Morning Coffee (112)

Greetings Coffee Quaffers. Icy today, so watch your step. Never fear though, the Coffee’s hot and fresh, as always. Okay, sometimes it’s less than fresh, but it’s always hot. Despite running a wee bit late on occasion.

It’s 3 AM…:

Perhaps you’ve read about Clinton’s commercial in which the phone rings at three in the morning in the White House, while your darling children are asleep in their beds. Something bad is happening, and someone is calling the President. Who do you want answering that phone? The phone rings and rings; six times it rings. But the rings build tension; ringing phones build tension in a way that few things can. And by that sixth ring, you the viewer are desperate for someone to answer it. Who do you want answering that phone? Clinton thinks that you want her to. So she does. She does and she’s fully dressed with perfect make-up. Remember, this is three in the morning. No matter, she’s on top of things. We feel safer because she was prepared to answer that phone and get to work. Right?

Well that commercial, and others, seems to have worked. Clinton scored surprising victories in yesterday’s primaries, winning Ohio and maybe Texas. Texas is a strange state, as it holds both a caucus and a primary. Clinton won the Texas primary, but the initial reports have Obama winning the caucus.

Yesterday, I prophesized that Clinton would win Ohio but not Texas. I’m not genius; a lot of pundits thought the same based on poll numbers. Since I was just sort of guessing (based on some knowledge of Ohio), I was only slightly surprised that Clinton won in Texas. Had I actually spent time analyzing and had a vested interest in the outcome, I would have been more surprised.

So what does Clinton’s big win mean? Little other than she stopped Obama’s win streak. Newsweek reports that Clinton has virtually no shot of securing the nomination even if she were to win the next 16 contests in a row. The math is against her. Only time will tell.

In other news, Clinton has hinted that she might consider sharing the ticket with Obama. Obama’s said that consideration of a joint ticket is premature. That might be a tough ticket to beat for Republicans. At the same time, would Obama even want to do it? Being Clinton’s VP for four or eight years might sour the public’s opinion of him, and gone forever would his claim to being new and fresh.

Eight Questions is the Limit:

Much press has been made about the lack of tough questions and probing that journalists have subjected Obama to. That changed yesterday when a number of reporters in Texas started hammering him on a few things. He denied that one of his aides met with Canadian officials, and responded poorly to inquiries about his ties to former fundraiser Tony Rezko, who is presently on trail for corruption.

So comfortable is Obama in the presence of reporters that when he began his news conference he encouraged reporters to “dive in” saying that he had no preliminary statement. They did. And he didn’t handle it too well. About Rezko and the release of documents, he said, “These requests, I think, could just go on forever. At some point, what we need to try to do is respond to what’s pertinent.” Reporters continued until an aide stated that there would be one last question. Obama made for the exit, and uttered, “C’mon guys, I just answered, like, eight questions.”

Eight questions. That’s all he’s good for, apparently. Especially when it gets hot. Do you think that he’ll be able to summon the intestinal fortitude to answer more than eight questions when his administration runs head on into a crisis? I’m sorry, but once he’s elected, his time for flowery speeches will be minimal. It’ll be time to actually do things, and journalists will eventually get over their love affair with him and begin to ask hard questions. Seeing as though the President is answerable the People, he will be compelled to answer, because the questions will not stop. There will be far more than eight questions. Just ask President Bush.

I must point out my (and others’) favorite portion of the exchange. Regarding the meeting between an Obama aide and Canadian officials, which he denied having happened prior to the release of a memo proving that the incident did occur came out, Obama said, “That was the information I had at the time…” Interesting choice of words, considering President Bush and his administration have uttered much the same about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Republican Nomination Secured:

McCain is the Rebublican nominee. Anti-climactic considering the hoopla surrounding the Democratic campaign, I know. Still, it’s a remarkable turnaround for a man whose campaign last summer was nearly bankrupt and considered to be dead. Huckabee has bowed out of the running, which is unfortunate simply because his was the funniest of campaigns. What else can we say about this?

High on Mt. Sinai:

It’s possible that the roots of modern Judeo-Christian religion are the result of drug use. Benny Shannon, a researcher and professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has suggested that Moses was under the influence of the bark from the acacia tree, which has psychedelic effects and is mentioned in the Bible.

Drug use in religious contexts is pretty common. Native Americans do it. As did early Muslims (hashashins for example), and probably a thousand other examples of which I’m unaware. Regrettably, Shannon’s study will be latched upon by all sorts of reprobate fools who will attempt to validate drug use or knock religion. To me, it’s merely another piece of the puzzle. Regardless of whether Moses’ drug use was real or even influenced his teachings, the fact remains that his monotheistic syllabus was propagated throughout the world. I should mention, for those who won’t read my source, that this is a theory, not a proven fact. But it’s still interesting. Chew on it…as you would the bark of the acacia tree if you so desire.

Word of the Day: Rhadamanthys (noun) (see rhadamanthine; adj): 1. A son of Zeus and Europa, rewarded for the justice he exemplified on earth by being made, after his death, a judge in the Underworld, where he served with his brother Minos and Aeacus. 2. An inflexibly just or severe judge.

