Morning Coffee (99)

Welcome back, Coffee drinkers, to the second or third best virtual barista on the net. I don’t know of a better one, but surely, one must exist in the great expanse of the World Wide Web.

Primary Mission: South Carolina Primary:

Yesterday, South Carolinians had their Democratic soiree. It was a rout. Barack Obama utterly dominated the event; he took 55% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 27%; 25 delegates to 12. Obama took 80% of the African-American vote, which is interesting when one considers that Hillary’s husband “Bubba” was our nation’s “first black President.” Not that anyone should be surprised with this, or the likely fact that Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. It’s not that he’s more qualified than Clinton; it’s that Clinton is perceived to represent the Same Old Washington, whereas Obama is perceived to be New and Fresh.

Remember that the operative word is “perceived” in both cases. I do not think that Clinton inherently represents the Same Old Washington anymore than Obama is New and Fresh. Obama’s claim that he offers something new is somewhat undermined by his supporters, who in their zeal to defend him brusquely remind us that he’s been an elected representative in government a lot longer than Clinton has. This is true. Should we assume that just because the majority of his career has been in the Illinois legislative branch that he’s void of all the archetypical traits of political hacks?

In addition to this perception, and perhaps directly rooted in this perception, Clinton (and the Clintons) is easily the most divisive entity in modern politics. For example, take this bit from William Greider from “The Nation”, a left-liberal magazine, who was paraphrased by Peggy Noonan recently in the Wall Street Journal:

The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

And that’s what their likeminded ilk say of them. You cannot get more divisive than this. Being high-minded but smarmily duplicitous underneath is not something you want to be known for in politics. At least not widely known for.

The bottom-line in the Democratic field is very similar to that in the Republican field: which is the lesser evil? Unfortunately, Obama might be the lesser of the two. Is that an MC endorsement of Obama? No. In fact, in the knife fight of foreign relations, I think I might rather have Hillary wielding the blade. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter, since if the Democratic nominee is elected, we’ll have finally elected either a woman or an African-American as President. At least we’ll have that burden off our backs.

But it is even possible for Obama to win in a general election? Is it possible for either candidate to win? I ask because it is possible that by the end of the nomination process, the Democratic nominee will be so battered that he/she will be unable to stand against the relatively unscathed Republican nominee. Take the most recent debates for example. The Democratic one was extremely aggressive and combative; the Republican one very congenial. Republicans might not have to do any digging at all to find dirt on the Dem’s nominee; the Dems will do it for them.

A Miss America for the New Age:

Enough of politics (for now). The Miss America pageant is distinctly, well, American. When you think of this pageant, you think of a wholesome pageant of young, attractive, talented and sometimes smart women parading around in conservative evening gowns and one piece bathing suits. No more. The clothes, er, gloves have come off. Miss Michigan Kirsten Haglund has won the new, hipper, Miss America pageant. One with gold and black two-piece bikinis. Yeah, that’s right. I said two-piece bikinis. While you were watching reruns of “Everybody Loves Raymond” on TBS, prospective Miss Americas were showing off skin in revealing evening gowns and sporting two-piece bikinis while singing songs and twirling batons on TLC. This is a new era in beauty pageants. We should rejoice.

Not really. Who cares?

War Declared on Scientology:

A group of hackers calling themselves Anonymous declared war on The Church of Scientology yesterday. Their declaration, in video form, can be viewed by clicking on the last link, and it is quite entertaining. Please watch it. For a better story, however, turn to this CNET article.

From what I’ve read, Anonymous went ahead and began their war by defacing a number of Scientology websites and actually succeeded in bringing down the official US site of Scientology. When I checked it was up, however. It’s possible that it went down simply because of the number of hits it got after the Anonymous video was put on YouTube. Interestingly enough, another hacker group called The Regime took down a site frequented by the members of Anonymous. From what I gathered, the site was back up within minutes, but was then hit again. When I visited it, I saw The Regime’s handiwork: “This site has been taken down for violating Church of Scientology copyright.” Interesting.

Anonymous wants to destroy Scientology. I think that’s a noble idea; probably not possible, especially by these people, but noble. Anonymous will maybe make life difficult for a few system administrators, but beyond that, it’s unlikely that they could do much of anything. It’s somewhat difficult to undermine an ideology as robust as Scientology simply by hacking its websites. The only way any damage at all could be inflicted would be through constant, systematic attacks on their sites, and then it might only succeed in slightly limiting conversions to the cult, er, religion.

It is possible that an ideology, even one as established as Scientology, can be defeated, but not through such paltry means. But perhaps the work has begun, as the German government does not acknowledge it as a religion. The most damaging thing that could be done to the Church of Scientology would be the revocation of its tax-exempt status by the US government. This would be a step towards recognizing the Church for what it is. This would never happen, not in the US where Freedom of Religion is so important that we allow dangerous cults to flourish so long as they have enough wealth to file innumerable lawsuits and wholesome looking spokesmen and women like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. But I can dream, can’t I?

Word of the Day: Indelible (adjective) 1. That cannot be removed, erased, or washed away; 2. Making marks that cannot easily be removed or erased.
3. Incapable of being forgotten; memorable.

On This Day in History: Trajan becomes the Roman emperor (98 CE). The two-year siege of Stalingrad is lifted (1944).

“Went to a doctor and I asked her to make this stop. Got medication, a new addiction. Fuckin’ thanks a lot.” – Unwritten Law, “Save Me.”

Morning Coffee (98)

Mother of the gods, it’s cold out. Zero, to be exact. And that’s with no wind. It is days like today that make me think about the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. Those guys had it bad when it came to weather (and the other obvious rigors being a battle and all). Men took to urinating on their rifles to free up the moving parts, which had not-so-conveniently froze. It’s days like today, with temperatures miserable yet far warmer than at the Frozen Chosin, that I am in awe of the job those men did there and in other famously cold battles.

Onto another steaming cup o’ Joe, which only half of you will half-read.

GOP Debate (Boca Raton, Florida):

What wasn’t cold was last night’s Republican debate. In fact, this debate was quite warm. It had none of the badgering that the last Democratic debate had (and I apologize for forgetting to watch that and report on that debate). The following will be a brief recap of the events of last night along with some commentary where appropriate.

At 2059, just as the lead-in program was wrapping up, the host introduced the debate by saying, “Now on this the 1,XXX (I don’t remember the figure) since the declaration of “mission accomplished” in Iraq…” we have the Republican debates, etc, etc. I didn’t really get the last portion of the debate introduction by this guy, because I was a bit perplexed as to why the number of days since that declaration was important in this context. It is possible that MSNBC was drawing our attention to the war.

Obviously, the economic stimulus package that was agreed upon yesterday was a big topic of discussion last night. Of course, every candidate that was asked was supportive of Bush’s plan in this case, but they also said that they didn’t think enough was being done. Romney, McCain and Giuliani all said this. The other’s weren’t asked, but I’m guessing Huckabee’s answer would have been the same, and Ron Paul would have said similarly before going off on a tirade about the US spending too much money because of our having to support an empire all around the globe. This gives an indication as to how predictable the debate was, in general; and particularly when the candidates were asked about Clinton or Democratic policies. It was pretty clear what their answers would be before the questions were even asked in this case. I did find it interesting that Obama wasn’t mentioned really; just Clinton.

In keeping with the economy theme, John McCain mentioned that the Wall Street Journal had polled a bunch of economists about who would be the best for the economy, and the majority of them indicated that they thought that McCain would do the best in managing the economic situation. I’ve looked briefly, and I cannot find a source to confirm this, though one would hope a candidate wouldn’t make such a bold claim while citing a respected news journal. But McCain did admit prior to this debate that his understanding of economics was his weakest attribute, and during (and before and likely after) the debate he rattled off a list of names of people that he would rely on to help his understanding and to help shape his economic policy. This “name dropping” is somewhat disconcerting. I like the idea that McCain acknowledges that he has a weakness, and that he is comfortable enough of a leader to approach people for guidance on an issue (unlike some other candidates). But at the same time, one has to wonder about this to a degree. There seemed to me to simply be too many “dropped” names for comfort.

