Morning Coffee (150)

Most of the time, I feel as though I'm a salmon, desperately swimming upstream against a raging current of stupidity in order to find some semblance of truth. Sure, I know that if I make the trip, I will die from exhaustion, but I am compelled nevertheless.

You may be wondering why I haven't Brewed any Coffee in a while. As you all probably know, President Obama was inaugurated just eleven days ago. First, I was incredibly busy preparing for my day job, which unlike the Morning Coffee, actually pays the bills. Second, I simply wanted to put it all into perspective; to take in the zeitgeist. And sometimes the best way to do that is through time. I could have written the day of, or the day after, but it might have read like sour grapes. And frankly, I am of the opinion that it was a historic day; it was a rare historical instance of peaceful, non-death related, democratic transfer of leadership from one individual to another. And while the throngs of Obama supporters that packed the National Mall (amazing picture) might have felt it necessary to boo outgoing President George Bush, I felt that it was best to sit back and take pride in the day, even if I did not agree with much of what Obama said in his very well delivered speech. It was a good day, not because that particular person was sworn in, which is what his supporters might believe, but because a person was SWORN in.

And during that swearing in, while the Chief Justice's nerves were rattled and Obama himself was a bit over-eager to take the oath, and all throughout the subsequent speech, I kept wondering if I had become too cynical to acknowledge anything good the man might do. I wondered if the cult of personality I had seen grow in the previous weeks would sour my perspective of the man, and I wondered this almost as much as I feared that that cult would never subside.

But when the dust settled and the environmentally-friendly people left, Obama went to work. Cult or no, it is our duty as Americans to question our government. But we should do so with a fair eye, doling out criticism and praise when each are deserved. That's what it means to be bi-partisan. Too bad Americans, like CNN, would rather play "fan-boys" to these megalomaniacs. Let's "hope" that in the spirit of change, people actually change.

"No You Can't"...Sell My Face on a Plate:
You may ask, can we at the Morning Coffee talk any more about the cult of personality that is Obama? Well, to paraphrase a guy you might have heard of, "Yes We Can!" The White House, if a house can actually do such things, is looking to limit the commercial use of Obama's image. I will be the first to shout from the mountain that the image of the President, the Presidential Seal, and the White House likeness shouldn't be used to endorse any product (although you have to wonder how much national debt we could eliminate by letting businesses put well placed advertisements on the facade of the White House or behind the President during nationally televised addresses...). But I will also say, Obama and his campaign did little to discourage this sort of behavior during their dogged pursuit of power, er, of winning the election. I suppose that they now realize that it might be a bad thing for Obama's face to be everywhere. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal has already pointed this out, so maybe Obama's advisers read her article (her analysis of this particular situation is at the end of the article. The rest of it has other insightful analysis that we'll address in a moment). Run a search for "Obama Merchandise" in Google. Actually, I already did it for you. There are 14.6 million hits, including news articles and sites actually selling things. The Google ads yield significant results as well. Purple Slinky has a list of the "wackiest 35 Obama related items" that you can buy. Cracked.com also has a list. Wine, bottle openers, chap stick. All there for you, the Obama Lover. If you watch the news at all, you have seen the commemorative plates and coins. If you're a Chicago White Sox fan, you might get to buy Sox hats with the big "O" on them.

This new sentiment of restraining the use of Obama's image is confusing to me, especially when one considers that Obama himself has a site that offers all sorts of merchandise for sale, much of which features Obama's likeness, and mostly at highly inflated prices such as the Vera Wang shirt or Zack Posen's stupid looking design (prices vary from $45-70 for designer shirts). Of course, it might be that his handlers want to eliminate the competition; to drive consumers to the "official" Obama store. Not terribly free market, but what do you expect from a segment of society whose basic economic tenet is regulation?

"I won":
But let's move on, shall we? In the spirit of his being the change we seek (or something like that), Obama made a simple declaration when discussing his economic stimulus package with Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA): "I won." He followed up that declarative with a more conciliatory, bipartisan statement: "I will trump you on that." We sure did get change after all. I remember another politician making a similarly bipartisan statement, then about political capital, after a win in 2004. Yikes.

Too bad the proposal garnered not a single Republican vote. In fact, 11 Democrats voted against it, which is a fact you can access only by doing simple math, since most media outlets don't actually tell you that (277-188 - 177 Republicans...you get the idea). Toby Harnden of the Telegraph (UK) gives us a list of the 11 Democrats who didn't vote for the freak of nature stimulus package. Reading their comments about the package is perhaps more insightful than listening to a Republican make disparaging remarks about it, however true their remarks might be. See, they're almost obligated to put down a Democrat's plan, but Democrats who disagree with a fellow Democrat's plan, well, now that's where the burning truth most likely lies. Mankind is always most harsh to his Brothers (see one US Civil War).

Anyway, he's right. He won. He can trump anyone on that for sure. Wait...so that's what he and Pelosi mean when they say postpartisan...

Economic Stimulus for Dummies:
When it comes to economic issues, I, the Master Brewer, am a moron. But I know a thing or two. The most important thing I know is to ask people better than me to explain to me in idiot proof terms; break it down Barney style, as they say in the Marine Corps. Thus, in front of all the loyal MC readers, I plea to my good friend the Logician to Brew for us again. Now he cannot possibly refuse, since I called him out publicly. Or maybe that guy out Boston way...

The second thing I know, is that this stimulus is...what's a good word? Foolish? First we have the fact that Democrats offered no concessions to Republican lawmakers, alright they did remove the controversial funding for family planning services to low income families, but that was at the request of President Obama. Do they have to offer concessions? I suppose not. They are the majority after all. But don't come to me claiming you're postpartisan (whatever that means) if your modus operandi is to marginalize the other party.

Secondly, it appears to the feeble mind of this writer that the stimulus is merely packed full of pork. Peggy Noonan, in the article I previously mentioned, points out that analysis done by the Wall Street Journal suggests that "only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus." Noonan goes on to say, "When you create a bill like that, it doesn't mean you're a pro, it doesn't mean you're a tough, no-nonsense pol[itician]. It means you're a slob."

Possibly the strangest tenet of the bill is the so-called "Buy American" provision. I won't deny that buying American is patriotic sounding. But patriotic or not, it's not very logical. The provision requires that projects that are funded with stimulus dollars must use American made goods and equipment. This reminds me of the provisions the Chinese include on loans to African nations: will give you money to build your infrastructure, but you must guarantee that we get a large percentage of infrastructure contracts. Anyway, it's not very free market, and will only serve to alienate us from other countries, which doesn't sound all that Obama-like at all. The provision, if enacted, would also violate an agreement the US made on 15 November 2008, which stated that the US would "refrain from raising new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services."