On This Day in History: Emperor Julian moves from Antioch with a 90,000 man army to attack the Sassanid Empire (363). Julian would die as a result of this campaign. Julian’s goal was to check the growing might of a competitor and to retake lands lost by Constantius II. His troops performed admirably against the Sassanid armies, but were unable to take the capitol of Ctesiphon. Julian then decided to return to Roman borders, but his column was ambushed. He rushed into battle without wearing his armor, and was stabbed in the stomach with a spear. Julian was also known as “the Apostate” because of his desire to return the Empire to paganism, and he even attempted to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem to foster religions other than Christianity. Because of this, it is possible (but unlikely) that one of his own soldiers, a Christian, killed him, a theory that was propagated by the early Church, which called the killer a saint. The Boston Massacre took place on this day; five Americans were killed by British troops (1770). The Nazis win 44% of the parliamentary election vote (1933).

“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” – Otto von Bismarck.

Morning Coffee (111)

Here we are, in the year two thousand and eight. On the fourth of March even. It is rainy and dreary here. And there is thus no better time for some hot Morning Coffee.

It’s a big day, politically speaking; mostly for liberals, but potentially for everyone in our nation (and really the world). A number of states are holding their primaries today. Hillary Clinton has her back against a wall; she must win big today, or for all intents and purposes, she’s eliminated.

Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh has done something many of his fans would never have thought that he would do: he’s encouraged people to vote for Clinton. No, this is not because he’s had a radical shift in his ideology. His reasons are as tactical as ever. No, he’s enjoying the “soap opera.” He wants Clinton in the race because he thinks she’d be easily brought down by the big game hunters that are the Republican Party. He’s actually encouraged conservatives to go out and vote for her, though he realizes it will be hard to stomach. I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, generally. I don’t think, as Al Franken does, that he’s a “big fat idiot”, but I don’t fawn over him, nor do I hang on his every word. I generally think he’s foolish; not stupid, but foolish. What do you think of his idea? I have an opinion, but I will keep it to myself for now. I’d like to hear my readers’ thoughts, free from the influence of the Brewer. What I will say, however, is if you live in a state that is holding a primary, go out and vote.

Read an interesting and funny article about the Mike Huckabee campaign trail. Check it out.

That’s all I’m saying about politics today.

Attack of the Killer Tornado:

A tornado in Mississippi ran through a National Guard barracks yesterday. The tornado redeployed the National Guard unit in a phased manner in about 6 seconds.

Eat Whale, Save Planet:

A group in Norway has put out a study that states that consuming whale meat is less environmentally damaging than consuming beef, pork, or chicken, based on fuel consumption of whaling vessels. Greenpeace then refuted that claim stating that, “almost every kind of food was more climate friendly than meat.” Really. Almost every kind of food? How many different kinds of food are there? Are there kinds of food that are more damaging to the climate than meat? I was pretty sure that there were basically two kinds of food: plant and animal (although in fairness, fungi and seaweed are technically not considered as being a part of the plant category). Anyway, they’re both wrong, in my estimation. While Norwegian group seems to try to justify their consumption of whales (which is fine by me), they also seem to imply that maybe we should all just eat whale. That’s not a good idea, since the whale population would be annihilated by the ravenous masses in a few years. Sure, it’s less damaging to the environment because the whales eat plankton and such rather than things we have to grow, but it’s not exactly sustainable. And Greenpeace is wrong because, well, their statement is just dumb. Besides, Soylent Green is drastically more damaging than even meat.

If anyone’s a fan, Jeff Healey, the singer/guitarist who was blinded as a child, and who sang the hit ‘Angel Eyes’ passed away on 02 March. He was 41, and had battled cancer throughout his whole life.

Coffee’s a little weak today. Since it’s free, you’ve no recourse.

Word of the Day: Probity (noun): Complete and confirmed integrity; uprightness.

On This Day in History: Hernan Cortes arrives in Mexico in search of the Aztecs and their abundant gold (1519). This ended poorly for the natives; the Aztecs were pretty much done for by late 1521, thanks largely to small pox, which they’d never encountered before and thus had no immunity to. Samuel Cole opens the first tavern in Boston (1634). The first US Congress met in NYC, putting the US Constitution into effect (1789). Wikipedia states that the first ever peaceful transfer of power between elected leaders in modern times took place in 1797 when John Adams was sworn in as President, succeeding George Washington. I’d have to look into this more to buy it. Today used to be Inauguration Day (1789-1933).

“Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.” – Robert Frost.

Morning Coffee (107)

Gutentag. How about that weather, eh? Come on, that’s a stupid intro. I have a readership spanning the globe (seriously); remarking about the terrible weather conditions at my location is somewhat pointless. But anyway, how about that weather?

First, the important stuff: J-Lo has given birth to twins. Congrats. Marc Anthony is the father. No, not the Marc Antony that was Caesar’s friend as that would be a silly proposition. Instead, it’s the crappy singer Marc Anthony. I can’t imagine Marcus Antonius being exceptionally thrilled that his name has been corrupted by a man who sings “I need to know.” No, he’d run him through.