The subject of the Iraq War was then broached for a time. Each candidate said mostly the same thing (that they supported the surge for example) even if they were slightly disingenuous. I find it funny that each candidate now vehemently defends themselves about their having supported the surge a year ago. “I DID support the surge and I’m mad that you would suggest otherwise despite ample evidence that I either didn’t support it or said nothing about it.” Save McCain, I don’t think any of them have any credibility when it comes to criticism of the war effort. But Romney had a good line when he said that it is “audacious and arrogant” of Hillary Clinton to suggest that Democrats are responsible for the surge and its success because of their insistence to immediately withdraw troops; in essence, the surge was implemented and succeeded ONLY because Dems wanted out. That’s not a logical suggestion at all. It’s pandering. It’s trying to get credit for something that you previously criticized, but do so in a way that you don’t look like a flip-flopper (I hate that term).

Tim Russert then asked each candidate if the Iraq War was the right thing to do and was worth the cost in blood and treasure (another overused term). No candidate save Ron Paul said that it wasn’t the right thing to do. But the question was remarkably inane. No candidate is going to say that any war is worth the cost in blood. It’s just not going to happen. Especially not about a war that is so unpopular. An argument can be made that the invasion was the right thing to do (since most Americans supported it at the time) because that’s more of a philosophical issue. “We thought this, so we had to do that.” But equating its worth in terms of numbers of deaths is a very subjectively quantitative trial. What the war is worth to individual Americans in terms of “blood and treasure” is very widely varying. In an interview after the debate, Russert said that each candidate thought the Iraq War was worth the cost in blood and treasure, and he found that telling and suggested that these sentiments would play heavily in the general election. Russert’s comments are perfidious. Not one candidate specifically said that in response to his question.

At this point in the debate (2130) Brian Williams, before taking a commercial break, sternly “reminds” the audience that there is to be no applause or cheering or outbursts during the debate. At first I thought this to be sort of stupid, but then I thought of sitcom laugh tracks. The crowd reaction skews the TV audience’s response to a particular candidate. It’s the nature of our social interactions; we want to like what others like.

After the commercial break, Huckabee is given a chance to defend his support of the “Fair Tax.” He does so eloquently. I’m not going to get into a discussion of it here, because it’d take forever. But the big selling point for Americans is that the Fair Tax would “abolish the IRS.” That wording, true or otherwise, is selected for a reason. The IRS doesn’t exactly have a reputation as a benevolent entity, so who wouldn’t support is abolition. Me for one. I do not think it wise to actually abolish the organization in the literal sense, which is what the supporters of the Fair Tax suggest. But I also don’t think that’s what they mean. I think they mean a massive reorganization, perhaps a rewrite, of our tax laws. The emphasis should be on that issue, not the abolition of the IRS, literally or figuratively. Someone is going to have to administer the new tax laws (fair ones or not). There’s going to have to be an agency to do this. Why not the appropriately named IRS? And the term “Fair Tax.” Who would be against such a thing? It’s like pro-choice and pro-life. Notice that they’re not anti-life and pro-oppression? Same thing with the “Fair Tax”; it is named as such to suggest that other taxes are inherently unfair. True or not, I dislike this name, and I dislike its supporter’s use of benign propaganda.

The candidates then had the opportunity to discuss some National Catastrophic Fun for catastrophes that aren’t covered by our insurance companies. You know, like Hurricane Katrina. Since insurance companies refuse to cover so many things anymore, the idea here is to create a massive fund that would help those who were struck with these catastrophes. Sounds great. Giuliani is for such a thing and McCain is against. I think the idea is stupid, and it does nothing but give insurance companies a free pass, just like they already have with flood coverage. Why not force these companies to do what they’re supposed to do, that be insure people. Tell them that they’re going to cover X or they will lose their operating licenses. These companies make billions of dollars a year. This to me is similar to socialized health care and just adds another government group to oversee another program that should be done by the private sector.

Our moderators then moved the discussion onto the issue of climate change. McCain has openly acknowledged that climate change/global warming is real and is a threat. Pretty much no one else on the GOP side has. Giuliani defended his stance against establishing caps on carbon output in the US, saying that China and India would not be similarly restricted and this would be give their economies an unfair advantage. At first thought, I agreed with this. Why not? It sounds unreasonable that we should be limited while our biggest competitor is not. But upon further reflection, I think it’s a copout. We’re the United States of America. Not China. To hold ourselves to the same standards as a Third World nation is appalling. We should be the trend setters of the world, and should hold ourselves, in our further advanced state, to higher standards, while continuing to make gains economically on the rest of the world. I see no reason why we can’t cap our emissions and continue to grow our economy. To equate caps with failure is insulting. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We should instead view it as an opportunity to prove our scientific and technological mettle once more. I do not think that the conversation on global warming is over, as McCain does, but I think that is moot. Shall we converse and argue and debate until it’s too late? Or shall we reform ourselves, making our nation better in the process, and find out that we were all being alarmists after all? I’d rather the latter. Besides, if we cap our emissions and right our economy and throttle the world with our economic might, who will than have the moral capital?

The debate wound down from there. There was some humorous banter between Huckabee and McCain about McCain’s age and each of their action hero supporters. Huckabee made a comment about Romney’s use of his prodigious wealth on his campaign and how if he (Huckabee) were nominated it would thus secure Romney’s son’ inheritance. But McCain was then questioned about his electability, because some conservatives view him as a “maverick” since he has bucked his party on several occasions. McCain delivered a good speech for a moment about how he respects everyone on the stage and would make friendships with them and people across the aisle, and then answered with one of the most poignant lines of the night. In response to that question, he assured Americans that he “would put his country ahead of his party.”

Overall, I was pretty please with the debate. I was glad that the Republicans didn’t follow the Democrats’ lead turn the debate into a blood bath. They were congenial, even collegiate at times. The questions they asked each other seemed to (probably falsely) be asked with genuine concern and inquiry. Ron Paul even did alright, and wasn’t under constant attack by his peers (no one notes that Paul is older than McCain, by the way). I think that Romney won the debate and that might have secured him a victory in Florida’s primary (he and McCain were in a statistical tie in most polls there). A commentator made the comment that Romney looks terrible when under attack, and no one attacked him, so he had a chance to shine. McCain might have had his worst showing, but was still overall decent. Giuliani made some great points, but was sort of just there. Huckabee was much the same as Guiliani. Paul probably lost, but mostly because he didn’t get to say much.

The congenial nature of this debate will help whatever Republican secures the nomination. The Democrats are ripping each other’s throats out and it’s disturbing to Americans. It might turn off middle-left voters.

I counted, perhaps in error, only three utterances of Reagan’s name by the debaters. A far cry from the 85,000 in the last debate (exaggeration).

And thus ends the Morning Coffee’s attempt at punditry.

Word of the Day: Disheveled (adjective): In loose disorder; disarranged; unkempt; as, “disheveled hair.”

On This Day in History: Claudius, the first Roman emperor born outside of Italy, is accepted as emperor by the Roman Senate after a night of negotiations (41 CE). Henry VIII secretly marries Anne Boleyn (1533). Events leading up to both these incidents were mentioned in recent editions of the Coffee. Thailand declares war on the US and UK (1942). Soviet Union ends state of war with Germany (1955). St. Dwynwen’s Day, the Welsh celebration of love.

"The American Marine First Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments. (You) should have one or two more divisions as a reserve force." – Mao Zedong’s orders to Chinese General Song Shilun during the Korean War.

Morning Coffee (97)

Remember those old Public Service Announcement commercials during the 1980s and 1990s that said, “It’s 10 o’clock, do you know where your children are?” I was just sitting here trying to come up with a pithy intro to our MC and was looking at the clock. And as the minute hand kept creeping past 0800, I was thinking of some commercial popping up on your TV or computer screen saying, “It’s 8 o’clock, do you know where your Coffee is?” Sometimes the Pot is broken and creeps along at a snails pace despite having plenty of grounds.

