The right had an opportunity to oppose healthcare from a position of principle, and to give their best argument about the morality of the bill, the ideals of individualism vs. a collective modality, or about why the free market could solve the vexing problem of insuring the uninsured if Government were not involved. Though they still might have lost such an argument, they might not have, and would certainly have made their ideals and principles well known through that effort.
But instead, they threw bombast about Marxism and Death Panels. Instead of principled defenders of their faith, we got shrill talk show hosts coming across as the angry, bitter old men that most of them are. Up until the last (and even after that) the 'tea partiers' have come across as a bunch of whiny juveniles. And in having lost that debate they have set themselves up for more problems in the future.
Had opponents of health care reform won, they would in fact have been able to back up every word and prediction they said about it by saying, 'Look what we saved you from.'
But they did not prevail. And the harsh rhetoric they used has probably painted them into a corner. People will be looking for the government takeover of hospitals, insurance companies and the rest of the health care system. They will be looking for a Stalinist police state. They will be waiting for their ration cards before they can see a doctor. They will be waiting with terror for the Death Panel to come knock on their door in the middle of the night.
Of course none of this will happen, and when it doesn't then you will have to wonder how many people will listen the next time the GOP cries 'wolf.'
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
One down, five to go
Brigham Young 99, Florida 92 in 2 OT. Unfortunately I had to work so I missed the game. But I still like the result.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Repost of 'Hatch Act'
NOTE: THE ORIGINAL POST HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY A SPAM BOT. THEREFORE I AM DELETING IT AND BEFORE DOING SO HAVE CUT AND PASTED THE ORIGINAL INCLUDING THE COMMENTS AND IT WILL BE REPOSTED ON THE SAME DATE.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Hatch Act
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't been blogging lately, I am now working a job as a census enumerator (in addition to my other two jobs.)
The time involved however is only a part of the reason. As soon as I became a Federal Employee, I was covered by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act significantly limits what I can do. Among the activities I can't do or can only do in a very limited capacity include partisan political work, soliciting campaign contributions and speaking out in support of candidates or parties, or conversely against candidates or parties.
Luckily this job will end in a few weeks. Until then, it's been an eye opener in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that if you become a Federal employee you lose some of your Constitutional rights. No wonder so many people tee off on the Federal Government, because people who work for the Federal Government could lose their jobs or go to prison if they were to use the wrong words to dispute what is being said.
Labels: census, Federal government, Hatch Act
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:26 AM
Comments:
I'm not sure you are correct on this one Eli. You should not do those things *while you are on the job* for the census. On your own time, you can do most of the things you mention - you are a "less restricted" federal employee. I work for the Department of Energy (through a DOE contractor) and I can do those things, and many of my co-workers do, so can't believe you would be more restricted through a part-time temporary census job....
sis.
# posted by Blogger miriam : 14 March, 2010 19:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This actually has little to do with being a federal employee. What private company would approve of employees using company time for political activities?
During your private time, you are free to campaign for a cause (political or otherwise). However, you may not use your affiliation with your employer as part of your campaign.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 15 March, 2010 07:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Hatch Act
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't been blogging lately, I am now working a job as a census enumerator (in addition to my other two jobs.)
The time involved however is only a part of the reason. As soon as I became a Federal Employee, I was covered by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act significantly limits what I can do. Among the activities I can't do or can only do in a very limited capacity include partisan political work, soliciting campaign contributions and speaking out in support of candidates or parties, or conversely against candidates or parties.
Luckily this job will end in a few weeks. Until then, it's been an eye opener in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that if you become a Federal employee you lose some of your Constitutional rights. No wonder so many people tee off on the Federal Government, because people who work for the Federal Government could lose their jobs or go to prison if they were to use the wrong words to dispute what is being said.
Labels: census, Federal government, Hatch Act
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:26 AM
Comments:
I'm not sure you are correct on this one Eli. You should not do those things *while you are on the job* for the census. On your own time, you can do most of the things you mention - you are a "less restricted" federal employee. I work for the Department of Energy (through a DOE contractor) and I can do those things, and many of my co-workers do, so can't believe you would be more restricted through a part-time temporary census job....
sis.
# posted by Blogger miriam : 14 March, 2010 19:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This actually has little to do with being a federal employee. What private company would approve of employees using company time for political activities?
