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 (135)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mac McCorkle, a Democratic strategist favors

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

Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's keep on keepin' on America!

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (116)

An Ode to a Moll

Dear Kristen-Ashley-Alexandra-Dupre-Youmans:

The world has waited with baited breath, to see the woman whose skills hath wrest

The Governor from the Empire State. With modern media, we barely had to wait.

Here you are for all to see, GASP! You’re but a mere person just like me.

I had expected an incarnation of Aphrodite, in a negligee or perhaps a nighty.

But regrettably, that is not so, and on your myspace page trolls you a ho.

You’re so youthful and hopeful and full of angst, and wishing of a career in music, even if it tanks.

A thousand an hour you’re surely not worth, but let’s just say, I suppose I’ve seen worse.

Yours truly,

The Morning Coffee

Behold, the first ever poem to be written by the staff of the MC. So delicious. The subject matter is peculiar. As soon as we began to get over our faux shock of the Spitzer fiasco, we all wanted to know who this ‘Kristen’ girl was. Come now, be honest with yourself. We all wanted to know who the woman was who “brought low the Governor of New York.” I must say that I think she’s given far too much credit in this affair (pun), for the blame for bringing low Mr. Spitzer rests solely on Mr. Spitzer. Nevertheless, we knew, of course, that it would be a matter of days, if not hours, before young Kristen’s picture was all over the internet. And it was. She’s now very well known. She’s a Myspace page which showcases her (terrible) song. If you can’t access that page from your present location (many places of employment block Myspace), you can see the young lady HERE. I must say, I expected more from a “VIP Escort Service” for the young lady, for all her womanly charms and looks, is most certainly not worth $1,000 an hour. No way. Not even $200 an hour. But hey, I’m not rich. Writing the MC doesn’t pay enough for me to be able to afford high-priced hookers, er, escorts.

You can read all about her HERE (if you so choose). Her’s was a life of difficulty, blah, blah, blah, who cares, blah, blah. Bob Loblaw can write about it in his Law Blog if he wants. The bottom line is that this girl was not a victim, nor was she an evil predator. She is simply a girl trying to make money. So what? I don’t care about her whinny BS any more than I care about her music. Nevertheless, she’ll probably get a book deal out of it, or perhaps a recording contract (perhaps I need to get into the escort business). One would think, however, that her vocal style would be better with influences like the regal Etta James.

Anyway, Spitzer resigned and what not, and he’s now going to focus on his family. Utterly laughable. He has to focus on his family because no one else will touch the guy, not even the call girls. They know if they do that, they’re pictures will be all over the New York Times, and it’s hard being a high-priced call girl with that sort of publicity. What angers me most about Mr. Spitzer is not so much the fornication with prostitutes, but the hypocrisy of his life and the cheating on his wife (still in poet mode). If he wasn’t a vehement attack dog against this very sort of behavior while the Attorney General…It’s funny when the morality police are less moral than the average citizen.

What is inconceivable to me, however, is this talk that he shouldn’t be brought up on charges because he was forced to resign, as if that’s punishment enough. Serving the people is a privilege, and self-revocation of such a privilege is not a punishment for breaking the law. You do not get to avoid prosecution simply by giving up your office. Not only did Spitzer tout such a high moral code, but as an elected official, he should be held to the same standards, legally, as you or I…at a minimum. Sure, it’s unfortunate that such a “promising” politician has had to leave office, but it’s a monster of his own creation. And now he should face whatever charges we might face. There’s the possibility of tax fraud, of course. How about the Mann Act, which forbids the transportation of a person across state lines for the purpose of prostitution? You or I’d be charged with it. And you know what? Many of us would have to give up our jobs too.

I just realized that I’ve spent half a page discussing Eliot Spitzer’s fall from grace. Surely there are more important things to discuss. I hope my lovely poem gets me some slack.

Wacky Snow:

Since I’ve spent the majority of my time discussing the absurd, I might as well tell you that Montreal is the proud owner of one 80 foot high pile of snow that, unless broken up, will still largely be there next winter. That’s a lot of snow.