Finally, Dude, I’m Getting a Dell!:

I’m not a smart man when it comes to certain things. For example, I do not understand cricket. And higher math gives me fits. I’m comfortable enough in my faux genius to admit these things. Another thing I don’t get, a big thing, is economics. Listen, I’ve taken macroeconomics in college, and it’s helped me not at all (I had to flush it to make room for other things; my hard drive’s only so big). I know what GDP is. I know that our government ought to at least attempt to operate within the same basic economic principles that us peons are expected to live by. You know, not spending more than you earn or can pay on within a reasonable period, that sort of foolishness. But I don’t get “economics.”

We’re apparently in an economic downturn. Interesting phrase. Better than collapse or implosion, I suppose. But I don’t know how or why. Well, perhaps it’s because people spend more money than they can afford to spend on houses. But I’m sure it’s deeper than that. I just don’t get it. I know that, “it’s the economy, stupid!” but I’m dumb. Side note: You ever notice that anyone with a bachelor’s degree in economics or business is somehow an expert on all things “national economy?” I have. If they were so expert, we’d never have a recession or “downturn”, right? Forget the Smith and his invisible hand, these people would physically guide and shape the economy to their will. I think they’re more foolish about these things than I even with their degrees.

Okay, back to the downturn. The solution to this downturn is…tax rebates, or as our leaders call it, an economic-stimulus package. Eight-hundred dollars per person (who pays income tax) and up to $1,600 per family. The idea is that us peasants will rejoice in The Man’s throwing money at us and will go out and do what we do best: blow it. Infuse the economy with dollars. This seems weird to me for a number of reason. What if everyone simply saves the rebate? Okay, this probably won’t happen, but recent data suggests that people are spending less. Maybe they’ll all decide it would be better to squirrel the cash away. What are they (we) going to spend this money on? I think the idea is to buy American to, you know, stimulate the economy. Since most of the stuff we buy anymore is imported, won’t this actually stimulate foreign economies? Again, I don’t know. Just a thought. The final thought I have is, does this indicate the need for lowering taxes or something? The idea is to give people more money to spend out in the economy, yet we tax them a lot. But then, we give it back because, well, they didn’t have enough money to spend out in the economy. I don’t know. I got nothing on this economy business. But hey, I might finally be able to afford a new computer (all parts made in China), so, I guess, thanks Uncle Sam!

You’ll be please and comforted to know, however, that our government is working hard, late even, to get this package ready to go (there area few…sticking points…) before House Republicans head out of town this weekend on a legislative retreat. And if they can’t get it done then, they’ll try to get it finished and passed by the House and Senate by mid-February. They’re very concerned that our economy will fall to pieces, so they’re trying to get this out the door before President’s Day in February. If they don’t get it done by then, well, the economy will just have to wait until after their holiday. Priorities my friends. Priorities.

Some critics think that this could increase the federal debt. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, because of the economy, our deficit would increase to $250 billion, not including any spending attributed to the stimulus package. Who cares? It’s just play money, right? Numbers this big are hard to comprehend, and it generally matters little to our political leadership anyway. Spend, spend, spend! Throw money at it! Make the problems go away until after the election cycle! This is what REALLY matters; that you will be comforted, falsely or otherwise, and cowed into putting them back into power.

Beckham’s Big Foot(print) Bends It:

Yes, that was a play on Beckham’s signature soccer kick and the 2002 movie “Bend it Like Beckham”, which featured a soccer playing Keira Knightly. Yes, it my attempt was poor. But what isn’t poor is David Beckham. He’s got some cash to spend, and he probably won’t feel much of a pinch from our economic down turn. To prove it to you, he went ahead and shattered all possible comprehension of a large “carbon footprint” last year. The British environmental group Carbon Trust estimates that Beckham is responsible for 163 tons of carbon dioxide a year. It doesn’t sound like much, but when compared to the average Englishman’s output (9.4 tons), the figure is staggeringly huge. How did he do it? Easy, he logged 250,000 miles flying back and forth between the US and England for soccer commitments in each country. He also flew 50,000 miles to meet endorsement commitments. He also owns 15 cars.

Carbon Trust thinks that he should spend some of his money educating people or buying greener vehicles, but I don’t really think so. I also think that Carbon Trust’s estimates are bunk and its language overly grand (Beckham’s footprint might be “the largest in human history”). For one, he can’t drive all 15 cars at the same time. Is that taken into consideration? Who knows? The Fox Sports article mentions that he travels for Galaxy (his US team) commitments, but does he travel with the team or separately? Again, I don’t know. I don’t like those carbon footprint estimates because they’re too easily skewed upwards. Flying a private jet while the rest of your team flies commercial is surely worse for your footprint, but if he flies commercial along with his team, then I don’t see how his footprint gets that much bigger. The plane would have made that journey with or without him. Does he really put out 17 times as much carbon as any other Briton? Your guess is as good as mine. I wonder though, what the carbon footprint for the Office of the President is. What about the collective footprint of our 2008 Presidential campaign? I’ll bet both are huge. Nevertheless, Beckham’s got some big feet, both on and off the pitch.

A Note on the Coffee’s Political Coverage:

I haven’t spent much time critiquing the Democratic candidates for the Presidency. I don’t critique because I generally feel that it’s easier for the average person (me included) to see through their BS that it is to do so for the Republicans. And there isn’t much to critique, since they basically run on the same messages every time. If I am wrong in my assessments, let me know. I critique the Republicans because their shenanigans are more interesting and more subtle; the Democrats’ shenanigans are just the same. Besides, we know that we’re either going to get Obama or Clinton. No surprises there. Clinton’s well known, and Obama’s pretty well known since he was thrust in our faces in the early 2000 (billed by Democrats as a possible President even then). But the Republican nomination is still very much up for grabs. It could be any of the three “frontrunners.” In any case, I already know that I don’t care for either of the potential Democratic nominee. I still don’t know what to think about the Republicans’ candidates. Vile, yes, but do I actually not like them yet? No. I’ve covered Huckabee and Romney a fair amount, mostly through the lens of religion, but I’ve not done much with McCain. For the longest time, everyone thought his campaign was dead, but here he is, the sort-of frontrunner. So now I should cover him. I will bathe him in the discerning light that is the Morning Coffee very soon. Perhaps some readers will assist.

I just wanted to make clear that my coverage or lack of should not be read as tacit approval for any candidate or any party. The Coffee strives to be objective. Not always possible, but always the goal.

Word of the Day: Nolens volens (phrase): Whether unwilling or willing. Neat phrase.

On This Day in History: Gaius Caesar (Caligula) is assassinated by his unhappy Praetorian Guards (41 CE). King Charles II of England disbands Parliament (1679). The first day of the Sementivae, a Roman festival in honor of Ceres and Terra.

“After I’m dead I’d rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one.” – Marcus Porcius Cato, “Cato the Elder”.

Morning Coffee (96)

Time to make the doughnuts. Only here, it’s time to make the Coffee. And what a sweet nectar it is. I haven’t had the chance to Brew in a while (six days). And if I had the chance, there wasn’t much to talk about. But today…

Thompson Quits, People Wonder if He Ever Started:

For those of you who track such things, you’ll know that Fred Thompson has abruptly withdrawn his name from the Presidential race. This probably didn’t surprise you. For those of you who don’t track such things, the district attorney guy from “Law & Order” was sort of running for President, but he just stopped.

Hailed as the second coming of Ronald Reagan by many supporters, Thompson got a late start on his run. In March 2007, he began to think about running, but rumors flew and supporters lobbied for him to run prior to this even. He continued to hem and haw, but everyone knew he was going to get involved in the race. Republicans everywhere rejoiced. He didn’t formally announce his candidacy until September. His campaign staff was plagued with cohesion issues; members of the staff took issue with the influence Thompson’s wife Jeri had in campaign issues. Worse, his schedule was extremely light for a would-be contender, and he was perceived as rather lazy and his laid back style did little to assuage the fears that he really didn’t want to be running in the first place. I, for one, have questioned his desire all along. He might have been a good candidate, and based on his showing at the last Republican debate, he was just coming into his own on this campaign. But it was too little too late. He failed to win or even do well in Iowa or South Carolina, which were two states that most aligned with his style and politics. While the prospects of him running were apparently exciting, his campaign and message utterly failed to excite anyone.

