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.

Morning Coffee (134)

Soon, oh so soon, the madness will be over. Come 05 November 2008, the United States will have a new President. I won't have to hear, "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message," 7.5 million times a day as the Obama campaign rushes to break the all-time record for ad spending. Soon, the madness will just be beginning.

There seems to be almost no possible way that Obama will lose this election. He has the momentum. Just yesterday, a highly respected public figure endorsed him: Colin Powell. Obama's momentum is as impressive as it should be terrifying. It's terrifying not solely because of his politics, but because the American people have become so enamored with him. So much so that it's likely that the Obama Effect will result in a Liberal Supermajority.

And therein lies my problem. Tyranny is not limited to rule by one man. I would argue that the worst kind of tyranny is one of majority, especially a majority that has felt so slighted for so long. The sort of anger a singular tyrant wields is usually fleeting. Sometimes it it systematic indeed, but not usually as systematic as was the French Reign of Terror. I'm not saying that Democrats will summarily execute troves of Republicans. But surely, there will be reprisals. Republican dissent will prove very difficult.

And while Republican speech will be suppressed in the Houses of Congress, Democrats, in the name of fairness, will try to limit right-wing speech over the airwaves, an area that Republicans have long dominated. Many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, wish to implement a new "Fairness Doctrine" which would require radio stations to give equal billing to both conservative and liberal talk radio. How could this be a bad thing? It sounds pretty good, actually. In principle, many things sound good. But when the original Fairness Doctrine was in effect, both Republicans and Democrats used it to attack critics who were on the radio and television. And the Democrats' wish for a new fairness doctrine may be more sinister than simply being able to attack one's critics in a realm dominated by the opposition. As the article I've linked to points out, a new doctrine might eliminate a great deal of political talk radio altogether. Since stations are in the business of making money (imagine that), they might curtail conservative radio, since legally they have to provide the same amount of time to liberals. Liberal radio generally doesn't do very well (Air America), and these blocks would be money wasters for radio stations. Thus you get more sports radio. Or entertainment radio. Or bad music radio. In essence, more of the same. But also, the article points out that it would be difficult to pass legislation relegating Rush Limbaugh (who I do not really like) into silence. He and his fellow personalities would surely fight. A way around this is simply make legislation that requires radio stations to broadcast more local programming, whether it's wanted or not. This is positively great for local musicians, but bad for nationally syndicated talk radio.

Another sign: yesterday two men stopped by my house asking me about the election and if I planned to vote, etc. They were Democrats canvassing for votes. Good on them. But I've never seen a Republican canvassing for votes in my neighborhood. And I live in a battleground state. (Frankly, a Republican canvasser would probably nauseate me more than a Democrat simply because they're usually more, "true believer-ish." These two were definitely true believers in Obama, but not to the point of being blatant.) I did enjoy dominating the conversation with them though. They were utterly perplexed that I seemed to not like either of my choices for president. When I suggested that I might not vote for either, their retort was, "Well, one of them's going to win." Yes. Yes, one of them will win. Is that a good thing? Does that mean we should be satisfied with the afterbirth our political system has spewed forth? Anyway, I digress...

I have, for several years now, been hoping for a Liberal victory, and a Liberal majority. Not because I am a Liberal. No, I'm a political "Neither." But I want these bright-eyed liberals, as ideology obsessed as Conservatives, to see that their great leaders are as selfish and as inept as the ones on the other side of the spectrum. I'm sure it won't change anything in their minds. I also want to see their anger unleashed. So I can laugh at them for their hypocrisy. Will this be bad for our country? It might, yes. Especially when the opposition might have no ability to say anything, either in Congress or in public.

Speaking of free speech, what's with the railroading of this Joe the Plumber guy? He asks a legitimate question and his whole life is ripped apart. How does owing a fairly meager amount in back taxes and having outstanding traffic fines nullify an otherwise great question? He did not ask Barack Obama to stop by his neighborhood. Joe has not made a fool of himself, as would many of his peers. His responses have been reasonable. He implores people to go out and get answers themselves. I say kudos to Joe Wurzelbacher.

