Morning Coffee (143)

Good morning, Coffee Quaffers. There's nothing like waking up to 70 degrees with a slight overcast, calm seas, and dolphins playing merrily in my front yard.

I hope everyone enjoyed their celebration of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the unconquered sun. You may be confused because I said sun and not son. Well, from about, oh, the beginning of time until about 391 CE, people practiced all sorts of different religions, sometimes even freely. Most of these religions actually borrowed ideas from one another. Oddly enough, our present day moral guide, Christianity, was no different, and it co-opted all sorts of ideas from contemporary "pagan" religions; the celebration of the birth of a god on 25 December, the winter solstice, is merely one example among many.

Sol Invictus was a Roman god who was borrowed from eastern mystery cults. The name referred to three deities at different times during the Roman Empire. Sometime around 218 CE, Emperor Varius Avitus Bassianus, primarily known as Elagabalus, replaced Jupiter as the chief deity in the Roman pantheon with a Syrian god El-Gabal, who was the patron diety of Elagabalus' home town in Syria. Elagabalus changed the god's name to Sol Invictus, merging the god with another Roman god, Sol Indiges, an agrarian god who had been worshiped since republican times. Elagabalus even had himself circumcised so that he could become the high priest of the new religion. Since Elagabalus was strange even by Roman Emperor standards, he was killed by the Praetorian Guard in 222 CE.

Mithra is another deity who has been referred to as the Unconquered Sun, and was also borrowed from the East, specifically Persia, and was probably brought to Rome in the first century CE by Roman soldiers. Mithraism is a prime example of a mystery cult, and it had a wide appeal in the Roman Empire from the first to the fourth centuries CE, especially in the Roman army. Some scholars have proposed that the worship of Mithra rivaled the worship of Christ, and might have become the dominant religion had it been more inclusive. Strangely, Mithra may have been born of a virgin.

The final god was a deity whose officially sanctioned cult was brought into being by the Emperor Aurelian in 274 CE. It was Aurelian who likely created the festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti to celebrate Sol Invictus' birth on the winter solstice. It may be that this festival predates the nativity by 80 years. Until around 354 CE, Christ's birth date had been greatly debated. Scholars in the third century placed his birth anywhere from 20 May to 25 or 28 March, all in the spring months. Some scholars, such as Origen of Alexandria believed that "only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod)" celebrated birthdays. As late as 303 CE, Christian writer Arnobius opined that gods don't have birthdays. But eventually, Christ got a birthday, and it happened to be 25 December.

I'm not saying that early Christians took a pagan celebration of the winter solstice and turned it into Christ's birthday , but I will say that Sol Invictus, both in stone and on third century Roman coins, has head decorations similar to this guy.

No Membership Card? Dues Not Paid? No Problem!:
In a stunning move that has angered and confused evangelicals around the world, God recently has announced an easing of His millenia-old limits on membership to the exclusive Kingdom of Heaven. He's going so far as to abolishing restrictions altogether. The move contradicts His son's/own dictum that "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The Morning Coffee scored an exclusive interview with the Alpha and the Omega.

MC: Once you, through your son, said, "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Why the change?

Deus: I took a real close look at sola fide, and you know, the concept just didn't wash anymore. I mean, you look at heaven, and you know, there are like, billions of degenerates, I mean, people who just shouldn't be there. But they got in through sola fide, which I enacted in the early days in order to increase membership. It's really outlived its usefulness. Really, if you look at the new doctrine, that being that if you live a good life, you can get into Heaven, it's really a better method anyway. It ensures that our members will be of the highest quality. Further, this completes my transformation from a tyrannical megalomaniac into a softer, kinder, gentler deity.

MC: What do you say to your critics, for example, other deities such as Allah and Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as well as evangelical Christians, who've complained that the change in rules is unfair? Both groups say they've worked hard; Allah and Jupiter in carving their own niches, however small, and evangelicals in, you know, just accepting Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. How do you respond?

Deus: Burn in Hades? Hahahahaha!! No seriously, I mean, I'm God. I pretty much make the rules. My lawyers, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo, are presently drawing up paperwork to evict Allah and Jupiter, et al from Heaven. We're trying to do it right; trying to avoid what happened with Beelzebub. As far as the evangelicals, well, I guess they'll just have to buck up, eh? No more free passes.

There you have it, from the Man himself. (*The above is satire; a poor attempt to relieve the Blue Balls of Stiffled Creativity. Please don't issue a fatwa on me.)

While God himself might not have technically changed doctrine (how would we know?) a recent survey published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that most Americans (70%) believed that other religions could achieve eternal life. Evangelicals weren't happy, that much of my story was true. They stated that the people surveyed couldn't possibly have understood the question. So Pew asked again. Only 65% responded said the same this time. But when asked to clarify which religions would lead to eternal salvation, the respondents said all of them. Fifty percent of the respondents said that atheists could go to heaven. More painfully, nearly the same percentage of Christians felt one could achieve salvation by being a good person as Christians who felt that you must believe in Jesus. Worse still, nearly 20% of Christians think the Bible is not the word of God, but merely a book written by men. Maybe it's time for an Inquisition.

Maybe I'm not as bad of a person (horrible atheist) in the eyes of "regular folk" as I thought.

Presidential Paparazzi:
Barack Obama is the President (elect) of the United States of America, not Brad Pitt. Leave him alone on his vacation. Actually, leave him alone, period. We do not need to see pictures of him with his shirt off. Leave that sort of gimmickry to Vladimir Putin. We do not need to see him scattering the ashes of his grandmother into the Pacific Ocean. I'm all about press scrutiny, but this paparazzi coverage is too much. In fact, it's detrimental. If this sort of coverage doesn't cease, Obama will have cause to be very closed to the press, and that isn't a good thing.

MC Administrative Issues:
One reason that I haven't been posting as much as I would have liked during the Holiday break is that I have been having computer issues as well as have been trying to get my own, no kidding web page up and running (to little success). I have purchased my own web domain, and now have a host. However, unless you do it for a living or a hobby, setting up and running your own page isn't all that easy. In fact, it's a real pain in the ass. Why would I want to get away from the current format? Well, I don't really. It'll still be a blog, but it will give me the opportunity to better control the look and feel of the site. Also, I'd like to add other things to the Morning Coffee Empire. I'll probably have a forum, maybe a place for user-submitted content. Who knows? But I'm working diligently on getting it all up and running.

A weak Brew today, I know. But I don't want to become like some other bloggers and not publish anything of substance.

Word of the Day: Ramble (verb, noun): 1. To wander about. (noun): A walk for pleasure without predetermined destination. (verb): To talk or write about one thing and then another without useful connection.

On This Day in History: Galileo observes Neptune (1612). The United States claims Midway, the first overseas territory annexed (1867). San Francisco has its first municipally owned street cars (1912). The first American test-tube baby is born in Norfolk, VA (1981). Montgomery Ward goes out of business after 128 years (2000). Jerry Orbach, who played Detective Lennie Briscoe on Law and Order, died (2004). Nepal abolishes its monarchy (2007).

"A moth ate words. I thought that was a marvelous fate, that the worm, a thief in the dark, should eat a man's words, his brilliant language and its sturdy foundation. Not a whit the wiser was he for having fattened himself on those words." - A Riddle from the Exeter Book.

Morning Coffee (142)

There are days, like today, that I feel terrible about the prospects for my country. Unless I'm using it to make a point, I try to avoid the dramatic in the Morning Coffee, as it does little save elevate the blood pressure and cause ulcers. But it is sometimes exceedingly difficult. I'm going to write about a few things, and will make every effort to avoid losing my mind (Marine speak for becoming exceptionally angry) while doing it.