And by the wayside goes another candidate, into the bone yard of failed bids and shattered hopes. With that we’re left with, on the Republican side, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Who will be the next victim to the brutality of Republican Presidential politics? To borrow a phrase from Orwell, no candidate is perfect, but some candidates are less perfect than others.

We May Have the Naked Cowboy…:

…But we don’t have a Naked General; General Butt Naked to be precise. Score one for Liberia. While the moniker might be hilarious, there is nothing funny about the man and what he’s done. Gen Butt Naked, also known as Joshua Milton Blahyi, was a warlord who claims that he and his men were responsible for killing more than 20,000 people between 1980 and 1996 when the fighting in Liberia’s civil war stopped.

In 1980, the then Mr. Blahyi claims to have made a pact with the devil (who called him by telephone), and soon became General Butt Naked because of his unit’s habit of charging into battle, well, butt naked save some combat boots. They did this to frighten the enemy, which has been done in combat since man began to wear clothes regularly. Butt Naked’s men would strip naked and get drunk or high before going into battle, and would kill anyone they saw while sometimes wearing women’s clothes or purses. The devil, who General Naked spoke to regularly, also demanded monthly sacrifices, and Gen Butt would routinely kill children to satiate Satan’s desire for blood.

But Satan’s grip was wrested from the General when in 1996, God appeared before him in battle and told him he was a slave to Satan, not the hero he thought he was. Butt then became a born-again Christian and became a minister. I imagine he doesn’t go by Pastor Butt Naked.

This week though, Blahyi, who lives in Ghana, has returned to Liberia to face the truth and reconciliation commission. Good on him, because he could face death. And he should. Becoming a Christian and repentant doesn’t exactly make up for killing or helping to kill, brutally, 20,000 people.

In a similar vein, it was recently revealed in a report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) that 5.4 million people died in the Democratic People’s Republic of the Congo during a decade long conflict, which is still going on, between the government and various armed groups. The IRC estimates that 45,000 people die there a month. However, most of the deaths were the result of non-violent causes, like diseases. Children under five years old accounted for nearly half the total number of deaths. It’s amazing that most of us have probably never even heard of the fighting in the Congo. But we’ve all heard of Darfur in Sudan, although no one really seems to care about either all that much. What’s interesting is that the estimate for the numbers of deaths in Darfur is a lot lower than in the DPRC (200,000-400,000 with 2.5 million refugees). I guess when Don Cheadle and George Clooney make commercials about it, people (sort of) listen. At least Darfur has name recognition. We all know something terrible is happening there, even if we’re not sure exactly what. We can’t even comprehend those numbers, as Stalin points out.

Heath Ledger:

I have to make mention of something that’s not really big news, especially considering the state of our world. I frequently lament over the inordinate amount of press that is given to our aristocracy, our celebrities, as if there lives are worth more than anyone else’s. So here I will be a hypocrite, and give press to a celebrity, although the man no longer needs it. Heath Ledger, he who played in “10 Things I Hate About You,” “A Knight’s Tale,” and the new “Batman” film, died yesterday. I will not speculate on his intent to die or his state of mind leading up to his death, because I don’t know. I will leave that to other rags, even CNN, which seem to care more about the grisly details than anything else. I will only say that it is unfortunate that Mr. Ledger has passed, whatever the circumstances, because he was a talented actor, and a fairly newly-minted father. I enjoyed his films, and I enjoyed his acting style. I am greatly anticipating his performance as the Joker in the new Batman film, and was long before he died. Realistically, he will not be missed, because I didn’t know him. What I know of him, however, is forever captured in his performances in his films. Thus I, like you, can always see him as we saw him. But it is a shame to think of what he might have done in the future, of which we will now be deprived, and it’s a shame that his daughter will grow up without her dad. And you know what? It just sucks that he’s dead, plain and simple.

Today’s Coffee is pretty weak, especially for those of you who’ve grown used to the more dense variety of late.

Word of the Day: Effusive: (adjective): Excessively demonstrative; giving or involving extravagant or excessive emotional expression; gushing.

On This Day in History: Roman Emperor Theodosius I proclaims his nine year old son Honorius co-emperor (393). Anne Boleyn, second wife of King Henry VIII, figures out that she’s pregnant (1533). Her marriage would end in a nasty separation... North Korea seizes the USS Pueblo, claiming that it violated their waters while spying (1968). They still have the ship and have turned it into a museum.

“A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic.” – Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin).

Morning Coffee (95)

Good morning, Coffee aficionados. Since the injection of topic headings into the smooth flowing Morning Coffee, writing sufficient introductions has become a challenge. I guess that’s the problem with any digital media; a problem associated with our “have-it-now” attitude. Readers ignore grandiose prose, and wish to delve into the meat. “Get to the point,” they say. No time to enjoy reading for the sake of reading. I suppose the topic headings allow the reader to scan the Coffee (and it’s apparent that scan is all they do considering the amount of time they spend on the actual site) and consume what they want without having to “wade” through any ancillary garbage. In turn, I suppose that’s why topic headings are so inflammatory – they must grab the reader. Thus dies literature, and reading comprehension…

Huckabee the Bible-Based Constitutionalist:
Luckily, I don’t have to give equal billing to all the candidates. If I did, I would have to Brew at least five times a day, seven days a week. My seemingly chronic criticism of certain candidates does not mean I endorse others. It just means that they might say things that are more absurd than others. I only have so many hours to write, so I choose the best material from what’s available. And since I am unable to produce original reporting on anything, I can only expound upon what is already written. And sue me; I go for the easy targets sometimes. It’s their fault. 

I actually think Huckabee’s an overall swell guy. But then he opines on something that should have been left unsaid. It’s interesting to me how the choice of words changes depending on the audience. Still, anyone who is a serious contender for the Presidency should realize that in this day and age, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion, no matter if it’s to an obscure, private audience. 

Huckabee was recently interviewed by the spiritual/religious website Beliefnet.com. It is here that you get some insight on Huckabee. As I read this interview, I found myself continuing to say, “Wow…” Not in awe, but that incredulous “Wow” that you utter when you are sort of perplexed. Like “Wow, he really said that?” 

I implore you to read the interview yourself when presented with the opportunity, but I’ll give a few examples for those short on time. I first uttered “wow” while reading his response to the question of whether or not he’s felt God’s presence during the campaign. Of course, he uses the tried and true “a friend of mine sent me/told me such and such”, which politicians use to humanize their responses. His friend/classmate quoted Luke, Chapter 12, something about when “you stand before the assembly, give no thought to what you shall say for the Holy Spirit will give you the words in that hour.” He feels that the Lord gives him the wisdom and responses that are needed. That sounds a lot like prophetic inspiration to me. So if we elect Huckabee, we’re actually getting Godly wisdom along with a charismatic preacher, right? So we’re sort of electing God, since He’s sort of speaking through Huckabee. So, what’s the problem? Obviously we need to vote for (anoint) Huckabee as our theocrat, er, President. Well, that’s neat and all, but much like it is for sports teams and Grammy Award winning musicians, I’m sure that God gets an inordinate amount of credit for political victories, successful campaign speeches, and debate answers. Anyone who’s after the type of voters who read Beliefnet.com interviews would probably answer these questions in a similar manner. 

Next up is the issue that turned me onto this interview, that being the topic of Constitutional Amendments. Huckabee was asked to elaborate on why “we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards,” which is apparently what he has suggested recently. He says, rightfully, that the Constitution was created so that it could be changed. But then he goes on to say that the Bible was not written to be amended, as if comparing the two offers us some validity to his theological opinions. He clearly forgets, however, the fact that the Bible has been amended, and on more than one occasion (never mind the innumerable different interpretations). To the point, he wants a Constitutional Amendment(s) that protects marriage (no gay marriage) and bans abortion. CNN reported that he said to Beliefnet that those two things “could open the door to polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality.” I didn’t see this statement in the interview, but it could be somewhere else on their site. If this statement is true, I must state that Mr. Huckabee is highly irrational. I’ve never seen anything that suggests that gay marriage and/or abortion is a “gateway drug” to those things. I simply do not know how he could arrive to this conclusion. I’m perplexed. It’s absurd. If I’m a woman, and I get an abortion, or if I’m a man who wants to marry another man, I am somehow predisposed to molesting children, having multiple spouses, and intercourse with animals? Please, please, please stop this insanity. Christians should be above such things. After all, long ago they had heinous crimes and behavior wrongly attributed to them by Roman pagans, who called them cannibals (among other things) because they ate the body and drank the blood of their savior god. 