In other news, congratulations to the Tampa Bay Rays for finally putting a fork in the Boston Red Sox. I rooted for the Red Sox in 2004, but they and their fans seems to have acquired the same sense of entitlement as Yankees' fans. They've had two championships in the last four years. The Rays have never even had a winning season until this year, and that makes a better story than another Red Sox championship.

Word of the Day: Malfeasance (noun): Wrongdoing, misconduct, or misbehavior, especially by a public official.

On This Day in History: The Patent of Toleration, which provided limited freedom of worship, was approved by the Hapsburg Monarchy (1781). The House Un-American Activities Committee begins its investigations into Communist infiltration of Hollywood, resulting in a blacklist preventing some from working in the industry for years (1947). The Return of the King was published (1955). Nixon fires Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus after they refuse to fire Watergate prosecutor Archibald Fox (1973). An airplane carrying Lynyrd Skynyrd crashes, killing several members of the band (1977).

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

Morning Coffee (133)

Prevyet! Fall, my favorite season besides Spring and Summer, is in full swing in my part of the world. Chilly mornings are invigorating, are they not?

We've had a lot of readers drinking the Coffee lately. I think one day last week we had an amazing 15 unique visitors. Granted, they spend an average of something like 20 seconds on the site, but we have speed readers as fans, so that isn't troubling one bit. It is easy for the MC's readers to breeze through three to four pages of entertaining, political insight in less than a minute. That's, as they say, just the sort of people with whom we roll.

I must apologize about politics dominating the topics within my little slice o' the blogosphere the last, say 75 years. That's what it feels like anyway. But this (the insanity, i.e. the 2008 Presidential Race) will be over in a month. Remember, though, "they" are telling you that this is the most important election of your lives, so it's best to remember to vote come Election Day. Is it really the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN YOUR LIFE!!!!??? Who knows? I personally think it's a lot of tripe, but what do I know? I'm not on TV, thus nothing I say can be trusted.

Supreme Courtesans:

I will say one thing about the importance of this election, however. The next President may well have the opportunity to nominate no less than five Supreme Court Justices. You remember those people, right? The Judicial branch of the government and all? Yeah, they're not so irrelevant as one might think; they actually do things that affect your lives.

So let's take a look at the current Justices. There are, as you surely know, nine seats on the Court, one of which is filled by the Chief Justice. I'm also sure that you know that these are lifetime appointments, so once a judge is confirmed, he or she could be there for a long time. With that being said, there are at present five Justices age 70 or older (88, 75, 72. 72, 70). By the end of the first term of the next President, their ages will be 92, 79, 76, 76, and 74, respectively. It is very likely that at least three Justices will be named within eight years, possibly more.

I know that the masses turn to the Morning Coffee to find out "what it means" (sarcasm), but I can't tell you what it means this time. What I can tell you is that there is a possibility that, despite Congressional oversight, our next President could nominate so-called activist judges who could be confirmed. It is a possibility. This would have a major, lasting impact on our lives since we could be saddled with his/her pick for 30 plus years. I have never seen this issue mentioned in the media, which I find amazing considering the current average age of the Court (68). I think that the power of nominating justices is one of the most potent in the Presidential arsenal, because his/her choices can be directly tied to his/her Presidency for decades. Many other Presidential decisions or policies, while influential, can be overturned or reversed. Once a Justice is nominated and confirmed, well, until death or retirement, we're stuck with him. A Supreme Court Justice has never been removed from office. Legally, the Justice must be impeached by majority in the House of Representatives, and convicted by two-thirds of the Senate. Only once has a Justice been impeached, and the Senate failed to convict him because his impeachment was largely because foes disagreed with his decisions.

This is just one more thing to think about while casting your vote, or perhaps, the heavens forbid, even before entering the booth. We're lucky that we get a say, however weak that say might be, in who our leaders will be. We might as well exercise that power prudently.

Thesauri:

Is anyone tired of hearing the words "fundamental" and "maverick?" In three debates, these two words have been used 61 times. The Maverick family has a fundamental difference in opinion with the McCain/Palin campaign on how they use of the word (which was based on an ancestor's refusal to brand his cattle) because they are, after all, liberal Democrats. Worse, religious fundamentalists, who could be considered mavericks that have fundamental differences in the way mainstream religions do things, are voicing their displeasure with both campaigns for their adoption of the word fundamental.