If American companies want Americans to buy American, then those companies need to make a better, more affordable product. Forcing consumers to buy from one supplier is not, as they say, American at all, and will surely be detrimental to those consumers and world economic stability writ large.

That's all the economic talk this neophyte can muster.

Foreign Policy Expertise:
Speaking of neophytes, let's take a look at Obama's mastery of foreign policy. First we have his interview with al-Arabiya, a TV channel owned by Saudi Arabia but based in Dubai. This wasn't just his first interview with a foreign entity, but the first formal television interview of his Presidency (transcript HERE). It's nice that my President (which he is, despite disagreeing with him on many things) choose to give his first interview with an Arabic television station. I kid, actually it offends me. But the fact that he gave the interview itself doesn't offend me as much as does the content of that interview. I'll let Victor Davis Hanson's stellar insight illustrate to you how badly this should offend. In his article for Real Clear Politics, "Dancing Among Landmines - The Obama al-Arabiya Interview", Hanson says:

"When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another - especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality."

Hanson also points out, and you should really read the article, that while Obama says that there's no reason to not restore the "respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago," Obama made no mention of America's track record in helping Muslim nations or populations. Instead, Obama suggest that America has done little in the last 30 years, and prior to that, American-Muslim relations were stellar. Never mind the fact that thirty years ago, Iranian students seized a US embassy and held Americans hostage for 14 months, and in 1983 Muslim terrorists drove a suicide truck into the Marine Barracks in Beirut. How's that for good relations? But despite all that and the animosity Muslims all over the world have for America, Hanson states that the US has been involved in removing Saddam Hussein's military from Kuwait, attacking Christian Serbs to help Bosnian Muslims, helping Afghans fight the Soviets, investing $1 trillion to replace autocratic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with democracy, and giving billions of dollars to fight disease in Africa. How friendly have the Chinese or Russians been? Hanson isn't the only author to point out this discrepancy in Obaman logic. Charles Krauthammer does this to great effect. Krauthammer's article is slightly more specific with its use of examples than Hanson's general condemnation of Obama's rhetoric at home and abroad.

Another interesting Hanson point:

"Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama's Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions--at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: 'between you and me--typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can--even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins--albeit in the manner I adjudicate.'"

What more can I add? A synthesis: Obama's heritage is off-limits to the people he leads because it might somehow suggest that he's different from us, but his heritage is good when dealing with others; it gives him insight into how they feel; it makes it easier for them to identify with him. This is a lot of tripe. I'd hate to suggest it, but maybe his multiculturalism makes it impossible for him to relate to us? Not that I actually believe that, but I think Obama's gesture to the Muslim world is disingenuous and is insulting to the United States.

Here's a quote from the Krauthammer article:

"Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."

In another interesting foreign policy issue, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said of Obama's offer to talk to the Iranian government, "This means that Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed. Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change." He went on to demand an apology for American crimes against Iran. In fairness to Obama, it should be noted that he has not ruled out any options in dealing with Iran, which, to the dismay of supporters everywhere, means that military strikes against Iranian nuclear-related facilities is still a possibility. How'd that be for passive, Ahmadinejad?

Power Corrupts, and Apparently Makes you a Hypocrite:
In the Vice-Presidential Debates in 2008, then Senator Joe Biden lamented on the power accrued by Vice-President Dick Cheney. I largely agreed with his premise that Cheney had worked diligently to acquire additional power for the executive, and I thought that increase in power is a bad thing. And while Biden seemed to be most concerned with Cheney's encroachment into legislative (i.e. his) territory, he also seemed to imply disgust with Cheney's widely ranging role in the Bush administration.

Oh what difference does moving from the legislative to the executive branch make. Vice-President Biden seems interested in carrying on Cheney's tradition of being involved in everything. A "senior administration official" says, "Biden will be more transparent, accessible, bipartisan and focused on middle-class values than Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean he'll be less powerful." Great, more transparent, but still powerful. My question to Biden, was Cheney the "most dangerous Vice-President in history" because he was less transparent or because he had his fingers in every pie? Puzzling.

Word of the Day: Bemoan (verb): To moan about or weep for; mourn.

On This Day in History: Guy Fawkes is executed for his plot against Parliament and James I of England in the Gunpowder Plot (1606). The first venereal disease clinic opens at London Lock Hospital (1747). The United States orders all Native Americans into reservations (1876). Germany uses poison gas against Russia in World War I (1915). The Soviet Union (i.e. Stalin) exiles Leon Trotsky (1929). Eddie Slovik is executed for desertion, the first such execution since the Civil War (1945). President Truman announces a program to develop the hydrogen bomb (1950). President Clinton authorizes a $20 billion loan to Mexico to stabilize its economy.

"Obama raises hand, lifts a nation."

"Man raises hand, lifts a finger."

[Morning Coffee Ends Transmission]

Morning Coffee (149)

Good day to you friends. How about we meet for some Coffee...? Little different format today, with plenty o'links and a more bitter Brew.

"There is a pleasure, sure in being mad, which none but madmen know."
I made a picture which should illustrate the above quote beautifully. It is a screen shot from Drudge, taken at 1210 on 19 January 2009. I did not edit it, but added the boxes to point your eyes to the pertinent. (Above quote by John Dryden.)

More evidence of madness? (This is MADNESS!! Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!) (Amatuer, Amatuer Historian Note: 300 really annoys me.) Take a gander at this bit of...well, I don't know. I can't come up with an appropriate adjective. Just take a look. It's a video, made by Ashton Kutcher and it features all sorts of famous people, most of whom I no longer respect due to the obscene levels of sheepishness in their being. I challenge you to watch the entire thing. Watching the whole thing without turning a gun on myself was my pledge. What's YOUR pledge, fellow Kool-aid drinkers? (I find it funny that comments have been disabled for that vid. Dissent will not be tolerated.)

Global Warming: Myth or Fact:
Speaking of Kool-aid (Oh YEAH!), I just read an article by John Tomlinson that I find to be the perfect cap to my theory that Global Warming is a religious cult. Tomlinson says that we'd better pray for warming, because we just might be heading into another ice age. And speaking of perfect caps, Arctic ice seems to be back to 1979 levels, and Antarctic ice has increased by 5% since 1980. Oh, and global temperatures have dropped from a high in 1998 back to 1980 levels. Warming? I don't know. But atmospheric CO2 levels are rising, so warming it must be, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Insha'Allah? I guess...?:
It appears that the Algerian franchise of al-Qaida, al-Qaida in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb have been plagued by a particular problem that can only be described as divinely inspired. (GWOT Note: "The Base" does business like a McDonald's - you apply for a franchise and you can then use the name so long as you qualify it with "in the Land of" or something similar.) Yes, THE Plague, as in the Black Death. The Sun (yes, not most reputable of sources) reports that 40 al-Qaida fighters, who lack proper medical facilities and cleanliness in their training camps (i.e. caves), have died from the plague, which can be cured by the horrifically painful and exceedingly rare, nay, MYTHICAL, antibiotic. Despite praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, and pledging to kill infidels by the bunches, Allah appears to be generally unimpressed with AQLIM members.