During your private time, you are free to campaign for a cause (political or otherwise). However, you may not use your affiliation with your employer as part of your campaign.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 15 March, 2010 07:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Memo used in GOP fundraising slide admits they plan to use fear and ego stroking as fundraising tools.
Hat tip to Ted at Rum, romanism and rebellion for this one.
It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.
Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as
“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Here is the most amazing part:
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.
It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.
Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as
“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Here is the most amazing part:
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
It's the arrogance, stupid!
Some things are just incomprehensible.
The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.
It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.
Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that
The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.
It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.
Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
This is the kind of thing that makes people doubt the medical establishment
A woman in Columbia was declared dead at a hospital. But then when an employee of a funeral home was about to inject embalming fluid she started moving.
BOGOTA, Colombia - A Colombian woman declared dead of a heart attack moved one of her arms just as an undertaker was about to embalm her, doctors said Wednesday.
Noelia Serna, 45, was rushed to a hospital in the city of Cali, where she was in critical condition in an intensive care unit Wednesday, said hospital director Luis Fernando Rendon.
"Her chances of survival are slim," Rendon said....
On rare occasions, a person's heart rate and breathing can drop to undetectable levels, leading doctors to erroneously declare a patient dead, said neurosurgeon Juan Mendoza Vega, a member of the Colombian National Medical Ethics Board.
"It can happen," he said. "But it's not a matter of coming back to life because the person was never dead."
I guess, but I'd hope that if I ever get pronounced dead, that I'm really dead.
BOGOTA, Colombia - A Colombian woman declared dead of a heart attack moved one of her arms just as an undertaker was about to embalm her, doctors said Wednesday.
Noelia Serna, 45, was rushed to a hospital in the city of Cali, where she was in critical condition in an intensive care unit Wednesday, said hospital director Luis Fernando Rendon.
"Her chances of survival are slim," Rendon said....
On rare occasions, a person's heart rate and breathing can drop to undetectable levels, leading doctors to erroneously declare a patient dead, said neurosurgeon Juan Mendoza Vega, a member of the Colombian National Medical Ethics Board.
"It can happen," he said. "But it's not a matter of coming back to life because the person was never dead."
I guess, but I'd hope that if I ever get pronounced dead, that I'm really dead.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
GOP recruiting class just the same old retreads
It seems as though Republicans are recruiting some candidates for Congress-- many of whom are the same old retreads who were part of the problem before.
Not anything new, but a bunch of former members of Congress who they claim are supposed to be something new. Mostly the same ones who were in Congress during the 1990's and early 2000's and helped put the roots of the present crisis in place.
Epitomatically they are trumpeting former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who will challenge his successor, Sen. Evan Bayh. Recall that Senator Coats is the Senator who said the day after Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden on August 18, 1998 (eleven days after the African embassy bombings and a day when we had some intelligence about where bin Laden was holding a meeting,)
"I think we fear that we may have a President that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
Senator Dan Coats, R-IN August 19, 1998.
The full context of the statement is that also on August 18, 1998 Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition in Manhattan and Coats and other Republicans were apparently upset that the all-important Monica scandal didn't get the headline for that day (though taking a headline from the Monica scandal would have been what would happen if Bill Clinton launched the missile strike against bin Laden on pretty much any day during 1998.)
I'm sure that Coats' statement calling on the President to resign for attacking Osama bin Laden must have been received with comfort and great mirth by bin Laden.
I'm sure that there are some opportunities out there for Republicans, especially given Democrats' failure to pass health care legislation and other items on their agenda that have caused a lot of voters to decide that not much has changed. But the idea that running candidates against them who themselves were part of the last crop of failures, even up to and including a candidate who once said the President should resign for attacking Osama bin Laden, is hardly a recruiting class designed to benefit from voter discontent.
Not anything new, but a bunch of former members of Congress who they claim are supposed to be something new. Mostly the same ones who were in Congress during the 1990's and early 2000's and helped put the roots of the present crisis in place.
Epitomatically they are trumpeting former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who will challenge his successor, Sen. Evan Bayh. Recall that Senator Coats is the Senator who said the day after Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden on August 18, 1998 (eleven days after the African embassy bombings and a day when we had some intelligence about where bin Laden was holding a meeting,)
"I think we fear that we may have a President that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
Senator Dan Coats, R-IN August 19, 1998.
