Morning Coffee (137)

Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (130)

Greetings, Glorious Quaffers of the Coffee (five). So much to discuss, yet so little time. I've been meaning to do this all week. I wish my work day started at noon so I could Brew some Coffee prior to having to go to work, but alas, that is not the case. Our little meetings might be relegated to weekend business only. Consider this: I wrote the next paragraph 13 days ago...I really need to finish this...

The Palin Problem:
McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has most Conservatives salivating. They love her, and her selection has wrought havoc on the self-identity of Liberals. They don't know how to react. It's actually turned them into schizophrenic maniacs. Liberals have been turned on their heads: she must be a terrible mother to her kids because she's a successful woman. Have you ever thought you'd hear a liberal say that? Liberals have attacked Palin's family, saying they're immoral for having a 17 year old daughter who engages in pre-marital sex. That's something you'd expect from Conservatives, yet they've actually been quite calm about that business. Actually, come to think of it, neither side seems to know what to think about her selection. Conservatives/Republicans completely bought into her after one measly speech at the Republican National Convention, and Liberals/Democrats hate her for the very reasons they would normally appreciate her. (I was saying it before anyone else...but I have no proof because I'm lazy and didn't finish writing this...)

My main problem with Sarah Palin, around which all other problems revolve like self-immolating satellites, is that the woman has been on the scene for a nano-second, and so many rational-minded people have become quite enamored with her. They fell in love with her the way so many Democrats fell in love with Obama: after one speech at a party's national convention. McCain may or may not have adequately vetted her, but much of the voting public (Republicans) seemed to have no interest whatsoever in doing so. Some say that the "high" she's brought to the McCain campaign will subside, and if that's the case, I can only hope that people will look at her with a critical eye. Not in an adversarial nature, not spitefully, but critically. Because anyone who is so close to the Office of the President should be critically and thoroughly examined.

Thus far, I do not think Sarah Palin is right for the job, though I could be swayed given evidence of her competence beyond the pithy anecdotes provided by Palin's high school classmates, who pull double duty as members of her governorship. In the last week or so, I've read a great deal about her. I've read the nasty bits written by leftist blogs, and I've read the fan-boy literature written by rightists. I've read the stuff written by those with a more tempered tongue. I still don't like her as VP. I think her being picked was an excellent political move by McCain, which I alluded to during our last meeting, for a number of interesting reasons which have been covered by those with the aforementioned tempered tongues, but I do not think she's right for the job. Let me put it to you this way: Were I to think McCain has what it takes to be President, I'm not thrilled with the idea that if he were incapacitated, Sarah Palin would be running our nation. That doesn't mean I think Obama the better candidate. Quite the contrary; Obama is to me as bad a candidate for the job as Sarah Palin.

We've all heard arguments about whether Palin has enough experience for the job, and the McCain campaign initially asserted that she has plenty of foreign policy experience. After all, she's the governor of Alaska, which if you had a map handy, you would know is right next to Russia. And, golly gee, she's the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. Of course, Maj Gen Craig Campbell of the Alaska National Guard reminds us that her "commander-in-chief" title means little in terms of her contribution to national security. Oh, and part of the missile defense network resides in Alaska, which implies that mere proximity to national security related infrastructure bestows upon residents and administrators alike a mythical expertise in national security issues. Bollocks.

Thankfully, such flimsy arguments are being abandoned. Instead there's talk of Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. See, those guys didn't have a lot of experience when they were tapped as VP candidates either, so by default, Palin must be an alright pick. This brand of thinking makes no sense to me. Ignoring all else, to suggest that because three times in the past 220 years (although all in the 20th century) poorly experience people have been picked as running mates and it turned out alright, then picking poorly experienced running mate must be okay, is absurd. It's sort of like saying that it's okay to drive drunk because you've done it a few times and you didn't crash or get pulled over.

But you cannot ignore all else. Coolidge had 25 years of elected office experience, first in city offices, then serving in his state's legislature. Which was prior to becoming the lieutenant governor, which was prior to him being elected as governor of Massachusetts, which happened to be two years before being asked to be Warren Harding's running mate. That last fact is the only tidbit ever mentioned, because further examination of Coolidge's history puts Palin to shame. Once Harding was elected, he was the first President to invite his VP to Cabinet meetings, which turned out to be fortuitous as Coolidge finished off Harding's term and served one of his own (and turned down a second nomination).

What about Theodore Roosevelt, the youngest President in history? He surely must be more inexperienced than Palin, as he is also mentioned by Palin supporters as having a light resume. I'm not sure how this argument would hold even superficially. Roosevelt was a rare breed. In 1882, at the age of 24, he wrote The Naval War of 1812, for which he did his own research and was widely acclaimed. He later wrote the four-volumned, forward-thinking, The Winning of the West between 1889 and 1896. He was a deputy sheriff in North Dakota. He became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895, and made major changes to the police force. Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897, but was the de facto Secretary of the Navy as John Long was mostly inactive. At the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898, Roosevelt formed the "Rough Riders," the First US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which he commanded as a Colonel in battle in Cuba. He was nominated for a Medal of Honor for his actions there, and posthumously received it in 2001, becoming the only President to have earned the nation's highest medal. He was elected as governor of New York in 1899. He was then tapped as McKinley's running mate and served as Vice-President until McKinley died, and then served out McKinley's term and one of his own. By no account is Sarah Palin comparable to Theodore Roosevelt.

Harry Truman is another President with whom Palin is compared, since Franklin D Roosevelt kept Truman completely out of the loop. The idea being that Truman was grossly unprepared to take over the Presidency, but did a great job once the position was thrust upon him. Oh, and Roosevelt didn't really know Truman when he was selected, just like McCain doesn't really know Palin. Thus, Palin is as good fo a pick as Truman was (never mind that Roosevelt didn't really want Truman as his running mate). But the issue really is one of irresponsibility: Roosevelt was irresponsible in keeping Truman from knowing anything relating to the war effort, and America was lucky that Truman was up to the task. I would argue that McCain is similarly irresponsible in selecting someone so inexperienced. Of course, Truman had, you know, 20 plus years of experience as an government employee at various levels.