Maybe it'll spread to Afghanistan.

Never fear, this will not become the Morning Coffee's style. I just wanted a break from the work-intensive nature of most MCs while still being able to throw out some information that you all might find interesting and/or humorous. Believe me, I'd miss the more cerebral style; it's far more scholarly than this.

Word of the Day: Narcolepsy (noun): A disorder characterized by uncontrollable bouts of sleepiness during the daytime, occasional loss of muscle power and paralysis, and hallucinations during sleep. (I thought they were called dreams.)

On This Day in History: The first electric lighting system using overhead wires begins service in Roselle, NJ. It is built by Thomas Edison (1883). Georges Claude patents the neon discharge tube (1915). German zeppelins bomb Great Yarmouth and King's Lyn in the UK, making it the first major aerial bombardment of a civilian target in history (1915). German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sends his telegram to Mexico, proposing an alliance against the US (1917). The US votes against joining the League of Nations (1920). Sixy-eight percent of all TVs in the US tune in to watch Lucy give birth on I Love Lucy (1953). Gerald Ford pardons Tokyo Rose (1977). The Apple Lisa, the first personal computer from Apple to have a graphical user interface and a mouse, is announced (1983).

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius.

Morning Coffee (148)

Greetings, Coffee Quaffers. I shouldn't even be here this fine, crisp beach morning. No, I had intended on going to the Sandbridge Civic League meeting, but it appears that the current president of said league is not terribly civic minded, as he didn't return my email soliciting information as to the location of the meeting. Secretive organization, that Sandbridge Civic League. I suppose they don't want strange, bearded newcomers interfering with their affairs.

Calling on all Spirits:
In 2003, I walked the same ground as Alexander the Great while in Afghanistan. I did it again in 2008. In 2006 and 2007, I walked the same ground as Augustus, Constantine, and a slew of of other Romans. I own Roman coins with the faces of Emperors Constans and Constantius I. Today, I am a master tactician, able to lead a small army of Macedonians to victory over numerically superior enemies. I'm also a political genius with the ability to navigate through a civil war and establish a dynasty. What's more, I'm able to force a fractured religious movement into accepting a unified doctrine. All this because I leaned on and took support from these great historical men. The problem is, it's all complete and total nonsense.

But this sort of nonsense is exactly what Barack Obama is doing as I type. Today, he boards a train in Philadelphia to retrace Abraham Lincoln's last segment of his trip to Washington, DC. Except, as Harold Holzer notes, this trip rings of gaudy showmanship. Obama has already been to the Capitol, and "backtracking north to come south may be a bit of an artifice." Nevertheless, Obama will stop in Baltimore, which Lincoln passed through in disguise due to an assassination threat, and attend some sort of event. He'll be sworn in on the Bible that Lincoln used in 1861. After that, he'll link(-oln) up with Congress for a lunch served on replica dishware to that picked out by Mary Todd Lincoln. And while it's true that Obama was born poor (albeit not in a log cabin), and served in the Illinois state legislature, let's not forget that the former was simply luck of the draw, while the latter was a conscious choice. As was announcing his candidacy on the steps of the old state capitol building in Springfield. It's hard to tell what of this has been carefully cultivated by Obama and what hasn't.

While Obama might be overdoing the link with Lincoln, his supporters most certainly are. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies selected as the official theme of the inauguration, "A New Birth of Freedom." This is a phrase taken directly from the famed Gettysburg Address. The committee also elected to serve dishes that Lincoln enjoyed, seafood stew, duck, and pheasant, for the post-inauguration lunch.

Many commentators seem to agree with Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz when he says, "Basically, a lot of it is twaddle, but it's harmless twaddle." While this may be true, or not, it seems that it has the potential to raise expectations unduly. And twaddle as it may be, none of it is warranted. Obama may have been born poor, he may have gotten to where he is because he's eloquent, and he may be black, but to compare him in any manner to a man who many, through the lens of nearly 150 years, consider to be the greatest President in history is grossly premature. And frankly, to encourage such comparisons smacks of supreme arrogance. That's not to say he won't be a good or even great President. But, despite whatever similarities there are, manufactured or real, he's got an awful lot to prove before he is in the same class as Lincoln.

A quote from Sean Wilentz for my good friend Luke: "To the extent that he's emulating any president, Lincoln is about as good as it's going to get. If he was trying to emulate Calvin Coolidge, that would be a problem." Wow. Really, Sean? I know you're a historian, but do you know anything about Coolidge? Nah, I guess you're in favor of the Imperial Presidency, too.

If you're like me and Presidential Pageantry makes you ill, you should read the article "Networks Prepare for Inauguration" on Variety.com. Of course, if you love that sort of thing, go there too, because you'll be all excited about all the neat Obama-related celebrations that are happening. If that's the case, Don Rieck's statement, "There is something of a Camelot-y feel about the Obamas" will give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach instead of the nausea it induces in me. Anyway, do you want me to explain all the reasons I find this to be just wrong? I will, but I don't want to beat a dead horse. Can someone say, "Cult of Personality?" I remember that there used to be a day when we ridiculed nations that fostered such feelings in their leaders.

A New Declaration of Independence:
But through all the Lincoln-isms and pageantry Obama, before boarding his train this morning in Philadelphia, decided that it wasn't enough. He said,

"While our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founding fathers displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels."

Can someone explain to me what this means in plain English? Is he saying that we're presently ideologically driven, small-minded bigots? He, a black man, was elected President. Doesn't sound like we're still a bunch of bigots. So we have new problems, but ones that require "not new" solutions? Then why a "new declaration?" That sounds like a new solution. Also, we must have perseverance and idealism, but not ideology. Even though ideology and idealism are quite related according to the dictionary, I know that modern parlance gives ideology a negative connotation. Interestingly, the modern use suggests that ideology is merely idealism combined with perseverance. Worse than the nonsensical nature of this rhetorical flourish, I wonder if the man has a single original thought in his head. Lincoln stopped at in Philadelphia on his trip in 1861 and made a much better speech that mentioned the Declaration and better angels too.

Eye O You:
If you need another example of how government mismanages money, yesterday California Controller John Chiang said that the state will be delaying $3.7 billion in tax refunds because the state has no money. The state may even have to issue IOUs to residents; it is unable to rely on borrowing from special funds and investors. What's worse, CNN news reported yesterday that it is unknown if banks will even honor any state-issued IOUs sent to residents. It's possible that Californians could go without a refund at all, despite rating one. Amazing.