Uh…Wow:

In keeping with the absurd (it’s a theme today), we move onto Pam Babcock, a 35 year old woman who decided one day that she was going to sit on a toilet seat and not get up. For two years. Her skin actually grew around the seat. Pam suffered from a phobia, as a result of being struck in her childhood, and the bathroom was her safe area. She wouldn’t leave, and her boyfriend took care of her, all the while trying to convince her to get up and leave. She’d say, “Maybe tomorrow.” I’ve got to hand it to Pam, though. I am compelled to get up after about five minutes, tops. Hers is an example of endurance even monks would be envious of.

Word of the Day: Rodomontade (rod-uh-muhn-TADE) (noun): Vain boasting; empty bluster; pretentious, bragging speech; rant.

On This Day in History: Uranus was discovered by William Herschel (1781). Alexander II of Russia is killed by a hand-tossed bomb (1881). A Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution is enacted (1925).

“My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you’ll be happy; if not, you’ll become a philosopher.” – Socrates.

Morning Coffee (115)

Greetings. In the interest of keeping this edition the MORNING Coffee, I’ll get right to it.

People Suspect Vote Worthless; People Right All Along:

A little boy named Florida wanted to hold his Halloween party earlier than the rest of his class, as did a little girl named Michigan. The rest of the class said that if they could not, and if they defied the class, well, then all the candy they got would be taken away and none of it would count in the Big Candy Challenge after the party date. Florida and Michigan went ahead and held their party earlier, but some attendees were disappointed in the selection of activities; what one would normally expect at a Halloween party wasn’t there. At Michigan’s party, there was only one activity to choose from because the organizers, in cahoots with the rest of the class, wouldn’t allow any other activities from which to choose. Nevertheless, the party went off fairly well, and the kids got their candy. But remember…the candy can’t count.

Sounds absurd doesn’t it? Well it is; it’s a parody of a very real situation. And this situation provides a wonderful example of why the whole primary/caucus system is broken. Worse, it’s stupid. Because the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida wanted to hold their primaries earlier than Iowa, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) told them that their delegates would not count. Thus, peoples’ votes in those two states do not count. If party leaders are miffed, they can make your vote meaningless.

But now, the nomination for the Democratic candidate is a close race. So some people want the Michigan/Florida contests to count. There’s talk of a redo. Or a mail-in vote. Who knows. But some people still don’t want the delegates from those states to count, because they feel slighted that the party officials from those states would dare defy the mighty DNC.

Surely I needn’t point out to you why this whole situation is obscene. Americans are being denied the right to voice their opinions in the electoral cycle because of the hurt feelings of a bunch of party hacks. Imagine, Democrats, the people who “look out” for the little guy, the common man, the downtrodden, messing with your vote because they’re offended. Look at it this way, they’re just relieving you of the burden. How the hypocrites can sleep at night, I’ve no idea. But it’s worse than something as simple as hypocrisy. Because the votes from Michigan and Florida would largely benefit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party is divided as to whether or not those votes should count. Obama supporters would rather they not, but they can’t just come out and say it. Hillary supporters want them to count, but they can’t come out and say why since she agreed to not campaign in those states along with Obama. So…the DNC goes back on its word, looks weak and inept, AND ends up giving support to Hillary...all in the spirit of Democracy.

Don’t get me wrong…the problem isn’t just one for Democrats…

A major problem I have with our present system of nominating candidates is that those states who vote later in the election cycle risk having their citizens’ votes count far less than those states who vote early. For example, Pennsylvania doesn’t hold their primary for another six weeks. The Republican nomination has already been sorted out, so Republicans in PA have no voice in selecting the Republican candidate. It’s surely possible that Clinton could withdraw by then (though highly unlikely in my opinion), thus Democrats in PA have no voice in selecting their candidate. How is this fair? The vote of citizens in Iowa and New Hampshire count far more than do the votes of citizens in Pennsylvania. Are people okay with this? I really do not care if Iowa is a microcosm of Middle America. That doesn’t mean anything to me. I want your vote to count as much as mine, and mine as much as a guy in Des Moines. It sounds like our political parties, of which there are only two viable ones, are saying to us, the citizenry, “all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.” How Orwellian.

