Homeland Security Department did what they should have done and placed him on a terrorist watch list, meaning that he would be subjected to additional security measures if he tried to board a plane. Only the TSA didn't communicate with the Dutch authorities, who failed to detect explosive material on Abdulmutallab when he passed through a security inspection in Amsterdam.
Why didn't the TSA do it's job? MAYBE BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE AT THE HELM? That's right, the position of TSA director is vacant.
There is a nominee, and a counter-terrorism expert at that. The person the Obama administration nominated for the job is Errol Southers, who is eminently qualified to deal with terrorism, as a former special agent with the FBI, the Los Angeles airport assistant chief for security and intelligence, the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events and most recently the deputy director of homeland security for the state of California.
Two Senate committees have already approved Southers by a bipartisan vote. This should be a no-brainer.
Enter DeMint, one of the most combatative conservatives in the Senate. He has single-handedly blocked the nomination over the specific issue of preventing TSA workers from exercising their right to vote on whether they want to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement.
So thanks to DeMint, instead of having a highly qualified expert on terrorism running the TSA, someone who certainly would have attended to the detail of letting the Dutch know who they should pay closer attention to during an inspection, we instead have a vacancy in this critical position.
Thankfully, no one lost their life in this attack. But had 279 passengers and crew in the plane, and perhaps hundreds more on the ground died in the attack, it would be fair to ask whether Jim DeMint was at fault.
The Senate should vote to confirm Errol Southers IMMEDIATELY!
Jim Caldwell deserves coach of the year-- for losing a game
It is pretty clear after this week's games that the NFL head coach of the year should be Indianapolis rookie head coach Jim Caldwell.
What? Caldwell after all is not only a first year coach but he took over a program that if you told anyone they'd be 14-1 heading into the final week of the season no one would be surprised. He inherited a team which had been coached by a legend, and a team for which any outcome short of a Super Bowl ring would not be a successful season. And this year we've seen some amazing performances in traditional NFL backwaters like New Orleans and Cincinnati that are certainly deserving of coach of the year honors.
All of that is conceded. But Caldwell deserves it. And the best argument could be made this week. He lost a game. Almost threw it, in fact, pulling out Peyton Manning and other key starters while leading the New York Jets 15-10 at home and going on to lose 26-15.
Caldwell is no fool. He knows that two years ago Bill Belichick took a team into the Super Bowl on the cusp of a perfect season, only to be done in by a combination of the pressure of perfection and maybe reading their own press clippings. Not to take anything away from the New York Giants, who certainly deserved to win that game, but there is no doubt that the Patriots showed that they were not immune from the pressure.
Don Shula and the 1972 Miami Dolphins did something that no one has done since, but the fact is that trying to replicate it only adds to the pressure heading into the playoffs. Caldwell knows that, so when he saw that the Jets were playing well enough to stay in the game, he went ahead and got rid of the pressure by essentially losing on purpose (though he can't say that.) The Colts already have home field for the playoffs sewn up so at least in terms of the Colts (more on this below) the game had zero playoff implication. And Caldwell is well aware that there is at least one team in the AFC playing very good football right now that is very capable of coming into Indianapolis and stealing a win. San Diego proved that a week ago when they withstood the best shot of a Cincinnati Bengals team that was trying to get the number 2 seed in the playoffs and was playing inspired football following the tragic death of receiver Chris Henry. So Caldwell decided he'd rather lose a (to his team) meaningless game against the Jets than risk losing in the playoffs to the Chargers, or in the Super Bowl.
It is certainly true that in doing so he broke one of the unwritten rules of the NFL. Teams playing in games with playoff implications late in the season are expected to put their best professional effort on the field. So for example, a late season game between two teams that are already out of the playoff picture may feature a lot of non-starters that they want to get a look at heading into the offseason and draft day. But for example, with playoff seeding in the NFC on the line, Tampa Bay put their best professional effort on the field against the Saints Sunday and the Chicago Bears put theirs on the field against the Vikings last night, and both came away with victories. The philosophy is simple-- nobody backs into a playoff in the NFL, you have to earn your way in or to where you stand in the pecking order.
And that would be true of the Colts heading into the playoffs too. If they were playing a game that didn't matter fewer people would question Caldwell's move. But this game only didn't matter to them. By unofficially handing the game to the Jets (though the Jets did show by hanging tough in the first half that they were playing hard, to be sure) Caldwell certainly threw a joker into the AFC wildcard race. The Jets join the Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens, Houston Texans and Denver Broncos as one of five 8-7 teams in the AFC fighting over the last two playoff spots heading into the final week of the season. Certainly if the Jets grab one of the wild card spots there will be some disappointed fans in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Houston or Denver who will be furious with Caldwell. In fact, if the Bengals, who may have the number three playoff seeding locked in by the time they play the Jets on Sunday night follow Caldwell's lead and keep their A-team off the field it's entirely possible that New York could sneak into the playoffs ahead of one of those teams purely by the luck of playing what should have been two of their toughest games of the year in the last two weeks.