The full context of the statement is that also on August 18, 1998 Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition in Manhattan and Coats and other Republicans were apparently upset that the all-important Monica scandal didn't get the headline for that day (though taking a headline from the Monica scandal would have been what would happen if Bill Clinton launched the missile strike against bin Laden on pretty much any day during 1998.)
I'm sure that Coats' statement calling on the President to resign for attacking Osama bin Laden must have been received with comfort and great mirth by bin Laden.
I'm sure that there are some opportunities out there for Republicans, especially given Democrats' failure to pass health care legislation and other items on their agenda that have caused a lot of voters to decide that not much has changed. But the idea that running candidates against them who themselves were part of the last crop of failures, even up to and including a candidate who once said the President should resign for attacking Osama bin Laden, is hardly a recruiting class designed to benefit from voter discontent.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Six Hundred People at a National 'Convention' is a First Class Flop
The National Tea Party convention had weeks to prepare, a national speakers list headlined by Sarah Palin and wall-to-wall media coverage. They held their convention in the Gaylord Opryland, a venue that has 2,881 rooms available (in addition to tens of thousands of other rooms in surrounding hotels.) In two weeks, the National Wild Turkey Federation, a sportsmen's group is having their convention in Opryland and they anticipate 40,000 visitors.
Six hundred people attended, barely more than the number of people in the House and Senate they want to strike fear into the hearts of.
Every Christmas, more people than that show up to watch the kiddies perform in their annual elementary school Christmas concert. And I live in a town with 1,500 people in it, total.
After all the hype, getting fewer people than you'll find in the stands for the average little league game should make it clear that this 'movement' is a flop. No wonder reporters are interviewing each other.
Six hundred people attended, barely more than the number of people in the House and Senate they want to strike fear into the hearts of.
Every Christmas, more people than that show up to watch the kiddies perform in their annual elementary school Christmas concert. And I live in a town with 1,500 people in it, total.
After all the hype, getting fewer people than you'll find in the stands for the average little league game should make it clear that this 'movement' is a flop. No wonder reporters are interviewing each other.
British court orders man to tear down his 'castle home.'
I now realize what I don't like about this story about a man who violated regulatory laws to build a home that resembles a castle in Britain:
LONDON – A man's home is his castle — but not if British authorities say it has to be destroyed.
That's the situation faced by Robert Fidler, a farmer who lost a High Court bid Wednesday to protect the once-secret castle he built 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of London and kept hidden from planning authorities.
The adverse decision means Fidler's roof must come down. He has one year to comply unless an appeal is successful....
There is no question that he violated what amounts to zoning laws and built it without permission:
"This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process," he said, adding that Fidler now has one year to destroy the castle, remove the ruins and return the property to its original state.
The unusual castle, complete with cannon, ramparts and stained glass, was completed in 2002 and Fidler lived there with family for more than four years before the authorities started legal action against him.
Fidler, who has had disagreements with planning authorities before, anticipated that his request for permission to build the castle would be denied, so he tried to take advantage of a rule that allows a structure to be legalized if it has been lived in for four years.
Nevertheless this bothers me. The reason why is now clear when I read through the article again. Nowhere does it say why (other than the fact that it was built without permission) that it has to come down. Generally building laws have a reason behind them. And I realize that there are a lot of real castles in England and presumably they don't want any tourists getting confused and taking pictures of a house that was built in 2002. But it seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be a (possibly very substantial) fine. To make a man tear down his home, not for any practical reason like safety, complaints from neighbors or illegal use of the land (such as if he were selling merchandise to his neighbors and getting an unfair advantage over merchants who built in designated commercial districts) but simply because they don't approve of the design, seems a bit over the line.
LONDON – A man's home is his castle — but not if British authorities say it has to be destroyed.
That's the situation faced by Robert Fidler, a farmer who lost a High Court bid Wednesday to protect the once-secret castle he built 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of London and kept hidden from planning authorities.
The adverse decision means Fidler's roof must come down. He has one year to comply unless an appeal is successful....
There is no question that he violated what amounts to zoning laws and built it without permission:
"This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process," he said, adding that Fidler now has one year to destroy the castle, remove the ruins and return the property to its original state.