It’s scary that Huckabee wants the Constitution to be more aligned with God’s standards, although I am duly relieved that he has no aspirations (yet) to make things like tithing part of Constitutional law. But it sounds too much like religious law for my tastes. If I wanted to live under the yoke of “sharia” I would move to Iran. Having the Constitution specifically address morality issues like gay marriage and abortion is demeaning to the document. In fact, an argument could be made that the very thing violates the First Amendment, considering that it prohibits an establishment of religion. Nothing says “state sanctioned religion” like aligning the document closer to God and the Bible. 

My suggestion to Mr. Huckabee and his ilk is to forget about changing the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s teachings and to instead concentrate on slavishly following the (very loose) moral code established in their book themselves. If they (or anyone for that matter, Christian or otherwise) believe that marrying a member of the same sex is wrong, they should simply not do it. If they feel that abortion is wrong, don’t do it. It’s rather simple. I do not particularly want to see a multitude of gay married men and women (nor do I not want to - I simply do not care who marries who), but I’m not clear on why this must be constitutionally mandated. I’m not entirely clear on why it needs to be made against the law. Until someone presents me with a scientific study that unequivocally links abortion and gay marriage to child molestation, polygamy, and sex with farm animals, I cannot support any sort of Constitutional amendment banning those things. Furthermore, these acts taken individually are all illegal without any additional qualifiers, so what is the issue? 

One could further argue that it is the Constitution itself that shields us from a theocracy and should thus legally supersede the Bible completely. Huckabee paints a rosy picture of his faith and is proud that his Bible cannot be amended. This is fine. But then he goes on to say that without this malleable document, the Constitution, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people and women couldn’t vote, etc. It was required to be changed because it wasn’t always clear as it should have been. That is interesting. I find the comparison of the Bible and the Constitution to be paradoxical. How often has the Bible’s clarity been misconstrued, and led to the mistreatment of groups of Homo sapiens because they weren’t considered people? How long has the Bible and its derivatives been used to justify the treatment of various “peoples” and women and children? The Constitution and its message can not be so easily subverted. And the Bible cannot, like our great Constitution, be amended or changed. It’s only been available in the vernacular for one quarter of its life, and only then after the deaths of a number of would be translators. Whatever the Good Book’s merits, and they are few, I do not want the document that serves as the basis for my government to be based upon or more closely aligned with the Bible. 

Okay folks, I’ve rambled on incoherently enough on this issue, and for that I apologize. It’s hard to write well in my present environment as there are many things that distract me from what’s important. But I stand by my assessment. Huckabee’s view is wrong, and this view will only serve to pervert our Constitution. The minority will not be protected as it is in our present system, but will instead be marginalized and eradicated. This is what religion in government does. 

No time to sanity check my material today. I’m sure my vast readership will call me on any discrepancies.
Word of the Day: Theodicy (noun): A vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil.

On This Day in History: Pope Pius IV reopens the Council of Trent for its third and final session (1562). The Council of Trent embodied the ideals of the Counter-Reformation; a response to Martin Luther’s heresy. Importantly, anyone who interpreted the Bible differently from the Church was a heretic.

“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.” – John Morley.

Morning Coffee (94)

Good morning. I had no intention of Brewing a pot ‘o Morning Coffee today, but as it frequently happens while reading the news, I saw a few things this morning about which I simply had to make you aware. Sometimes there’s a wealth of things to discuss with you; other times there’s a dearth. I suppose we should simply sit back and rejoice about our good fortune…I will eschew pithy titles today, as I simply cannot muster up the creative energy required to amuse you (or myself).

Former First Lady: Bush + Oil + ‘Begging’ = Pathetic:

Okay, I guess that’s pithy enough. Anyway, as you may or may not know, George Bush is touring the Middle East. Yesterday, he visited with Saudi Arabian officials, and the conversation turned from camel racing to oil, as it is wont to do. Bush says (paraphrased) to his Saudi hosts, “Hey, you guys want to go ahead and increase oil output, ‘cause these prices are tough on our economy back in ‘Merica.” The Saudis replied that they’d increase output when justified by the market. Bush then pointed out that if the US economy suffers, then the US will purchase less oil and such. Case closed; fairly diplomatic sounding.

However, Hillary Clinton, potentially our next President, thought Bush’s actions were tantamount to groveling. She said, “President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic…We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence.”

First, I offer you the obvious. Bush didn’t ask that the Saudis drop the price of oil; he asked that they increase output. Sure, that would drop the price of oil, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that he actually said, “Hey, can you cartel guys drop the price of oil?” Second, this lays bear Mrs. Clinton’s disdain for the Office of the President. Being an elected official (who is also running for President) and calling a sitting President’s actions “pathetic” is contemptible. Hopefully, she will not get a chance to understand what it is like to be President, but if she is elected, I would think that she’d want a little respect from other elected officials, if not the citizenry at large. Which leads me to my next point: if doing one’s job is pathetic, what shall we call getting misty-eyed in front of a crowd of people and reporters because you lost the primary in Iowa? I suggested previously that this was somewhat staged, and hey, it might have won her New Hampshire. But couldn’t we go so far as to say it’s pathetic? Have some dignity Hillary, and lose with some grace. I understand that her tears were designed to show that she’s got a softer side to her steely-eyed demeanor, but if Bush’s actions were pathetic, so too were Hillary’s. Surely, someone who wants to be our President so badly as to cry (and one could argue that we needn’t a person who wants it that badly) could come up with a more eloquent critique of Bush’s energy policies. Apparently not.

All Democratically Elected Leaders are Equal, But Some are More Equal than Others:

Speaking of democracy and elections and Presidents, it’s important to put everything in to context. Sean Penn, who writes on occasion for the San Francisco Chronicle, has called that paper an “increasingly lamebrain paper.” He did this in response to an article that discussed celebrity’s interest in Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President. The article, which was “tongue-in-cheek”, “listed a number of potential matchups between celebrities and dictators or other authoritarian figures.” Penn took issue with this, and reminded us that Chavez is a democratically elected leader.

I really find this sentiment to be extremely hilarious. Penn is apparently so naïve that he thinks all “elections” are created equal, which couldn’t be further from the truth, and he utterly ignores the fact that Chavez recently tried to radically alter laws in Venezuela (and who can forget his failed coup in 1992…against a democratically elected President Perez). These alterations would have allowed him to be “elected” President any number of times. He failed in his bid for unlimited terms when the people rejected it in referendum. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I implore you to read the Wikipedia article on Mr. Chavez for a clearer picture of his transgressions against democracy and liberty.

What’s more, Bush is a democratically elected leader, but that doesn’t prevent Penn and others from heaping scorn upon him, much of it alluding to the fact that Bush is a tyrant. We hear things like, “King George” or the ridiculous “emperor has no clothes” bits spewed forth from their maws constantly. Why then should we not mock the farce that is Hugo Chavez’s Presidency? Chavez has undermined more liberties in Venezuela than Bush has in the US. Who is has the deeper tyrannical aspirations?

It’s remarkable to me that someone who thinks themselves so smart can be so utterly blinded by a charismatic, would-be dictator turned elected President. Sean Penn, and many of his Hollywood friends, should stick to acting. If they cannot, then they should at least recognize that their positions as celebrities gives them a wide, easily influenced audience, and they should temper their remarks with some reason and logic, and should not make uninformed remarks. They have some responsibility for what they say, as do even we “little people.” And if they cannot temper their remarks, they should be prepared to be openly ridiculed and mocked by others.