Ethics for Dummies:

Yesterday (Tuesday for the unemployed who lose track of such things) the House of Representatives voted to create an outside ethics office, which is part of Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) focus on ethics, etc, etc. This office, which will be called the Office of Congressional Ethics, will have the power to investigate ethical misconduct by Congressmen and women. It will not have the authority to do so in the Senate, however.

I’m actually torn over this; not in principle, but in practice. In principle, our Representatives and other government officials need some sort of sound ethical oversight, which in and of itself is extremely unfortunate. More on that later. But in practice, I’m afraid that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is right when he says, “It simply adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already broken system.” I’m not certain more bureaucracy, and thus more government, is the right solution. And are they telling us that this new system, in which the Speaker appoints three members and the Minority Leader appoints three members, cannot be corrupted? I’m not convinced.

The creation of this office gives me yet another opportunity to discuss term limits. As I mentioned, it is indeed unfortunate that our elected officials are in need of such stern ethical oversight. One would hope (naively) that these people, with whom we entrust great power, would exercise some restraint. But this isn’t the case. As the Elliot Spitzer controversy is once again illustrating, powerful people are frequently hypocrites and frequently believe that they are above the law. I suspect that the longer one serves in a position of power the greater the likelihood that they “cut corners” here and there. This behavior eventually snowballs into bigger ethical failings. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive study done on this, which compares corruption and unethical behavior in junior representatives with that of senior representatives. An objective study would likely be impossible for a number of reasons, but were it possible I think that it would prove my theory. If it did, then all the more reasons to have term limits. In fact, from my perspective, the only reason not to have term limits is because of a general refusal to relinquish power. Indeed, their reasons would be that they have such a desire to serve that they will do so as long as they are elected. However, the old fashioned check on elected officials, the voter in the official’s district, is no longer that effective. One could, as I do, argue that it is distinctly ineffective. In 1998, 401 of 435 Congressmen of the House sought reelection and all but six were reelected. That is a 98% incumbent success rate for you math geeks. The linked article goes into detail about the “perks” of office for those seeking reelection. Fascinating stuff, really. And all the more reason to have term limits. Constituencies feel that they’re getting the best product, but the system is heavily skewed to favor products already on the market. There’s little chance for fresh ideas and proper turn over to permeate the system. Instead, we’re stuck with stagnation because the incumbent has ample opportunity to control the pace of the fight. Remember, the above figures are for the whole nation, not just a few districts. The incumbent-centric problem is endemic.

The linked article, in its last few paragraphs, argues that the incumbent problem isn’t such a big deal because there is a steady turn over which takes place over the course of several election cycles. I do not find this sufficient reason to allow unlimited terms. Turnover thus takes place at a glacial pace and does nothing to limit those who could be classified as “political animals”, those being supremely efficient at manipulating pubic opinion (and thus being reelected) and dodging ethical constraints.

There is no better argument for term limits other than the simple fact that term limits has such little support among elected officials. Do we not find that slightly curious; perhaps a little self-serving and at odds with the interests of the electorate?

Word of the Day: Coprophilia (noun): An obsessive interest in feces. Editor’s Note: We should amend this definition to include “political news.” Today’s WoD sponsored by a loyal reader. For only 25 euro, you too can sponsor a WoD entry.

On This Day in History: Coca-Cola is sold in bottles for the first time (1894). Moscow becomes the capital of Russia again (1918). St. Petersburg held that status for the previous 215 years. FDR first addresses the nation as President, which became his first Fireside Chat (1933). Scores of people born; a number died.

“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.” – Marcus Aurelius.