The unusual castle, complete with cannon, ramparts and stained glass, was completed in 2002 and Fidler lived there with family for more than four years before the authorities started legal action against him.
Fidler, who has had disagreements with planning authorities before, anticipated that his request for permission to build the castle would be denied, so he tried to take advantage of a rule that allows a structure to be legalized if it has been lived in for four years.
Nevertheless this bothers me. The reason why is now clear when I read through the article again. Nowhere does it say why (other than the fact that it was built without permission) that it has to come down. Generally building laws have a reason behind them. And I realize that there are a lot of real castles in England and presumably they don't want any tourists getting confused and taking pictures of a house that was built in 2002. But it seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be a (possibly very substantial) fine. To make a man tear down his home, not for any practical reason like safety, complaints from neighbors or illegal use of the land (such as if he were selling merchandise to his neighbors and getting an unfair advantage over merchants who built in designated commercial districts) but simply because they don't approve of the design, seems a bit over the line.
Friday, February 05, 2010
First order of legislative business: packing their own parachutes
After massively bungling last year's budget, members of the Arizona legislature, especially Republican members, have been announcing their retirements and resignations from the body right and left. Many are term-limited out (though that is almost meaningless with the loophole allowing members of the house to bounce to the senate every eight years and back again eight years later.) Others are seeking higher office (though I'd wonder what they've been smoking if they think the reward they deserve for last year's debacle is a promotion) and others are apparently just tired of it all and don't want to take the blame for the mess they've created.
But, Senator Jack Harper is sponsoring a bill that will do one thing: eliminate the one year wait before they can accept jobs from lobbying firms. Of course that law was put in place nearly twenty years ago after seven members of the legislature were caught accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as a lobbyist. That should be a hint right there why we don't want to get rid of the prohibition.
But Harper's bill appears to have been put on a fast track, clearing a key committee vote today and ready to go to the full senate for approval. Apparently with the mass rush towards the door, it's nice to know that with unemployment near 10% in Arizona and the state suffering form the consequences of the failure of their policies from past years and their failure to even have a policy last year, they are looking out for themselves.
But, Senator Jack Harper is sponsoring a bill that will do one thing: eliminate the one year wait before they can accept jobs from lobbying firms. Of course that law was put in place nearly twenty years ago after seven members of the legislature were caught accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as a lobbyist. That should be a hint right there why we don't want to get rid of the prohibition.
But Harper's bill appears to have been put on a fast track, clearing a key committee vote today and ready to go to the full senate for approval. Apparently with the mass rush towards the door, it's nice to know that with unemployment near 10% in Arizona and the state suffering form the consequences of the failure of their policies from past years and their failure to even have a policy last year, they are looking out for themselves.
Teeing off on Tebow
(subtitle: Theismann vs. Heisman)
For a guy whose stock has fallen off the table in the NFL draft, former Heismann winner Tim Tebow is sure getting more buzz ahead of he Super Bowl than, say Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, the quarterbacks who are actually in the game. Tebow has not yet played even a single down in the NFL and at least one former quarterback and respected commentator thinks he should keep it that way.
Tebow, who is the son of missionaries and grew up in a very fundamentalist household, is well known for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve (well actually wearing it on his face, writing Bible verses on his cheeks before every game.)
This week there is a big brouhaha over CBS' decision to air an anti-abortion ad featuring Tebow and his mother (who refused the advice of doctors to get an abortion because of her health and had him anyway) during the Super Bowl. Last year CBS said they would start allowing more controversial ads during the Super Bowl, but then they turned around and refused to allow an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating organization. So apparently their newfound tolerance in advertising only works one way. CBS then got in even deeper when they kept changing their story on the ManCrunch ad. First they said ad space was sold out for the Super Bowl. Then when it was shown that the ManCrunch ad had been submitted to them before some ads that were approved, they questioned whether the company could pay for the ad. When it was shown that they could and had the money available, CBS had to say it was about 'standards.' OK, at least they admit they have more than one set of standards.
There are of course those who claim that the real reason for the controversy over Tebow is his Christianity. But that is ridiculous. Lots of NFL players are Christians and quite open about it. You don't see for example, anything but praise for Drew Brees, a Christian quarterback who actually should be getting more attention before the Super Bowl than Tebow (I mean, like, Brees will actually be PLAYING Sunday, shouldn't that count for something?) Rather, it almost seems as if Tebow is hogging all the attention by putting his personal views on abortion ahead of the game itself, and whether he deserves that criticism or not has now become a punching bag for CBS' hypocritical position on accepting ads.