Kosovo Update:

Things appear to be heating up in Kosovo, which declared its independence from Serbia on 17 Feb. UN police were attacked by ethnic Serbs in northern Kosovo and protesters broke into the US Embassy in Belgrade and set a fire in the building which apparently killed one person, who turned out to be a protester who must have forgot to leave the building. Initial reports indicate that two floors of the Embassy were burned. Reports also suggest that the embassies of Croatia, Turkey, and the UK were attacked. No Americans were injured. The Serbian government, and obviously its citizens, are steadfastly refusing to recognize Kosovo’s independence and are trying to annul the decision to break away.

According to CNN, Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin has stated that Russia “has not ruled out the use of force to resolve the dispute over territory if NATO forces breach the terms of their UN mandate.” Russia’s Foreign Ministry also stated that Kosovo’s declaration would be a negative impact. Mikhail Kamynin, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry said, “What happened in Belgrade yesterday is regrettable. But we would want to draw your attention to the fact that the forces that supported the unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s sovereignty should have realized the effects of the move.”

Contrasting this, NATO Secretary-General Jap de Hoop Scheffer said that KFOR (the NATO led 15,000 member peacekeeping force) would “respond swiftly and firmly against anyone who might resort to violence in Kosovo.”

Things could get interesting there in the next few weeks. Sixteen nations have thus far recognized Kosovo (including Taiwan, which really irked China, who for obvious reasons, won’t recognize a break away republic). It’s nice to see Kosovars celebrating their newfound freedom, but it could get ugly. Think about it. Would we want to see a portion of our country up and declare independence? A section did once, and we fought a horrifically bloody war over it.

Democratic Debate:

Last night. Be there, or be square. I was square. I had every intention of watching it, but forgot until about 3 minutes after it was supposed to be over. Considering it kept going for another 20 minutes or so, I did get to catch the end. I really just wished they would both shut up; it’s obvious they love to hear themselves talk. Despite missing the whole thing, I caught the highlight reel presented by Anderson Cooper afterwards, which was probably better than having to sit through all the boring parts, of which I am sure there were plenty. I can’t really comment on who I thought won, since I didn’t observe much. But I thought Hillary had a couple of good zingers. The commentators thought they were in poor choice, but I disagreed. On the plagiarizing issue, Clinton said that if Obama is going to put such an emphasis on words, then they should at least be his own. Good point. Even if he borrowed them with permission, I think maybe he should present his own material, since I’m supposed to believe so deeply in his message of change. Clinton then said, “That’s not change we can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.” Loved it. Apparently, it got booed though, so I’m clearly in the minority.

The Race to the Republican Nomination:

It seems that the Republican nomination has been secured, hasn’t it? But it hasn’t officially. Huckabee is still in the race. Well, “in” is a loosely used word in this case. He’s not in so much as he just hasn’t abandoned his campaign. He has abandoned the strategy of winning states and securing the nomination outright. His new strategy consists of holding out and pushing the nomination to the Republican National Convention. In his “brokered convention strategy” he desires a deadlocked convention in which he will be seen as the most conservative alternative and then secure the nomination as delegates threw their support behind him. I’m all for a man doing what he thinks he needs to do, but this seems a little childish. Not only that, but it could very well fracture the Republican Party as this drags out into September (dragging this out means more attack ads, which mean more negativity, which does the Dems work for them). A fractured Republican Party means that the Democrats might have an easier time in the general elections, which isn’t good for Democracy as a whole.

However, I’m torn. I’m torn because it’s sad to me to think that the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio really mean little since the Republican nomination is all but secured. Huckabee’s strategy at least gives some influence to these late-season primaries and caucuses. What this does, however, is illustrate the need to revamp our election processes. Or it should. But it won’t.

Huckabee also said that there should be more debates with McCain. I agree. Why not? More debates means I get to see more of the eventual nominee in each party. That can never be a bad thing. Ever. The more face time these people get, the better sense we get of their ability to lead, act under pressure, what their policies are, etc. I like the idea of more debates. Period.

Huckabee then lost me when he compared “the drive that keeps him going to the dream that the defenders of the Alamo fought for in 1836.” So, for Huckabee, Texas independence and the right to own slaves is why he’s continuing his run for the Presidency? He then said something only an ideologue says: “You don’t engage in battles only because you anticipate you’re going to win them. You engage in your battles because you believe that they’re right.” I suppose that idea appropriate when discussing the Alamo, but comparing a campaign to a battle in which all of the defenders fought to the literal death is pretty crass. Huckabee, if he loses, will simply go back to the comfortable life he had before running.

That’s all we have time for today, unfortunately. The day started late, and is ending early. Enjoy your weekend.

Word of the Day: Dissolute: (adjective): Loose in morals and conduct; marked by indulgence in sensual pleasures or vices.

On This Day in History: Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is published (1632). The Republican Party opens its first national meeting in Pittsburgh, PA (1856). The Serbian Kingdom is refounded (1882). In Lake Placid, New York, the US hockey team defeats the Soviet Union hockey team 4-3 in the Miracle on Ice, considered to be one of the greatest upsets in sports history (1980). It should be mentioned that this game was not celebrated in the Soviet Union, though the individual Soviet players were sportsmanlike. While the game was televised in the USSR, it was played at 0100 Moscow time. Communist Party officials were thus able to limit the news of the embarrassing defeat. Pravda didn’t even carry a game report or mention at all.

And last but not least, on this day seven years ago, a good friend of mine rose from the dead. Thanks for sticking around, Brother.