I wish they would look in a thesaurus, as these relatively new inventions are quite handy. Anyway, these campaigns are just a coupla mavericks who really put the F.U.N. in fundamental...

Unfortunately, that's all I've got time for today. One saved round: While it's true I haven't heard the media mention the Supreme Court issue, it was briefly mentioned in a blog written by a kid I used to know, about which I just became aware of last night. This blog entry, dated 02 Oct, was not the inspiration for today's Cup of Coffee, I assure you. But check it out if you wish. He discusses politics as well, and pays particular attention to Washington State, as he currently lives there. I think.

Word of the Day:
Euphonious (adj): Pleasing or sweet in sound; smooth-sounding.

On This Day in History: King John of England loses his crown jewels in The Wash. Oops (1216). Christopher Columbus makes landfall, believing he's reached East Asia. Dolt (1492). The implementation of the Gregorian calendar makes this day vanish in Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain in the year 1582. Magic. The citizens of Munich are invited to join Bavarian royalty in the celebration of the marriage of Prince Ludwig and Princess Theresa, becoming the first Oktoberfest. Hangover (1810). President Roosevelt (Teddy) officially renames the Executive Mansion to the White House. Deft (1910). Khrushchev bangs his shoe on a desk at the UN General Assembly. Irate (1960). Today's apparently the National Coming Out Day in the UK. Also it's Freethought Day, in the US, during which time secularists and freethinkers reflect on the Salem Witch Trials (which also ended today in 1692).

"What the wise do in the beginning, fools do in the end. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else!" - Winston Churchill.

Morning Coffee (132)

Good morgen and such. Of course, maybe it's not morning where you are. Maybe it's night. Maybe you're in Purgatory and you live in perpetual darkness. Maybe the sun never rises on you because you're life is horrible. If any of this is the case, the Morning Coffee will not help brighten your day, because it's only served black. But maybe it will lessen the pain...

Vice Presidential Debates - Part One...and Only:
Speaking of pain, the sado-masochists at the Morning Coffee (me) like pain. That's why we do things like watch political debates. Every hard-hitting, eye-gouging second of them.

Reading the news today, you'll see that Joe Biden, the VP pick of Barack Obama, won the debate. You'll also see that Sarah Palin, the VP pick of John McCain, won the debate. Amazing, isn't it? Two winners.

Immediately after the debate, on Fox News (fair and balanced even), the pundits on Brit Hume's show overwhelmingly suggested that Palin won the debate, except for William Kristol from The Weekly Standard. Kristol did say that Palin did better than Biden, but that he couldn't call a winner.

Many pundits suggested that by simply showing up, Palin would win because the bar had been set so low. Well, we who Brew the Morning Coffee do not give such pity points to poorly experienced politicians. We like to call it like it is: Palin did not come close to winning that debate.

For one, to me debates are formal affairs. As such, I don't really appreciate the folksy lingo used by Palin, although I'm sure many of my fellow citizens do. Actually, it felt sort of forced; thrown out with such frequency that maybe the user wasn't as well versed as she wanted to come across. Her speech seemed to become more riddled with these little sayings as she went along, as if there was a conscious effort to appear more "regular Joe." Again, I'm sure many people loved it, but it bothers me. I got the sense that it's pure pandering. But I also feel that there's a time and place for that sort of speak, and a debate isn't one of them. Forgive me if I'm a stickler for form AND substance at the same time.

With that being said, we did get an awful lot of quasi-substance with Palin last night. She was so eager to dispel the notion that she was out of her league that she felt that she had to literally shotgun the room with her answers. She appeared frantic to me. Not frantic in the sense of hysterics, but frantic in the sense that she had to touch on every issue possible, foreign policy in particular. Contrast this with Biden's far more measured responses to Ifill's questions or Palin's criticisms. Biden was not shotgunning the room. Palin was so eager that she even asked if she could talk about Afghanistan when Afghanistan was not the topic of discussion at that point. Great. Good on her. But she regurgitated talking points like a college student would on a final exam. Context seemed to be lost. How all the pieces fit together didn't seem to cross her mind. The goal was simple: spew out as many "facts" and names (even if the names were incorrect) as possible. That'll show those pundits who say she isn't well versed in foreign policy matters. I will not argue that the governor is a quick study, but I took a class in macroeconomics for 10 weeks, crammed for the final, and passed the class, but you do not want me in charge of anything more complex than my own household's finances.