Political Update:

That’s the new moniker for the Morning Coffee. I kid. What I mean to say is Romney won the Michigan primary-thing yesterday. You might ask why there is no Democratic winner. Well, because Michigan opted to move their primary to earlier in the year than it used to be, the national-level Democratic Party basically didn't allow them to hold a primary. I had forgotten about this; it made the news some time ago. Clinton was the only person on the Dems ballot, so she sort of won. But Obama would have secured 73% of the African-American vote had he been on the ballot. Anyway, apparently independents and Democrats had to register Republican to have a say, and a lot of them did. They were disillusioned by their party's refusal to allow them a say. That's not to say they're going to vote Republican in the general election. I'm not saying that at all. But I wonder how the voting in the Michigan primary skews the projections for winners in that state, since a lot of Democrats voted for Romney.

Word of the Day: Maisma (noun): 1. A vaporous exhalation formerly thought to cause disease; broadly, a thick vaporous atmosphere or emanation. 2. A harmful or corrupting atmosphere or influence; also, an atmosphere that obscures; a fog.

On This Day in History: Speaking of dictators, the Roman Senate bestows the title Augustus upon Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, the adopted son of Gaius Julius Caesar (27 BCE). Thus ends the Republic. The 18^th amendment was ratified, authorizing Prohibition in the US (1919). John Holland, the 1^st Duke of Exeter, was executed (1400). Edward Gibbon, first modern historian and author of the great work “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” died of peritonitis, as a result of surgeries to correct hydrocele testis (1794). Imagine his discomfort; clothes during this age were very tight-fitting and likely caused his hycrocele testis some significant pain.

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say "Heil" to him, nor will they call him "Führer" or "Duce." But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of "O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!" – Dorothy Thompson.

Morning Coffee (93)

Another fine Tuesday morning, right? Right. Exactly. Now enjoy.

Clarifying the PCT:

Some people took issue with yesterday’s mention of California’s possible use of programmable controlled thermostats that can be used to adjust a home’s temperature remotely by government regulators. These folks stated that this was a small thing and that it wasn’t such a big deal and that I should stop complaining. It’s not like they’re taking my first born or anything. But stating this is to miss the point. The point is not that this is a small thing; I will concede that it is.

Think of it like this: the ground upon which you walk is the freedom you enjoy, and this provides the foundation for trees, which are your liberties. Trees, with their deep roots, prevent your freedom, the ground, from being eroded and washed away by the deluge of tyranny. The hewing of a few trees here and there does not mean that the ground beneath you will immediately fall away. But every tree hewn is one closer to the deforestation of your liberties, and thus the dissolution of your freedom. If we allow it to happen, we will soon be walking on the bare stone of totalitarianism. We must protect every tree, in my humble opinion. But don’t take my word for it, for who am I but the author of a highly un-influential blog? Instead, read what the fine individuals below have to say about it.

However, it can deeper than that. The forest cannot be allowed to run free; liberties must be carefully managed. If dead growth and detritus are allowed to build up and grow unabated, the risk of fire increases, and eventually the forest will be wholly destroyed. Fire is anarchy. Having no limits to liberties is just as bad as clear cutting the forest; freedoms are eroded.

Coquettishly Complicated Stop Signs:

The stop sign. You’ve seen them before. They’re on corners everywhere, with their big, white, capital letters jumping out at you from the deep red background on the octagonal sign. There are hundreds of thousands of them, possibly millions since their also used in other countries. These stellar examples of utilitarian art command you to stop, of course. But they do so much more than that. They utterly confuse hapless drivers everywhere. Such a simple sign with such simple rules paralyzes people. I’m sure this isn’t the sort of stopping its inventors had in mind way back in 1915 in Michigan. When a stop sign encounter with other cars, especially at those four way stop, goes off without a hitch I get a warm and fuzzy feeling deep within my soul. But this is rare. Pretty much without exception, someone bungles the ordeal. My favorite bunglers are those guys who are apparently very polite, and insist that you go before them even if they’ve reached the stop sign first and have a thing called the right of way. It’s the equivalent of coming to a door that you pull to open. Except another person comes to that door first and goes in it, but then he decides that he needs to hold the door for you, so he does so by leaning through the doorway pushing the door out while you’re trying to go in, but he’s made that difficult by blocking the doorway and you have a very awkward “brush” with Mr. Polite. But at the stop sign, the guy does one of two things. If it’s dark, he flashes his high beams at you, which I guess is a universal sign meaning “go.” I didn’t see that in my driver’s handbook; but high beams are versatile after all, and can mean a number of different things depending on the situation. Absolutely no chance for confusion. If it’s light out, the man can wave to you indicating that you can go ahead and go. This is usually the most efficient method. That is if you can see him past the glare of his sloped windshield and were looking at him for the split second it took him to wave. If you were, say, looking around for other oncoming traffic, you might miss his wave, and then give one of your own. This complicates things further, because he didn’t see you wave on account of your sloped windshield, so he goes, but you also go because you though he was a moron and was perhaps talking on his cell phone. Hilarity ensues. Using the simple stop sign example, we see why there are so many traffic fatalities every year, especially when one considers the complex laws and etiquette involving highway merges and yield signs. Since driving, like smoking, will kill you if you do it long enough, we should probably ban it.

Newsflash: Reagan Died:

I know that the Republican Party has a hard time coming to grips with this, and that a majority of party members are in denial about it, but Reagan died a while back. I realize you’re all nostalgic about Ronnie and you are dying to elect someone that you feel has a deep connection to him. I realize that no candidate can mention him enough. But he’s dead. Ronald Reagan will not be on the ballot in 2008, no matter how much you want this to be so. Reagan will not be reincarnated. Nor will he possess any of the present candidates and work through them to usher in a new Golden Age of conservatism. No matter how frequently these candidates suggest that they are Reagan’s heir, they are not, for we do not live in a hereditary monarchy and we should expect nothing less than each of these candidates being their own man. I realize that every conservative talk-radio personality in America keeps invoking Reagan’s name like he’ll ward off the big bad liberals. It is time to put the man to rest, to be grateful for his service to our nation, to honor him in that regard, and to move on. We need to let our future leaders be themselves, and not hold them up to the standards of someone who has become nearly mythical through death and the passage of time. He’s dead. Move on.

Potential Presidents’ Portfolios:

Speaking of moving on, it’s obvious that I think a lot about politics and government and such. I’m not thrilled about this fact. I’d much rather be thinking about historical correlations to the present, or Roman history, or military events, or other current affairs. But I find myself drawn to politics, drawn to our political system, because I think it’s broken and I like to try to come up with ways to fix it.

The following is a very nascent idea. In the span of two minutes, I can find a number of problems with it. But the Morning Coffee is all about ideas, and without these, what have we to look forward to? What will ever change for the better?

When we hold Presidential elections, we’re not just electing a Commander-in-Chief, we’re electing a whole team of people. A man is elected and then he selects and nominates people to serve in his Cabinet. He has ideas and potential policies and all sorts of things. Why not put together a portfolio describing all these things. In it, I could find out who he wants to serve as his Secretary of Defense, or what he thinks about taxes. I’m electing the package, not just the man. Sure, Congress confirms nominations, but what measure of protection does that offer us in terms of checks and balances? Utterly worthless individuals have been confirmed by the Senate as members of a President’s Cabinet. A lot of these people are confirmed because of horse trading anyway, not necessarily because of their potential as members of the Cabinet.

This idea probably sucks. There are a number of holes in it that I haven’t put the effort into plugging yet. But coupled with some other changes to our system, it might be worth considering. In any event, if I throw out a thousand ideas, perhaps one of them will be revolutionary, or at least evolutionary. Besides, it doesn’t seem like anyone else is trying to improve our system, despite its obvious flaws. Nothing stays the same forever. Why not take an active role in shaping things to come rather than waiting around to see what happens and perhaps being stuck with a system that has evolved into something much worse?

Word of the Day: Inculcate (transitive verb): To teach and impress by frequent repetition or instruction.

On This Day in History: Otho seizes power in Rome but rules for a mere three months before killing himself (69 CE). The UN imposed deadline for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait expires (1991). Wikipedia goes online (2001).