“…Eleven seconds, you’ve got ten seconds, the countdown going on right now! Morrow, up to Silk…five seconds lift in the game…Do you believe in miracles?! YES!!” – Sportscaster Al Michaels, as the crowd counts down in the Miracle on Ice. I get chills just typing it.

Morning Coffee (100)

You’ve waited with impatiently, with baited breath, as a day turned into days and those days turned into a week and longer. But here it is, our 100th Morning Coffee together. It’s been over a year since we began having Coffee together, and I hope that I’m able to continue to join you in your mornings for a long time; for as long as I’m capable of Brewing. I had planned on doing some grand bit to celebrate the 100th, but other things got in the way day after day, so I think I’ll just see where it goes this morning.

"Politics Man, Politics…!":

So much has happened since our last get together that it’s hard to know where to begin. Politically, it seems as though we’re light years from where we were a week or so ago, but at the same time, it feels as though we haven’t moved an inch. We’ve had a Democratic debate and Super Tuesday, neither of which have done much to solve the Left side of the political race. Super Tuesday seemed pretty lame, actually. You know, it’s hard to imagine any lasting, substantive changes in our political system (due to a variety of reasons), but I would love to see many changes implemented. Finding an alternative nomination process would be one of many.

Once nominations are confirmed, presidential politics today (and perhaps politics at all levels) is like watching the Kansas City Royals and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play a baseball game. Both teams, like both candidates, suck but at the end of the day, one of them is absolutely, positively going to be the winner no matter how ugly the game is played by both teams. The main difference is that in this game, the crowd (fans) must vote on who wins, and the crowd rarely votes on what matters (though one could argue when you’re talking about these two teams, what matters?). Instead of winning because they have a better pitching staff or a nasty lineup, the Devil Rays have cooler uniforms, so they should win. Or, the Royals are an older team, and thus more experienced, so they should win. The Rays might have a pitcher who is terrible year in and year out, but happens to have a good year and picks up a fat contract; the Rays are the frontrunners because now they’re richer. Never mind the fact that this guy will probably still be terrible. Then you’ve got the sports commentators telling you who you should vote for as the winner. No candidate will ever be perfect, nor will any baseball team ever go an entire season without losing. But can’t we find better “teams” than the political equivalent to the Royals and Rays?

Okay, now that I’ve gotten the obligatory analogy off my chest, I’ll conclude this tirade by summing up Super Tuesday. It did end with McCain being the clear Republican front runner. But on the Democrat side, little was decided. Huckabee, about whom you might have first heard in an earlier edition of the MC, did surprisingly well and may have positioned himself nicely for the VP slot on McCain’s ticket. I, for one, was not terribly surprised by Huck’s showing, as I stated earlier that the man might very well be the Republican nominee. I didn’t think he was as out of the race as virtually every pundit suggested. The evangelical base is too strong, and that’s where he has appeal. He probably won’t win the nomination, and that’s probably a good thing, but he’s still right there. And if McCain were to win the Presidency, Huckster could end up our President through succession.

Conservatives Worse Fear: A Republican Nominee:

It sounds strange that conservatives fear a McCain nomination. He is, after all, a Republican, and Republicans are generally conservative. They don’t fear a McCain nomination because they think he’ll lose. Instead, they fear it because they fear he’ll win. That’s mind-blowing. Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and others dislike McCain so much that they’ve proclaimed that they’d vote for Hillary Clinton before they would vote for McCain. And the sentiment is trickling down to the masses (which is quite sad because it indicates clearly that a majority of people get their opinions from people on the radio). Several people have come up to me stating that they’d vote for Clinton before McCain. They can’t really articulate why, exactly. But they know they don’t like him for some reason. I actually asked the first person to say this to me if his name was Rush Limbaugh. His reply to me was something about McCain being a POW and that POWs learn to live by telling people whatever they want to hear and that they’ll lie and etc, etc. I was quite taken aback by this, and called him on the fact that such a sentiment would mark all POWs as liars and thus unworthy of listening to in any capacity. Weird.

My question to conservatives is this: which would you rather have name Supreme Court Justices, McCain or Clinton? Remember that the Supreme Court makes rulings on Constitutional matters…like Roe v. Wade. I know how obscenely important a person’s choice is to you (or more accurately your revocation of that choice), so you might want to remember the fact that our next President might have the chance to nominate three Justices. McCain is pretty much pro-life whereas Clinton is pro-choice. It seems that on this issue, which is oftentimes the most important consideration for conservatives, McCain is the clear winner. But because conservatives dislike McCain’s stance on immigration and campaign finance reform (which they irrationally view as a usurpation of the 1^st Amendment right to free speech), they would vote for someone who, in their view, tacitly supports the murder of unborn children. Amazing, isn’t it, the herd mentality of these people, bleating the catch phrases and opinions of their radio gods.