But oddly, this wasn't even what bothered me most about Palin's performance, as I pretty much knew what to expect on that front. What bothered me most was this comment, made at the beginning of the debate:

"And I may not answer the questions [the way] that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

This statement allowed Palin to stick to her narrowly defined talking points all night. There were times when she "talked straight" and straight up didn't bother to answer the question posed by the moderator. Just totally gaffed the questions off and spoke about whatever she wanted to. That bothered me for some reason. She has the opportunity to do dozens and dozens of stump speeches during which she can talk about whatever she'd like. So the least she could do was address the questions Ifill posed, all of which I thought were reasonable. As some might say: "Fail."

In Palin's closing comments, she mentioned that she would like more opportunity to debate with Biden, or at least that's what I took as her meaning. That's probably not going to happen. She emerged from this one relatively unscathed, so the McCain camp won't be looking to throw her up there again. After all, the Obama campaign now knows what to expect from her now. She's no longer an unknown quantity, and the Biden would be better armed to do more serious harm to her and McCain. This is all very unfortunate, because I'd be interested to see how she could perform in subsequent debates. But she had to say it, right?

If anything, I actually came away from this debate liking Joe Biden more, which is to say I really had no opinion of him at all prior to last night. What I liked most was not his personality or his funny habit of referring to himself in the third person, or the fact that he's the second poorest member of the Senate, but his answer to Palin's notion that the "Constitution might give the Vice President more power than it has in the past." She agrees with Dick Cheney's idea of the office. To this, Joe Biden stated:

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that...The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."

Biden is technically wrong; it's Article II that describes the Executive Branch. His point, however, is most appropriate.

Word of the Day: Slugabed (noun): One who stays in bed until a late hour; a sluggard.

On This Day in History: The First Battle of Philippi took place in 42 BCE, during which Mark Antony and Octavian line their legions against those of Brutus and Cassius, assassins of Julius Caesar. In 1849, Edgar Allen Poe was last sean in public when he was found delirious in a gutter in Baltimore. The fourth Thursday in November is declared by Abraham Lincoln as Thanksgiving in 1863. The Russian paper, Pravda, meaning truth, is founded by Leon Trotsky and others in exile in Vienna, Austria in 1908. Germany launches the first successful V-2 rocket, which becomes the first man-made object to reach space in 1942. In 1964, the first ever Buffalo Wings are made at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo, New York (thanks guys!). Germany reunifies in 1990. O.J. Simpson is found not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

"Clever tyrants are never punished." - Voltaire.

Morning Coffee (131)

Greetings. While driving home the other day, I had the opportunity to hear Miley Cyrus for the first time. I must say, I'm impressed. I'm impressed at the garbage they will put on the radio these days.

I want to thank the Logician for helping Brew a fine cup o'Joe the other day. The feedback has been...limited, but what feedback I've received has been outstanding. With that, I hope that the Logician will write subsequent essays further enlightening us, in particular the "us" that do not wish to be enlightened. They are the ones who need it most.

He's a Rock:
In the Marine Corps, and I'm sure in other realms, the term "rock" means that someone is, let's say, less than brilliant. With this being the case, Chris Rock has recently shown the ability to live up to his surname. Sure, Rock is a funny, funny man; I've laughed at many of his jokes. But that does not preclude him from saying something stupid while on Larry King.

Rock says that Obama has more in common with "average" Americans in that he doesn't own 12 houses like McCain does. He says,

"The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses. Does this make any sense? Am I the only one that sees this? I'll go with the guy with one house. The guy with one house is scared about losing his house."

As the kids today might say, "ORLY?" (That's "oh, really?" for you old people who aren't as hip as the Coffee Brewer.)