A bigger problem for Tebow is that even well ahead of draft day he's getting a reception from the NFL that is downright frosty. For starters, scouts have said that he doesn't have the skills to play in the NFL and downgraded his status to a third or fourth round pick at best.
Then, following rumors that the Jacksonville Jaguars might use their first round pick on Tebow (he played at the University of Florida and the Jags attendance is about what you'd expect for an expansion team that has worn out its welcome and is the least competitive team in what might be the NFL's toughest division,) a Jags player, and more specifically an offensive lineman unloaded on Tebow.
according to the Florida Times-Union:
[Offensive lineman Uche] Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.
So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:
"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.
2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.
3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.
4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.
5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."
Keep in mind that this is from one of the men who is supposed to put his body on the line to protect the quarterback from the Elvis Dumervils and the Dwight Freeneys of the NFL. In fact, he faces Freeney twice a year and wants to feel confident that the guy he's protecting is worth the beating his body takes keeping guys like that out of the backfield every week.
You can hear the frustration in Nwaneri's post. One of the few perks that come with losing is that your team gets a better position in the draft, which in theory should translate to better players. But if his team reaches up to burn their first round pick on a guy who they could probably get in the third round, his frustration would be justified. The idea that Tebow would put fans in the seats is ridiculous. He might for a few games, and as the columnist of the linked article points out,
even if Nwaneri and the legions of critics are right that Tebow is bound for NFL flopdom, I guarantee thousands of Georgia fans would be willing to make the drive down to the site of so many Cocktail Party aggravations for the sole purpose of watching their former tormenter operate behind a line that might not feel much like blocking for him.
Well, there is that. But if Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver is serious about attendance then he should be serious about using his first round and subsequent picks to put together a team that will win games, not bring out legions of anti-Tebow fans who will enjoy it every time Freeney or some other NFL Defensive nightmare blasts through the line and delivers a crunching hit on Tebow.
Nwaneri's comments are downright tame compared to the broadside delivered by a former NFL great. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann, who was known as a gentleman in the broadcast booth during an eighteen year stint with ESPN because he is loathe to criticize other players (and recognizing from personal experience what they risk every time they take the field,) said that Tebow should retire before draft day and not even try playing in the NFL.
Via Pro Football Talk, Theismann explained why:
"Rock star status preserved," Theismann said.
"Obviously at Florida they don't teach throwing the football," Theismann opined in explaining that Tebow's mechanics are "poor." Theismann also said that Urban Meyer and his staff have "no clue" regarding the process for preparing a quarterback to play "at the next level."
Retire now advises Joe, so at least he can still claim that he was too good for the NFL instead of too awful. Ouch, that one's gotta sting.
Of course the former Heisman winner will enter the draft, and if he's lucky even get drafted way ahead of where he should be by Jacksonville. And, give him a chance-- a lot of good players have been drafted low and turned out to be better than the scouts predicted (don't forget that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, who led the Cowboys to the playoffs this year and played in the pro bowl wasn't even drafted at all in 2003.)
But from day one, the spotlight will be burning hot on Tebow. And he'll need to bear up a lot better than he did when he lost to Alabama in the SCC championship game (hint: in the NFL men don't cry when they lose-- add 'crybaby' to the list of insults and ephithets he will hear every time he goes on the road.) And despite what anyone may say, it will burn hot on him because he's invited it.
For a guy whose stock has fallen off the table in the NFL draft, former Heismann winner Tim Tebow is sure getting more buzz ahead of he Super Bowl than, say Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, the quarterbacks who are actually in the game. Tebow has not yet played even a single down in the NFL and at least one former quarterback and respected commentator thinks he should keep it that way.
Tebow, who is the son of missionaries and grew up in a very fundamentalist household, is well known for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve (well actually wearing it on his face, writing Bible verses on his cheeks before every game.)