But so what? He's the coach of the Colts, not of the Steelers, Ravens, Texans or Broncos. By breaking the unwritten code, he made a gutsy decision, recognizing that he is in it for his team and with his team. A great coach is supposed to be able to think outside the box, and he did it Sunday. And for that, he does deserve coach of the year honors.
What? Caldwell after all is not only a first year coach but he took over a program that if you told anyone they'd be 14-1 heading into the final week of the season no one would be surprised. He inherited a team which had been coached by a legend, and a team for which any outcome short of a Super Bowl ring would not be a successful season. And this year we've seen some amazing performances in traditional NFL backwaters like New Orleans and Cincinnati that are certainly deserving of coach of the year honors.
All of that is conceded. But Caldwell deserves it. And the best argument could be made this week. He lost a game. Almost threw it, in fact, pulling out Peyton Manning and other key starters while leading the New York Jets 15-10 at home and going on to lose 26-15.
Caldwell is no fool. He knows that two years ago Bill Belichick took a team into the Super Bowl on the cusp of a perfect season, only to be done in by a combination of the pressure of perfection and maybe reading their own press clippings. Not to take anything away from the New York Giants, who certainly deserved to win that game, but there is no doubt that the Patriots showed that they were not immune from the pressure.
Don Shula and the 1972 Miami Dolphins did something that no one has done since, but the fact is that trying to replicate it only adds to the pressure heading into the playoffs. Caldwell knows that, so when he saw that the Jets were playing well enough to stay in the game, he went ahead and got rid of the pressure by essentially losing on purpose (though he can't say that.) The Colts already have home field for the playoffs sewn up so at least in terms of the Colts (more on this below) the game had zero playoff implication. And Caldwell is well aware that there is at least one team in the AFC playing very good football right now that is very capable of coming into Indianapolis and stealing a win. San Diego proved that a week ago when they withstood the best shot of a Cincinnati Bengals team that was trying to get the number 2 seed in the playoffs and was playing inspired football following the tragic death of receiver Chris Henry. So Caldwell decided he'd rather lose a (to his team) meaningless game against the Jets than risk losing in the playoffs to the Chargers, or in the Super Bowl.
It is certainly true that in doing so he broke one of the unwritten rules of the NFL. Teams playing in games with playoff implications late in the season are expected to put their best professional effort on the field. So for example, a late season game between two teams that are already out of the playoff picture may feature a lot of non-starters that they want to get a look at heading into the offseason and draft day. But for example, with playoff seeding in the NFC on the line, Tampa Bay put their best professional effort on the field against the Saints Sunday and the Chicago Bears put theirs on the field against the Vikings last night, and both came away with victories. The philosophy is simple-- nobody backs into a playoff in the NFL, you have to earn your way in or to where you stand in the pecking order.
And that would be true of the Colts heading into the playoffs too. If they were playing a game that didn't matter fewer people would question Caldwell's move. But this game only didn't matter to them. By unofficially handing the game to the Jets (though the Jets did show by hanging tough in the first half that they were playing hard, to be sure) Caldwell certainly threw a joker into the AFC wildcard race. The Jets join the Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens, Houston Texans and Denver Broncos as one of five 8-7 teams in the AFC fighting over the last two playoff spots heading into the final week of the season. Certainly if the Jets grab one of the wild card spots there will be some disappointed fans in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Houston or Denver who will be furious with Caldwell. In fact, if the Bengals, who may have the number three playoff seeding locked in by the time they play the Jets on Sunday night follow Caldwell's lead and keep their A-team off the field it's entirely possible that New York could sneak into the playoffs ahead of one of those teams purely by the luck of playing what should have been two of their toughest games of the year in the last two weeks.
But so what? He's the coach of the Colts, not of the Steelers, Ravens, Texans or Broncos. By breaking the unwritten code, he made a gutsy decision, recognizing that he is in it for his team and with his team. A great coach is supposed to be able to think outside the box, and he did it Sunday. And for that, he does deserve coach of the year honors.
Friday, December 25, 2009
A real Christmas miracle
Some of my regular blog readers have noticed the Code Amber ticker I have at the top of the blog. For some reason it has had the same last three names on it for months but the first alert up (when one is active) is always the newest so I leave it up.
Today there was a local alert. Since I'm out and on a section of rural highway at odd hours (doing a newspaper route in the mornings to make a few extra quarters before breakfast) I always read the Arizona Amber alerts and those from surrounding states. The alert profiled a five year old Phoenix girl, Natalie Flores, who was abducted earlier this afternoon.
Luckily this one had a happy ending. Police were tipped off and spotted the suspect's vehicle and rescued Natalie, who from preliminary reports appears to be unharmed. The suspect is in custody.
This is the kind of ending that reminds us of why the Amber alert system was created and why it is so important. And for Natalie's family it helped produce a real Christmas miracle today.