I suggest that next year, Californians not pay taxes during the year and instead wait until they get the bill from the government of California. That way, the people can see if they themselves properly budgeted their money. If not, and they have no money, they can issue IOUs to the government. I mean, why not? Sure, it's a duty to pay taxes to some degree, but don't you think that the government has a duty to taxpayers, that being responsible management of the taxes paid?

Maybe we do need a new Declaration of Independence, but one of a different type than envisioned by Obama. One that says that government will have limited interference with our lives, manage the budget frugally, and be tempered by the law and adequate checks and balances. Free us from government stupidity...

Word of the Day: Magnanimous (adjective): 1. Noble in mind or soul; free from mean or petty feelings or acts. 2. Showing a generous spirit; generous in forgiving.

On This Day in History: Octavian (Augustus) marries Livia Drusilla (38 BCE). Pope Gregory XI moves the Papacy back to Rome from Avignon (1377). Captain James Cook and his crew become the first Europeans to sail below the Antarctic Circle (1773). The US takes possession of Wake Island (1899). The US pays Denmark $25 million for the Virgin Islands (1917). Popeye the Sailor Man first appears in a comic strip (1929). President Dwight D Eisenhower delivers a televised farewell address three days before leaving office. In it, he warns against the power of a growing "military industrial complex (1961). See, contrary to liberals' beliefs, as evident from their outrage, Bush was not the first US President to conduct a televised farewell address. A B-52 collides with a KC-135 tanker over Spain and drops three 70-kiloton nuclear bombs (1966). Operation Desert Storm begins (1991). President Bill Clinton posthumously raises Meriwether Lewis' rank from Lieutenant to Captain (2001).

"Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." - Calvin Coolidge.
"You can't know too much, but you can say too much." - Calvin Coolidge.
"I have never been hurt by what I have not said." - Calvin Coolidge.

Morning Coffee (147)

Good Morning Readers. I hope that you are all managing to stay warm through the invasion of arctic air. It's even a bit chilly in my little slice of paradise. The thermometer actually reads 21, which is far and away colder than normal here.

The Coronation of a New Emperor:
Soon, Inauguration Day will come and go, and the "Transition to Power" as CNN likes to call it will be over. But not before we spend over $150 million in total on the event and declare a state of emergency. Yes, President Bush has declared the event a state of emergency. With up to two million people going to DC for the event, the costs are somewhat justified because the incoming President and all those people must be kept safe. But at the same time, it strikes me as a little extravagant considering the current economic climate. I've been unable to find a cost breakdown of how much the celebratory events will cost versus the additional costs of security and the like. Newsbusters estimates that Obama's inauguration will cost roughly $45 million, so that leaves $100 million or so for security, etc. For comparative purposes, Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million, possibly plus an additional, unknown amount for security. Certainly nothing like the $100 million that this year's will cost.

But the same Newsbuster article reminds me that Republicans received a drubbing from the press for the costs of that celebration. The Associated Press lamented that the sum could be used for:

• 200 armored Humvees for troops in Iraq.
  
• Vaccinations and preventative health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami
• A down payment on the nation's deficit.
  

The AP cited historical precedents in which Presidents scaled down or forwent inaugural celebrations completely, as in the case of Roosevelt's in 1945 and Wilson's in 1917 respectively. Even supporters of Bush, like Mark Cuban, wondered why it was necessary to spend such sums. We're still fighting two wars, our economy is a wreck compared to 2005, and our deficit grows. So why do we not see the same outrage at this sum? It seems to me that the money, then as in now, could be better applied. But we all know that obscene pageantry is necessary in the age of the Imperial President, expenses be damned.

The Imminent Collapse of Mexico:
Earlier this week, the Joint Forces Command issued it's Joint Operating Environment 2008 (JOE 2008), a document that takes a look at global trends and makes certain assessments on what those trends hold for the next 25 or so years for the Joint Force. Interesting stuff, if you care to read the 56 pages, although you probably don't. The important take away, however, is the JOE assessment on Mexico. The JOE states that a worst case scenario would be "a rapid and sudden collapse" of Mexico and/or Pakistan. For most Americans, Pakistan is a no-brainer; it's stability is tenuous at best and it's collapse would spell bad things for South Asia and possibly the world. But the status of Mexico surely comes as a surprise to those who rarely think about such things (i.e. most Americans). It seems impossible that Mexico would collapse...right?

The JOE states,

"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone." (JOE 2008, 40)

Criminal gangs and drug cartels. I do not follow Mexico as much as I apparently should, but I do know that criminal organizations are very powerful there, and do represent a threat to Mexican stability. Police officers and politicians are killed all the time. A large reason for the rampant criminal gangs issue is, of course, drugs. It got me to thinking about something. Is the issue of crime relating to drugs because drugs are intrinsically bad, or because they're illegal? I could ask the same question of the US drug problem, or the issues drugs cause anywhere in the world (Afghanistan/Colombia). Most would probably say that drugs are intrinsically bad (or even evil) and that is the reason there are so many problems relating to drugs. But I wonder if the problems are cause simply because they're illegal. Sure, one could make a case that they're illegal because they are intrinsically bad, but I think that misses the point of my hypothetical question, and assumes without examination that drugs are, indeed, intrinsically bad.

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, and assume that drugs are no more inherently bad than alcohol, which I might remind you, kills a few people here and there. If these drugs were made legal and regulated in the same manner as prescription drugs and taxed by the government, would Mexico have the problems it does? It seems that if Prohibition in the US is any indication, crime, violent and otherwise, would go down if drugs were made legal. Crime associated with alcohol during the 1920s was rampant, and Prohibition made millionaires out of men like Al Capone who flouted the law and peddled illegal wares.

Prohibition was a complete failure, which even ardent supporters admitted. John D Rockefeller himself stated:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

In 50 years, you could hear this a similar statement made by any opponent of legalized drugs. Like Prohibition, our "War on Drugs", which has been going on since 1971 or so, hasn't enjoyed great success, unless you count one million arrests and incarcerations a year stemming from drug related charges a success. The War on Drugs has neither cut down the numbers of drug users nor measurably decreased the amount of narcotics that cross our borders. Consider for a moment, this: we occupy the world's leading producer of opium, and we are unable to do anything to prevent record harvests every year. Instead, the illicit nature of the product generates massive revenue for its growers, none of whom are exactly do-gooders. Consider also, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), which through taxation of drug crops has been able to carve out of Colombia what is practically it's own nation; the FARC controls 20% of Colombia by some estimates. Has the FARC been able to do this because drugs are inherently bad, or because their illicit nature drives up demand and prices?

I think an argument could be made that a prime reason that Mexico is besieged by criminal enterprises is because of the illegality of drugs in Mexico and the United States. Maybe drugs being illegal is more of an evil than even the evil of drugs. I'm in no way advocating that we make all drugs legal (although we could have a great conversation on this), but I do think that we should closely examine the root causes of Mexico's predicament and see what policies we can implement that will help stabilize our southern neighbor. Considering the massive amounts of money we've pumped into the War on Drugs, to little success, it doesn't seem that money alone, such as the $1.4 billion over three years the Merida Initiative calls for, will effect the change we want. Can we really afford the collapse of Mexico?