Behavioral Modification Through Taxation:
First, we should discuss the recent slew of new taxes presented to you by Governor David Patterson of New York. Due to our governments' (collective) complete and total inability to spend what they earn, we face tax increases. In New York, Governor Patterson has decided to tax or increase fees on all sorts of things such as beer, non-diet sugary drinks (18% tax on anything with less than 70% juice), tobacco (specifically a 50 cent increase on cigars), cab fares, movie and sporting events, digital music downloads, and vehicle licensing and registrations in order to make up a budget shortfall of $15.4 billion. Not million, BILLION. This is done under the additional guise of "slashing spending." I say guise because the budget has actually increased

What I find almost more offensive than outright lying is the fact that many of Patterson's goals revolve around modifying your behavior. How? By his so-called obesity tax on non-diet soda and his increase in taxes on tobacco products. See, you're too stupid to regulate your own consumption of nasty foods and products, so Patterson wants to increase the cost to you in order to dissuade you from purchasing those products. Most of these behavioral modification taxes are enacted with the rational that these increases will stuff the coffers and help offset the medical costs that obesity and lung cancer incur. Or in some cases, these new taxes will fund education or some other such item which apparently cannot be funded through normal means. Oddly, no one seems to take into consideration that if these taxes were to have the desired effect, then the money derived from these taxes would be minimal.

Regardless, you have allowed yourself to become the government's ward. You can still choose to buy and consume things that are bad for you, of course, since they're not illegal. But you'll pay more for them. And that's really what people do. Proponents of these taxes claim that the rate of smoking is now below 20% nationwide largely because purchasing tobacco products is cost prohibitive. Not true, my friends. I don't know of anyone who's stopped smoking because the cost of cigarettes has gone up too high. Everyone I know who's stopped smoking has done so because it's bad for them. The low rate of smoking is the result of a decades long effort to educate people. The same should be done with unhealthy foods. Legislation and taxation are poor ways to modify behavior (Prohibition).

This whole thing is just strange to me. Very inconsistent. New taxes on soda with the primary aim of decreasing consumption, but the authors of these taxes do not pose that they wish for a decrease in consumption of iTunes downloads, though it seems by their logic it would have the same effect. But I thought the new taxes were supposed to rectify budget shortfalls. I'm confused. Equally perplexing is a new 4% tax increase on "personal services," which would include gym memberships. Wait, you don't want us to be fat, so you increase taxes on junk food in order to decrease our consumption of such things, but also increase the taxes on healthy activities and services that would combat obesity?

I hate to be crass, but in this case it's the blind (literal) leading the blind (figurative).

You can read some more about the taxes and fees here. I think my favorite is the mandate for all drivers to have new "reflectorized" license plates, at a cool $25 a piece.

Increasing Taxes on Tobacco is State-Sponsored Terrorism:
Governor Patterson might not know it, but he's a terrorist supporter. Cigarette smuggling is a major problem in states with high tobacco taxes, where smugglers can make $2 million on a single truckload of smokes. Many of these smugglers have ties to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and our favorite, al-Qaida. See, higher taxes don't mean less smokers, only education and a desire to be healthy can do that. Instead, increasing taxation on tobacco drives more smokers to purchase cigarettes from "independent dealers" who buy their stock in tobacco friendly states like Virginia and North Carolina. Would you rather pay $75 for a carton or $60 for a carton?

Consider, also, that the State of New York loses over a half a billion dollars in tax revenue due to smuggling. I think that a lower tax rate might actually offset the loss in revenue. Instead, New York will increase spending to combat smuggling, while raising the taxes on all sorts of things in order to afford it. They miss the point.

Engineer a Financial Crisis, Get a 2.8% Raise:
Imagine if your inability to effectively do your job actually got you a pay raise. That wouldn't be a bad gig at all, especially if you got to name your successor when you left for whatever reason. This is what our Congress has turned into. They reward themselves for complete and total ineptitude. I've written about this in the past, when I was a young blogger, so I'd rather not delve into it again. Suffice it to say, the raise is automatic to cover "cost of living" increases. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is at 6.7% and likely rising, families all across the country are struggling, and Governor Schwarzenegger has mandated that all state workers take two unpaid days of leave a month. The American Worker is not doing so well. But Congress needs that $4,700 more a year. We don't even get a token gesture from our elected leaders. I shouldn't call them leaders, honestly. But they all sympathize...so much so that they demand that CEOs freeze their own out of control pay.

Don't think that my short missive on this in any way means I care less about it than I do about inane taxation. This makes me positively livid. The disingenuous bullshit from our employees (elected officials) should make us all sick. But it doesn't really. Besides, the news has come out now, and in two years when these idiots are up for reelection, we'll have forgotten all about their insulting behavior of allowing themselves a raise in what many are calling, right or wrong, the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Chronic Cronyism from a Conscientious Congress:
Hey, let's turn our Legislative body into one based not on ability (is it now even?) and the will of the electorate, but into one based on heredity. What do you say? Read a little bit about it here.

If I could enact one thing (okay, two: term limits), it would be that our elected officials must step down from their positions if they choose to seek another office, and that in doing so, an election, special or otherwise, is mandated so that another individual can be ELECTED to this freshly vacated office. This way, we wouldn't have Blagojevich wanting to sell a Senate seat or Patterson, who's decision making skills have been illustrated a few paragraphs ago, possibly selecting Andrew Cuomo (son of Mario Cuomo - longtime NY Governor) or Caroline Kennedy as New York's Senate representative. Or in Delaware, where Joe Biden's crony Ted Kaufman has been selected by Governor Ruth Minner to take Biden's spot. Kaufman will ostensibly hold the seat until 2010, when Beau Biden, Joe's son, can run in a "special election" in 2010, after he returns from Iraq. At least in the case of Delaware, the appearance of the electoral process took place, though Joe's opposition wasn't given much of a chance since he didn't bother to actually campaign for the seat he's held since 1972.

*****

We are the stewards of our nation. We are the ones who elect these people to lead. We have forgotten our responsibilities, and we are now paying, and will continue to pay, the price for our transgressions. As the Declaration of Independence states, governments are instituted among men, and derive their powers through the consent of the governed. We have given our consent to be governed like fools and sheep. When will we realize that it's time to revoke that consent? Revolution, as was necessary in 1776, I am not suggesting. But your will, our will, can be heard through other means. We can demand that our employees are accountable. Will we? I doubt it, for I have nearly lost faith in you.

Word of the Day: Jaded (adjective): Worn out; tired; weary.

On This Day in History: Vespasian, a general under Nero, enters Rome to claim the title of emperor (69 CE). Richard the Lion-Heart is captured by Leopold V of Austria on his way home from signing a treaty with Saladin (1522). The Virginia Company loads three ships with settlers and sets sail to establish Jamestown, Virginia, the first English settlement in the Americas (1606). The Cheka, the first Soviet secret police, is founded (1917).

"They don't even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it's wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise." - Steve Ellis, VP of Taxpayers for Common Sense. by $1.3 billion, part of which is illustrated by the increase in Medicaid spending by $500 million.

Morning Coffee (141)

Again, an edition of the weekend Coffee, since that's the only time I have to write.

Indulge me, as I discuss something most of you might not care about.

"Mad Dog" Sails into Sunset:

In the waning days of the summer of 1995, I had an awakening of sorts when I saw a Cleveland Indians' game on television. Something clicked for me with the game of baseball, and it was love at first sight. It was also the beginning of a love-hate-anguish relationship with the Tribe. That year, they were a 25-man wrecking ball of offense, pouring on the runs with the speedy Kenny Lofton at the top a lineup featuring future Hall of Famers Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez and Omar Vizquel, along with another man, Albert Belle, who would have been a lock for the Hall had his hip not given up on him. These guys were backed by a decent starting rotation, and a couple of fireballing relievers. They put the finishing touches on their Central Division championship pretty early that year, going 100-44 in a strike shortened season. And low and behold, they found themselves in their first World Series since 1952.

But the Tribe fell short that year, largely because of a slightly built, nerdy looking Atlanta Braves pitcher who I had never heard of: Greg Maddux. Maddux started two games against the Indians during the World Series and won them both. After seeing him and the other two members of the trifecta of doom, Tom Glavin and John Smoltz, completely disassemble the world's greatest offense, I was hooked. Greg Maddux became my favorite pitcher that year, a year in which he went 19-2 with an other-worldly 1.63 ERA, and he remained so until his retirement from pitching this past Monday.