Today there was a local alert. Since I'm out and on a section of rural highway at odd hours (doing a newspaper route in the mornings to make a few extra quarters before breakfast) I always read the Arizona Amber alerts and those from surrounding states. The alert profiled a five year old Phoenix girl, Natalie Flores, who was abducted earlier this afternoon.
Luckily this one had a happy ending. Police were tipped off and spotted the suspect's vehicle and rescued Natalie, who from preliminary reports appears to be unharmed. The suspect is in custody.
This is the kind of ending that reminds us of why the Amber alert system was created and why it is so important. And for Natalie's family it helped produce a real Christmas miracle today.
Republican Senators forced to defend 'back then it was standard practice not to pay for things'
Remember the 2003 medicare prescription drug benefit? The one which cost a trillion dollars and which was not paid for at all, just added to the deficit?
Today there are still 24 Republicans in the Senate who supported it, and some of their explanations for how they can be against the current health care overhaul sound strained, to say the least.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."
It has done a dubious amount of good (mainly to pharmaceutical companies' bottom line) but it's hard to suggest that a bill which clearly does much more good, extending coverage to the uninsured, is less worthy of Sen. Hatch's vote than the medicare prescription bill. And given that the CBO has projected that the current bill does in fact pay for itself and doesn't raise the deficit, how is it a defense to say that six years ago it was standard practice not to pay for things??? I mean, (pardon my French), WTF?!!?!?
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.
No doubt, the economy is in worse shape. But that's largely because of the policies espoused by the same administration that brought us the prescription drug bill.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward."
The simple answer: those who have been proven wrong always say that.
At least some conservatives recognize how absurd this whole argument is:
"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."
Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."
The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years.
This bill is responsible in that it does pay for itself and it benefits far more people than the prescription drug bill. So really (though they won't say it) the only reason they are opposing it is purely political. They want to inflict a defeat on the Obama agenda. End of story.
Today there are still 24 Republicans in the Senate who supported it, and some of their explanations for how they can be against the current health care overhaul sound strained, to say the least.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."
It has done a dubious amount of good (mainly to pharmaceutical companies' bottom line) but it's hard to suggest that a bill which clearly does much more good, extending coverage to the uninsured, is less worthy of Sen. Hatch's vote than the medicare prescription bill. And given that the CBO has projected that the current bill does in fact pay for itself and doesn't raise the deficit, how is it a defense to say that six years ago it was standard practice not to pay for things??? I mean, (pardon my French), WTF?!!?!?
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.
No doubt, the economy is in worse shape. But that's largely because of the policies espoused by the same administration that brought us the prescription drug bill.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward."
The simple answer: those who have been proven wrong always say that.
At least some conservatives recognize how absurd this whole argument is:
"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."
Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."
The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years.
This bill is responsible in that it does pay for itself and it benefits far more people than the prescription drug bill. So really (though they won't say it) the only reason they are opposing it is purely political. They want to inflict a defeat on the Obama agenda. End of story.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Health Care Reform is not about being popular, it's about doing the right thing
Now that it looks like health care reform is on its way to passing the Senate, the next hurdle down the road, Republicans are claiming that Democrats are ignoring the will of the people, citing polls saying that a majority don't like the Senate bill. NRC chairman Michael Steele even came out today and accused Democrats of 'throwing the finger at the American people.'
This is ridiculous. First, the polls simply ask whether people support the current Senate health care plan. Well, the truth is, I don't like it a bit in that I support a robust public option like the one that is in the house bill. So if you asked me if I support the Senate plan I'd say 'no.' But that's not to say I agree with Republicans who don't want to do anything. Further, as a number of people who were around in 1994 said this week, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.' In 1994 a number of liberals opposed HillaryCare because they felt it didn't go far enough, and in the end we got nothing. So this time around liberals held their noses at some of the more odious aspects of the bill and voted for universal coverage.
And for that matter if you insist on looking at polls, the most recent poll by CNN indicates that support for reform is now gaining again.
This bill does, even if through mechanisms I may not like seek to achieve universal coverage. That has been a big problem for years, as we have a two tier health system, of the insured versus the uninsured. I don't like mandates, much prefering a single payer system up front but at least the mandates are backed by large government subsidies that will make the premiums affordable to people who are uninsured and living on a limited income.
And this is huge. Simply put, universal coverage is something that we've been striving for, for a long, long time. Maybe how we get there isn't perfect but it is undeniably going to be a very good thing. And the United States will no longer stand out as the only industrialized country in the world that fails to make health care coverage available to everyone. Other countries, such as Japan, have systems similar to that which we are now on the verge of passing, in that the insurance itself is offered through private companies even while premiums are heavily subsidized by the government.
Further, as one supporter of the bill pointed out, this is a foundation. It can be added onto in the future if problems are found wanting.
But most importantly, this represents a fundamental change for America, and a change for the better. It ranks with programs such as Social Security as representing the finest in America, the idea that we can provide for all of our citizens. And at this historic moment, if only Democrats will vote for this, then so be it.