The comparison of Sarah Palin to any of these people is simply absurd. She is, to my knowledge, the most quantitatively and qualitatively inexperienced person to ever be selected as a vice presidential candidate. Take, for instance, this fact: every VP candidate since Spiro Agnew has met with foreign leaders prior to being selected as a running mate. Palin is the first to have never met with a foreign leader during the performance of official duties. Yet we're told that Palin has foreign policy experience simply because her state is next to the most desolate, least populous portion of Russia?

Her impact on the campaign is clear; she's revitalized an ambivalent base, and that is, I suppose, the REAL reason she was selected. Again, masterstroke by the McCain campaign for this reason. If McCain were to die in office, Sarah Palin may or may not do a great job. But despite how likable she may be (and that's the heart of politics), her lack of experience (and numerous other things) gives me severe reservations.

It may turn out that the woman is simply too polarizing and that too much of the McCain campaign's time will be spent deflecting criticism and accusations, and McCain will suffer because of it. A survey of the Brian Ross and Investigative Team's website on 17 September shows 24 stories for Palin, 2 for McCain, 1 for Biden, and none for Obama. Most of the stories had to do with some sort of accusation, be it email, book banning, etc. But I think the McCain campaign has done a pretty good job at deflecting at least one accusation. Remember the "Sarah the Book Banner" story that ran a bit ago? Well, my opinion is that anyone who even thinks about asking a librarian what it takes to ban books is not fit to run our country, and I've seen nothing that indicates that she didn't at least look into it, whatever her end-state intentions may have been. In any event, shortly after that story broke, an alleged list of the books she sought to be banned appeared in the news. Turns out the list was completely falsified, but liberal bloggers jumped all over it and propagated the list all over. My assessment is that this list was generated by someone in McCain's campaign or at the least, a right wing supporter. Why you ask? Well, they knew that it would be a hot-button issue for liberals, and that they'd latch onto it without even really thinking about it. Once it was revealed that the list was wrong, it looked like libelous, hate-mongering by the leftist blogging community and this totally eviscerated the story. So, now we have someone who may or may not have wanted to ban or censor books, but we might not ever know the truth because the validity of the premise has been killed. Score one for some right winger outt there. Hell, the librarian now cannot even remember specifics of the conversation she had with Palin...

On a sub-topic to the Palin issue, you may have heard that she and her administration weighed the merits of using Yahoo! mail in leiu of an official mail account to conduct official business. This way, it would be impossible for someone to subpoena her email. Which is really what transparency is all about, folks. Avoiding the possibility that your government can be scrutinized. Outstanding.

This may all seem like a lot of hate-mongering by the Morning Coffee. Some may fear that I've teetered into the realm of "semi-rag;" mouth-piece of the left. You might think I dislike Sarah Palin. I'm sure that's what most conservatives would think were they to stumble onto my blog. I assure you, this is not the case. I do not dislike Sarah Palin, though I disagree with some of her policies and the way she ran her administration. My take is simple. I try to avoid taking (political) ideological sides or bitterly defending one candidate over another. My goal is to be the adversary of any of them, all of them, who are not behaving; who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; who are endangering our nation. That's my only goal. Let me be clear: I do not want Sarah Palin as the Vice President of the United States, but that doesn't mean for a second that I want Barack Obama to be the President. Neither of them are qualified. If the masses will take a step back from their emotions, they might see this too.

Word of the Day: Misprize (transitive verb): 1. To hold in contempt; 2. To undervalue.

On This Day in History: The Battle of Chalons, in modern day France, took place on this day in 451 CE. During this battle, Magister militum Flavius Aetius and the Roman allies defeat Atilla the Hun and his allies in what was probably the largest battle in the ancient world and the last major military operation for the Western Roman Empire. This was also likely the first battle to pit a mostly Christian force against a mostly non-Christian force since the death of Constantine I in 337 CE. In 1187, Saladin begins his seige of Jerusalem. Ferdinand Magellen begins his attempt to circumnavigate the globe in 1519. The Walking Purchase, between the Penns and the Lenape tribe of Native Americans, takes place in 1737. The Lenape tribe agreed to sell to the Penns an area from the junction of the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers to as far west as a man could walk in a day and a half, believing it to be approximately 40 miles. The Penns hired three of the fasted runners in the colonies, and Edward Marshall finished the trip, covering a distance of 70 miles, which netted for the Penns 1.2 million acres (roughly the size of Rhode Island). Needless to say, the Lenape believed they were swindled, and tried, unsuccessfully, to nullify the agreement for 19 years. Long gone was William Penn's desire to deal with native tribes fairly, after all, he was dead. Not much else to report...

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

Morning Coffee (129)

What a momentous time in which we live.

They, whoever they might be at any given time, say that writers should write every day, even if they're not feeling particularly inspired, nay, ESPECIALLY when they're not feeling inspired. Luckily, I'm not a writer. I'm an "aspiring" writer, which gives me all sorts of generic byes like "I was too busy working," or "I got caught up in a movie" or "my dog ate my draft." I'm also not getting paid, nor am I a very good writer, as this chap happens to be.

Despite not feeling much like a Coffee Brewer today, and despite the likely fact that this Coffee will not be served until mid-afternoon, there is much to discuss, and I suppose it gives me, if not you, something to do.