Maddux wasn't like most of the pitchers you probably heard of during the 1990s. He didn't throw 95 miles per hour or more. He wasn't a big, strong dude who struck out batters by the dozen. He didn't have a knee-buckling curveball; his frankly rated little better than a good high schooler's curveball. He didn't have a jaw-dropping splitter. He was just a regular looking guy. His success was derived partly from laser-like accuracy (a mere 999 walks in 23 years) and a late moving, if not particularly fast fastball. But make no mistake about it, Maddux conquered baseball with something beyond pure physical skill: his intellect. This was how he thrived in an era of high-octane offense. And that's why I liked Maddux. He was as analytical as anyone in the game, and was perhaps more so than anyone. They called him "The Professor." My favorite bit of Maddux trivia illustrates the intellectual vigor with which he approached the game. He said that during warm ups and bullpen sessions, he threw more pitches from the stretch, the stance used with runners on base, because, he said, "when is it more important to execute a pitch, with runners on base or with no one on?" In another instance, Braves staff were reviewing scouting reports when Maddux chimed in, "that report is wrong, I've been watching [blank] during batting practice." They're reply, "throw out the scouting report. Listen to Mad Dog." He once watched a player take his BP cuts and leaned over to another player and said, "We might have to call an ambulance for the first base coach." Sure enough, the first base coach got drilled in the chest on the very next pitch. He could tell where the ball was going just by the placement of the hitter's body in the batter's box. Which was probably the reason he won an unprecedented 18 Gold Glove awards, 13 of them consecutively.

Despite his success (i.e. four consecutive Cy Young Awards), he was humble in demeanor. More than this, his reputation is without blemish. No one would ever accuse Maddux of using performance enhancing anything, unless they were referring to his 100-lbs brain, of course. And get this, Maddux, winner of 355 games, is the winningest pitcher alive, a title he will certainly carry until his death. Thankfully Maddux overcame the now-tainted Roger Clemens.

So Monday was, for me, a time of reflection and a bit of sadness. Every time Greg Maddux came up for free agency (which wasn't very often in this free agent mad world), or when trade rumors circulated (again, very infrequently), I hoped that I'd see him pitch in an Indians' uniform. It never happened, but I still count myself lucky to have seen one of the greatest pitchers to have ever played the game.

The Great Overachiever:
It amuses me that the man who was supposed to change everything is already mired in a political scandal, and he's still more than a month from being sworn in as our President. So much for Washington outsider, eh?

As of right now, nothing reported points to Obama having anything to do with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his desire to sell off Obama's now vacant Senate seat. And it might be that nothing ever does, though that doesn't prevent the stain of the scandal from setting on his Inauguration. Especially as it is becoming more evident that Obama's soon-to-be Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who has close ties to both Obama and Blagojevich, at the very least talked with Blago about the Senate vacancy. And it doesn't help that neither Obama nor Emanuel made more than a token effort to answer questions about this scandal this past week, with Emanuel being downright hostile to questions. At least Obama tried, proclaiming that he was confident that no representatives of his engaged with Blagojevich regarding the selection of a replacement Senator. That assertion losses credence when Emanuel apparently called Blago's Chief of Staff, John Harris (who has also been brought up on federal corruption charges) just prior to Election Day and presented to Harris a list of names that Obama would find acceptable. Emanuel then called back after the election to add another name to the "approved of" list. Very interesting.

Did Obama or Emanuel do anything illegal? Not as far as I can tell. But Blagojevich surely intended to gain personally from his selection of Obama's Senate replacement, that much is clear from the transcripts of the taped conversations Blagojevich had with Harris and others. Even if Obama and his representative Emanuel did nothing technically illegal, the appearance of impropriety is there, despite Blagojevich's tapped statement that "they" (Obama's administration) were unwilling to give him anything except appreciation (if that's true, I give kudos to Obama and his proxies). Appearances trump reason in all cases. Mayhap Emanuel will the sacrificial lamb here. A good cleansing cures a great deal.

With that, I sidebar into another Morning Coffee sponsored political reform proposal, which I'll continue to repeat ad nauseum: when one politician decides to run for another office, he/she must give up their present office so that another may run (see previous rant on Joe Biden's seat in Delaware). This way, the People (you remember those guys, right?), can select their own Representation (imagine that) and we take remove such power from the hands of an individual. Selecting replacements for vacancies is highly political, and it is of such importance that I do not trust any one person to make that choice on our behalf.

The Rapidly Expiring Honeymoon:
The Blagojevich controversy comes on the heals of a wide-spread malaise in liberal circles. It seems that many, still warm from the euphoria of having the so-called Chosen One actually win, are being slapped in the face with the cold, hard hand called Reality. The fanboys are still fanboys, but there's an uneasiness; a concern that Obama might not do or be what he claimed he would. Many are angered over his Cabinet selections. One blogger, Chris Bower of OpenLeft says, "Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?" Backsliding abounds, friends. I really haven't any intention of going into all the instances of Obama's adjustments on Iraq or tax cuts or whatever, but suffice it to say, I find it rather humorous. All those idealists who'll have their hopes and dreams shattered when they realize that Obama's just like the rest: he'll say whatever sounds good at the time. It's called political expediency. This, dear readers, is part of the reason I wanted a Democrat to win. Sue me, I get joy in seeing hopes and dreams crushed.

The flip side is, the fears of many conservatives are likely alleviated to some degree (not fully, of course, he still is a Democrat), but they'll never admit it. They've put too much effort in calling Obama a socialist, etc, etc, to ever back off from those assertions.

I leave you with that. It's time to go play on the beach, where it's sunny and 50 degrees plus already. Life is mostly good. Enjoy your Coffee and your day.

Word of the Day: Dastard (noun): A mean coward.

On This Day in History: Nostradamus is born (1503). The Wright Brothers make their first attempt to fly at Kitty Hawk (1903). The Soviet Union is expelled from the League of Nations after invading Finland (1939). George Bush announces the capture of Saddam Hussein (2003).

"I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time. It's a sad day for Illinois." - President-elect Barack Obama on the Blagojevich controversy. Is this the type of leadership we can expect for the next four years?

Morning Coffee (140)

The other day was Black Friday. I trust that if you dared to brave long lines, you have returned safely. Who knew that shopping could result in your death by stampede. Wow. I was only going to make mention of it to keep you safe, but Holy Baby Jesus, this is unreal. A man was knocked down and trampled and, unable to get up, probably suffocated when the unwashed masses continued to roll over him, concerned only with getting five bucks off the latest Chinese-made, possibly poisoned, toy. While the paramedics worked on him, the people just kept on rolling in. A woman was also knocked down, but only she suffered a miscarriage as a result (sarcasm, folks). Yay, Christmas!

Global War on Terror:
In case you've been living in a cocoon the past few days, I thought I would bring to your attention a situation that has just recently ended (warning - graphic photos) involving a group of gunmen in a 59-hour standoff with Indian security forces in the Taj Majal Hotel in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India. The death toll in the attack, carried out by 10 men, is approaching 200.

Azam Amir Kasab, who pretended to be dead, was the only survivor from the cadre of terrorists. Indian officials are commenting on his interrogation, saying that he confessed to being a member of the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT), that his group's goal was to kill 5,000 people, and that he was instructed to target white people, preferably Americans and British.

While these reports may be true, Indians tend to attribute most bad events that happen in their country to Pakistani operatives. With this being said, I find it likely that the LeT conducted this attack. Though it should be noted that as of my Brewing, the LeT has not claimed this attack, but we all know that does not rule them out. This attack was well-coordinated and likely well-funded - hallmarks of LeT action.

For perspective, the LeT was formed in Afghanistan in 1991 to participate in the conflict with the Najibullah regime. Thus, it has ties to other groups created in Afghanistan, such as our favorite group al-Qaida. The LeT's desires go far beyond that of the typical Pakistani terrorist group's goal of establishing Pakistani control over Kashmir. LeT wishes to do that and more; to reestablish Islamic control over South Asia and parts of Russia and China.

This attack will not improve Indian-Pakistani relations, which must be the understatement of the year. Right or wrong, India perceives Pakistan as being the puppet-master of terrorist activity in Indian Kashmir and throughout India. Pakistan likes to make a public show of denouncing terrorism, but has a fairly well established history of privately supporting foreign groups (remember the Taliban?).