Limbaugh and Beck and their ilk lament over what they see as a slow death of conservatism, but really, their incessant whining merely illuminates the problems with such strict adherence to ideology. They’d sell their souls and their vote to someone they considered a few months ago to be the devil simply because the likely GOP candidate isn’t what they view as the ideal conservative. You will continue to hear about this (if you pay attention to such things). You will continue to hear Limbaugh and Coulter and Beck say that conservatives should cast their votes for Clinton rather than McCain. You’ll hear all sorts of nonsense, like that Clinton is more of a conservative than McCain. My advice to you is to learn what you can about the candidates and then vote for the one that is the least distasteful to you. If that’s Clinton, then vote for her. Just remember, you will always be sacrificing some of your ideals, because no one candidate is going to represent you with 100% fidelity unless you get off your ass and run yourself.

I thank Roland Martin at CNN for providing a good article on this, though it’s been reported on for about a week by various news outlets.

Down with the Sickness:

Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) has a new weapon against Coalition forces: women. I know what you’re thinking, but it’s not sexual seductions. And it’s not just any women. These women are highly skilled in the arts of terrorism. Why? Because they have Down’s Syndrome. Last week, two separate women were used in attacks on crowded markets during which 70 people lost their lives. The women probably didn’t even know what they were doing until they spontaneously detonated. They weren’t the only ones surprised by their explosion because their illness likely helped them get past security check points. The explosives were hidden under their traditional garb. This isn’t new, but the use of women as suicide bombers is still fairly novel, so they get past security easier than young men. Add the fact that the women had a severe illness, well, who’s going to stop and vigorously question and/or frisk someone with Down’s? I’m guessing that security details will scrutinize women and disabled people more now. This is the ever-changing game of cat and mouse that the Coalition plays with AQI.

The Loss of National Treasures:

Harry Richard Landis past away. He was 108 years old and only one of two remaining WWI veterans. Landis didn’t see combat in the Great War because he was still in training when the war ended, but he is, like the 4.7 million other US military members of the day, considered a WWI vet. In 1941, Landis tried to sign up to fight the Germans (seeing as though he missed his shot the previous time), but was deemed too old (at 42). This is a man who admits that he didn’t want to fight in WWI, but then volunteered to go fight in WWII. Such honor. His story’s pretty interesting, as he went on to manage S.S. Kresge Co. (later to be named Kmart) all through the northeast.

The last remaining US veteran of that war is Frank Buckles (107). The Canadians have John Babcock (107) as their last remaining vet. The last German veteran, Erich Kaestner, passed away on New Year’s Day at 107. With that in mind, there could be as few as two WWI veterans left on the entire planet.

Raymond Jacobs recently died as well. Jacobs, who you may have never heard of, claimed to be the last living member of the original group of Marines that first raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima. As you know, the famous photo shows a second flag raising. No records exist which can verify Jacobs’ claim and all his contemporaries are already dead, so we may never know who really was involved in that first flag raising, as Jacobs also disputed the official identifications of the Marines in a picture taken by Louis Lowery.

There is a lot more that I wished to discuss with you during the past week, but much of it is OBE, or overcome by events. As in no longer relevant. So I’ll end now. Until next time.

Word of the Day: Mien (noun): Air, bearing, or demeanor, as showing character, feeling, etc: a man of noble mien.

On This Day in History: The Mongols burn the Russian city of Vladimir (1238). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). Slim pickings today; see the last few days for some interesting happenings throughout history.

“When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift.

Morning Coffee (98)

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

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

GOP Debate (Boca Raton, Florida):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (95)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (91)

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

The Masturbating Debaters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Sends a Clear Message to Iraqi Date Palm Groves:

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (88)

Greetings. Another hard-hittin’ cup o’Coffee coming your way. Actually, since I generally have little idea as to what will flow forth from the Pot, I don’t really know how hard-hittin’ it’ll be. But I always attempt to make it so, with varying degrees of success.

It is still cold today. I’m not a big fan of the cold, which is why I use the Morning Coffee in a cheap attempt to warm me on frigid mornings such as this. But it’s supposed to warm up again this weekend. Forecasters (i.e. soothsayers and diviners) call for up to 10 feet of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, so I guess I should be thankful that it’s just 17 degrees out.

But enough about the weather…

Hucka-Smash and O-BAM!-A:

Can you imagine all the puns and name-play we’ll have to endure should one of these two win the Presidency? It will become maddening just listening to pundits from both sides of the political spectrum take their petty little cheap shots by toying with the names of these guys. Imagine what Ann Coulter will say, or Al Franken. My gods…it’ll be ten times worse than the patronizing “Bushie” I have to hear every ten minutes.

But it’s possible; perhaps likely, that one of these two knuckleheads will be our next Commander in Chief. Can you say, “woo…hoo…?” I can. Repeatedly. Huckabee and Obama both came away winners in Iowa yesterday, and I’m not terribly surprised. Huck was my pick as the Republican nominee (and when I say “my pick” I do not mean that I would choose him or endorse him, I mean that he’s the one who I think will get the nomination). Huckabee counted on a large evangelical turnout, and they didn’t disappoint. I don’t think he’ll win New Hampshire because Romney’s more their style as even the Republicans in NH are somewhat liberal, but I’m still picking him. Obama, well, he’s the golden boy right now. Everyone’s enamored with the idea that he’s a breath of fresh air, however wrong they might. Plus, he’s a black man, and probably the most qualified black man to ever run for President, so he’s even more appealing than he would be were he white with the same CV. So, there you have it. It’ll be Huck vs. Obama. Scary, no? Well, it’s not like any of the alternatives are any better.