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered." - Dorothy Thompson.

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Morning Coffee (92)

Good day readers, no, drinkers of the Coffee. There’s really so much to cover that this could be a full-time job, this Coffee-brewing thing. But, alas, it cannot be, so we’ll have to consume in moderation, and savor the sweet taste when it’s available.

And because it’s so sweet, I implore you, if you deem it worthy, to pass along the Coffee to others who might appreciate it so. Better yet, refer them to the site…

Please, Enjoy the Temperature We’ve Set for You:

In the never-ending quest to combat global warming, planning poorly for growth, and insufficient infrastructure, Californian legislators are always seeking an advantage. And now, they might have the missing link: radio controlled thermostats, or as they call them, programmable communicating thermostats (PCT). Now, if the need arises, regulators can adjust your thermostat remotely, in case you and your fellow consumers are using too much electricity during peak times.

It’s such a small thing really. I don’t know why this would bother anyone; I don’t know why it bothers me. We trust these people to do the right thing, right? I mean, it’s only the temperature in your house. That’s all they want. For now, anyway.

Okay, I tried. I don’t buy any of that, really. It may be a small thing, but small things turn into bigger things. This is your house, people. Maybe they should get the message out more efficiently that you can turn your temp down a few degrees, and it’ll save you money. But instead, they try to implement regulations to control it for you. And you’re okay with this, apparently.

My problem with this goes beyond the intrusion of government into our homes. In fact, I have several issues with this PCT business (and its likely future spawn). For one, how is the decision made to lower the thermostats and in what areas and in whose houses? Will it be, as Joseph Somsel of the “American Thinker” writes, a case of the rich being catered to while the not-so-rich suffer? Will Malibu or La Jolla be nice and cool, while Central Valley bakes? Never mind that this undermines a central tenet in post-feudal life, that being private property and a man (or woman) controlling his or her castle. (Come on, it’s not yours anyway, really. Try not paying your taxes even after paying off your mortgage.)

Another problem I have with this absurdity is that it seems to absolve the state from having to properly establish and run institutions to provide for the public. Ralph Cavanagh, an energy expert with the National Resources Defense Council, says that, “most people given a choice of two degrees of temperature setback and 14^th century living would happily embrace this capacity,” during times of peak electrical use. That argument sure sounds persuasive and makes going against the idea seem like whining. But really, in 21^st century America, these are our only two options? In essence, “let us decide what’s best, or you can live without electricity for a few hours out of the day.” No. If you want unparalleled economic growth, then you need to provide the infrastructure necessary to meet the demands of said growth. In this, the administrators of California are failing. California’s energy crisis is part of a larger problem we have in this country, and unless we start thinking of revolutionary ways (beyond regulating to death the citizens of our country), 14^th century living is going to frequent our lives a bit more. How has our innovation become so stagnant? Our best solution is indeed a technological wonder, but it’s a remote controlled thermostat with which the state can regulate your power consumption from afar, not a more efficient power plant or a new source of energy that is clean and cheap.

Columbian White in Baghdad:

If California’s energy woes aren’t enough to convince you of the existence of global climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it, then this should. It snowed in Baghdad last week. You know the sort of snow we get here in the states; those big fluffy flakes floating to the ground and stuff? Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of snow they had. I realize that one half expects Iraqi snow to fire AK-47s into the air and attempt to ethnically cleanse the other flakes, but their snow is as docile as ours. And get this, not a single Iraqi was seen to be complaining about it. Would you see that in America? I think not, friends. Of course, it’s the first time in 100 years that Baghdad has seen snow, so it’s fairly novel. In fact, Iraqis saw it as a good omen; a sign of peace to come. Their blithesome mood would likely change if for five months out of the year, the forecast called for snow and bitter cold temperature, but we should let them enjoy it for now. They have enough to feel badly about.

Regrettably, that is all I have time for this morning. I hope though that you’ve enjoyed what I’ve brewed today. I have a few profoundly delicious Pots brewing, so stay tuned.

Word of the Day: Raillery (noun): 1. Good-humored banter or teasing. 2. An instance of good-humored teasing; a jest.

On This Day in History: Marcus Antonius, better known as Marc Antony, was born (83 BCE). The Fundamental Orders, widely considered the first written constitution in Western history, were adopted in Connecticut (1638).

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” – Voltaire.

Morning Coffee (91)

Welcome to Friday, which is two days before Monday. The year is flying by so fast, isn’t it? It’s like a blur. I can barely remember January 3^rd, it seems like so long ago.

The Masturbating Debaters:

I had the opportunity to see the last third or so of last night’s Republican debate. Watching these things is painful for me for a number of reasons, but I figure that I must put myself through the agony in order to make informed decisions about the Presidential candidates. I’ll watch the next Democratic debate when that comes on too. A few observations in a shot gunned manner:

Ronald Reagan’s name was invoked so much, I almost thought they were presenting him a lifetime achievement award and any minute he would saunter on stage, at which time all the candidates would take a knee while gazing upon him with divine adulation. Look, Reagan was great and all, but can we possibly look towards making the future as great as we all seem to think the past was?

Ron Paul was completely and utterly marginalized by the rest of the candidates, and this is frankly to his benefit. They continue to attack him, all of them, despite the fact that he’s nowhere near a front-runner; it’s as if they see him as a threat, which legitimizes him. So a lot of the attention ends up being on Paul, who’s asked some of the tougher question, but who fields them pretty well. He makes good points, even if some of them are tinged with unrealistic expectations and goals. I will admit, he is masterful on the defense. I think he is perfect for the role of victim, and the rest of the field is playing into his strong suit. They assaulted his “Republican-ness” last night and he handled it deftly. I think that the pack thinks of him as weak, that he’s just a nut job and that attacking him will give them a few easy wins, but every time they tried to sink their teeth into the wackiness of Paul last night, they found nothing but air. And the man had some loud supporters in the crowd. One of the others might make an excellent point and receive no crowd applause; Paul on the other hand would receive loud cheers and a shrill scream from the audience. Interesting. Side note: The mainstream media is finally reporting on Paul’s interesting little newsletter, a mere week after other media reported it. You can read it on CNN now. It’s about time.

Thompson was billed by some South Carolinians as the winner, and they said many good things about his performance. Having not seen the whole thing, I am not an authority on the matter. But remember, the man’s supporters are conservative southerners, so it stands to reason he’d poll well after being remotely eloquent. He did alright from what I saw, but he didn’t win the last third of the debate in my view.

Huckabee and Romney were the most fluent speakers. Both had served as ministers in their respective churches (well, bishop for Romney), so it should come as no surprise. Romney’s business acumen carried him in policy issues. Huckabee had perhaps the best overall response to a question when he was asked about something he said about (paraphrasing) “women submitting to their man…etc, etc, and how women from both parties think poorly about that sort of thinking.” His response was basically, “We all agree that religion is off-limits but I always get the religious questions. Since I’m going to preach, I’d like to pass around the collection plate because we could really use the money.” He then went on to absolutely crush the question. He pretty much put a saddle on that question and rode it around for a few minutes. He said, “the scriptures say that a woman must submit to her man, but a man must also submit to his woman and marriage being 100% effort from both parties, not 50-50.”

McCain had the best one-liner of the night. In regards to Paul wanting to “trade with everybody…” McCain replied that the terrorists, “only sell burkhas and only travel on one-way tickets.” His delivery was fantastic. He was pretty regularly assaulted by the rest of the field as well, but he handled himself expertly (no surprise since he’s been doing this for a long time). I also read that he’s got himself a “truth squad” to combat negative allegations. I guess he learned his lesson from the 2000 election cycle.

Giuliani probably performed the least admirably, I thought. I thought that Paul easily bested him, whereas most people had Paul losing. Giuliani constantly ran over the allotted time; at the end, speaking last, he just kept on going. The moderator kept trying to get in, but Giuliani kept going, repeating the same garbage. I found it arrogant. “America’s Mayor” didn’t do so hot in the first three primaries, so I guess he feels he needs to be more aggressive.