Please Don't Ask, Just Tell:
It is certain that Barack Obama wants to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, which has been in place since 1993. Obama recently said that this might have to wait until 2010, when he can build consensus with the Pentagon on the issue, but Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), plans to introduce legislation within the next few weeks. Make no mistake about it, whatever your thoughts on gays in the military, this issue is controversial. Ending it may be a good thing or a bad thing, I really don't know. But I'm curious as to why no one has said anything on the possibility that repealing the policy will open the flood gates on litigation against the government by any of the 12,500 troops that have been discharged from the military since 1993. My particular interest is those individuals who might be discharged in the coming weeks and months prior to legislation being passed banning the...ban. Certainly, some military members use their homosexuality to get out of their contracts, but it seems likely that most of those discharged do genuinely want to serve their country. (I've never done a survey, so I'm only guessing.) With that being said, what recourse will these men and women have if they're discharged say, a week prior to the legislation being overturned? Will they be able to serve?

Also, I must supplement my above curiosity with a few observations. A few weeks ago I read a quote by some politician saying, in essence, that our men and women in uniform are professionals and that they'll embrace their fellow servicemembers regardless of their sexual orientation. Professional they may be, but I think this statement is a stretch. I believe that you'll see an increase in hazings and assaults in the military when this policy is overturned. Is this reason not to overturn the policy? I don't know. I don't get paid to make those decisions. But I can say as a former member of the military, openly gay servicemembers would not be welcomed with open arms. It's just not going to happen over night. It's something that uniformed gays, not the masses of non-uniformed gays, should ask themselves, because they're the ones that will have to live with the consequences. It may be that they do not want to serve openly anyway. It might be that they will eventually be accepted, because their contributions are equally as valuable, but there will be some difficulty, at least initially. Just ask African-Americans how easy it was to integrate into the military.

I'm not making this stuff up. A Military Times poll found that 58% of those surveyed in the military opposed changing the current policy. What's more indicative, 23% would possibly not re-enlist if the policy were overturned.

Don't mistake my truthful speak as being anti-gay. Personally, I believe you should be able to have sexual relations with and enter into social contracts with anyone you wish (so long as they're consensual and of age).

Word of the Day: Laissez-faire (adjective): The principle that business, industry, trade, etc. should operate with a minimum of regulation and interference by government. I'd also suggest that government's interactions with it's citizens should be laissez-faire in nature.

On This Day in History: Gaius Julius Caesar Octaviun is given the title Augustus by the Roman Senate (27 BCE). They had their own little inauguration nearly exactly 2,036 years ago. Also, Ivan IV (Ivan the Awesome (or Terrible)) becomes Tsar of Russia (1547). English Parliament outlaws Roman Catholicism (1581). The US ratifies the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, authorizing Prohibition (1919). The Shah of Iran flees Iran (1979). President Bill Clinton awards former President Theodore Roosevelt a posthumous Medal of Honor (2001). The shuttle Columbia takes off on its final mission. It would disintegrate on reentry 16 days later (2003).

"And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"

Morning Coffee (146)

Good Morning. I meant to get this Brewed yesterday, but was unable to do so as I went to the Mariner's Museum in Newport News to check out the preservation effort of the USS Monitor. I recommend checking this museum out if you ever make it to the Norfolk region. Interestingly, on the way to the museum we saw in the distance the commissioning ceremony for the US Navy's newest aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). It was a good day, but I failed as the Brewer.

Man on Wire:
The other night I watched a fascinating documentary about a Frenchman named Philippe Petit. I really hope you've heard of him, but I sort of doubt it. Petit was a high-wire artist, and by 1974 had used his skills to walk on wires strung across a number of famous structures including Notre Dame de Paris and the Sydney Harbor Bridge. But since 1968, Petit had aspired to tackle the ultimate - to walk on a wire strung between the not-yet finished World Trade Center towers. Amazingly, he did just that. After years of meticulous planning, going so far as making a scale model of the towers, Petit spent 45 minutes walking, kneeling, sitting, and laying on a wire that stretched across the 140 foot gap that separated the towers, all at a height of 1,368 feet. The story is spell-binding, and the feat is truly amazing.

Petit got arrested, as he did after most of his stunts involving breaking into or trespassing on certain sites, but he came out alright in the end. His punishment was to perform for a group of school children, which he did. He also helped bring positive news to the towers, which weren't at all popular at the time of their construction. And he received a lifetime pass to the observation deck to the towers.

While the man himself somewhat annoys me, being a melodramatic beatnik whose passion likely immolates everything and everyone he touches, I cannot deny that his feat is one of the most wondrous I've ever seen. I am glad he did it. Perhaps it will help exorcise the other images of the towers from my head.

Blagojavich to be Deposed:
Moving on to something far less inspiring, it appears that the Illinois House finally grew some guts and have voted to impeach Governor Blagojavich. The trial could start within a couple of weeks, and a two-thirds majority of the Illinois Senate, which will act as the jury in this trial, could see Blagojavich removed from office. Considering that the vote in the House to impeach Blago was 114-1 with one vote of present (116 total), I assess that Blago's days are rather numbered as the Senate has about the same amount of love for the man as the House. Blago's response to the impeachment was to go out for a run, which he does a lot of, apparently. It's probably some deep-seated psychological issue; running away from his problems. He actually compared his recent trials and tribulations to the loneliness of long-distance running. Right. Every 10 mile run I ever did was just like being impeached and forced from office. He then said his work to help the people of Illinois is not an impeachable offense. This is true. But it's possible that trying to sell a US Senate seat is.

In other Blago-related news, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Blago's appointment of Roland Burris to the US Senate doesn't need to be consummated with a signature from the State Secretary of State, and that the Court would not force the Secretary to sign the appointment. I find this to be wonderful. The Court's job is not to legislate from the bench, but merely to determine what is legal. And Blagojevich still has the legal right to appoint the replacement for Barack Obama. Separation of powers, folks; it's really a beautiful thing so long as we understand it (which most of us apparently don't). I'm sure many of us will look at the Court's decision as supporting Blago and Burris, but that's not the case at all. They're doing their job. No more, no less.

More Corruption, Brought to you by the Uncorruptable:
Further disproving Democrat assertions that only Republicans are morally bankrupt buffoons whose ranks teem with the corrupt, yet another Democratic politician has been outed. This time it's Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, who although is the city's first female mayor, also seems to be as corrupt and immoral as her male counterparts (Spitzer, Blago, Kilpatrick, Patterson, etc, etc). Dixon was yesterday charged with a mere 12 counts of relatively minor infractions such as felony theft, perjury, fraud, and misconduct in office. She allegedly accepted $15,348 in gifts from a former boyfriend who happened to be a city developer, and also may have used $3,400 in gift cards to buy electronics for herself and her staff. What's the big deal? Some of the gift cards were donated to her office so that she could give them to needy families. I guess she needed them more than they did.