Let me play off the 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' statement. Let me say also, 'let not the popular be the enemy of the right.' Often doing what is right is not popular. But it is still right, and for that the Senate Democrats (and yes, grudgingly even Joe Lieberman) should be commended for last night's vote.
This is ridiculous. First, the polls simply ask whether people support the current Senate health care plan. Well, the truth is, I don't like it a bit in that I support a robust public option like the one that is in the house bill. So if you asked me if I support the Senate plan I'd say 'no.' But that's not to say I agree with Republicans who don't want to do anything. Further, as a number of people who were around in 1994 said this week, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.' In 1994 a number of liberals opposed HillaryCare because they felt it didn't go far enough, and in the end we got nothing. So this time around liberals held their noses at some of the more odious aspects of the bill and voted for universal coverage.
And for that matter if you insist on looking at polls, the most recent poll by CNN indicates that support for reform is now gaining again.
This bill does, even if through mechanisms I may not like seek to achieve universal coverage. That has been a big problem for years, as we have a two tier health system, of the insured versus the uninsured. I don't like mandates, much prefering a single payer system up front but at least the mandates are backed by large government subsidies that will make the premiums affordable to people who are uninsured and living on a limited income.
And this is huge. Simply put, universal coverage is something that we've been striving for, for a long, long time. Maybe how we get there isn't perfect but it is undeniably going to be a very good thing. And the United States will no longer stand out as the only industrialized country in the world that fails to make health care coverage available to everyone. Other countries, such as Japan, have systems similar to that which we are now on the verge of passing, in that the insurance itself is offered through private companies even while premiums are heavily subsidized by the government.
Further, as one supporter of the bill pointed out, this is a foundation. It can be added onto in the future if problems are found wanting.
But most importantly, this represents a fundamental change for America, and a change for the better. It ranks with programs such as Social Security as representing the finest in America, the idea that we can provide for all of our citizens. And at this historic moment, if only Democrats will vote for this, then so be it.
Let me play off the 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' statement. Let me say also, 'let not the popular be the enemy of the right.' Often doing what is right is not popular. But it is still right, and for that the Senate Democrats (and yes, grudgingly even Joe Lieberman) should be commended for last night's vote.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
John McCain all but admits that he doesn't represent Arizona
I've been listening to the Health Care debate. John McCain was criticizing some deals struck with individual Senators to seal their votes. He zeroed in in particular on a deal Senator Bill Nelson of Florida made to get a preferred deal on medicare for residents of Florida. McCain called it the 'Florida flim-flam' and complained, "my constituents didn't get that deal.'
He's right, medicare recipients in Florida get a better deal. That's because Bill Nelson does what is expected of a Senator and made a deal. Does not Senator McCain think that if he had asked Harry Reid for a similar deal for Arizona to procure his vote, that Reid would have jumped at the offer? Of course he would have.
THE TRUTH IS THAT JOHN MCCAIN, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, ONCE AGAIN REMINDS US THAT HE DOES NOT REPRESENT ARIZONA.!!
John McCain has forgotten the state that elected him in order to pursue his own ambition on the national stage. The problem is not what Senator Nelson (or for that matter what the other Senator Nelson, or Senator Landrieu or others) did in making deals that benefit their constituents. That's what members of Congress are supposed to do. The problem is that Senator McCain DIDN'T get anything for Arizona, just like he DOESN'T get anything for Arizona, ever.
I hope that someone saved that speech and plays it back for some of Senator McCain's medicare-eligible constituents.
He's right, medicare recipients in Florida get a better deal. That's because Bill Nelson does what is expected of a Senator and made a deal. Does not Senator McCain think that if he had asked Harry Reid for a similar deal for Arizona to procure his vote, that Reid would have jumped at the offer? Of course he would have.
THE TRUTH IS THAT JOHN MCCAIN, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, ONCE AGAIN REMINDS US THAT HE DOES NOT REPRESENT ARIZONA.!!
John McCain has forgotten the state that elected him in order to pursue his own ambition on the national stage. The problem is not what Senator Nelson (or for that matter what the other Senator Nelson, or Senator Landrieu or others) did in making deals that benefit their constituents. That's what members of Congress are supposed to do. The problem is that Senator McCain DIDN'T get anything for Arizona, just like he DOESN'T get anything for Arizona, ever.
I hope that someone saved that speech and plays it back for some of Senator McCain's medicare-eligible constituents.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Arizona GOP meltdown pushing the tide back towards Democrats
Whatever the national environment is, the Arizona GOP is in a meltdown and doing everything they can to help Democrats in the Copper State in 2010.
Exhibit one, of course, is the continual failure of the legislature and Governor to produce a budget. Republicans have controlled the Arizona legislature since 1964, and during most of that time have also run the Governor's office. For most of that time we've had a steady diet of tax cuts, lax regulations on business (and of course right-to-work and the worst workers comp rules in the nation) and well below the national average in per capita state spending. And even when the Governor has been a Democrat Arizona has either had gridlock or compromise. The decades long Republican domination of the legislature has guaranteed that liberalism has never had its day in Arizona, certainly not since Barry Goldwater swept the GOP into control of the legislature when he carried the state against LBJ in 1964. So if conservatism was the panacea, Arizona would be about the most prosperous state in the nation right now. Only it's not, because conservatism doesn't work.