Mayoral Coup:

There’s nothing like having a gift-wrapped example of how power corrupts. In Anderson, Indiana, there is a bit of a battle for the office of Mayor, despite the city having successfully completed an election for said office. A lawsuit has been filed contesting the residency of the winner, Kris Ockomon, who has been sworn in and presently occupies the Mayor’s residence and is even carrying out mayoral duties. A judge actually threw out “a request to issue a temporary restraining order to keep Ockomon from taking office on Tuesday.”

Mayor (well, technically ex-Mayor) Kevin Smith has said, “Given the obvious potential for a vacancy in the office of mayor, I am ... announcing that I have not and will not be surrendering the office of mayor pending a determination by the courts." See, if Ockomon were to lose the lawsuit, he’d be out as Mayor since he didn’t meet the residency requirements. As for Smith, well, he’s just doing his duty to the city. He intends to “rule from exile” because Ockomon shouldn’t be Mayor. Since he shouldn’t be Mayor, Smith must continue to rule. Lost on the man is the fact that the city really did elect someone else. It seems clear to me that they were not interested in having Mr. Smith continue to be their ruler, er, Mayor. He should simply come to grips with that instead of having his lackeys file lawsuits and restraining order requests. I wonder, if Smith’s people win the lawsuit, and Ockomon is out, does Smith intend on carrying out another term as Mayor, or does he intend on holding to the spirit of democracy and hold immediate elections?

What an embarrassment. Surely there was a better way to do things. This Smith simply looks like a sore loser who refuses to acknowledge that people rejected him and his vision for Anderson. I guess when some people have a taste of power, all they want is another spoonful.

Object Sightings:

Over the past 24 hours, I’ve seen some interesting things. Last night I saw a UFO while driving along I-70. It was probably a plane rather than an alien spacecraft, but it was unidentifiable to me, thus its UFO label. I’m assuming that it was a plane coming in to land at the airport. It was one massively bright, white light, but it was moving very slow, if at all, and seemed to just hang in the night sky. The light, probably a landing light that obscured the rest of the airplane, didn’t increase or decrease in size throughout the five minutes I observed it. I saw no other lights on or near the object. It was pretty neat. I wish I could have stopped to observe it further, but I had someplace to go.

This morning, I saw a shooting star. It was brilliantly blue and purple and silver and lasted but an instant. That is the second shooting star I’ve seen in the past six months. I had previously gone years in between sightings. Did I wish upon it? Nope.

Fairly short today, but perhaps I’ll brew up a pot this weekend.

Word of the Day: Obdurate (adjective): 1. Hardened in wrongdoing; stubbornly wicked. Hardened in feelings; hard-hearted. 2. Resistant to persuasion; unyielding. 3. Hard; harsh; rugged; rough.

On This Day in History: Julius Caesar is defeated in the Battle of Ruspina by defector Titus Labienus and lost nearly 1/3 of his army (46 BCE). Yeah, Caesar was, on occasion, bested on the battlefield. He made up for this defeat at Thapsus. Christopher Columbus departs the New World, which ends his first journey (1493). Elizabeth Ann Seton becomes the first American born saint (1975).

“Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” – Archimedes.

Liquamen I

Liquamen is a fermented Roman fish sauce, and the newest portion of the Morning Coffee. Liquamen was made by taking some fish, placing it in earthenware and covering it with salt, sealing it, and leaving it sit in the sun for a period of time. The white liquid that rises to the top is then strained through cloth. You now have liquamen. Sounds disgusting, but Romans loved it and it was mass produced in factories. No, it doesn't even remotely go with Coffee, but coffee was unknown to Romans, and I like Roman stuff. And it's my blog. Our Liquamen embodies my (fermented) thoughts throughout the day which may (or may not) directly supplement the day's Morning Coffee, but which might be unsuitable for the daily email.

This isn't in the general edition because I don't want political speculation of this type to included in the MC. And I don't want to be held to it since predictions of this sort are not my forte.

Hucka-Who? Hucka-BEE...
I think the Huckster might secure the Republican nomination. And unfortunately, I think he's about the only one, besides maybe Romney, who can compete in the general election.

I say this because, well, McCain is too old and too "mavricky". And he looks to be one step from death, which is not good in Presidential politics. Giuliani has a lot of personal issues that will not fly with the religious base, and he has a very vocal group of people in NY that do not like him. And these aren't nobodies. They're firefighters and the like; respected and admired people. And their power and influence can even be blamed on Giuliani and other right wingers - they turned them into heroes after 9/11. Thompson doesn't even want it; his campaign is falling apart and his staff is convinced that he listens only to his wife. The man has been to Iowa (which in my opinion has a disproportionate amount of say in our absurdly NON-democratic system) about five times (exaggeration). He also looks like death. Despite his vast charisma, I don't think his heart is in it. Ron Paul hasn't a prayer because other than his cadre of supporters ( i.e. cult), no one buys into him. Who else?...Nobody worth mentioning.