The Indian government, the worlds largest democracy, is under intense public pressure to act. Already, the the Indian Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, has resigned, stating that he takes moral responsibility for failing to prevent the attack. But the problem with Indian security forces go beyond poor intelligence. And it should be remembered that even good intelligence will not prevent all possible terrorist activity. Intelligence aside, security forces were unable to project an effective response even after the attack began as they lacked experience and the necessary equipment to quickly deal with the armed men. Of course, it might not have mattered, because investigations into the causes and times of deaths of the victims show that most were killed right at the beginning of the attack.

On the other hand, the terrorist group benefited from excellent intelligence, collection, and targeting, even knowing the time of the tides, having possibly planned the attack for a year. The men had good training; studying explosives, close quarters battle, and beach landings (hence the tidal times). The group planned for two possible targets. To me, the attention to detail exhibited by this group rivals that of some of the world's leading special forces units. I leave proof to the words of one member of India's National Security Guard, who called them the best fighters he had ever encountered:

"They were obviously trained by professionals in urban guerrilla fighting. They used their environment and situation brilliantly, leading us (the NSG) on a dangerous chase through various tiers of the hotel which they obviously knew well. Their fire discipline too was excellent and they used their ammunition judiciously, mostly to draw us out. It was amply clear they came to kill a large number of people and to eventually perish in their horrific endeavour. Negotiating with the Indian authorities or escaping was not an option for them."

Their only failure, it seems, was underestimating how solidly built the Taj Mahal Hotel was, as they were unable to demolish it using their explosives.

Rich Old Men Ask That Taxpayers Afford Them the Dignity of Operating Private Jet:
Completely switching gears, General Motors, who are asking that the US Government "loan" them money so they can continue to operate, have also asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to remove their private jets from FAA tracking. This is another way of saying they don't want the public to know how they use the luxury planes. See, they caught some flak (no pun intended) for CEO Richard Wagoner's use of a leased Gulfstream jet to fly from Detroit to Washington, DC on 18 November to ask for a $25 billion "loan." Beleaguered Ford's and Chrysler's CEOs also used private jets to fly to DC to ask for their share in the "Big Three Loan." Democrat Gary Ackerman said to them, "Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class?"

Anyone else need federal bailout, er, loan money to operate their private jets? I know I do. Actually, I need bailout money to pay on my GM truck, which will in turn help out GM.

GM actually had the audacity to email me to tell me that they need my help. They clarified to me that they were not asking for "bailout" money, but a loan, which they'll pay back. And they asked that I call my Representative to lobby on their behalf. I find it interesting that average Americans can't get loans nowadays because of fear they won't pay them back, but GM believes it is entitled to a loan because its managers cannot manage their money and are vital to the US economy in a way that consumers clearly are not.

Liberal = Bush + Franken * Hypocrisy:
Al Franken, famous from his days on Saturday Night Live (I only remember him as Stuart Smalley, but he was a figure on the show for 15 years), has been in a fight with incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman for a Senate seat. This has gone on since 04 November and will likely continue despite the state Canvassing Board denying Franken's request to access ballots rejected by poll workers. Coleman is presently winning by 292 votes. So Franken is seeking other options, like going to the courts.

The details, such as the number of votes one candidate has over another, or the number of ballots that are in question, do not interest me as much as the fact that Franken, a liberal, is threatening to do much the same thing that Bush is criticized for doing in 2000. Of course, all the whining and crying is covered up by legalese and protocol and talk of "every vote counting." I get the impressing that, because this one seat will help determine the strength of the Democrat faction in the Senate, certain people care less about "every vote counting" than they do about winning. I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, Franken, like Coleman now, would be against the inclusion of certain ballots.

Word of the Day: Incursion (noun): 1. A sudden attack; invasion, raid. 2. A running or flowing in.

On This Day in History: Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator allegedly kills herself by asp bite (30 BCE). You can find a beautiful painting of the incident by Guido Cagnacci HERE (warning - nudity). Representatives from the US and Great Britain sign preliminary peace articles in Paris (1782). This was later formalized as the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Spanish representatives transfer the Louisiana Territory to the French. Twenty days later France transfers the same land to the US (1803). Iran seizes the Tunb Islands from the United Arab Emirates (1971). Lucy (Australopithecus) is discovered in Ethiopia (1974).

Morning Coffee (139)

Happy Give-Thanksing.

Apologies, Coffee drinkers, for failing to deliver two steaming cups in a row. You may boycott me if you wish.

Stupid is as Stupid Does:
I have said for years that if our nation falls, it will be because of one underlying cause from which all other problems will be derived: the lack and erosion of civil virtue. With civic virtue comes civic knowledge, and through that knowledge citizens can take not only an active part in our nation, but also a meaningful part. A citizenry that lacks civic virtue cannot have adequate civic knowledge, and thus, they can not make meaningful contributions. What contributions that they do make, will be poor, and perhaps even detrimental.

Let me be clear on one thing. We are losing our civic knowledge, which is a clear indicator that our civic virtue has long since began to erode. Want proof? Two-thousand five-hundred eight American adults, with education levels ranging from advanced degrees to no high school diplomas, were given 33 multiple choice questions on various subjects pertaining to "civil literacy," or American history and institutions, by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). The results are appalling. The segment from Harvard, unsurprisingly, did the best with a 69.56. Fifty-six percent of the Americans who took part in this test could identify Paula Abdul correctly - as a judge on "American Idol." Easy, right? But only 21% recognized a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. Only 24% are aware that the establishment of an official religion is barred by the First Amendment. I'm sure they all know that it entitles them to all sorts of "free speech" though, since they all yammer about that even if they're cursing in a restaurant.

You are not inoculated to failure by getting a college degree, either. A bachelor's degree will net an average score of 57%, or failing. Tens of thousands of dollars spent on a bachelor's degree will translate into a score increase of 13 percentage points over those with "merely" a high school diploma. College EDUCATORS scored a 55.

What, you might ask, is scarier than a citizenry whose ignorance leaves them ripe for manipulation by politicians hell bent on subverting the Constitution? How about politicians who don't know what the Constitution says? The ISI's report says, "Elected officials score lower than the general public." Imagine that.

You can take ISI's quiz, HERE if you'd like. I scored an 84.8, which while far and away better than most, still saddens me.

I must say one thing, in full disclosure. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute traditionally has a conservative bent, so some of the economic-based questions probably have "ISI correct answers" that a liberal typically wouldn't agree with. I didn't like that aspect, even though I'm not even remotely an economist - and because I'm not, I didn't really "get" some of the answers. But while I can argue that those questions are biased, questions asking which speech a certain popular phrase came from are fair game, and Americans failed them as frequently as they did the biased questions.

But take a look at the summary page on the test results. Conservatives, who would agree with the ISI's assertions on the economic questions, fared worse than liberals. You can peruse other portions of the test, such as the major findings, additional findings, and the survey method. I think that after weighing all evidence, one can come away from this firmly convinced that we're in trouble.

"Office of the President-Elect?":
As you may have recently seen, Barack Obama has taken to giving press conferences in front of a podium labeled "The Office of the President Elect." This has sparked a great deal of discussion in the media, to include the so-called blogosphere. It is also preposterous. When this first came out, many bloggers and pundits, including a surprisingly high number of liberals, were somewhat taken aback by Obama's use of this term and podium adornment, feeling it was cheap showmanship. Then Obama's defenders brought to bear the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, interpreting that this act created such an Office. And then there was all sorts of apologizing and retractions, made reluctantly by most conservative bloggers, who in their apology just criticized something else.

But there was no need to apologize or retract anything. There is no Office of the President Elect. What the Presidential Transition Act does is give support to the President-elect and his staff in order to ease the transition. It gives office space, if the President-elect asks for it. Office space is not an Office (proper noun). It allows the President-elect and Vice-President-elect to use the mail in the performance of transition related duties. Free mail use does not an Office make. Let me repeat for those of you who are easily swayed by feeble arguments that office space equals and Office: The so-called Office of the President Elect, while used before Obama, exists not in reality, but in the minds of ego-maniacal politicians with a flair for showmanship. See, an Office (proper noun) must have powers associated with it, otherwise it's not an Office. Do you see the difference between the two? There is no Office of the President Elect. Obama has no power to do anything. There may be office space for the President-elect, but no Office of said person. Obama has even said as much, which makes his use of the "Office" even more absurd.