Remember too that Jan Brewer has now been Governor since the day after President Obama was inaugurated and Janet Napolitano was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security, and it's not surprising that her record of failed leadership (including leaving the state as a special session she had called collapsed into chaos) has caused her standing even in her own party to fall into the cellar. Say what you want to about Janet, but she always managed to work with the Republican legislature to get a budget done. Things got so bad between Brewer and her own party leadership in the legislature this year that it featured bizarre lowlights like the Governor going to court to get the legislature to send her the budget so she could veto it, and the leadership turning off the clocks on the last night of the regular session so they could claim that it had not yet struck midnight until well after the sun was up the next morning.
Remember in June Arizona voters gave the legislature lower marks than even Congress (notoriously unpopular) was drawing. And that was before the end of the regular session. Four special sessions later and the year has been marked by complete failure as the majority party could not get their own members together to put together a budget. Remember that in the Arizona legislature there is no filibuster so the Democrats have been irrelevant (particularly since the GOP leadership has not bothered to actually negotiate with them, with house speaker Kirk Adams just telling them to vote for what he worked out.) The biggest hangup has been GOP members of the legislature who are so ideologically rigid that even after making enormous cuts in schools and services in the face of a huge budget hole, they have refused to refer a proposed temporary sales tax to voters unless it is coupled with permanent tax cuts. In some cases they have refused to refer the sales tax even with the tax cuts (though it is amazing that they tried to cut taxes at all given the present fiscal reality-- largely caused by years of huge GOP-backed tax cuts that kept state budgets on a shoestring even in times of relative plenty.)
More recently we've seen the most popular Republican in the state, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his best buddy, county attorney Andrew Thomas (a.k.a. the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John) openly flouting the law, arresting and filing spurious charges against political opponents, including the majority of the county Board of Supervisors and a judge who had issued some rulings they didn't like and was scheduled the next day to hear the case of Adam Stoddard, one of Sheriff Joe's Henchmen who was shown on national media openly and brazenly taking documents out of a defense attorney's file during a court hearing (if you haven't seen the video by now you should-- it's truly bizarre.) In fact, the charges that Sheriff Joe had chief Supervisor Don Stapley arrested and taken to jail for were so flimsy and contrived that they couldn't even find an attorney in Arizona willing to prosecute it and had to hire someone from outside the state. And after that fell through it appears that Thomas will try and get Stapley himself. And just to protect himself, he's filed a pre-emptive ethics complaint against Attorney General Terry Goddard (the most powerful political opponent he has in the state) to ensure that Goddard will be hamstrung in any attempt to prosecute this obvious and illegal power play by Arpaio and Thomas due to a 'conflict of interest.' Even conservative columnist Robert Robb, who rarely criticizes Republican officeholders, took issue with the way the duo are engineering what is effectively a coup against county government:
What's happening in Maricopa County government isn't a circus. And it's not a joke.
Not anymore. It's now a deadly serious business.
County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio are alleging that there is a massive corrupt conspiracy involving at least four Superior Court judges, the entire Board of Supervisors and senior county management.
If Thomas and Arpaio are wrong about the existence of such a massive conspiracy, they are themselves guilty of an assault on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Maricopa County.
I'm glad I don't live in Phoenix, but if this stands it could endanger everyone in the state (especially with Thomas mulling a run for Attorney General.) Arpaio may get most of the press but Thomas is the more dangerous of the two.
And a lot of people are realizing how dangerous they are, and that the term, 'loose cannon' may not even describe a cannon which is deliberately being aimed directly at the main masts of government.
Of course in addition to that Sheriff Joe is still running saturation patrols which may be popular with the nativist crowd (who will turn out and vote anyway if predictions for next year are right since most of them are also 'tea partiers') but by arresting dozens of American citizens simply because they are Hispanic and forcing them to prove their citizenship before being released he's certainly guaranteed that even if Hispanic turnout next year lags last year's total everyplace else, that probably won't be the case in Arizona because they will have at least one really good reason to come to the polls and vote Democratic.
Now, we learn that Brett Mecum, the Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, who has in the past been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior towards women, is facing felony charges for misusing information in voter registration files to stalk a woman and show up at a party at her home without being invited or told otherwise where she lived. I've been a precinct committeeman for years and I know exactly what the law is regarding voter files and who can access them and for what purposes, and it is incomprehensible that the executive director of the state Republican Party didn't know what the restrictions were (I mean, even common sense dictates that his personal life isn't an authorized use of the file!) Further she has said that she didn't tell him where she lived precisely because she found Mecum to be creepy and didn't want his advances.
Remember that earlier this year Mecum was clocked driving 109 mph on an urban freeway in metro Phoenix. Yes, folks, this is the executive director of the Arizona GOP.