Reuters reports that Huckabee is now in a virtual tie with Guliani in a national Reuters/Zogby poll. He's done this with a fraction, and I do mean a fraction, of the money available to his rivals. He's spent some ridiculously low amount in Iowa, and is fairing very well in Iowa. How well? He's made up an 18 point deficit in a month. That is virtually unheard of. Now his rivals are taking aim at him, going ape shit over what they perceived as a Cross in an ad by Huckabee. They fear him, and they should. No one should doubt the power of the evangelical base, which can no longer be counted on to toe the party line after Bush and Company obliterated their loyalty. By this point in the election cycle, the Repub nominee is usually fairly certain; they leave the hemming and hawing to Democrats. No longer. The base is fractured; uncertain of who to vote for. Huckabee is supremely articulate and quite charismatic. And most importantly, he's one of them. He also seems to be qualified on the surface, having led a large congregation and held high leadership positions in his church (I don't know which one...who cares?) and was the governor of Arkansas. Let's not forget who else ascended to the Presidency after having been the governor of Ar-Kansas.

The Huck-Meister has chinks in his armor too, but none of them seem as bad as the chinks in the armor of other Repub candidates. This is especially true now that the momentum has shifted to Huckabee's campaign, and he now has the opportunity to control the message (at which he seems more than adept). Yes, he pardoned some (a few hundred) people, one of whom went on and killed someone in Missura (spelling intentional). Yes, he might want to deliver the US to Jesus. But he's expressed regret for the former, and the latter, which he can simply ignore or downplay to more secular voters, surely panders to his base. The largest gap in his armor might be this: a lot of the precincts that are expected to support Huckabee in Iowa are remote ones, and they may not be counted before the winner in Iowa are announced.

You may think I've forgotten "Oven" Mitt Romney. I haven't. The man's a Mormon. People don't get Mormons. They'll get Mormons a whole lot less once the Rove-ian tactics get busted out, which they will, and by Democrats off all people, if the man secures the Repub nomination. Of this I assure you. Dems know how effective Rove-ian tactics are from personal experience. Mormonism will be all that it is, all the while bare and exposed for public ridicule; it will also be even more of what it is not (if you catch my drift - layman's terms: it'll be one shade less evil than paganism, and two shades less evil than atheists and Satanists). Romney doesn't see the need to explain his religion, and the Mormons I've talked to seem to agree (I wonder why - they know it cripples his chances). So Americans perception (discerning as it is) of Mormonism will be at the whims of Democratic propaganda. Not good.

I know, Kennedy won and he was Catholic, right? Right. How many movies feature Catholic priests and Catholic canon? Tons. They're everywhere. Name a horror movie from the 1980s and it likely featured a troubled priest fighting Satanic forces. Good or bad, we all know what Catholics are. I needn't even mention the fact that Catholicism predates Mormonism by about, oh, 1,800 years. Catholics needn't wage a PR campaign regarding their canon (pedophilia, yes; canon, no). Can you name a famous Mormon? Probably not. Name me 10 famous Catholics (just rattle off "Saint" and any random name ten times). Has any Mormon been involved in the Middle East peace talks? Not that you or I know of. Everyone knows that Mormons are nice people (missionaries), and that's about it. I rest my case on Mormonism vs. Catholicism in Presidential politics.

There's just a few weeks left of the first round of the nonsense that has become the Primary process; we will soon have a clear picture of the Republican nominee (and Democratic nominee too). From the Repub side, religion and perceived morality are going to play the defining role, I think. Far more so than any specific policy issues (those not already covered by religion). This will change in the general election (since the Moral One, whoever that is, will have been chosen), so perhaps now is the right time to think about policy issues too.

Morning Coffee (79)

Welcome to another weekend edition of the Morning Coffee. Weekend editions of the MC are like that coffee made from the beans that have gone through the digestive track of the palm civet: rare, expensive, and delicious. Also, it's not bad for something that you have to wade through the mental feces of other media in order to get it.

The Mitchell Report – Fingered by McNamee:

I had no real intention of discussing the Mitchell Report on the Morning Coffee, despite baseball being the only sport I watch. For those who don’t know, the Mitchell Report was commissioned by Major League Baseball to investigate the use of performance enhancing drugs by players, former and present. You can read the entire thing HERE. It’s actually somewhat interesting.

I love baseball, and I was a little worried about how I would feel about it after reading the report. I likened it somewhat to the strike of 1994 when fans abandoned the sport in droves. Luckily, after reading it, I still consider myself an avid fan. The sport has a problem, and hopefully the leadership and players are able to come to grips with that and make an effort to fix it.

Anyway, my point is not to get into a huge, long discussion about the Mitchell Report. I could, but I won’t. The Morning Coffee is not the place; maybe the City of Dis, but not our beloved MC. But I wanted to point out to you something that if found supremely hilarious: the main witness and/or informant that Mitchell used is a man by the name of Brian McNamee. The man who “named names” is named McNamee. Does anyone else think that is ironic?

More Political Politicking by Pencil-Necked Politicians:

I know I said I’d try to keep politics out of the MC for a time, but this one is simply too good to pass up. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal wrote an article recently called “The Pulpit and the Potemkin Village.” You can read it HERE. I recommend it. She talks about how religion has become something of a defining factor in today’s Presidential politics and some other interesting things (if you do not know what a Potemkin village is…find out). Anyway, one passage struck me, as I touched on it in previous editions. In it, she talks about illegal immigration, specifically, but I think the gist can easily be applied to any issue.

