Morning Coffee (151)

Where to begin? Certainly, there are dozens of places to begin, right? Dozens of places about which to lament and criticize; to wonder why. It's really amazing. If you watch or read the news, the world seems to be crumbling around our heads, doesn't it? So much so that even stories that would normally leave us aghast, seem but a blip on the radar screen. Perhaps they even seem like a welcome respite from the bludgeoning news of our shattered economy; the shattered American dream; the shattered facade of American global domination. I'll lead in with one such story (and it's not even political - well, maybe it is).

Czech This:
The Czech Republic surgically castrates convicted sex offenders, if these offenders request the procedure, according to a 1966 law. At first glance, this seems rather reasonable. But it always goes deeper. Investigators from the Council of Europe have found that many of those castrated were pressured into the procedure under fear of long-term incarceration. Offenders are being told that castration is the only option available, and that refusal could result in their detention for life. Even first-time, non-violent offenders are being castrated, and investigators found that those castrated in at least five instances were mentally handicapped. Investigators also state that offenders received information too technical for them to understand or no information at all about the procedure.

The Czech government insists that it is a voluntary procedure, with proven results in reducing repeat offenses, and performed on men who "cannot manage their sexual instincts and are sexually aggressive." The Council of Europe, however, debates castration's reduction in recidivism, pointing to three instances in which castrated offenders had committed serial rapes and other crimes.

The Czech government states that the Council of Europe failed to convince the country to cease castration.

In principle, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders opting to be castrated, so long as they're able to make an informed decision that they believe will help them live a more normal life (i.e. not rape or molest people). Clearly, there is no guarantee that the procedure works in the manner it is intended to, but the option should be there. However, a punishment should not be optional if authorities coerce criminals into it by threats of life in prison. Further, it isn't clear whether or not those who are mentally handicapped can make an informed decision. It isn't even clear if those who weren't mentally disabled were able to make informed decisions. For first-time offenders of a non-violent nature, such as exhibitionists, I do not think that castration is a viable punishment.

There are, I think, various degrees of sex offenses, and some are more vile than others. For example, in the US, an 18 year old male or female could be a convicted as sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female or male. Some will argue that the 16 year old cannot give consent legally, and this would be true. But is this 18 year old in the same class as a serial rapist or a pedophile? In many cases, legally he or she is. The law often has no categories, as it does with murder, and that 18 year old will forever have to register as a sex offender and be shamed forever.

But the issue here is castration. To make it clear, I am not against castration as a punishment, provided that it is viable for rehabilitating some offenders, but against the application of castration in the Czech Republic as described above. Some might wonder if I would be a proponent of forced castration. I would say no. Being as though there is no guarantee that castration would work as intended, I could not be for forced castration. We as a species generally hold reproductive rights in very high regard. To suggest that someone is so capable of heinous crime that he must be forcibly castrated is saying a great deal. And since castration, forced or otherwise, does not guarantee that the individual will not commit another crime, I posit that the individual must be incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole or release. Further, since we require sex offenders to register wherever they go, it seems that we view sexual crimes as more offensive than even murder, and reasonably so. With that being the case, I have no problem with the death penalty being applied to cases in which the offender shows a propensity for violent sexual crime and no potential for rehabilitation.

Cher = Absurd:
With a mom and a dad like mine, both audiophiles, I grew up listening to a lot of different music. My mom was always a big fan of the female singer Cher, who allegedly retired in 2005, but has since announced that she's working on her 26th studio album and is presently performing in Las Vegas. I usually liked the songs she sang, and was awestruck by her 1989 video for the song "Turn Back Time" in which she cavorted semi-nude around the battleship USS Missouri. While the whole album, Heart of Stone, was pretty good, I was a boy of 9 at that time, and was far more taken by the massive 16 inch guns of the Mighty-Mo than I was of Cher's fishnets. I suppose my point here is that even though Cher made some good music and forever imprinted in the mind of a young boy the image of one of the most impressive pieces of military gear in history set to music, it does not mean she's not an idiot. (Sorry Ma.)

Example: "Republicans almost killed me." She wasn't specific in how exactly Republicans killed her. As far as I can tell, she did pretty well for herself the past eight or so years. Having a deal to perform 200 shows over three years in Vegas doesn't usually mean that you're being slowly killed by the political party in power at the time. Perhaps she was being dramatic. Still, it makes her an sort of dumb. Especially when, after asked to explain her comment that Republicans almost killed her, she says,

"You know what? I have so - I try to be charitable and there are some really good Republicans, but I just don't understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can't figure it. I don't understand. If you're poor, if you're any kind of minority - gay, black, latino, anything. If you're not a rich - I don't know. If you're not a rich born-again-Christian, I don't get it."

Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm not entirely sure Cher is a leading expert on what a Republican is. She probably doesn't even know what makes up Liberal ideology, presumably her political bent, let alone the ideology of the party she clearly despises. I wonder how many "Republicans" she knows...It's almost like a racist saying, "I'm not racist, there are good black people; I have black friends." Good try, Cher. Stick to singing and rolling around in your massive treasure trove of cash...provided to you by many a Republican, to be sure. Some not even born-again-Christians.