Maybe the national climate is shifting to favor Republicans (though it may be radically different by next November) but here in Arizona it's hard to imagine voters wanting more of this next year.
Exhibit one, of course, is the continual failure of the legislature and Governor to produce a budget. Republicans have controlled the Arizona legislature since 1964, and during most of that time have also run the Governor's office. For most of that time we've had a steady diet of tax cuts, lax regulations on business (and of course right-to-work and the worst workers comp rules in the nation) and well below the national average in per capita state spending. And even when the Governor has been a Democrat Arizona has either had gridlock or compromise. The decades long Republican domination of the legislature has guaranteed that liberalism has never had its day in Arizona, certainly not since Barry Goldwater swept the GOP into control of the legislature when he carried the state against LBJ in 1964. So if conservatism was the panacea, Arizona would be about the most prosperous state in the nation right now. Only it's not, because conservatism doesn't work.
Remember too that Jan Brewer has now been Governor since the day after President Obama was inaugurated and Janet Napolitano was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security, and it's not surprising that her record of failed leadership (including leaving the state as a special session she had called collapsed into chaos) has caused her standing even in her own party to fall into the cellar. Say what you want to about Janet, but she always managed to work with the Republican legislature to get a budget done. Things got so bad between Brewer and her own party leadership in the legislature this year that it featured bizarre lowlights like the Governor going to court to get the legislature to send her the budget so she could veto it, and the leadership turning off the clocks on the last night of the regular session so they could claim that it had not yet struck midnight until well after the sun was up the next morning.
Remember in June Arizona voters gave the legislature lower marks than even Congress (notoriously unpopular) was drawing. And that was before the end of the regular session. Four special sessions later and the year has been marked by complete failure as the majority party could not get their own members together to put together a budget. Remember that in the Arizona legislature there is no filibuster so the Democrats have been irrelevant (particularly since the GOP leadership has not bothered to actually negotiate with them, with house speaker Kirk Adams just telling them to vote for what he worked out.) The biggest hangup has been GOP members of the legislature who are so ideologically rigid that even after making enormous cuts in schools and services in the face of a huge budget hole, they have refused to refer a proposed temporary sales tax to voters unless it is coupled with permanent tax cuts. In some cases they have refused to refer the sales tax even with the tax cuts (though it is amazing that they tried to cut taxes at all given the present fiscal reality-- largely caused by years of huge GOP-backed tax cuts that kept state budgets on a shoestring even in times of relative plenty.)
More recently we've seen the most popular Republican in the state, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his best buddy, county attorney Andrew Thomas (a.k.a. the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John) openly flouting the law, arresting and filing spurious charges against political opponents, including the majority of the county Board of Supervisors and a judge who had issued some rulings they didn't like and was scheduled the next day to hear the case of Adam Stoddard, one of Sheriff Joe's Henchmen who was shown on national media openly and brazenly taking documents out of a defense attorney's file during a court hearing (if you haven't seen the video by now you should-- it's truly bizarre.) In fact, the charges that Sheriff Joe had chief Supervisor Don Stapley arrested and taken to jail for were so flimsy and contrived that they couldn't even find an attorney in Arizona willing to prosecute it and had to hire someone from outside the state. And after that fell through it appears that Thomas will try and get Stapley himself. And just to protect himself, he's filed a pre-emptive ethics complaint against Attorney General Terry Goddard (the most powerful political opponent he has in the state) to ensure that Goddard will be hamstrung in any attempt to prosecute this obvious and illegal power play by Arpaio and Thomas due to a 'conflict of interest.' Even conservative columnist Robert Robb, who rarely criticizes Republican officeholders, took issue with the way the duo are engineering what is effectively a coup against county government:
What's happening in Maricopa County government isn't a circus. And it's not a joke.
Not anymore. It's now a deadly serious business.
County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio are alleging that there is a massive corrupt conspiracy involving at least four Superior Court judges, the entire Board of Supervisors and senior county management.
If Thomas and Arpaio are wrong about the existence of such a massive conspiracy, they are themselves guilty of an assault on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Maricopa County.
I'm glad I don't live in Phoenix, but if this stands it could endanger everyone in the state (especially with Thomas mulling a run for Attorney General.) Arpaio may get most of the press but Thomas is the more dangerous of the two.
And a lot of people are realizing how dangerous they are, and that the term, 'loose cannon' may not even describe a cannon which is deliberately being aimed directly at the main masts of government.
Of course in addition to that Sheriff Joe is still running saturation patrols which may be popular with the nativist crowd (who will turn out and vote anyway if predictions for next year are right since most of them are also 'tea partiers') but by arresting dozens of American citizens simply because they are Hispanic and forcing them to prove their citizenship before being released he's certainly guaranteed that even if Hispanic turnout next year lags last year's total everyplace else, that probably won't be the case in Arizona because they will have at least one really good reason to come to the polls and vote Democratic.