VP Who?:

On Friday, John McCain announced that he had finally picked a running mate. Oh, you've heard about this? Come on, man, this isn't the news, it's a blog. Anyway, Mitt Romney is his pick, and he's sticking to his guns even if the man's a Mormon. Wait…it's not Mitt? Well then, Mike Huckabee? No? Tom Ridge? Then it absolutely MUST be his good friend Joe Lieberman! No again? Well, who is it? Surely we've heard of him, right?

No. Probably not. John McCain picked a "her;" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. But you knew this already and were simply humoring my dramatic flair.

I've read a great deal about this, and three days after the fact, I'm still having a hard time figuring out why McCain chose Palin. Yes, Palin does a couple of things for McCain. Obviously, she's a woman, and McCain is seeking to woo disenfranchised Clinton supporters, many of whom are women. At the face of it, this seems like a brilliant idea. But it's likely that her staunch anti-abortion stance, even in incest and rape cases, will somewhat nullify the effect of drawing Clinton supporters, known for their pro-choice sentiments. I don't believe that liberal-leaning women who are fans of "Roe v. Wade" will jump on McCain's bandwagon simply because he chose a woman, especially one who happens to have radically different views than their own.

She's also "a person of deep Christian faith," according to Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. So deep is this Christian faith, Palin opted not to have an abortion when she found out that her son, in utero, had Down's Syndrome, a decision for which she received quite a bit of credit from conservatives. Her "deep Christian faith" and her obvious adherence to that faith and to a priority principle of the religious right will surely net McCain a decent portion of the evangelical vote that he been seeking, to little success thus far.

Palin also has a reputation as someone who cleans up corruption, having risen to prominence in Alaskan politics as a whistle-blower and ran for governor as a change agent. But she's got her own corruption problems. It's possible that she fired some public safety commissioner because that official refused to fire a state trooper who was recently divorced and was engaged in a custody battle with his ex-wife, who happened to be Palin's sister. Certainly this will come up. A lot.

Also, Palin is beautiful, and we shouldn't discount the beauty effect in politics. Remember, in 1960, Kennedy debated Nixon in the presidential race. Those who watched the debate on television (a novel concept then) declared Kennedy the winner. Nixon looked sickly, having recently returned from a hospital stay concerning his knee, still had a poor complexion as a result, and was still nearly 20 pounds underweight, whereas Kennedy had a "healthy glow" (ironically a result of his medical condition) and looked fit. Those people who consumed the debate via radio broadcast had a different take on the winner, declaring Nixon to have bested Kennedy. Looks mean a great deal, and Palin, a former beauty pageant participant, has a surplus of good looks. Not only that, but she's remarkably charismatic and has a small-town charm that any politician would be envious of. I would nearly deem her a perfect woman. She hunts, fishes, is active, is smart, and is incredibly sexy. All these things appeal to Republicans, especially that last quality as a good many of them are not what you would call sexually liberated.

With all that being said, you might ask how I am having difficulty understanding why McCain chose her. Your concern would be valid. Looking at all the above reasons, she's a brilliant pick, right? Well, not really, in my opinion. A central theme in McCain's argument against Obama is that Obama lacks experience, an assessment with which I would agree. But the problem is Palin has LESS experience than Obama. Obama had served eight years as a lawmaker in Illinois, and Palin's been the mayor of a very small town and governor for less than two years. Supporters of Palin point to the fact that she's the "commander-in-chief" of Alaska's National Guard and that she's the governor of the largest state which borders Russia and the Arctic, an area of interest for many nations, and is well-versed in missile defense (because of the missile defense network's equipment is in Alaska), etc, etc.

These things are fluff. Palin is less experienced than Obama and there's really no way around it. I'm not sure that's the message McCain should be sending to Americans. McCain is 72 years old. The median life expectancy for American males is 75.15. McCain has had four bouts of skin cancer, and endured five years in a North Vietnamese prison in which he surely didn't receive appropriate nutrition. I do not doubt that McCain is fit. But my grandfather was fit a week before he died at 76. McCain could feasibly get cancer and die within a few months. Or he could have a heart attack or stroke. He could fall down the stairs and break his neck. Yes, these things could happen to youthful presidents as well, but the risks are higher for a man of McCain's age. McCain, knowing his age is an issue, is asking us to accept as his vice president a person with less experience than the person he's claiming hasn't enough experience to be President. What's worse is his campaign published a statement saying that Sarah Palin is ready to be President. How is it, then, that Obama isn't? McCain is treating us like fools and frankly, if he believes Obama shouldn't be elected President, he's being irresponsible by selecting someone with less experience than his opponent. His age and the possibility of his death is something that shouldn't inherently dissuade people from voting for him, but it should be on their minds, and a sound VP pick should assuage such concerns, not wholly ignore them.

But at the end of the day, I must remember that politics is about the heart, not about the mind. What seems foolish to me clearly seems brilliant to the masses, because they identify with her rather than examine her. Conservative media and figures within Conservatism are very pleased with McCain's pick. All this considered, Palin is an excellent choice as VP, for all the reasons I've stated previously and probably more. Her story is (supposedly) inspiring. She's a mom, a member of the PTA, an outdoorswoman, beautiful. Men want to be with her and women want to be her. Can she lead? Maybe, maybe not. Let's hope that if McCain's elected, we don't have to find out.

America's Pastime Meets Infallibility:

This past Thursday Major League Baseball (MLB) implemented a rule change that takes rulings on certain plays out of the hands of umpires, the men who've been the on-field gods for more than 130 years. Instant replay has been finally, and to the likely joy of casual fans everywhere, incorporated into the game. But only on home runs (fair or foul, whether the ball went over the wall, etc) and fan interference.

I'm not exactly a baseball purist considering I'm a fan of the designated hitter rule in the American League (only). That opinion alone completely rules me out of the "baseball purist club" despite whatever other feelings I have for the game. For instance, I don't like Bud Selig's favorite institution: interleague play. Yes, it's been hugely successful, but I like the idea of two separate leagues that don't see each other during the regular season. For me, it builds a certain amount of mystery. But despite not being a card carrying member of be baseball purist club, I am against the use of instant replay in any manner.