The Issue You've All Been Waiting For:
The Economic Stimulus. It appears that our elected officials in the Senate, in their supreme wisdom and 19% approval rating, have come to an agreement on the stimulus package and are set to vote on it early next week. For all the uproar from them that this is a national emergency, which is the crux of their argument that this bill needs to be passed RIGHT NOW without going through all the normal procedures, it seems odd to me that the vote on the bill would be put off until early next week, whenever that might be. Presumably Monday through Wednesday sometime. Regardless, Democratic leaders hope to push the bill to Obama by the end of next week. The fact that these officials have been telling us for weeks that this is an emergency, but are willing to wait to vote shows the hypocrisy and ineptitude of that elected body. How so many members of a political body sporting a collective approval rating of below 20% by some polls got reelected I do not know. Perhaps this best illustrates the ineptitude of the American voter.

Certainly, my fellow Americans and loyal Coffee drinkers, you realize that it's best to rush through the passing of a bill worth $780-819 billion. Do I need to tell you why? Easy, because then emotions take over, and the majority can batter down any opposition before that opposition might begin to make sense to some of the more easily swayed members of the body. Also, less oversight. When you want to push through a bunch of frivolous spending that has nothing to do with stimulus, the faster you do things, the better.

Much has been written about this stimulus bill, and by better qualified people than I, so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. But there are a few things that perplex a mind as simple as mine. Other than the comments made by many regarding the amount of money actually going to stimulus (12 cents for every dollar) and how wasteful the bill is, one thing that sticks out to me as evidence of a fraud being committed by our elected officials is the comments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding how much of this stimulus will be spent and when. In addition to saying that this stimulus bill is harmful over the long haul, CBO states that only 15% of the funding will be spent in 2009. Only 64% will be used during the next 19 months. This is contrary to Obama's proclamation that 75% will be doled out in the next 19 months. For something that allegedly needs to be done immediately, with limited discussion, it seems strange that much of the "stimulus" will not take place until at least 2010. And we're told daily that Americans are struggling and need relief now. And for all the good it will allegedly do, like create three to four million jobs at the cost of $275,000 per, the CBO projects that it will actually lower the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next ten years.

But Obama says, "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs, and do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth." I love how Obama uses a variation of hendiatris, a rule of three, to sell this to the public. "Right this, right that, and right the other thing." But that's not the point. The point is, this is somewhat contrary information than that presented by the CBO. A lower GDP does not indicate growth. Perhaps he's talking really long-term, as in 40 or 50 years. I don't know. He goes on to say, "These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual while millions of Americans are being put out of work. Now is the time for Congress to act." Let me clarify for those who those who don't speak Politician: "Get bogged down" = closely scrutinize. "Distraction, delay" = have public discussions. "Politics as usual" = anything contrary to my own wishes.

I should point out that Obama ran a successful campaign largely on the premise of Hope, while denouncing the use of fear and "politics as usual." But fear is a useful tool, and I don't see how anyone can deny that he is using it in order to get this stimulus passed quickly. He said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." This isn't hope. This is fear. He is telling you that if this bill isn't passed right now, then your life is going to be worse in the future. This from a man who told us that "we have chosen hope over fear." Maybe hope only belongs on the campaign trail. If so, you've been bamboozled yet again by buying into his rhetoric. (For a fun side trip, check out the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact.com. You can see how much horse sheisse our politicians are selling you. Some of them actually tell the truth.)

Remember, Obama also recently said that his administration will "save or create" some-odd million jobs. Well, technically, as a candidate Obama was all about creating jobs, and now he's largely content with just saving them. Saving jobs. Ignoring the fact that the US will lose 500 million jobs a month, according to Nancy Pelosi, how can anyone say with any degree of seriousness in their voice that they've saved any number of jobs? One would think that, at the end of the day, everyone who has a job at that point - job saved! If you thought that the market created and/or saved jobs, you were wrong. It's Obama and his team of government that does that now. Obama is saving my job right now! Yours too, if you have one. If you don't, well, stand by for the creation of four or five or six million of the little buggers! They'll be yours for the taking. (Brewer Comment: In July 2008, the US population was estimated at 303.8 million people. Thus, every man, woman, and child in America has, if Pelosi's facts are straight, at LEAST four or five jobs at any given time.)

See Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post for more on Obama's urgency. Also, see Read The Stimulus so you can, well, read the stimulus.

I Forgot to Pay my Taxes:
For those looking for me to comment on the inability of some of Obama's appointees to pay or remember to pay their taxes, I will point you to my friend and fellow blogger Publius' recent article about that very issue. We both agree on this one. I think that all members of Congress, the Cabinet, and Directors and senior staff of government agencies should be audited, just to make sure they're in compliance.

And thus ends another Cup of Joe. Tomorrow, the Logician will present to us part one of his "Barney-style" explanation of the current economic environment. Look forward to it and give him some feedback.

Word of the Day: Denigrate (verb): To attack the character or reputation of; defame. Our faithful public servants have denigrated Common Sense to the point of our abandoning it.

On This Day in History: The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution is ratified (1795). Charles Dickens was born (1812). Laura Ingalls Wilder was born (1867). The last heavyweight bare-knuckle fight takes place in Mississippi City (1882). The Mud March, the first large march organized by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) took place (1907). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). The Beatles arrive in the US for their first tour (1964). The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power (1990).

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 (143)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (141)

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

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

"Mad Dog" Sails into Sunset:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (139)

Happy Give-Thanksing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (138)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is all for today. Perhaps more tomorrow?

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

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

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

Edit: Corrected my apparently atrocious spelling.

Morning Coffee (137)

Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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