Now, we learn that Brett Mecum, the Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, who has in the past been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior towards women, is facing felony charges for misusing information in voter registration files to stalk a woman and show up at a party at her home without being invited or told otherwise where she lived. I've been a precinct committeeman for years and I know exactly what the law is regarding voter files and who can access them and for what purposes, and it is incomprehensible that the executive director of the state Republican Party didn't know what the restrictions were (I mean, even common sense dictates that his personal life isn't an authorized use of the file!) Further she has said that she didn't tell him where she lived precisely because she found Mecum to be creepy and didn't want his advances.
Remember that earlier this year Mecum was clocked driving 109 mph on an urban freeway in metro Phoenix. Yes, folks, this is the executive director of the Arizona GOP.
Maybe the national climate is shifting to favor Republicans (though it may be radically different by next November) but here in Arizona it's hard to imagine voters wanting more of this next year.
Monday, December 14, 2009
New study suggests marijuana is the drug of choice among teens
A new study out shows that the old news is now still the new news: marijuana the choice drug among American teenagers.
Back a couple of years ago there was a story out in the Flagstaff Daily Sun about how more kids smoked marijuana than smoked cigarettes. The new study seems to suggest that is part of a national trend, and also that marijuana and prescription drug abuse are the biggest drug issues among today's teens. They have cut down on smoking, drinking and methamphetamine use (not coincidentally the drugs they get the most information about while they are in school.)
I've long supported legalization of marijuana for adults, and one reason is precisely because it would make it harder for kids to obtain (the Circle K clerk checks your ID, or is supposed to, but the drug dealer doesn't care how old you are if you have the money.) The counterargument, that drug dealers might still buy pot to sell to kids, is unlikely to hold water if it is legal for adults because the relative size of the clientele would be small and temporary (only until they became legal) which is one reason why drug dealers in general don't sell booze to kids, for example (though on occasion they do sell them cigarettes, mainly so they can reach more kids and try to get them to buy into harder drugs.)
The fact of the matter is, that drugs which are legal for adults only (i.e. cigarettes) are now being used less by kids. One can argue there are a lot of reasons for this, such as the fact that a kid hardly gets out of the second grade before being told by at least a dozen different people that cigarettes are bad for them but nevertheless it is worth noting that we are having more success at keeping cigarettes out of the hands of youth than marijuana. So maybe it is time to ask whether legalization for adults might help protect our kids.
Back a couple of years ago there was a story out in the Flagstaff Daily Sun about how more kids smoked marijuana than smoked cigarettes. The new study seems to suggest that is part of a national trend, and also that marijuana and prescription drug abuse are the biggest drug issues among today's teens. They have cut down on smoking, drinking and methamphetamine use (not coincidentally the drugs they get the most information about while they are in school.)
I've long supported legalization of marijuana for adults, and one reason is precisely because it would make it harder for kids to obtain (the Circle K clerk checks your ID, or is supposed to, but the drug dealer doesn't care how old you are if you have the money.) The counterargument, that drug dealers might still buy pot to sell to kids, is unlikely to hold water if it is legal for adults because the relative size of the clientele would be small and temporary (only until they became legal) which is one reason why drug dealers in general don't sell booze to kids, for example (though on occasion they do sell them cigarettes, mainly so they can reach more kids and try to get them to buy into harder drugs.)
The fact of the matter is, that drugs which are legal for adults only (i.e. cigarettes) are now being used less by kids. One can argue there are a lot of reasons for this, such as the fact that a kid hardly gets out of the second grade before being told by at least a dozen different people that cigarettes are bad for them but nevertheless it is worth noting that we are having more success at keeping cigarettes out of the hands of youth than marijuana. So maybe it is time to ask whether legalization for adults might help protect our kids.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Why should we assume that because someone is a great athlete they are also a great person?
I guess that Barack and Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Oprah Winfrey and a whole lot of Hollywood celebrities owe a lot to Tiger Woods right now. Mainly, that he's hogging the whole front page of the tabloids (and therefore keeping them off the cover.)
After two weeks of almost continuous scandal coverage that began with a minor car crash the day after Thanksgiving and quickly ballooned into allegations that he is a serial womanizer, complete with mother-in-law in and out of the hospital, Woods today announced that he is suspending his professional golf career indefinitely to work on healing his family.
Mind you, I'm not defending Tiger or any of his alleged behavior here. But I think it's fair to ask what a role model is, anyway. We routinely put sports and entertainment figures on a pedestal and forget that they are human beings, subject to human foibles, and if someone seems too good to be human, well caveat emptor.
For example, Babe Ruth was some sort of a baseball God but he was an alcoholic and hardly someone you'd want your son to grow up to be like. I still remember Mickey Mantle (another alcoholic Yankee) giving his fans his last piece of advice, "Don't be like me." There was a time when Pete Rose, the guy who didn't have the talent but through hard work made himself one of the greatest of ballplayers was considered a hero by a lot of people. But don't go visit Rose in the Hall of Fame, because he's been banned for life for gambling on the game and then has years of whining and lying about it. A whole lot of ballplayers will not be going in there because of steroid scandals, and that's just one kind of drug.