Further, Obama technically isn't the President-elect yet. That doesn't happen until the Electoral College convenes in December. Nevertheless, I have no problem calling him the President-elect. The Electoral College will elect him. But I do have a problem with these faux-Offices with no power invented solely to make someone appear more authoritative. You're going to be the President, buddy, stop with the theatrics. Especially when you've already been criticized before for such things.

Muhammad, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny:
Germany's first Professor of Islamic Theology, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, recently asked that someone kill him as soon as possible. Kalisch has concluded, through years of theological research, that the Prophet Muhammad probably never existed. But the man who converted to Islam at 15 insists that he's still a Muslim; he just wanted to subject Islam to the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism, noting that German scholars first questioned the accuracy of the Bible in the 19th century.

Kalisch was slow to come to his conclusion, however. When he first arrived at Munster University in 2004, he was criticized as being too conservative, defending sharia, adamantly. But he read books questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and felt that while he had dealt with Christianity and Judaism, he needed to deal with his own. So he did, obviously. He also questions the veracity of the Qu'ran, saying, "God doesn't write books." Not surprisingly, Kalisch has been declared an apostate, which in Islam means that he must be killed.

Kalisch has some guts, I'll give him that, even though I really don't care whether or not Muhammad was a real person. The fact doesn't make Islam's or Christianity's present day followers any less real.

This issue was first brought to my attention in the 15-16 November issue of "The Wall Street Jounal."

I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. I'll try to Brew some more tomorrow. Enjoy the Coffee and the Turkey.

Word of the Day: Emollient (adjective): 1. Softening or soothing. (noun) 1. Something that softens or soothes.

On This Day in History: The Roman poet Horace died (8 BCE). Pope Urban II declares the First Crusade (1095). Alfred Nobel signs his last will and testament, effectively establishing the Nobel Prize (1896). The first Mac's Thanksgiving Day Parade is held (1924). Lyndon Johnson is told by the Pentagon that the number of troops in Vietnam must be increased from 120,000 to 400,000 if planned operations are to succeed (1965).

"Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people." - Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney.

Morning Coffee (138)

Your Brewer is still in the Coffee business, I assure you. There's just so little time these days.

Semi-Change We Can Sort of Believe In:
Everyone, how is your change? No, I'm not asking for a status report on your pocket change. I'm asking about the change you were promised during the recent election and how it's working out for you. Personally, I'm impressed. President-elect Obama's choices for his Cabinet consist largely of unknowns. Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm. Arizona governess Janet Napolitano. Senator John Kerry. New Mexico governor and recent Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. I've heard Dick Gephardt's name thrown around too. Oh, wait. They're sort of well-known; infamous even. Good times. Well, when you're candidate's entire platform is as vague as "change" then I suppose you sort of get what you paid for. I mean, it is technically change, right?

Since we're talking about change, we might as well discuss the debacle of the Clinton nomination to the post of Secretary of State. Some say it's impossible, that Obama is suggesting her to placate some Democrats who feel jaded by Obama's failure to select her as his running mate. Some say that Obama will use Bill Clinton's many donors as a reason not to select her for the top diplomatic spot. Some say she won't accept it because after all, she's a Senator already. On one had, she should be wary, because as Colin Powell once noted, the Secretary of State serves at the President's leisure. He could fire her in two years. Then she'd be out of a government job altogether. But I say that she'll take the post, and will be confirmed with ease. This will be good in one sense, as New York will hopefully get a Senator who, you know, actually lived in New York.

"Let There be Jobs...and Other Stuff!":
By 2011, Barack Obama will "create 2.5 million jobs...to rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars." And on the Seventh Day, he will rest.

Final Political Thoughts of the Day:
Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

Also, I would like to propose that all persons seeking higher office must relinquish their present position in order to run for that higher office. For example, if I'm a sitting senator, and I'm say, selected as a running mate to a Presidential candidate or if I decide to run for President myself, then I give up my seat in the Senate. If I fail in my VP/Presidential bid, then I'm out of a job. I'm welcome to run for office again in the future, of course.

Why would I have such a stupid idea? To avoid situations like in Delaware, where Joe Biden kept his seat in the Senate, but will not serve out his term as he's the next VP. I should also mention that he refused to debate his challenger, which meant that she was unable to do much campaigning. There are rules in Delaware that forbid certain campaigning unless both candidates are present. So now the governor of Delaware gets to pick the Senator, which doesn't sound terribly democratic in my humble view.

More pragmatically, I don't get to tell my boss that I'm going to leave work four days out of five in order to look for work elsewhere, but that I expect to be paid as if I were doing my job, and that if I fail to secure another job, I expect to be able to come back to work as if nothing had happened. Why should politicians be afforded something so utterly unfeasible most American workers?

Arrrr, these be pirate waters, matey:
Have you heard about this piracy situation? Well you would have five months ago had the Morning Coffee not been hijacked (pun intended) by the Presidential election. I had been planning on writing expressing my assessment that the problem would explode by 2009. Now I just look like a jumper of bandwagons.

Regardless, the problem has indeed exploded, most notably off the Horn of Africa (get a map), but also in the Gulf of Guinea. The Somali pirates have attacked more than 140 ships this year, and hijacked 36 of them, including the largest ship ever captured, the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star, which is carrying two million barrels of oil (~$100 million worth) and was destined for the United States. A few months ago, the pirates took the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying Soviet/Russian made weapons. The Kenyan government estimates that the Somali pirates have made $150 million so far. Nigerian pirates, both in and out of water, were blamed as part of the reason oil soared above $100 a barrel. Where is that money going? Some fear to Islamic extremists in Somalia. Check out THIS map to see the global activity of pirates.

Clearly, these pirates have become more brazen. I attribute this to companies' willingness to pay ransom demands for ships and crews captured. This is a cycle: pirates capture ships, demanding on average $2 million per, companies pay them, they buy new equipment intent on taking more ships and making more money. The problem grows. I think, though, that these pirates will become victims of their own success. The capture of the Sirius Star is likely the breaking point. Two million barrels of oil is a lot, and that does have an impact on the global markets. If these pirates get $35 million or more for the ship and its cargo, then they will be encouraged to do it again, and most nations don't like having their oil supply messed with.

The US Navy has been chomping at the bit for a mission, with the Army and Marine Corps getting all the glory in Iraq and Afghanistan. It now looks like they might have one. Problem is, the Navy has been shadowing the MV Faina since September, and hasn't really done anything. This is not due to a lack of capability, but a lack of guidance and direction from higher (i.e. the President/NATO/UN). The US Navy would make mincemeat out of most pirate vessels, and the Marine Corps and special ops units deploying from Navy ships have a capability called VBSS - visit, board, search, and seizure. I will say though, 2.5 million square miles of ocean is a lot of area to cover, so finding ships is sometimes problematic. But again, someone has to direct the Navy to act. This is all very touchy with the Law of the Sea and what not. Of course, the United States and its sailors and Marines do have some experience fighting piracy.

That is all for today. Perhaps more tomorrow?

Word of the Day: Nabob (NAY-bob) (noun): 1. A native ruler in India in the Mogul empire; by extension, a person from Indian who has made a fortune there. 2. A very wealthy and prominent person, a mogul.

On This Day in History: British pirate Edward Teach (Blackbeard) is killed off the coast of North Carolina by a boarding party led by Lieutenant Robery Maynard (1718). President John Kennedy is assassinated (1963). Mike Tyson defeats Trevor Berbick to become the youngest heavyweight champ in history (1986).

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." - Anonymous.

Edit: Corrected my apparently atrocious spelling.

Morning Coffee (137)

Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.