Surely, many of you will disagree, if in fact you like baseball at all (if you do not, simply skip on to the next section). Most of you probably won't since in baseball, "nothing happens and it's boring." I know, I know, a great deal happens in football; quarterbacks take knees at the end of games to run down the clock (baseball's not over until the last pitch), and everyone has to huddle every 15 seconds to strategize. Got it. But despite the fact that nothing happens, baseball has always been officiated by the umpires, and human error is part of the game. Historically, umpires have been exceptionally good at getting calls right. I read an article a few years ago by Tom Verducci of CNNSI. Verducci got the chance to work as an umpire during Spring Training in 2007 and wrote about his experience. He writes:

"There were 167,341 at bats last season over 2,429 games. According to the 2006 "Umpiring Year in Review," a report put together by MLB officials, the men in blue made only 100 incorrect calls, excluding balls and strikes (and in that discipline they were judged to be 94.9% accurate). Not once did a club protest a game." [Emphasis added]

That's pretty good. In fact, considering that there are hundreds of plays in each game, and possibly several during each at-bat, that's an otherworldly success rate. That's better than any one would expect considering the umpires are human. The author of the article also interviewed several active and former umpires, and they struck me with their dedication to getting the calls right, and how they would anguish over missing a call, as rare as it was.

This year though, umpires didn't help their arguments against instant replay all that much, blowing several home run calls early in the season. That pretty much sealed the fate. MLB pressured the umps into accepting instant replay, much as they did with the infamous QuesTec machine that was installed to evaluate umpire effectiveness in calling balls and strikes and to standardize strike zone variation between umpires. So now, instant replay is billed as a "tool at the hands of managers and umpires." They can get the call right now.

It's this sort of slow chipping away at the human element that bothers me. I say this as an avid fan of the Cleveland Indians. I've been burned by botched calls, and not once did I say, "I wish that MLB would use instant replay!" Never have I ever said that, nor would I, even if it meant my team missing the World Series. Blown calls are part of the game, although a very small part. First QuesTec, then instant replay on home run calls. Soon we'll have instant replay decisions on stolen bases and on whether or not an outfielder trapped or caught a fly ball. MLB wants to speed up a game (that has no time limit, mind you) and yet they institute something that will add time. And they make fallible the infallible (umpires). To me it's sad, for reasons others might not be able to understand. The game is played by humans, managed by humans, and officiated by humans. It's how it's always been, and it's worked pretty well. Next maybe we'll have more show boating after home runs…why not go all the way, right?

Word of the Day: Gubernatorial (adj): Of or pertaining to a governor.

On This Day in History: Two relatively bad Roman emperors were born on this day; Caligula in 12 CE and Commodus in 161 CE. Lewis and Clark set out from Pittsburgh, beginning their exploration (1803). The first known victim of Jack the Ripper, Mary Ann Nichols, is murdered (1888). Nazi Germany stages an attack on the Gleiwitz radio station, making it appear that anti-German Poles perpetrated the attack and giving Germany an excuse to make war against Poland and beginning the Second World War in Europe (1939).

"Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic." – Crash Davis

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." - Lord Acton

**Formatting and hyperlink errors fixed (1807 EST)

Morning Coffee (128)

Greetings, Loyal Coffee Drinkers.

I am, joyously, back from the Abyss (hold the applause), although it has sadly occurred to me that the great “Reason” has not returned from its epochs-long absence from the seething, collective mind that we call mankind. I have, however, found my brief respite from inanity to be refreshing. I was growing tired of reading the news every day; news dominated by so much trite bullshit. But I’ve returned, and we shan’t make a big deal of it.

Political Ponderings for Perspicacious Putzes:

“When, o’gods, commeth The End!? Might thee not send sweet palliation our way for but an instant!? Have we forsaken thee so!?” – Anonymous, Aug 2008.

After nearly three months of little to no “Race-to-the-White House-2008” news, I was getting used to life being simple, less shall we say, retarded. I did not expect the race to be over, because even in a semi-civilized, Third World nation I had ready access to an ancient, albeit important invention: the calendar. And that calendar did not come close to indicating that January 2009 was upon me, or heavens forbid, long in the past. Basically, I had entered into a mini-coma, and when I awoke, McCain and Obama were still dueling. I had missed only variations of the same mundane themes. While “the world had moved on,” as Roland Deschain might say, it really hadn’t. Not for these two campaigns. Current, real-world events, earth shattering as they are to say, Georgians, are merely fodder for these two power hungry juggernauts. These events merely serve to provide opportunities for each candidate to audition for the job of leader of the Free World; i.e. call the opposition weak, or naïve, or foolish. Thankfully they do not yet have the ability to do anything other than wax eloquent on their virtues and how their individual policies will make the world a better place/make the world a safer place/make our lives better/make the boogey man go away.

The issue of the day is how many houses John McCain owns. Or doesn’t own, as the case may be. The story broke when McCain, in response to an interview question, said that he was uncertain how many properties he and his wife own. The Obama campaign latched on to that comment and produced a nice, trite little ad telling us that McCain owns seven properties totaling $13 million in worth.

Of course, Obama has his own home-owning issues, having purchased a 10-foot wide strip of property from some guy named Tony Rezko, who happens to be a convicted felon as the McCain campaign has reminded us.

As with most political nonsense, the heart of the issue is appearances, and this whole thing about the number of houses and how Tony Rezko and Barack Obama may have conducted business is no different. Obama wishes to paint McCain as an out-of-touch elitist, and McCain wishes to paint Obama as a fraudster.

Take this, from Obama at a campaign stop in Virginia:

"Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?’ And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, I’ll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...