On the other hand, you will find O.J. Simpson in the football Hall of Fame. True, he was acquitted, but I doubt if anyone considers O.J. a role model anymore. He was once though. Former Panthers receiver Rae Carruth wasn't as fortunate with the jury as Simpson was. He's in a North Carolina prison serving time for conspiracy to commit murder.
Meanwhile we seem to hear all the time about another suspension for drug abuse, in just about every sport. Olympic Champion Marion Jones even went to the extent of crusading against steroid abuse, even while (as we know now) she was virtually awash in steroids herself.
The old joke about a Hollywood marriage lasting about as long as the movie is in theaters is often true (though not always, there are some that have endured.) Drugs are as rampant in the entertainment industry as they are in sports. My kids, who grew up watching Mary Kate and Ashley movies, were disappointed to hear that Mary Kate had had some issues with drugs. But I explained to them that some people do. She's human, and they realize that she's not the best role model.
Now, I'm not just trashing athletes and entertainers because all of the evils I've just described are found in all walks of life. But that's exactly the point. We seem to think as a society that because someone can hit a golf ball accurately, run well with a football or belt out a song on stage or play a part in a movie that somehow that skill also makes them a better person.
But they are not better people. They are still the same as anyone else. True that there are still people to admire both in sports (i.e. Cal Ripken Jr.), entertainment (i.e. Patrick Stewart) and in may other areas and it's great to admire them. But here too, you can look around your neighborhood and find people you can admire just as much.
Really, the only difference is that if an athlete or an entertainer does something like this, you will read about it. And the bigger they are, the harder they will fall. But to err is still human and that's worth remembering.
When someone does a great thing in an athletic contest or turns in a great performance on stage, appreciate it for what it is. But not for what it is not.
I hope for his sake and for the sake of his family that Tiger gets things in order. Call him a cad if you like, but don't be shocked. Because the world is full of cads.
After two weeks of almost continuous scandal coverage that began with a minor car crash the day after Thanksgiving and quickly ballooned into allegations that he is a serial womanizer, complete with mother-in-law in and out of the hospital, Woods today announced that he is suspending his professional golf career indefinitely to work on healing his family.
Mind you, I'm not defending Tiger or any of his alleged behavior here. But I think it's fair to ask what a role model is, anyway. We routinely put sports and entertainment figures on a pedestal and forget that they are human beings, subject to human foibles, and if someone seems too good to be human, well caveat emptor.
For example, Babe Ruth was some sort of a baseball God but he was an alcoholic and hardly someone you'd want your son to grow up to be like. I still remember Mickey Mantle (another alcoholic Yankee) giving his fans his last piece of advice, "Don't be like me." There was a time when Pete Rose, the guy who didn't have the talent but through hard work made himself one of the greatest of ballplayers was considered a hero by a lot of people. But don't go visit Rose in the Hall of Fame, because he's been banned for life for gambling on the game and then has years of whining and lying about it. A whole lot of ballplayers will not be going in there because of steroid scandals, and that's just one kind of drug.
On the other hand, you will find O.J. Simpson in the football Hall of Fame. True, he was acquitted, but I doubt if anyone considers O.J. a role model anymore. He was once though. Former Panthers receiver Rae Carruth wasn't as fortunate with the jury as Simpson was. He's in a North Carolina prison serving time for conspiracy to commit murder.
Meanwhile we seem to hear all the time about another suspension for drug abuse, in just about every sport. Olympic Champion Marion Jones even went to the extent of crusading against steroid abuse, even while (as we know now) she was virtually awash in steroids herself.
The old joke about a Hollywood marriage lasting about as long as the movie is in theaters is often true (though not always, there are some that have endured.) Drugs are as rampant in the entertainment industry as they are in sports. My kids, who grew up watching Mary Kate and Ashley movies, were disappointed to hear that Mary Kate had had some issues with drugs. But I explained to them that some people do. She's human, and they realize that she's not the best role model.
Now, I'm not just trashing athletes and entertainers because all of the evils I've just described are found in all walks of life. But that's exactly the point. We seem to think as a society that because someone can hit a golf ball accurately, run well with a football or belt out a song on stage or play a part in a movie that somehow that skill also makes them a better person.
But they are not better people. They are still the same as anyone else. True that there are still people to admire both in sports (i.e. Cal Ripken Jr.), entertainment (i.e. Patrick Stewart) and in may other areas and it's great to admire them. But here too, you can look around your neighborhood and find people you can admire just as much.
Really, the only difference is that if an athlete or an entertainer does something like this, you will read about it. And the bigger they are, the harder they will fall. But to err is still human and that's worth remembering.
When someone does a great thing in an athletic contest or turns in a great performance on stage, appreciate it for what it is. But not for what it is not.
I hope for his sake and for the sake of his family that Tiger gets things in order. Call him a cad if you like, but don't be shocked. Because the world is full of cads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