This week there is a big brouhaha over CBS' decision to air an anti-abortion ad featuring Tebow and his mother (who refused the advice of doctors to get an abortion because of her health and had him anyway) during the Super Bowl. Last year CBS said they would start allowing more controversial ads during the Super Bowl, but then they turned around and refused to allow an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating organization. So apparently their newfound tolerance in advertising only works one way. CBS then got in even deeper when they kept changing their story on the ManCrunch ad. First they said ad space was sold out for the Super Bowl. Then when it was shown that the ManCrunch ad had been submitted to them before some ads that were approved, they questioned whether the company could pay for the ad. When it was shown that they could and had the money available, CBS had to say it was about 'standards.' OK, at least they admit they have more than one set of standards.
There are of course those who claim that the real reason for the controversy over Tebow is his Christianity. But that is ridiculous. Lots of NFL players are Christians and quite open about it. You don't see for example, anything but praise for Drew Brees, a Christian quarterback who actually should be getting more attention before the Super Bowl than Tebow (I mean, like, Brees will actually be PLAYING Sunday, shouldn't that count for something?) Rather, it almost seems as if Tebow is hogging all the attention by putting his personal views on abortion ahead of the game itself, and whether he deserves that criticism or not has now become a punching bag for CBS' hypocritical position on accepting ads.
A bigger problem for Tebow is that even well ahead of draft day he's getting a reception from the NFL that is downright frosty. For starters, scouts have said that he doesn't have the skills to play in the NFL and downgraded his status to a third or fourth round pick at best.
Then, following rumors that the Jacksonville Jaguars might use their first round pick on Tebow (he played at the University of Florida and the Jags attendance is about what you'd expect for an expansion team that has worn out its welcome and is the least competitive team in what might be the NFL's toughest division,) a Jags player, and more specifically an offensive lineman unloaded on Tebow.
according to the Florida Times-Union:
[Offensive lineman Uche] Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.
So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:
"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.
2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.
3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.
4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.
5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."
Keep in mind that this is from one of the men who is supposed to put his body on the line to protect the quarterback from the Elvis Dumervils and the Dwight Freeneys of the NFL. In fact, he faces Freeney twice a year and wants to feel confident that the guy he's protecting is worth the beating his body takes keeping guys like that out of the backfield every week.
You can hear the frustration in Nwaneri's post. One of the few perks that come with losing is that your team gets a better position in the draft, which in theory should translate to better players. But if his team reaches up to burn their first round pick on a guy who they could probably get in the third round, his frustration would be justified. The idea that Tebow would put fans in the seats is ridiculous. He might for a few games, and as the columnist of the linked article points out,
even if Nwaneri and the legions of critics are right that Tebow is bound for NFL flopdom, I guarantee thousands of Georgia fans would be willing to make the drive down to the site of so many Cocktail Party aggravations for the sole purpose of watching their former tormenter operate behind a line that might not feel much like blocking for him.
Well, there is that. But if Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver is serious about attendance then he should be serious about using his first round and subsequent picks to put together a team that will win games, not bring out legions of anti-Tebow fans who will enjoy it every time Freeney or some other NFL Defensive nightmare blasts through the line and delivers a crunching hit on Tebow.
Nwaneri's comments are downright tame compared to the broadside delivered by a former NFL great. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann, who was known as a gentleman in the broadcast booth during an eighteen year stint with ESPN because he is loathe to criticize other players (and recognizing from personal experience what they risk every time they take the field,) said that Tebow should retire before draft day and not even try playing in the NFL.
Via Pro Football Talk, Theismann explained why:
"Rock star status preserved," Theismann said.
"Obviously at Florida they don't teach throwing the football," Theismann opined in explaining that Tebow's mechanics are "poor." Theismann also said that Urban Meyer and his staff have "no clue" regarding the process for preparing a quarterback to play "at the next level."
Retire now advises Joe, so at least he can still claim that he was too good for the NFL instead of too awful. Ouch, that one's gotta sting.
Of course the former Heisman winner will enter the draft, and if he's lucky even get drafted way ahead of where he should be by Jacksonville. And, give him a chance-- a lot of good players have been drafted low and turned out to be better than the scouts predicted (don't forget that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, who led the Cowboys to the playoffs this year and played in the pro bowl wasn't even drafted at all in 2003.)