"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house – or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don’t lose their home — you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

This is a load of disingenuous crap if I ever saw one. If I’m like him and have got one house? Yeah, I’ve got one house, and I had to take out a $70,000 VA loan to get it, and when I lived there, I struggled mightily to afford it. Obama apparently pulled in $4 million last year and the home he purchased in Chicago in 2006 cost him $1.65 million. Obama makes $90,000 more a year on his Senate salary alone than I do. Obama tries to get chummy with me; tries to be one of the guys. But the truth is he might as well be as rich as McCain and his wife. Comparing the financial struggles of the Obama’s to mine is really to compare apples with oranges, and it makes him look as elitist as he’s trying to portray McCain.

Frankly, the issue of how many houses any particular candidate owns is fairly irrelevant to me as a voter. I have already made peace with the fact that most of these politicians are members of an American aristocracy, with wealth far outstripping anything any member of my family could ever reasonably obtain. Some have been given their wealth whereas others have earned it, though neither of these circumstances changes the fact that they’re wealthy. I expect wealthy people to own multiple homes, and I expect that most of these homes are investments of some kind. I see no evidence of impropriety simply from owning eight homes. However, I do see Obama’s shady appearing real estate dealings with a man convicted of bribery and fraud, a deal that Obama himself admitted was a mistake because it appeared improper, as potentially more indicative of the kind of person he is.

But McCain will tell us just what kind of person Obama is. He’s got his folks whipping up a nice, friendly political ad that will lay it out in plain English for us common folk.

What will I ever talk about once this madness has ceased?

If today’s Brew was weak, forgive me. I need to break in the Pot again.

Word of the Day: Bruit (transitive verb): To report; to noise abroad.

On This Day in History: Pueblo Indians capture Santa Fe from the Spanish during the Pueblo Revolt (1680). James Cook claimed eastern Australia for Great Britain (1770). The Virgin Mary was allegedly seen by some people in Ireland (1879). If true, this would be the last time a virgin over the age of 21 has been seen on earth. Lake Nyos in Cameroon belches carbon dioxide gas, killing 1,800 people within 12 mile range (1986).

Also, today was the day of the rape of the Sabine women, during which the Romans under Romulus forcibly took women from the Sabines as wives in order to increase their population. The Sabines intended to declare war on the Romans for this insult, but the Sabine women, having been treated honorably, voluntarily accepted their Roman husbands. Thus is history when written by the victors…

Morning Coffee (113)

Two people are talking; about nothing in particular. The first person mentions to the other that his third cousin’s nephew’s brother-in-law’s birthday is coming up on the 13^th of March. “Oh my God!” the other girl replies, “My birthday’s on the 13^th too!” The first replies with incredulous surprise, “Really?!” The soon-to-be birthday girl then utters, “Yes…how weird!”

Isn’t it amazing that people think things like this are amazing? As if they think that someone else having the same birthday as them is so utterly improbable that they are shocked and surprised that not only could it be so, but they just spoke with someone who knows someone with the same date of birth. Amazing…

White, Like Siberian Exile:

The heavens have opened up and poured down upon me a deluge of precipitation in the form of snow flakes. There must be, as Carl Sagan might (not) say, billions and billions of them, most of which have, by way of a miracle, been placed in the 1/10^th of an acre of freedom upon which I presently reside. At first, they appear light, fluffy even; as if a gentle breeze could/would blow them away and out of my sight forever. And the wind does blow them; it blows them into stark white Sahara dunes. But light and fluffy these flakes are not. No, they are heavy and dense, to which my creaky back can attest. And the wind turns me into an Arctic version of Sisyphus; I laboriously move snow into pretty little piles, at which time the West Wind repositions those piles in my wake. Help finally comes; a great mythical/mechanical beast that shoves the snow aside as if the flakes were but weightless rag dolls. But no, my eyes deceive me once again, for I see the future. I see the machination, in vehement fury fling the eye pollution towards the square footage I have recently emancipated; doing the job of a thousand West Winds. A gigantic wave of snow, propelled by the power of hundreds of horses, comes crashing down upon my shores. The Humanity! Why have the gods punished me so!? Have I not left the Wintry Purgatory eons ago? I start again, moving the newly condensed snow from its resting place into pretty little piles…

Wake Me Up When November Ends:

Isn’t it painful to watch? It’s almost unbearable. The sounds and sights are like watching pigs being slaughtered by a thousand incompetent butchers who botch the job over and over again. Imagine that. Blood soaking the floor, agonizing squeals, but the pigs never die and you’re forced to watch, paralyzed into inaction. You know you have to hire one of these butchers, but which fool do you entrust with the grisly work? The difference is the stakes are much higher than the quick deaths of a few pigs.

Seething McCain Tears Head off NYT Reporter; Shits Down Neck:

Have you heard about this? Of course you haven’t, because it didn’t happen. But McCain did “clash” with a NYT reporter on his campaign’s plane. The reporter questions McCain about a meeting he had with John Kerry in 2004, allegedly about McCain running with him as his VP. She really tries to get him to reveal what the meeting was about, despite him saying that it was well known that they had met, and he wouldn’t discuss details because it was a private meeting. He’s clearly annoyed by her line of questioning. A number of news outlets reported this story with the headline, “Why are you so angry?” which suggests that the reporter was baffled by McCain’s anger or maybe afraid or something similar. This isn’t the case. In fact, I’d say that this NYT reporter was a little gutless. Watch the video, which is in the link above. She says, “Can I ask you about, um…?” She then looks down for a second before looking up and sheepishly asking, “Why are you so angry?” McCain replies, “Pardon me?” Her reply was, “Never mind, never mind…” Gutless. Clearly, McCain was annoyed, I’ll concede that. But overtly angry? I don’t think so. She asked a negative question like that and then backed down, as if knowing that that question would become the news.