You might not have realized, and it surely doesn't seem it, but six days ago marked the second anniversary of the Morning Coffee. I wanted to post something on the actual anniversary, but with weddings to attend and moves to make, I didn't get to it. Anyway, it does not seem like I've been doing this (on and off) for two years. One hundred and thirty seven issues and a few random posts (including my first guest writer) later, the "MC" has evolved from a simple email outlining a few early morning thoughts into something, well, sometimes fairly interesting and even insightful. It's been a lot of fun, even though our readership hasn't grown as much as I might like. Despite this, the MC has been read by someone on every continent save Antarctica. We've been read in China, Britain, Brazil, Germany, and Nepal. Imagine that. I hope it's been as fun for you to read as it has for me to write.

Some of you might wonder about the time stamps on each edition. You may have noticed that each MC is labeled as having been posted at 0621 (that's 6:21 AM for you civilians). This is simply to mark the time I first emailed the MC to a few select individuals. But that's not to say the format or content can never change. This is a consumer driven product, and if the consumers have something that they'd like to see implemented, the Brewer is always open to suggestions.

President Obama, or The Election 2008:
I am sure you are expecting a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the election. I am sure you expected some profound Morning Coffee on Election Day. I apologize that I can not and could not accommodate you. I've driven somewhere around 1,000 miles in three days last week, started a new job on Monday, and have attempted to establish a routine in my new home, so I wasn't in much of a position to read and research and write. What can I say? I missed the boat.

As I'm sure you are aware, the election is over. We have a new President. Believe it or not, nearly four years ago or so, after seeing Obama speak on television, I called a friend of mine and told him that I believed we were watching our next President. A lot has happened since then, but I rarely wavered on my assessment. Obviously, I was right. I probably wasn't right for the right reasons, but I was right. Believe me when I say that he's not my pick. He's not even in my top 20. But, he's our President. He's my Commander-in-Chief. People voted; they spoke their minds through the ballot box. Thus, the election was a success. And we have our first African-American President to boot, which is cause for celebration. (I say we should maybe evaluate his Presidency in four or eight years. Perhaps it won't be so celebratory then.)

Is he the right man for the job? I do not think so. But 60-plus million disagreed. Whether the wool was pulled over their eyes or not, I will not say. I suppose that we'll see, nay? In a democracy, the many are entitled to dictate to the few, and both groups get to suffer together for their mistakes.

I'm sure an Obama Presidency will provide plenty of topics for discussion in the Morning Coffee, as would have a McCain-Palin administration to be sure, so the political flavor of our Coffee will not fall to the wayside. I'm looking forward to it. I've been looking forward to a Democrat-run government for a while now. It should be real fun, folks. Americans spoke. With that, I offer congratulations/condolences to all of them.

McCain's Damage:
Examining McCain's mistakes in this election would take a while, to say the least. Certainly, he made his share of missteps. I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he decided to abandon his 2000 ethos of openness and became a sort of "faux-maverick." He turned grouchy and for all intents and purposes closed for business the "Straight Talk Express," all the while proclaiming he was still a maverick. His campaign also decided to resort to negative campaigning, and turned up the heat a lot. It was sad for me to see such a class act and honorable man turn to such a mockery of himself. I suppose, however, he saw first hand how effective such tactics could be in 2000 when some Bush surrogates used them and eviscerated his bid for the Republican nomination.

It is my opinion that McCain suffered from two fatal flaws, one that he had no control over and another he inflicted on himself. Running as a Republican after a hugely unpopular Bush Presidency is not something McCain could avoid, and that alone likely doomed his campaign to defeat. Personally, I think it's too soon to judge Bush's Presidency one way or the other, and this really isn't the place. Be that as it may, McCain faced a difficult challenge by merit of timing. His second flaw, which he brought upon himself, was the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I wrote in August that, despite my complete and total dislike of Palin as McCain's running mate, his pick of her might have been a brilliant strategy. But I still thought it foolish for a number of reasons. However, initially, her selection revitalized the Republican conservative base. When the conservative masses go crazy for a candidate, sometimes strange things happen, like them turning out in droves. But then people started to see all the negatives that I saw, and then some. Women and independents, two groups McCain needed and may have in fact targeted by this pick, were grossly turned off by Palin. Throw in a couple of amateurish interviews, and she lost much credibility in the eyes of independents, et al. Certainly, this pick cost him numbers in the popular vote, though it might not have changed the electoral college outcome. I didn't vote for McCain largely because I was concerned about Palin's ability to do much of anything beyond looking foolish. If looking foolish is your running mate's sole asset, you'll have a rough time trying to be the number one on the ticket if you're a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer.

Perhaps even worse for McCain than just turning off a portion of the electorate is the possibility that Palin "went rogue." That is, she pursued her own interests above those of John McCain. I find this believable and likely, though some pundits think it's sour grapes on behalf of McCain staffers. Regardless, Palin's a trig one (pun), and she probably saw the writing on the wall: Obama was going to win, so she needed to set herself up for a potential run in 2012. And here comes my real problem with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. He introduced her to America.

Way back in July, no one outside of Alaska knew of Sarah Palin. Now, the GOP base not only knows of her, but is enamored with her, and they have just as much of a tendency to become infatuated with a politician as liberals do. Believe it or not, we might be hearing more from her in the near future, and sadly, she'll have four years to polish up that act of hers. A little more time to memorize talking points on all sorts of issues. Maybe then she'll be able to recall what papers she reads.

With this, the GOP faces an identity crisis. Nothing illustrates this more than the electoral college drubbing of its Presidential candidate and the loss of seats in both Houses of Congress. Is the GOP going to be a party in the Sarah Palin mold or in the Barry Goldwater mold (yeah, I know he lost)? Is it going to delve further into theology, or libertarianism? Is it going to become more radical, or more centrist? Is it going to become more white and old, or is it going to attempt to diversify? I think it will probably go back to what it thinks it knows: ultra-conservatism, with plenty of references to God and family values.

Obama: Fundraising Tycoon:
Besides the introduction of Sarah Palin to the American electorate, the 2008 Election did another thing that might damage America for decades (she's only 44 - we could be stuck with her for another 30 years). Barack Obama took in over a half a billion dollars in his fundraising. I've touched on this issue before. Certainly, money is a pathway to power. Don't tell me that Obama was intrinsically the better candidate. Money got him to where he is. For example, if he was the best candidate in the nation, but didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars, he wouldn't have stood a chance. Money, money, money, money. I'm not saying that every four or eight years, campaign fundraising will shatter records. But fundraising will never be the same, and while some might use Obama as an example that anyone really can become President, it's best if kindergarten teachers everywhere qualify that by saying, "Anyone who raises billions of dollars can have a chance at becoming President one day."

To wrap up this cup of Joe, I'll leave you with this video, in which Chris Matthews from Hardball tells his interviewers that it's his job to make sure the next administration succeeds. His JOB. I wasn't aware that ensuring the success of any administration was in the job description for journalists. This should be fun, eh? What a joke.

Word of the Day: Mot juste (moh-ZHOOST) (noun): A word or phrase that exactly fits the case.

On This Day in History: Constantius II promotes his cousin Julian to the rank of Caesar, giving him the government of the Prefecture of the Gauls (355 CE). Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca becomes the first known European to set foot in Texas after his ship wrecks (1528). King Gustavus Adolphus the Great of Sweden dies in the Battle of Lutzen (1632). Jefferson Davis is elected president of the Confederate States of America (1861). The CSS Shenandoah is the last Confederate combat unit to surrender after circumnavigating the globe, during which time it sank or captured 37 vessels (1865). Joseph Stalin addresses the Soviet Union for only the second time in his 30 year rule. During his address, he claimed that the Germans had lost 4.5 million soldiers (1941). Plutonium was first made, and subsequently used in the Fat Man (1944).

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama, 44th President (elect) of the United States, and master rhetorician.

Morning Coffee (136)

Through the brain-splitting din of a weed-whacker and a lawnmower, I toil to Brew you the Morning Coffee. Nothing but the best for my legion of readers.

In the early days of the Morning Coffee, prestigious entities asked that I present editions on their behalf. Well, in the spirit of solidarity, singularity, and homogeneity, today's Morning Coffee is brought to you by...the Democratic Party. Because pretty soon, they're going to be bringing to you all sorts of good things.