But from day one, the spotlight will be burning hot on Tebow. And he'll need to bear up a lot better than he did when he lost to Alabama in the SCC championship game (hint: in the NFL men don't cry when they lose-- add 'crybaby' to the list of insults and ephithets he will hear every time he goes on the road.) And despite what anyone may say, it will burn hot on him because he's invited it.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Duncan Hunter afraid of hermaphrodite conspiracy to take over the military
Duncan Hunter, a rabid anti-immigration, anti-pretty much anything that makes sense congressman from California did himself one up Tuesday during an interview regarding President Obama's proposal to repeal the 'don't ask/don't tell' policy regarding gay service members.
It is hard to argue against the repeal of the policy, given the established fact that thousands of gay servicemen and women have served in America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In many cases their comrades in arms were fully aware of their sexual orientation (though they may have declined to 'tell' formally in order to avoid being booted out of the military) and in fact it has been a non-issue in the front lines. What matters in a war is whether someone can do and does do their job, period.
And further, it makes far more sense to integrate the armed services now, when there is no urgent national emergency of the type that might require a draft, than to be forced to do so in a dire national emergency when millions of young people suddenly announce publically they are gay the day after getting their conscription notices. Because let's be honest here-- if there ever is a draft, anyone who wants to dodge it will make such a public announcement and pretty much dare the army to boot them out, and if it happens on a massive scale would force the issue then-- at a time when we don't need to be fighting over it.
So what did Congressman Hunter say, exactly?
"You'll open the military up to hermaphrodites."
WHAT??
Does he even know what a hermaphrodite is? For the record a hermaphrodite has both male and female sex organs from birth, often as the result of a genetic abnormality (such as the presence of three sex chromosomes, XXY -- whereas a normal male is XY and a normal female is XX.) About one in every ten thousand Americans is a hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodites lead completely ordinary lives, with the exception that because they have both male and female characteristics they in some cases are able to decide which gender they would prefer to live as. In fact, in most cases sexual orientation, where it plays a role, tends to lead hermaphrodites to choose the gender opposite to that which they find most appealing.
What does repealing DADT have to do with hermaphrodites? A hermaphrodite is perfectly welcome to join the military right now, and I suspect (though there are no statistics on it that I'm aware of) that some have.
What Congressman Hunter's comment shows is an apalling level of ignorance. He obviously has no clue what a 'hermaphrodite' actually is, he just knows it's a word he can use to scare people who are as ignorant as he is.
What scares me is that there are actually people in the United States who just last year wanted this guy to become President!
It is hard to argue against the repeal of the policy, given the established fact that thousands of gay servicemen and women have served in America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In many cases their comrades in arms were fully aware of their sexual orientation (though they may have declined to 'tell' formally in order to avoid being booted out of the military) and in fact it has been a non-issue in the front lines. What matters in a war is whether someone can do and does do their job, period.
And further, it makes far more sense to integrate the armed services now, when there is no urgent national emergency of the type that might require a draft, than to be forced to do so in a dire national emergency when millions of young people suddenly announce publically they are gay the day after getting their conscription notices. Because let's be honest here-- if there ever is a draft, anyone who wants to dodge it will make such a public announcement and pretty much dare the army to boot them out, and if it happens on a massive scale would force the issue then-- at a time when we don't need to be fighting over it.
So what did Congressman Hunter say, exactly?
"You'll open the military up to hermaphrodites."
WHAT??
Does he even know what a hermaphrodite is? For the record a hermaphrodite has both male and female sex organs from birth, often as the result of a genetic abnormality (such as the presence of three sex chromosomes, XXY -- whereas a normal male is XY and a normal female is XX.) About one in every ten thousand Americans is a hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodites lead completely ordinary lives, with the exception that because they have both male and female characteristics they in some cases are able to decide which gender they would prefer to live as. In fact, in most cases sexual orientation, where it plays a role, tends to lead hermaphrodites to choose the gender opposite to that which they find most appealing.
What does repealing DADT have to do with hermaphrodites? A hermaphrodite is perfectly welcome to join the military right now, and I suspect (though there are no statistics on it that I'm aware of) that some have.
What Congressman Hunter's comment shows is an apalling level of ignorance. He obviously has no clue what a 'hermaphrodite' actually is, he just knows it's a word he can use to scare people who are as ignorant as he is.
What scares me is that there are actually people in the United States who just last year wanted this guy to become President!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Huppenthal shows arrogance by drilling holes in high school wall.
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.
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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