She didn't go for a run after the charges were made public, but she says that she won't let those charges deter her from "keeping Baltimore on the path we have set." Some path, Mayor. Some path. Perhaps all Baltimoreans (this is a real word) would like to be set on the path to a possible 85 years in prison too.

Frankified Elections:
Joe Carson, of the online magazine Salon, says, in essence, that unless critics can prove that Franken stole the elections, they should just shut up and accept his win in Minnesota. I wholeheartedly agree; good advice for Republicans to follow, lest they sound like their opposition once did. I just wonder where this Joe Carson guy was 8 years ago when liberals were accusing George Bush of the same thing? Consistency, friends. Just try it once. You might like it.

Silver Ladle of Justice Pours its Foamy Cream Over the Just-Picked Strawberries of Piracy:
In a laughable turn of events, it seems that the Somali pirates who hijacked the oil tanker Sirius Star, got what they asked for, and then some. Well, they sort of got what they asked for; they had to settle for a $3 million ransom, rather than the $16 million they wanted. But they got an immediate return on their investment of time and energy; five of the eight pirates died when their boat capsized. So much for stellar seamanship. Blackbeard is rolling in his grave. Apparently, the pirates argued over the loot and how to split it, and then, on their high-speed trip back to shore, ran into some heavy waves and sank. And the ones who died took their cash with them. Oh, sweet justice. (Thanks to The Tick for the header to this segment - the cancellation of this show was a tragedy.)

The news of dead pirates comes on the heals of an announcement by the US Navy that it will head a new anti-piracy task force. From what I've read, this new task force will have no authority to do anything, but is expected to make command and control more efficient. Wow. What an exercise in bureaucratic futility. A task force that cannot take the fight to the pirates, but instead focused on coordinating...I don't know what, is worthless. Better communications between warships of dozens of navies is important, but it does little if there isn't a combined effort to bring the might of those warships to bear. Maybe we're moving in that direction. Someone needs to establish some clear rules of engagement.

To close this segment, a eulogy for those brave, albeit foolish pirates, as read by The Tick:

"Death. The eternal blink. The capricious dance of Now You Stop Moving Forever. Well, contrary to popular belief, death isn't just for dead people. It can happen to anyone. I know, it's news to me too. And it's not just people either, it's all kinds of stuff. Horses, fiddler crabs. Did you know that even a potato... can die?"

Word of the Day: Fastidious (adjective): Hard to please; extremely refined or critical.

On This Day in History: Emperor Theodosius I is born (347). Theodosius was a very important figure in early Christianity. The Michigan Territory is created (1805). Insulin is first used to treat diabetes in a human patient (1922). Japan declares war on the Netherlands and invades the Netherlands East Indies. Japan captures Kuala Lampur (1942). The US and UK give up territorial rights in China (1943). US Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry states that smoking may be hazardous to health, which is the first government statement saying as such (1964). East Pakistan renames itself Bangladesh (1972). Legendary US Marine aviator and recipient of the Medal of Honor and Navy Cross Gregory "Pappy" Boyington dies (1988).

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." - Thomas Jefferson. Because this bears repeating.

Morning Coffee (145)

It just keeps getting better, doesn't it. The news, I mean. Some days, you just wish the insanity would stop. Madoff, Blagojevich, Franken, Burris. Obama's going to appoint Leon Panetta as the Director of Central Intelligence. Diane Feinstein's pretty mad about that. Obama's thinking about appointing Sanjay Gupta of CNN as the Surgeon General (not a shabby idea, frankly). Rent is falling in Manhattan. Oh, and the standard of living is falling everywhere else. Ditto the sky.

Rent Brought to You by, the Taxpayer:
Have you ever wondered what former Presidents get in the way of benefits? I have. What would you expect to be reasonable compensation for such a job, which can last no more than eight years? I mean, we can't have our Presidents living in poverty, can we.

Prior to 1958, when Congress enacted the Former Presidents Act, it was entirely possible that a President could become destitute. This issue was considered much earlier though, as Andrew Carnegie offered to fund pensions for former Presidents in 1912, which induced Congress to act, as a private citizen funding Presidential pensions was deemed inappropriate by that esteemed body. Despite their noble efforts, nothing was ever passed until 1958, when it became apparent that a former Leader of the Free World, Harry Truman in this case, could actually become poverty stricken. Truman wasn't doing so well in 1955, living only on the proceeds from his memoirs, for which he received a flat payment of $670,000 (after taxes and paying his assistants, Truman netted $37,000) and the sale of his father's farm. So, Congress acted. The Former Presidents Act provided a $25,000 yearly pension. The only two living Presidents at the time were Truman and Herbert Hoover, who allegedly took the pension to avoid embarrassing Truman, as Hoover didn't need the money. Using the a tool found on the website Measuring Worth, $25,000 in 1958 would equal $179,237 in 2007 using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Not a bad deal for taxpayers, really.

Of course, that was in 1958. From what I can tell, the scope and breadth of the Former Presidents Act has ballooned somewhat. One might say grotesquely so. I did a cursory search for the wording of the original act, but I could not locate it. This doesn't matter, as the wording in a 2007 CRS Report for Congress, "Former Presidents: Federal Expenditures for Pensions, Office Allowances, and Protection," tells me just what I wanted to know, specifically that:

"It was noted that the increases in the staff and office allowances for Former Presidents had greatly exceeded the "original expectations" Congress had when it enacted the Former Presidents Act in 1958."

Greatly exceeded the original expectations. You could say that again, and more. An updated version of the 2007 report was put out in 2008. Both are fascinating reads, to be honest. Well, if one is concerned or interested in such things. They go into the history of the Act, as well as the current state of former Presidents' benefits. According to the most recent report, we taxpayers paid $2,466,900 to the three living former Presidents in 2008; $518,300 to George H.W. Bush, $786,300 to Jimmy Carter, and $1,162,300 to Bill Clinton. The 2009 budget requested $2,934,000 for former Presidents because of the addition of George Bush to the fraternity of Commanders-in-Chief.