Get Out Snuff Out the Vote:

We hear all sorts of calls from every venue to vote. I pose a different call to arms. I say we "snuff out" the vote. Sure, this is controversial. No one will like it. It would be hard to do. While the majority can ignore these calls to vote, the ones who show up at the polls are thoroughly indoctrinated and would find it exceedingly difficult to not vote. I've always believed that voting was a civic duty, so even posing such a thing sounds weird to me. I am contemplating not voting for either of the two "major" candidates. I might not vote at all *gasp*. I'm disappointed in my choices for President. I'm disappointed in my choices for virtually every elected office from assemblyman to US Senate. To vote is to use your voice; to speak to power, and even change the government. But I'm too cynical to believe that any change, such as that posed by Barack Obama, will be any change at all. No, I expect more of the same, but with a more liberal leaning this time around. I expect an even more partisan, inept Congress. Maybe our silence would speak louder than any rebel yell in the poll booths.

My goal for this Snuff Out the Vote campaign would be to achieve a less than 10% voter turnout. We would be the laughing stock of the world. Our oft-touted democratic principles ridiculed. How could we, the United States, preach global democracy when our own people won't even vote? This ridicule, of course, assumes that in a democracy, the consumer (the voter) must buy what the salesmen (politicians) are selling. It's assuming that one MUST vote. If all the cars made by all the car companies of the world were terrible in craftsmanship and safety, how many cars would be sold? Refusal to vote is simply adding free market principles to democracy. You don't buy when you're not pleased with the product. And this time, I'm not buying, even though I've been a loyal customer for years and it pains me to do so.

What purpose would this serve? Who knows? I would like to see it as an awakened national consciousness; a citizenry refreshed and ready to not only begin anew, but to take part in the system. Not simply voting, but actually taking part. Discussing issues within their towns and cities. Doing things. Civic virtue, writ large.

Some will think this foolish. Some will say to me, "Brewer, why not vote for and support third party candidates?" To that I say, I do not support any candidate, for one, and more importantly, the current system is broken. Something drastic is necessary to shake it up. We're in a deep, nasty rut, one advised against by George Washington. Third party candidates are not viable in our present system. They receive virtually no exposure in the current model. Do you remember seeing a single third party candidate at a Presidential debate this year? I don't. Prior to the last edition of the Morning Coffee, how many of you had even heard of any of the third party candidates? Here's something to chew on: the House of Representatives has exactly zero members from a party not called "Republican" or "Democrat." The Senate has one, Joseph Lieberman, who was until 2006 a Democrat. Membership totals are 535 and 100, respectively. It looks like this as a fraction: 1/635. Decimals do more for you? Well, that's 0.00157. Rounded up, it's two-tenths of a percent. Our system is dominated in nearly every way by two political ideologies. Someone more eloquent than I could probably argue that this is tyranny by default and by exclusion.

The Obama campaign wants you to talk to you boss or professor. They want you to ask for the day off so you can vote. I don't see how you need the whole day off to vote, but let's go with it. Really stick it to them by asking for and getting the day off, but stay home and read a book. Or just goof off. They won't know. They can't ask you. To do so and condemn you is to violate your freedom to exercise your political voice. So you chose to be silent. Tell them that you're an independent, but as there were no viable independent candidates from which to choose, you were forced into not voting. You didn't like the product. Why shouldn't you get the day off when the droves of Obama and McCain fans do? You have the right to be heard, too. Of course, we could just get rid of a stupid holiday like Columbus Day and make Election Day a national holiday, making the whole issue moot. But what am I thinking? We need a holiday to celebrate a guy who wasn't even the first European to find something that was always there (a topic for another time, perhaps).

Certainly, my scheme is no more viable than the election of a Libertarian to President, which is sort of the real point to all my bloviating. The hooks the two-party system has in our population are too deep. Too often, our citizenry are led into the booths like cattle; their votes cast solely on whether the candidate has a (D) or an (R) after his or her name. They can't even vote with their own best interests in mind because they don't know what their best interests are and how any candidate will further those interests. I ask myself, is this what we've become? Perhaps it's always what we've been. But I would like to be proven wrong.

One Party Rule...uh, Rules! *pumps fist* HEUAWW!:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is excited at the prospects of the Democratic party controlling all aspects of the government. He says, "Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it's time to give the other party a chance."

Notice, Quaffers, the verbiage. "Rule." "The other party." We all know that we're merely a mob to be ruled by the genteel touch of our elected officials. No way can any of us rule ourselves. We need the divine hand of governance to tell us poor, lost souls what to do, and how to do it, and when to do it. Where would we be, Dear Dean, without thee?! And "the other party" as if we have only two. Was he talking about the Libertarian Party? The Green Party? The Communist Party? Wait...yeah...I guess it's time to give the other party a chance. That party's track record is infinitely better than that of the other party.

Dean also says, "You cannot trust Republicans with your money. They will borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend." Surely, the other party, as you say, has never done that.

Am I defending the Republican party? Of course not. I'm simply pointing out how absurd Dean's statements are. HEAUWW!!!

In another article, we sheep are told that we shouldn't fear Democratic control. Is that something good "rulers" tell their flock?

Guided by GPS:

I recently purchased a Garmin Nuvi 250w, which is a GPS device, and I must say, well done. I'm not going to review the item, but I do recommend GPS to anyone who travels to destinations unknown. It makes driving in areas unfamiliar to me very easy. But, I do still have an atlas in the back of my seat. Old habits die hard, and I like knowing that I can still navigate if my GPS goes kaput, be it by dead battery or the Chinese shooting down the satellites.

Word of the Day: Execrable (adj): 1. Deserving to be execrated; detestable; abominable. 2. Extremely bad; of very poor quality; very inferior.

On This Day in History: Maxentius is proclaimed Roman Emperor (306 CE). Six years later, Maxentius is defeated by Constantine I at the battle of Milvian Bridge (312). The Volstead Act is passed by Congress over President Wilson's veto, paving the way for Prohibition (1919).

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Yes...ration my liberty, oh wise governors.

Morning Coffee (135)

The days grow shorter, the nights colder, and the remaining time to celebrate the magic of American politics wanes. Autumn is here. With it, carved pumpkins, raked leaves, apple cider, and this year, record setting political advertisements and record setting political fundraising efforts.

Putting the Fun in Fundraising:
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that when it's all said and done (i.e. the election is over), Barack Obama will still have in his coffers enough money to finance two complete Prime Minister elections in Great Britain. The Obama campaign has raised over a half a billion dollars. Remember, Obama once pledged to use public funds in this election, which would have limited him to using something like $84 million, or about 19% of his current store. It certainly was more expedient to repudiate that pledge. Does this not speak to character? Expediency over a promise. This is not the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from such a "transformational figure."

Do you think that this massive stock of assets gives an advantage to Obama? Of course it does. Obama ads outnumber McCain ads 8-1 in some markets. This means that you will see on television or hear on the radio eight Obama ads to every McCain ad. The Obama campaign has even purchased itself a channel on satellite TV. McCain has been effectively muffled; his messages drowned out in a sea of Obama ads. How is a candidate supposed to reach the droves of people who are not as "into politics" as some of us and do not watch debates? Whether or not these people are ignoring their civic duty by failing to be informed, seeing ads during "Prison Break" is the only exposure they have to candidates. This is not to say that these messages are accurate or offer a fair representation of either candidate. In fact, they make me sick most of the time. But you cannot deny that many Americans know nothing of many candidates except for what they see in these 30 second spots, as evident by 2004's Swift Boat advertisements.

Some might say that the influx of money simply points to the popularity of Obama, and this in turn shows that democracy is working even better than we had hoped; so many people are participating, after all. I'm sure that many are happy with the present system of campaign finance. Surely Democrats and liberals are pleased with the status quo at the moment, considering their candidate has an insurmountable advantage in assets. But I do not like our present system. For one, those who donate under $200 do not have to be disclosed. Surely, no one would think of abusing this loophole.