If Cancer Won’t Do It, God Dammit, Boeing Will:

Boeing and its legion of fanboys are still quite angry at McCain for sabotaging their bid to make aerial refuelers for the US Air Force.

But as there is always the proverbial silver lining to any dark cloud, this Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman/EADS issue has shown us the only thing that is more powerful than Party lines, as Democrats and Republicans alike have rallied behind Boeing against John McCain. What is really important is that contracts be awarded to companies in these Representatives’ states. In this, Dems and Repubs can join forces. So important is this one thing that they will mischaracterize the entire system of awarding contracts, disrespect the Air Force, and even lie outright.

The fact is, McCain killed the 2004 version of the tanker deal, in which Boeing would have been awarded the contract. This version was killed not because McCain has a pathological hatred for Boeing, as some Congressmen apparently think, but because Boeing executives recruited an Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, while she was still overseeing Boeing related contracts. This sort of behavior wasn’t new to Ms. Druyun, as she was involved in another controversy in 1993 involving McDonnell Douglas, which was later bought by Boeing. So deep do Ms. Druyun’s connections to Boeing run that she simply forwarded to the company resumes of her daughter and her daughter’s fiancé, both of whom got jobs there. At any rate, Druyun and the Boeing executive both served prison sentences for their roles in the 2004 tanker deal. Shame on you John McCain.

But McCain’s actions are not very merit-worthy according to some. Nancy Pelosi insists that Boeing was on course to win the new deal before McCain started rallying against it. What does this mean? I haven’t seen anything that suggests that McCain did any such thing in this most recent deal. Pelosi is either lying or knows something no press has reported. Likely the former.

Speaking of horse pucky, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) says, “Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans use to have. We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it.” Rep. Emanuel must be afflicted with anosmia, because he can’t even smell the shit coming out of his mouth. Nowhere have I read that McCain has demanded that jobs be sent overseas. And even that is a gross misrepresentation of the contract anyway. Sure, Illinois and Washington State will not benefit from this contract, but Alabama will, as will a number of other states. The NG/EADS contract will create 2,000 jobs in Alabama and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers across the country. Some people (morons) have stated that the Boeing contract would have created 44,000 jobs. What sort of bullshit is this? The 767 is an existing platform with the infrastructure for it’s building already in place. It might have supported those jobs, but it didn’t create them. Furthermore, as I’ve said before, 60% of the NG/EADS built plane will be US made, which is 10% more than the minimum legal requirement in the Buy American requirement. Thus, Emanuel’s and Tiahrt’s complaints are invalid, and in some cases, blatant lies.

What they are right about, however, is that this issue stands to hurt McCain in the general election in these states, mostly because jobs are important to people, and any perception of losing those jobs, real or otherwise, is greatly terrifying, especially in the day and age of the Rust Belt. But we shouldn’t discount people’s gullibility, as they will eagerly consume the feces that the aforementioned Representatives produce because it plays to their fears. However, we should not forget one simple thing in all of this: the US Air Force will receive a better platform which will not compromise national security. If someone must be blamed by the faceless masses, it should be Boeing, who felt they were entitled to this contract, and proposed the same airframe as they did previously. Sorry Washingtonians and Illinoisans, but you’re welcome to vote your conscience.

Word of the Day: Cabal (noun): 1. A secret, conspiratorial association of plotters or intriguers whose purpose is usually to bring about an overturn especially in public affairs.
2. The schemes or plots of such an association.

On This Day in History: Stalin’s daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva defects to the US (1967). US Navy divers find the damaged crew compartment of the space Shuttle Challenger (1986). The bodies of all seven crew members were inside. Today we “sprung forward” which means I lost an hour of my day. Thus the MC is more like, Afternoon Tea.

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 (105)

I woke up this morning to about 4 inches of light, fluffy white stuff on my truck. No, a Cessna filled with Colombian cocaine did not explode over my house. It was snow. And it was coming down. Of course, the city hadn’t yet bothered to mobilize the legions of snow plows, so the drive into work was like being a lone merchant vessel in the North Atlantic circa 1940; just waiting to take one to the keel. It never happened though, thankfully.

Delusional Change Someone Else Can Believe In (Revisited):

Talk about beating a dead horse. I was fortunate enough to hear the Obama commercial again this morning. The cute-girl-sounding announcer nearly has me convinced to vote for Obama on primary day. “Obama has a way of brining people together.” How? Where’s the proof? Give me an example. Alas, they do not. She says, as to why one might vote for Obama, “Maybe you want to end this war.” Then some teenager kid says to me, as if to illustrate the burning desire of all young people to end this “illegal, immoral war,” “Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning.” Great. Wow. Can you put that into context for me? For what reasons was he against the war? Was he against it for being against its sake? Would he support any war? In what ways would war be a valid option for Mr. Obama? I have a lot of questions for the freshman Senator from Illinois on foreign policy and war. None have ever been answered. (Of course us proles don’t get sit downs with Presidential candidates, even the ones who have a way of bringing people together.) Then Obama comes on, and I’m reminded of a portion of his ad that I forgot about yesterday. He says, in closing out his ad, “Believe in the dream we call America!” America’s a dream? Nobody told me! I’ve been living in a dream world my whole life and just now I find out about it. What’s worse, I’m told to believe in this “dream” in the same breath. Must America be merely a dream? Can it not be something far more substantive? I’m clearly being facetious here, but I hope you get my point. Flowery rhetoric is Obama’s forte. But what substance does he have? Is he any more substantive than the dreams of which he speaks? Obama wrote a book called, “Dreams from My Father.” Dreams is a prevailing theme in his speeches and one might think that dreams make up his entire political persona. No substance, just dreams. Dreams might make us feel good, but the do not solve or assuage reality. Sure, I like a forward thinker as much as the next man, but a man who dreams and doesn’t do…is that who we want as President? Flowery rhetoric and feel-goodery is just that.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, is apparently proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Go ahead, read it if you want. Barack’s excuse for her is…lacking. Hers was a poor choice of words.