This might make sense were he talking about some Average Joe, but he's talking about a sitting US Senator and bestselling author who also happens to have a wife who makes pretty good money as well. Obama is not at risk of losing his home. Thus the point Rock was attempting to make seems incredibly weak. Obama's not an Average Joe (no offense to all the Joes out there). Sure, McCain's family might own several homes, but that doesn't make Obama more like average Americans by default. They're both vastly different from average Americans.

The Cult of Obama:
But what of this difference? It's interesting to behold the schizophrenic nature of some political campaigns. Somehow, the supporters of Obama can maintain two separate identities for their candidate. On one hand, he's an average Joe with one house who drives a hybrid car. But on the other, he's a "scholar," a term I've heard thrown around about the candidate a great deal lately. Would you classify most Americans as scholars? I would not. But this assumes that Obama is a scholar. Is he? Or is it that he's neither an average American (average Americans do not generally run for President) nor a scholar?

It is true that Obama earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. It is true that Obama seems to have acquired a reputation as an intellectual man. If the former garners him points as a scholar, the latter annuls those points, being by all measure of the word, a cultivated image. He has written nothing scholarly. He doesn't engage in intellectual conversation in any public arena as his speeches and debates stick to campaign messages and talking points. Scholars are men like Benjamin Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Aristotle, and Marcus Aurelius. Men who are on a quest for knowledge, and are always putting forth their ideas for discussion. I know scholars; there are men for whom I've worked who I consider scholars. I have a good friend I consider a scholar. But in this case, scholar and intellectual are monikers given to us by the Obama Cult; said enough times, they become some sort of quasi-truth.

Obama's contribution to the political climate has been utterly short of scholarly. In fact, his contributions fall more within the realm of religious imagery than any sort of intellectual stimulation. His messages are the exact opposite intellectual, speaking entirely to emotion. "Change we can believe in." "Yes we can." "The audacity of hope." Just plain old "hope." These are not appeals to the intellectual, these are appeals to emotion. There is no substance to any of this. What sort of change? Yes we can what? What do we have the audacity to hope for? Must hope even be audacious? Is HOPE ENOUGH?

I would argue that hope is not enough. I would argue that Obama has little idea of what sort of change we need. He presents "change" in and of itself as enough of a reason. Communism is change, but it's not the kind of change we need. I would argue that Obama doesn't really have a well thought out, intellectually-driven idea of just what "we can." In a sense, he's all smoke and mirrors. Obama is the Wizard of Oz of politics. He's full of powerful imagery and flowery prose, but once you pull back the curtain, just the same old thing pulling strings. He's a Potemkin village.

The problem is, people have bought into it. With a campaign run on "hope" and "change" (whatever that might be), Obama is now poised to become President. But his messages are so vapid they might as well be coming from a cult leader. And that's what this is, a cult of personality. Why else would we have singing children extolling the name of a politician who's going to "change it and rearrange it?" This video should scare people. Watch it. (I warn you, it's been removed and replaced a few times, so you might have to look for it.)

But I wonder if these children thought they too were going to change the world. Maybe these kids thought their leader was pretty awesome. Children are so cute when used to profess the glory of a leader. Remember, it was a child and his penchant for the truth who told us that the emperor had no clothes. Messages that use children effectively are very powerful.

You might think it a stretch to compare Hitler, Stalin, and Jesus to Obama. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am indulging in histrionics. But the point is that such idolatry is not something that I wish to see in American politics. We rejected kings and tyrants even though they might be charismatic. We must always be on the lookout for men whose ambition outstrips their ability or desire to serve the people, and instead might wish that the people serve them.

I ask that you revisit the quote I gave you in Morning Coffee (130). Remember it.

Don't forget, the VP debate is on tonight. Let's see how Palin does, shall we?

Word of the Day: Donnybrook (noun): 1. A brawl; a free for all; 2. A heated quarrel or dispute.

On This Day in History: Jerusalem falls to Saladin after 88 years of Crusader rule (1187). George Washington sends the proposed amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) to the states for ratification (1789).

"These people remain here because I have thoroughly opened them to the Seven Seals." - David Koresh. Of the 76 people who died in the fire at the Davidian compound in Waco, seventeen were children under the age of 17. Surely, they adored David Koresh until the end.