This benefits package is a far cry from the $179,237 each they would have received had the original act merely adjusted for inflation. But Presidents no longer only receive a pension. The "pension" part of their 2008 benefits alone amounts to $191,300 for both Bush and Carter, and $201,300 for Clinton, who asked for and received $10,000 for health benefits insurance. This pension also rises from time to time to reflect inflation or cost of living increases. Each also receives money for staff salary and staff benefits, travel, rent for office space, telephone, printing, postage, office supplies, equipment, and "other services." The rent issue is the main point of contention, from my perspective, as Clinton's yearly rent is nearly as much as Bush's total benefits package ($516,000 to $518,300). This is if, of course, I were to concede that our former Presidents rate anything more than a flat pension and limited Secret Service protection, which I do not. There appears to be no cap on former Presidents' rent. Clinton's daily rent amounts to $1,413.70, which is more than my monthly rent, and nearly double my monthly mortgage payment. Every month Clinton rents that place is the equivalent to us US taxpayers paying 120 normal-person mortgages.

I will be the first to admit that the total amount we pay to our former Chief Executives is really not that large in the grand scheme of things, but that's not really my point. My point is that I simply do not understand why we should pay for the staff, rent, postage, and long-distance telephone service for men who have careers as authors and speakers that are rather lucrative, not to mention who receive other pensions as former Congressmen and public servants, or have other incomes that far and away outstrip the pensions they lawfully rate as serving as President. Surely, such a thing might have been necessary in the early to mid-20th century, but back then only a pension was needed, not the funding of an operating budget for a small corporation. I won't argue that the entire pension needs to be removed, although I think the affluence of Bill Clinton post-Presidency could alone make the case for such a thing. Remember, Clinton made $52 million from just speaking to people since he left office. He and his wife made a total of $111 million from 2000 to 2007.

Is it wrong for a President and his wife to make money speaking and writing? Absolutely not, but why then are we on the hook for Bill Clinton's $516,000 a year rent in Harlem or $10,000 in health benefits insurance when he can clearly afford such an office in a few speeches? (For those interested, you can find some tax history of Presidents and candidates at Tax History's page. Interesting stuff. Almost makes you wonder why our elected officials feel the need to allow themselves raises every year as their various side ventures allow them a comfortable living. Wait, I thought being a representative of the people was a full time job, thus demanding of the maximum pay possible. Guess not.)

Clinton's office and the amount of money we spend on it is really what first came to my attention on this subject, and the more I looked into it, the more absurd I felt the whole thing was. Clinton's office is 8,300 square feet in size, which is slightly less than double the combined size of Carter's and Bush's. His rent costs us nearly five times as much as either Carter's or Bush's. And here's an interesting fact, which is found in the highly enlightening footnotes of the CRS report: the Secret Service occupies 308 square feet of Clinton's office space, and the Secret Service reimburses GSA (the manager of all this pension business) for that space. The Secret Service pays rent to protect the former President. I'm fine with allowing former Presidents office space, but how about we do it in federally owned or leased buildings. Since the President's pension is the same as the salary of a head of an executive agency (Cabinet level), the GSA generally approves of "cabinet-level office standards" for the quality of a former President's office space and furnishings. If 4,000 square feet is the norm, as in Carter's and Bush's, how is 8,300 square feet anything but extravagant?

Another thing to consider in all this is the relative youth of our Presidents upon their retirement nowadays. Clinton was 54 when he left office. President Bush will be a mere (and pretty healthy) 62. And Barack Obama will be 55 if he serves two terms as President. This means they'll be collecting pensions and renting office space for years to come. This fact was somewhat acknowledged by Congress in 1997 when they decided that lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents was a bit much. Thus, Clinton will be the last with lifetime protection. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security can approve temporary use of the Secret Service to any former President if necessary.

It should be noted that nothing is said in legislation regarding a President who serves less than a full term, but it is assumed by the author of the report that even they would rate full benefits. By all means, give our Presidents the opportunity to live comfortably; let them have a pension. But I ask that we consider exercising some fiscal responsibility, nay, common sense, in doing so.

So much more to talk about, like Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan," but I think I've bored you enough with my rampant criticism of fraud, waste, and abuse for one edition. Maybe tomorrow I'll ask how in the hell he's going to "create three million new jobs, more than 80% of them in the private sector." Maybe tomorrow we'll discuss that 20% of three million is 600,000 and that non-private sector likely means government and that 600,000 new government jobs will cost something like $24 billion a year. Nah, who cares, it's all Monopoly money anyway. Marx is wrong: religion is not the opium of the masses, this rhetoric is. Lulls us into a false sense of comfort, makes us feel good, and distracts from the fact that it all seems fiscally untenable.

Word of the Day: Beleaguer (verb): 1. to surround with troops; besiege; 2. to surround or beset.

On This Day in History: Joan of Arc was born (maybe) (1412). Mother Teresa arrives in Calcutta to help the poor, diseased Indians die slow, agonizing deaths (1929). Thomas Edison submits his last patent application, for a Holder for Article to be Electroplated (1931). Nancy Kerrigan is clubbed in the knee (1994).

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." - Thomas Jefferson.

Morning Coffee (144)

Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope 2008 was relatively kind to you, though indications are that if you are under 70, this was the worst year of your life. Me? I can't complain too much really. I've got a good job, a good family, and I'm living on the beach for the time being. Sure, I'd like to be massively rich, have a record deal, and be as in shape as I was while I was in the military, but again, I can't complain. I'm not a fat, disgusting slob who has turned into a shell of his former self. Life now is a semblance of good. Finally. If your year sucked, I hope that Fortuna smiles down upon you and turns your luck around.

Now, no more of this touchy-feely stuff. On with it, eh?

Bill Clinton, Junior Senator from NY:
I read an article that informed me that Governor Patterson was leaning towards selecting not Caroline Kennedy or that Cuomo kid, but Bill Clinton to serve out the next two years of Hillary Clinton's Senate term. I seem to have misplaced the link, so you'll have to trust me on this one. Look, by now, you should know my stance on this issue: the person pursuing another office must resign their present office in order to facilitate an immediate election of a replacement. Of course, that doesn't work for those selected as officials in a new administration after an election, so there still must be a mechanism for finding replacements. As I understand it, Clinton's seat will be held by Patterson's selection until 2010, at which time a special election will take place. Thus, Patterson's choice is a seat-warmer. Sure, Patterson might want to find someone who has a reasonable chance at holding the seat in 2010, but I think he should take another approach. I would actually endorse the selection of Bill Clinton as a seat-warmer, contingent of course on him making a public promise to step down in 2010.

In Bill Clinton, New York would get an able politician, albeit one whose politics I do not agree with, but an able, well connected, and generally competent one nonetheless. Choosing him would be better than the blind (no pun intended) selection of Caroline Kennedy. You know what you're getting with Bill. It would also give Ms. Kennedy the chance to prove her worth to New Yorkers over the next two years. I like the idea of her working for the nomination, and showing what she's got or doesn't, rather than letting us find out over the next two years. I'd say the same about Andrew Cuomo as I would about Bill Clinton, but since Cuomo certainly has aspirations for the office, he wouldn't serve the role of seat-warmer very well. Bill might have ulterior motives, but they surely don't revolve around an election to the Senate.