McCain’s 100 Years War:

I don’t even want to talk about this whole thing, because it’s stupid. Obama’s campaign has unleashed the rhetoric-monsters on a fairly old McCain bit in which McCain made mention that it doesn’t matter how long we’re in Iraq so long as we succeed and we aren’t suffering casualties; even 100 years if necessary. I’ll be the first to admit that McCain’s phraseology was stupid. First of all, if we are, as McCain states, to “maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world,” we’d be suffering casualties, probably right up until the time we left. They may be minor, but we’d still lose men and women over there. I do see his point, that being that a secure Iraq is an important goal, and a set timeline is not something that is necessarily conducive to success. But the statement was dumb. And the Democrats seized on it. Now all you read about from the spokesmen of their campaigns is how McCain wants more than 100 years in Iraq, no matter what the topic is. He doesn’t “want” 100 or more years in Iraq. And they should remember, as McCain pointed out, that we’ve been in South Korea and Japan and Germany for quite a long time. There is an overwhelming precedent for long-term deployments of US troops overseas. What annoys me so is the misleading characterization that these political campaigns make on a daily basis, and on virtually every issue (tax cuts, anyone?).

Here’s the deal. McCain wants there to be a secure, stable Iraq, no matter the timeline. Success is the measure of success. Clinton wants the measure of success to be the withdrawal of all troops within 60 days of her election to the office of the President, no matter what that might mean for Iraq or the region. Obama would like to enact a “phased-redeployment” wherein all US forces are removed from Iraq by 31 March 2008. Getting involved in Iraq may have been a poor choice, but now that we’re there, we should make every effort to finish the job. I’ve written a great deal on the reasons for doing so, as some of you might remember. Not only are the pragmatic reasons, such as Iraq being secure from outside forces (Iran), important, but the more esoteric reasons like how we are perceived by the rest of the Muslim world are important as well. I’ve contended that leaving Iraq to its own fate after having annihilated its army, economy, and infrastructure and sewn the seeds of ethnic and religious violence is a terrible idea. A terrible one. If leaving Afghanistan to its own devices in 1991 was a bad idea that netted us 9/11, imagine how Iraq might turn out for us.

Cancer, Bacteria, Whatever:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends get their blights confused. Last week, one of his lackeys described Israel as a cancerous growth. Today, Mahmoud has described it as bacteria. Not just any bacteria, but filthy bacteria. He says, “The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast.” I love propaganda. Such beautiful prose. Like a wild beast. Lashing out. Filthy bacteria. As humorous as his bloviating sounds, we should remember that most people attempt to eradicate such things as cancer and filthy bacteria. Hell, one of the chief methods of eliminating cancer is radiation. You know where you get radiation? Enriched uranium. Know what you can do with uranium? Make nukes. Nukes kill cancer. I’m unaware as to whether or not the Iranian regime is working on antibiotic-tipped missiles, but they may be doing just that. If so, we know what their intentions are, don’t we?

Ahmadinejad later says that Israel “uses terror as a threat every day, and afterwards is happy and joyful.” This in response to the actions against the pink mist that was Hezbollah chief Imad Moughniyeh. Iran doesn’t do terror. Nope. No way. Not on your life. Unless of course you consider a little thing like bankrolling Hezbollah as, I don’t know, supporting terror every day. Or kidnapping British Marines right off the Persian Gulf. Twice. Nah, Iran does not support or condone any form of terrorism. And if I get cancer, I know where I’m going: Bushehr.

Castro Steps Down:

After nearly 50 years of rule, Fidel Castro has stepped down as the President of Cuba. Castro had been in power since 1959. I haven’t really anything remarkable to add to this event, as it doesn’t appear that much will change in Cuba right away. Castro’s brother Raul will take over. There’s hope, as Raul has indicated that things need to change in Cuba, but I doubt much will happen while Fidel is still alive. Anyway, I just figured I’d mention it if some of you only get your news from the MC (which would be a bad thing).

A hearty Happy Birthday to our US Postal Service, which celebrates its 215th birthday today. The Postal Service Act was signed by George Washington in 1792. Let’s test your unofficial motto and see if I get my mail today.

Word of the Day: Ersatz (adjective): Being a substitute or imitation, usually an inferior one. We are presented with ersatz Presidential candidates.

On This Day in History: Congress proposes the Twenty-First Amendment, which will end Prohibition (1933). Good idea Congress. Movie studio executives agree to allow the Office of War Information to censor movies (1943). John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit the earth (1962). Marilisa Xenogiannakopoulou, a Greek politician, and current record holder for the person with the longest name to receive an MC mention was born (1963). Kurt Cobain was born (1967).

“It is possible to provide security against other ills, but as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls.” – Epicurus.

Morning Coffee (101)

Good day, fellow Coffee drinkers. I troll a lot of internet during the day, and throughout my journeys I read a lot of things that really annoy me and some that actually make me angry. There are, of course, the general idiots who post poorly thought out comments at the bottom of articles. There are partisan pundits who write the disingenuous garbage that these people reply to. These pundits are so arrogant (or sloppy) that they even cite sources that negate their claims or expose their claims as misleading. I can’t really do anything about all this except maybe point out some of the most egregious examples from time to time. But there are a number of little things that I see weaved throughout all of these articles and posts that I must discuss with you a little. Individually, they’re little more than minor irritants. But when you see article after article and comment after comment using the same wording, it can drive you mad. So here are a few things that have succeeded in incurring my ire.