Money does not guarantee a win by any candidate, but it certainly helps to build a campaign infrastructure that is difficult to beat. It allows a candidate to control the message, if not smother the opposition's message altogether. How can we decide who is the better candidate if we struggle to hear the whimpers of the rest of the field? With all things being equal in terms of exposure or capital, which candidate has the better policies and plans? Which one is more qualified? Can we know? As I've said, for people worried about the economy and the day to day minutiae that bogs us down, they cannot possibly get an accurate representation of McCain or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Have you even heard of Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party? No, you haven't. And neither have 300 million other people. It is impossible for third parties to compete for your attention during "Two and a Half Men." (Author's Note: I do not support Charles Baldwin. He is an idiot. But that's not the point.)

What will be the future of campaign finance? I do not know. There must be, somehow, a better way of doing all this. The most drastic is simply impose a cap on fundraising. Limit what can be raised and limit what the candidate him or herself can donate to their own campaign. One could even go so far as to give the candidates the money up front and make them budget their money as the campaign season(s) progresses. I'd say, go for it, but since the government long ago forgot how to balance a budget, this would do little to show us the fiscal planning ability of candidates. Others pose less drastic measures.

Mac McCorkle, a Democratic strategist favors

"a "United Way" approach: Corporations, philanthropists, other groups and individuals would be able to donate an unlimited amount, with transparency, that would go into an endowment — akin to the United Way charity fund — and be divided equally between the parties."

Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute

"leans toward "the idea of public matching funds as seed money for candidates, released much earlier than permitted by current law and not tied to spending limits." He writes that such a move might provide lesser-known candidates a better chance of building support for their candidacies before the primaries even begin."

Both ideas, and likely others, have merit. They should at least be discussed and considered. But from people interested in keeping power (i.e. those who refuse to legislate Congressional term limits), I don't see there being much discussion taking place in the future. Sentiment has, quite obviously, shifted from that of 1974 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted in the wake of Watergate. And we lose out.

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse? Report it to Your Local Congressman Today!:
I have worked for the United States government as a uniformed service member, a civil service employee, and as a government contractor. I was not an important person; I did not hold a post that would be considered important by most people. But in my ten years of service to the government of the United States, I've seen the benefits and disadvantages of such work. First and foremost, I love it most of the time. I've gotten to see the world and advance my nation's causes as well. I've been to Europe, Asia, Central America, and the Middle East. I've traveled all over the country. Sometimes I was lucky enough to be able to afford bringing my wife along. But never once has my employer (the taxpayer) paid for my wife's plane ticke, per diem, or billeting. But I wasn't, say, the governess of Alaska.

As someone who's had to justify and provide proof (for good reason) for expenditures as small as a few dollars worth of long term parking at an airport and the travel fee Travelocity charges my credit card when I make official travel arrangements, little makes me seethe more than a public servant, the governess for example, who charges the public for plane tickets for their kids. There is tremendous oversight for "the little guy" in public service. Apparently, little applies to "the big guys."

Sarah Palin has charged to the state of Alaska $21,012 for 64 one way and 12 round trip commercial flights for her daughters since December 2006 when she took office. Worse, she or someone in her staff ordered changes to previously filed expense reports to make it look like they were also on official business. Wow. Changing filed reports after the fact sure doesn't suggest anything inappropriate.

She simply wanted her daughters with her so she could spend more time with them. This isn't an option frequent travelers like myself have unless we pay for it ourselves, which is as it should be. She really had two ethical options: to pay for their travel and lodging herself, or quite her job to spend more time with her family. She chose neither. Rules only apply so far up the chain, apparently.

What's worse is that she didn't even stay in cheap(er) hotels. When my peers and I travel for work, we have to make sure we get the government per diem rate. Sometimes that means we stay in nice hotels. Actually, from my perspective, most of the hotels you can get at the government per diem rate are pretty nice. However, Sarah Palin's choice on a trip to NY was the Essex House hotel, which cost Alaska $707.29 a night for four nights, which is but a measly $283.29 over the government per diem rate for Manhattan. I suppose though, that her constituents in Alaska should be happy, as the four Palin girls shared one room.

Supposedly there is a law that states that childrens' travel expenses can be reimbursed and not taxed when when they travel on official state business. Fine and dandy. When I conduct official business, my expenses are reimbursed. But usually my official duties do not entail hanging out with mom and dad at the opening of a dog sled race, or attending a function to announce the winners of a seafood competition. There's really no reason for these kids to be on official trips, even to help. Surely it must violate some sort of labor law if they're under 16 anyway, and surely there are plenty of volunteers or other hired help. Must it be Palin's daughters? My family doesn't have their travel expenses reimbursed when helping me during "official duties." That's silly, pampering, nonsense.

Sarah Palin's fraud, waste, and abuse goes beyond simply paying for her kids' travel and lodging. Apparently, she charged the state $17,000 in per diem so she could stay in her own home for 300 nights. Her home is 40 miles from a satellite office in Anchorage. People commute that distance to and from work every day day and they don't get per diem. They don't even get their gas bills reimbursed. The difference is, they're regular people, not governors. This is outrageous to me.

How about another instance of frivolous spending on behalf of our public servants. Official portraits are painted of Presidents. Great. That's a good tradition to have. But apparently, Cabinet secretaries get them too. Problem is, these things cost between $7,500 to $50,000. Do Cabinet members really need a portrait? Aren't they generally well enough off to afford to buy one of their own if they so badly need one? This article is even better, breaking down some of the costs. Rick Dubik, the Commerce Department's director of administration, informs us that $30,000 is actually cheap, and that some artists charge $75,000 for the service. He says this as if we, the public, are getting some sort of bargain out of his boss, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez's $35,000 portrait. Who says the government doesn't try to save us some money, especially in these uncertain economic times? After all, we could have ended up spending $59,000 on the portrait for National Cancer Institute director Andrew von Eschenbach rather than the $19,000 it cost us. Wait, you don't know who Andrew von Eschenbach is? Funny, come to think of it, neither do I.

Consider this: Donald Rumsfeld is getting another portrait, since he already has one from his first stint as Defense Secretary from 1975-1977. This second one will cost us $46,790, or just a shade under the median household income in 2007. I should tell you, however, that Rumsfeld cannot afford this luxury as a disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics revealed that he was worth a meager $53-175 million.

Let's keep on keepin' on America!

Fun Facts from the World Series:
The National Anthem, even when sung by the Backstreet Boys doing a terrible impression of a barbershop quartet, can still elicit from me goosebumps and the occasional tear. Also, an 8 pm start actually means an 8:45 first pitch because Fox must cut to commercial break every 3 minutes. After the commercial break, Joe Buck gives us the starting lineup brought to us by Bud Light, or scouting report brought to us by Nissan, or pregame show segment brought to us by Taco Bell. Trivia is brought to us by Aflac. The game starts 45 minutes late because of the need to have commercials, but commercials riddle the telecast...fishy...And remember those "first pitch ceremonies" where someone comes out and throws the first pitch? Yeah, didn't happen. Or it did, and I got to watch the new Chevy commercial instead.

Word of the Day: (Brought to you by Dictionary.com...) Synecdoche (si-NEK-duh-kee) (noun): A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole or whole for a part or general for the special or vice versa.

On This Day in History: (Brought to you by...uh...history..) Marcus Junius Brutus, of tryannicide fame, commits suicide after being beaten by Mark Antony and Octavian in the Second Battle of Philippi (42 BCE). Valentinian III wins the life lottery and is elevated as Roman Emperor at six years old (425 CE). Britains first Parliament meets (1707). Abraham Lincoln suspends for all military cases the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, DC (1861). The first heavier than air flight in Europe takes place when Alberto Santos-Dumont flies an airplane near Paris (1907). Fittingly, the first use of an airplane in war takes place when an Italian pilot takes off from Libya to observe Turkish lines during the Turco-Italian War (1911). Twenty-five to thirty thousand women march on Fifth Avenue to advocate their right to vote (1915). Lenin calls for the October Revolution (1917). Numerous WWII actions (1941-1944). The UN General Assembly meets for the first time (1946). The US Marine barracks and French army barracks in Lebanon are hit by suicide bombers, killing 241 US service men and 58 French troops (1983). Apple releases the iPod (2001).

"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.