I'm generally not a fan of hereditary or spousal appointments, but I could live with this.

President Jeb Bush:
One thing I would rather not live with is another Bush as President, which is apparently what George H.W. Bush would like. The elder George mentioned in an interview with Fox News Sunday that he'd like to see Jeb, 55, "be president one day, or senator, whatever, yes I would." Yeah, president or...whatever. Bush says that his son has all the qualifications. Hell, apparently the qualifications aren't that high anymore anyway, what with Mr. Hope being elected after a career as a community organizer and then a few as a US Senator. So I guess a pulse and a flimsy message onto which all us plebs can latch are all that's needed.

Would Jeb be a good President? Who can say. At least if he was, he'd be elected rather than appointed to the office. But I'd rather my country not get into the habit asking specific families to lead us. A name does not a leader make. There are 300 million people in this nation and surely there are a few leaders whose names aren't Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Let's give them a try, eh?

Pay to Drive:
I've been reading a lot of stories about states or cities adding or changing fees and taxes on the use of motor vehicles. In Oregon, they're looking into adding GPS to every vehicle and charging drivers a mileage tax based on how much they drive and where in order to fund road repair, which is what the gas tax does. In San Francisco, they're trying to figure out how they can add fees to ease congestion, a study made possible through $1 million in federal funds.

I have a lot of questions about these types of programs. Suffice it to say, I don't like them. In Oregon, the point is that they're losing revenue generated through their gasoline tax because of low gas prices (or something), so they're looking to tax something else. I doubt they'll implement this AND ease the gasoline tax, since taxes and fees almost never decrease or vanish. But questions have already arisen about privacy violations with a state-mandated GPS system, which will somehow charge people at the pump. I ask a variety of questions. Who monitors it? Is it automated? Will the police have access to information to verify proof or innocence in a crime? Is this information admissible in court? What about private investigators? Will a driver have access to the GPS information so he or she can use it for navigation or will he have to pay for his own GPS?

Also, who pays for the GPS system? Will the mileage tax, which is paid by drivers, pay for the inclusion of a GPS in every vehicle, or will the driver have to do this along with getting a license, title, and registration (along with the sales taxes)? Who determines which company will provide the GPS service? Contract based? Who's responsible for managing it in terms of administrative snafus? What if my odometer says I've gone 200 miles, but my GPS charges me for 400?

More practically, is the amount of tax paid dependent on vehicle weight? Do commercial trucks pay more? How will truckers feel about that, since their expenses are already pretty hefty? Let's say they do away with the gasoline tax, and thus gas is cheaper in Oregon than in Washington. What is the fee on those Washingtonians who drive across the border to buy their gas and, say, drive on Oregon's roads? What happens when I drive exclusively in cities, where GPS signals don't work so well all the time?

The San Francisco tax is questionable as well. Apparently, the amount paid will be dependent on the section of city entered as well as the times drivers enter them. How will this be tracked? Checkpoints? Why not, they'd also serve to limit criminal behavior along with the benefit of tracking the population's movement? You could even bar people from entering areas that are undesirable or unsafe, such the red light district or an area controlled by gangs. All in the sake of protection, folks. What about people who live in high congestion areas? Will they be levied a fee for driving home at night? A fee others might not have?

The money generated through San Fran's tax will be used to improve public transportation. I suppose they already have an efficient method of taxation to repair roads. Perhaps Oregon should call San Francisco. But it's good for them to think of public transport...and trying to encourage people to use public transportation. I'm sure the municipality, which generally runs mass transit, will then lower fees for tickets, right? No, probably not. Public transportation is great, if you've got time to use it. Many people don't, and many work in areas not serviced by public transport. Is the goal to improve the public transportation in San Fan so much that it becomes some utopian system that everyone wants (and is encouraged) to use?

More government, and certainly more regulation, is a good thing. Right...? Yay, government.

Franken Frocked a Senator:
No, it's not a sick joke, in whichever way you might be thinking. For one, being frocked has a different meaning than what you might think (you military types will know). For two, Franken now appears to have won the Senate seat in Minnesota held by Norm Coleman, so I wasn't just exercising in drama.

I suppose that if you count enough times, the numbers will eventually work out in your favor, though I took numbers to be rather more absolute than subjective. Ho hum. Not in a democracy. Look, while I take issue with the fact that this putz is apparently the best qualified candidate in Minnesota (I honestly don't believe that), I don't care who wins so long as it's done fairly. If it's done fairly, then a democratic election has taken place, and that's all I really ask for. Who's to say now what fairly is now? There have been recounts upon recounts. Never mind that liberals are hypocrites; remember they whined for eight years about stolen elections. But I'm sure conservatives are going to do the same thing, and it looks like they're going to take the issue to court, further drawing out a bullshit affair. In fairness, whoever the losing candidate turned out to be apparently has a legal right to challenge the outcome in court, so if by some stroke Coleman would win, then Franken would likely take the issue to court.

I'm all about fighting for the right of each vote to count, but at this point, both groups of idiots (liberals and conservatives) have removed any possibility that there will be an objective answer. In the end, I question the validity of the outcome either way. Let's be honest, neither side truly wants ALL the votes to be counted. They only want specific votes counted. Dick Morris states in a letter to...friends?...that the Republican National Lawyers Association is "the nation's leading Republican group fighting for a fair vote in Minnesota. Really? Can one say that with a straight face? Come on. Can't we have maybe a nonpartisan group fighting for a fair vote? I mean, give me a break.

You know, a couple other Senate seats, the ones vacated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have really bugged me lately too, but man, what a beast to tackle in a mere blog. Some idiot, I can't remember who, but I believe he was a Senator, dared the Senate to bar Roland Burris, who was selected by Blagojavich to replace Obama, from serving. His thoughts being that because Burris is black, the Senate wouldn't dare to bar him because there are only a couple of minority Senators in the Senate. Seriously. He said this. I suppose his point is that Affirmative Action should be applied to elected office or something. Sure, the body's not very diverse, but to suggest the Senate can't deny a seat to a man, black, white or other, selected by a raving, corrupt lunatic, is just absurd. They can and should. Perhaps Burris is an eminently qualified person. If so, he can run in 2010.

Word of the Day: Abstinent (adjective): Abstaining, especially from self-indulgence.

On This Day in History: The US House of Representatives votes to stop sharing the Oregon Territory with the UK (1846). Wilhelm Roentgen discovers X-rays (1896). Ford Motor Company announces an eight-hour workday and a minimum wage of $5 for that eight-hour day (1914). The Free Committee for a German Workers Peace is founded. This would eventually become the Nazi Party (1918). The first female governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming, is elected (1925). President Nixon orders the development of the space shuttle program (1972).

"Quote? Who needs a quote?" - Anonymous.