“The emperor has no clothes.” This is a big liberal catch phrase and it is liberally applied to Bush. The story is that the emperor is somewhat delusional and he insists that he’s wearing lovely robes and clothes when he’s in fact nude. No one dares to point this out. But a young boy, upon hearing the citizenry fawn over the emperor’s clothes, states simply that “the emperor has no clothes.” See, he’s all innocent and such and is pointing out the obvious whereas no one else dares to. Please, stop using this phrase. It wasn’t even that funny when it was first uttered. I get your point in using it on Bush, but come on. Come up with something new.

Lately, I’ve seen the term “fascist” used when describing liberals. I realize that it’s become somewhat of a slur against an opposing political party, but it is nonsense. I can better understand (but don’t condone) the use of more general insults, because using an existing ideology to describe another ideology is inane. The term is inherently negative, and is used not because it even remotely accurately describes liberalism but because it paints liberalism in the light of Hitler and Mussolini. Some aspects of liberal ideology might sound as if they’re similar to those of fascism, but that’s not the point, and if it was the point, it would still be a false comparison. Pundits and uninformed citizens use it solely because it sounds really bad. What’s ironic is that it has mostly been used to describe those on the right wing of the political spectrum.

Take the previous paragraph and substitute the term “fascist” with “Nazi” or “Islamofascist” and you have the same complaint. This is how hate speech starts. Hate crimes aren’t far behind.

You’ve all read about someone who “parties like a rock star” or is just plain “like a rock star.” But they’re not. They’re not rock stars and everyone knows this. They don’t party like rock stars, and they aren’t “like rock stars.” So why are these phrases being used (over and over and over again)? Nobel laureate Al Gore has been described in this manner. “Al Gore is like a rock star nowadays…” Al Gore is most certainly not a rock star. Sure, he’s popular right now, and he travels a lot and a lot of people want to see him give (boring) speeches (like they didn’t get enough of Mr. Personality in 2000). But that doesn’t make him a like a rock star. Similarly, Obama is not a rock star. He’s a politician. He’s charismatic, sure. But not a rock star. When the likes of Al Gore and Barack Obama start playing guitar, recording in a studio their own music, drinking heavily, snorting cocaine, traveling with an entourage of gorgeous women and roadies, then you’re more than welcome to describe them as rock stars. Until then, can we come up with a more appropriate descriptor? They’ve exhibited virtually none of the characteristics attributed to rock stars save the ability to draw a crowd and get paid for standing on a stage from time to time. Thus, not rock stars. Not even “like” rock stars or “sorta” rock star-ish.

For those of you who do not read much, you might not know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Surely you know of someone named Hussein, and I’ll bet he’s not a Boy Scout (Saddam?). Well, some people on the right take joy in referring to Obama by his middle name. I’ve seen “B. Hussein Obama” in more than one posting on websites. They do this to really illustrate to you what they perceive is his disconnection with mainstream America. They’ll also misspell his last name “Osama.” Wow. Talk about amateur. They claim that he’s Muslim. No, they assert that he’s Muslim, they don’t claim it. They do this as though he’s all one big lie and give the impression that they think that maybe he’s an al-Qaida sleeper agent, and they use his middle name exclusively to tie him to Islam. They say that he lived in Indonesia when he was young (true) and that he was educated in a madrassa (false). This is all very dumb. At the very least, I wish they would discredit him substantively; point out that he wouldn’t be a good President and why. Don’t resort to such smear tactics. When you refer to a viable Presidential candidate by his middle name to produce images of a totalitarian Middle Eastern leader, it makes your opinion meaningless.

The incessant comparisons to or wishing for past leaders in this race are making me ill. Obama is not the second coming of John Kennedy. Ronald Reagan will never again be. Asking any candidate to be these men, or comparing them to these men, is pointless. JFK and Reagan have become idols in our minds, and like all idols, we’ve forgotten (well, the worshipers have) about their faults, of which there were many for both men. JFK had more foreign policy experience in his right pinky finger by the time he ran for President than Obama will probably ever have. Even with that experience, he mucked up the Bay of Pigs pretty good. Do I really want a guy in office with less experience dealing with an arguably bigger issue? The Kennedy Administration also backed a coup in Iraq in 1963, which happened to allow a certain Baath Party to take power. Maybe the comparisons should stop, for the sake of Obama’s candidacy. Supporters say that it’s the hope for change that Obama brings to the table, just like JFK. Change, change, change. That’s all you hear about Obama’s campaign. What sort of change are we getting? Who knows?

And the Reagan issue? Well, I’ve discussed it before I think. If not, well, in short the whole “I’m a Reagan Revolution foot soldier” bit with McCain needs to stop.

Obama looks towards the future looking towards the past. McCain does the same with more emphasis on the past. It’s sickening. Can we have someone who has their own ideas? Does Obama have any ideas at all? We know McCain does, and he bucks the conservative system which makes conservatives mad (hence his insistence that he’s the new Reagan), but are his new ideas just going to be regurgitations of Reagan’s?

Funny Side Story: Amy Winehouse was denied a visa to come to the US to perform at the Grammy’s. It makes me laugh inside.

Political Update:

Yesterday Romney “suspended” his campaign, which actually shocked me. He says he did it so that McCain wouldn’t take too much of a battering before the general election in November. Noble of him…pundits say that he is setting his sights on a run in 2012. Read what Obama said about his campaign after Romney gave his reasons for the suspension (which was a swipe at the Dems). Also, read this ABC News blog on the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign. You’re going to have to read for yourselves today; no biting analysis from me. I’m finished; stick a fork in me.

Word of the Day: Aberrant (adjective): Markedly different from an accepted norm; Deviating from the ordinary or natural type; abnormal.

On This Day in History: Mary, Queen of Scots was executed (1587). She was suspected of being involved in a plot to murder her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England. A doctor in Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony, suggests that two girls may be suffering from bewitchment, which led to the Salem witch trials (1692).

“All of us failed to match our dreams of perfection. So I rate us on the basis of our splendid failure to do the impossible.” – William Faulkner.