Overall, I think all the candidates did fairly well, but that’s to be expected since they sort of train for this. Some of the rhetoric that was spewed I thought was utterly void of insight and substance, but I neglected to take notes so I can’t remember specifics. For the next debate, I am thinking of setting up a new blog in which I’ll make posts during the debate as thoughts come to me. They’ll be time stamped and it might be neat.

I hate that the MC has turned into another political commentary blog. But I feel it’s my duty to at least monitor the situation for my dear readers. This is very important stuff, despite the fact that it bores most people to tears.

US Sends a Clear Message to Iraqi Date Palm Groves:

The US Air Force dropped 40,000 pounds of ordnance on date palm groves in the southern outskirts of Baghdad yesterday, in the largest air strike since 2006. The groves were suspected of harboring al-Qaida fighters. The fireworks were courtesy of two B-1 bombers and four F-16s. There has been no word on al-Qaida casualties, but the date palms were hit hard; suffering from severe burns, shrapnel wounds, and various internal injuries from the concussive force of the bombs. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said of the strike, “This is a blow from which the Iraqi date palm will have a very difficult time recovering. We sent a message to them that you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. I don’t expect that al-Qaida will find the date palm receptive to their jihadist message after this, and hopefully the date palms can be reintegrated with greater Iraq.”

That was a poor attempt at imitating the Onion, I know. But cut me some slack…Have a good weekend. I will try to deliver to you some steaming hot, bitterly delicious Coffee at least once during our respite from servitude.

Word of the Day: Mimetic (adjective): 1. Apt to imitate; given to mimicry; imitative. 2. Characterized by mimicry; applied to animals and plants; as, “mimetic species; mimetic organisms.”

On This Day in History: First recorded lottery in England (1569). First day of Carmentalia, celebrated primarily by women, in honor of Carmenta, the goddess of childbirth and prophecy. If you were to visit her temple, you were forbidden to wear leather or other dead skin. Carmenta also invented the Latin alphabet, so thank her.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili. Better known to the proles as Stalin.

Morning Coffee (90)

Good Morning Coffee drinkers; or afternoon, depending on your reading habits. It’s another semi-fine day, right? I leave that to your judgment.

A Touch of the Ole Midas:

If my ancestors had more foresight when they came to this New World, they would have perhaps assisted Cortez in relieving the natives of their precious metals. Or perhaps they would have bolted for California 1849. Because if they passed onto me a mere pound of gold, I would have at present a pretty good sum of money in the form of the glimmering metal. Yesterday the price of gold rose to $894.40 an ounce before settling back down to $881.80. I’m told that’s a record high (although it still falls well below the inflation adjusted high of 1980 when gold reached $2,200 an ounce). Silver, gold’s oldest competitor for worship by shiny-object-loving primitives, rose to a paltry $15.94 an ounce. Platinum though would run you about $1,558 per, which means if I liquidated all of my assets, including the ownership of the highly profitable Morning Coffee, I could purchase roughly 1/10^th of an ounce of platinum. Clearly, I haven’t the curse of Midas.

Unlimited Refills:

Do you know what is scary? A significant percentage (I think it was 30%, but I’ve lost the source) of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire’s primary said that if given a choice, they would have voted for Bill Clinton again. You might assume that this is scary for a number of reasons; that Bill was a bad President or made a mockery out of the Office of the Presidency or was weak in some area or another. But this isn’t what I think is scary about this. No, it’s scary because it means that a surprising percentage of our citizenry have no regard whatsoever for an integral part of our political system, and a part that I think should be expanded far beyond its present use. I’m talking about term limits. Apparently, a check on the personal accumulation of power isn’t all that important provided people feel good.

I guess it should come as no surprise, since we are talking about the same species who has been a-okay with handing over near unlimited powers to all sorts of people, provided that they make their problems appear to go away and make them feel safe and snug in their beds. I’m not talking, of course, about people who’ve been forced to bear the yoke of tyranny by violence or were unlucky enough to have been born into it. I’m talking about people who actively cede power to an individual or to an office (which are generally occupied by people). Our version of Cincinnatus, George Washington, would have been given a crown by the people had he desired and accepted it. We would have simply handed over all for which we had so recently fought because a man gave us a warm and fuzzy feeling of security; because he was a competent leader and because he had helped win us our freedom. Wouldn’t that would have been the height of irony? Ceding our freedoms to the man who helped us win them? We have already created our own aristocracy, and while it may be that titles and honorifics are not passed down from generation to generation, the concept is the same. Knowing that, what would our government look like had Washington not wished to retire to Mount Vernon? It’s a blessing (and a curse) that our political institutions are now pretty firmly entrenched, as limits on Presidential terms are a Constitutional Amendment (22^nd, ratified in 1951). But as history has shown us, firmly entrenched is a mere illusion of permanence when it comes to man’s institutions, for without conscious renewal of the vows of constraint, they will be slowly eroded by those who seek more power. What’s surprising, though, is that it took so long for the Constitution to be amended in the first place, considering what Jefferson wrote about it in 1807 ("if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life”) and what others thought before and after him. What is not surprising, however, is that while the purveyors of our laws have limited Presidential power in this regard, they have not taken the opportunity to similarly constrain themselves. Hopefully that can be changed in the future, and we can implement another check against “benevolent tyranny.” And hopefully, we don’t someday, in a fit of irrational fear, repeal the 22^nd Amendment and crown ourselves a new Caesar.

The aforementioned bit of New Hampshire exit polling, about which I was speaking prior to mounting the soapbox, also suggests that perhaps a third of those who voted for Hillary Clinton might have done so solely out of nostalgia. That is not as scary as the disregard for term limits, as it’s simply part of human nature to be nostalgic, but it is jarring to think that Mrs. Clinton might be elected, whatever her merits or demerits, based largely on the fact that her husband was once President and the passage of 8 years has bathed his term in a rose-colored light. Is this how simple we are as an electorate? Rhetorical question. If this is the case, what I wrote in previous Morning Coffee (81) certainly must be even more foreboding. Imagine another Clinton or a Bush getting a chance because of nostalgia.

Sensationalism is Grand:

I was itching for something else to write about, since the above is simply too short considering yesterday’s grandiose composition. Thankfully, I found something about which to complain. Here is the Drudge Report’s headline for an article on some local news station’s website about school lunches:

“School bans desserts; Parents given strict policy for bag lunches…”

That sounds great, right? I was actually sort of angry that a school would dictate what I was allowed to put in my child’s Transformers lunch box. I was going to write up an angry diatribe about the nanny state and what not, because it’s getting out of hand and this article would have illustrated that. I’m fine with the school changing their lunch policy and providing my kid a quality meal for a mere $7 (sarcasm), but not with dictating to me. But here’s what the article says about bag lunches:

“Parents can pack anything they want in their kids' lunch, but they've all received the school's wellness policy that encourages them to go for healthy snacks.”

The difference between what the headline suggests and how the article reads on that topic is radical. Drudge is known for sensational headlines, but this is probably the worst I’ve ever seen. In no way do I read that parents are given a strict policy for bag lunches. I wish people were a little less inflammatory. Here at the Morning Coffee we (I) try to approach issues with a certain amount of constraint and objectivity. I probably fail more often than not considering I’m but a man and imperfect and such, but I hope I’m never as blatant as the above example.

Word of the Day: Ephemeral (adjective): 1. Lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory. 2. Lasting but one day. 3. Anything short-lived, as certain insects.

On This Day in History: In one of my favorite moments in history, Julius Caesar crosses the Rubicon, starting a civil war which would be the beginning of the end of the Republican Era of Roman history (49 BCE). Eventually, the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) would shower upon Caesar numerous accolades, and would elect to make him Dictator for life. He would soon be killed by the famous tyrannicide Marcus Junius Brutus and his cohorts, but the damage to the Republic was irreversible, and Rome would be ruled, for better or for worse, by emperors until its end. It should be noted that Rome’s disdain of tyrants and kings was even more deep-seated than our own, and yet they succumbed. Of equal relevance to the today’s overarching theme, Thomas Paine first published his Common Sense on this day (1776). In this publication, Paine asserts that he will “offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense…”

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." – Thomas Paine