“Hillary Clinton is not up at night worrying about the national-security implications of open borders in the age of terror. She's up at night worrying about whether to use Mr. Obama's position on driver's licenses for illegals against him in ads or push polls.”

This is precisely the point. Not one of these Presidential “hopefuls” actually worries about much of anything other than how to spin someone else’s “opinion/beliefs/ideas” and use them against them. I wonder if any of them, save perhaps Ron Paul and maybe Mike Huckabee (the former, crazy; the latter one shade shy of being a fundamentalist Christian), have any beliefs/opinions/ideas at all that aren’t provided to them by the latest polls or political strategists; Hillary may just be the worst offender.

You may point out the aforementioned Paul and Huckabee as having beliefs, and this is true. But beliefs alone do not make policies, and in both their cases, I think they are dangerous to that for which our country stands.

There are 300 million Americans in this country, and maybe 50 million illegal immigrants, and the best we can muster is the group of troglodytes that make up the Presidential Hopeful Class of 2008?

Here’s a side tidbit of information for you: Huckabee says that “American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out.” Probably true to a large extent. But then he goes on to say, “My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.” Has he never heard of the People’s Republic of China? What about a newly wealthy Russia re-equipped with long-range nuclear aviation patrols and a carrier battle group tour of the Mediterranean? India perhaps? What about Iran? The European Union? Africa? Saudi Arabia and Syria and Venezuela? All of these nations and entities would prefer American power be eroded and our influence marginalized. While I agree with Huckabee that the application of American power and influence (what little we have anymore) would be more effective if used in other ways, it really does sound like it’s, well, us pitted against the world. Thus is geopolitics, which Huck may or may not actually comprehend. I understand his point; that being playing to the fears of Americans, but it would be nice if someone spoke with some candor for once about the real threat to American power and our way of life: virtually everyone that isn’t us…okay, and us too.

The Surreptitious Success of the Surge:

With glacial speed, mainstream media outlets have begun to report on the successes of the American fighting man and President Bush and General Petreaus’ Surge in Iraq. It sort of snuck up on us. Bad news upon bad news, and then, BAM, the news became kind of good; real good, in fact. Violence all throughout Iraq has plummeted. Imagine that the numbers are so staggeringly good that it’s become almost impossible for the media or liberals to refute it. Indeed, they say that it cannot last or is a fluke or is only etc, etc. But almost none of them actually have the gumption to suggest that the 30,000 troop increase has not been effective.

Many people might, however, think that this success is merely the nefarious efforts of al-Qaida; a sly way of undermining American politics and policies. However, al-Qaida, as indicated by their statements preceding the 2004 election, would prefer a Democrat as President. This is not to say that a Democrat would necessarily abandon the ridiculously named “War on Terror” once he (or she) was privy to the realities of the office of President, but al-Qaida would still prefer to not see a Republican in the White House in 2009. It is in al-Qaida in Iraq’s (AQI) interest to continue to inflict deaths upon our military, lest they appear weak. I will tell you what many are afraid to: AQI and their ilk are being broken. Iraqis are tired of them, and they’re being reported. Fallujah, once a haven, is now a very bad place to be an insurgent. They may or may not make a surge for themselves in the future, but right now they’re being slapped around pretty good. This is why it is imperative that the Iraqis have a strong military and police force of their own, or our efforts will have been for naught. Eventually, we will have to leave and they will stand or fall on their own.

Even Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has been one of Congress’ most vocal critics of the war, has said of the Surge, “it’s working”; said after he made a visit to Iraq in November. This comment has been latched upon by Republicans who are overjoyed that the Surge has won over such a critic. Murtha addressed the press after he returned from Iraq, and those two words are the only bit from the whole thing that Republicans cite. He said much more. He was still critical of the Bush administration and said that the Iraqis must begin to take care of themselves, no matter how well the Surge works. Converted to the Surge, yes, but he’s still adamant that we need to be out of there as soon as possible.

I am not privy to the inner workings of the Bush mind, but I don’t think that he believed that the Surge would work as well as it has. I think he was just throwing some numbers at the problem and got lucky. His luck might have been to the detriment of our Armed Forces, but that’s an issue for another time…and for another President.

Word of the Day: Draconian (adjective): 1. Pertaining to Draco, a lawgiver of Athens, 621 BCE. 2. Excessively harsh; severe. One of my favorite words.

On This Day in History: The infamous Nero was born (37 CE). One of the greatest Byzantine Emperors, Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer” died (1025 CE) (imagine a US President with a moniker like that.) The US Bill of Rights becomes law after being ratified by the Virginia legislature (1791). General Douglas MacArthur orders that Shinto be abolished as the state religion of Japan (1945). Abolished. Can you imagine? The US has actually abolished a state religion of another nation (admittedly, a defeated one).

The Roman festival Consuales Ludi was held, which honored the god Consus, the god of counsel and the protector of the harvest which is being stored. Additionally, the Rape of the Sabine Women took place on this day. Romulus, seeing the need to increase the population of Rome, authorized each Roman male to forcibly abduct and take as his wife a woman from the visiting Sabine tribe. This story is likely apocryphal. The Book of Judges has a similar story.

“There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity.” – General Douglas MacArthur