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 (131)

Greetings. While driving home the other day, I had the opportunity to hear Miley Cyrus for the first time. I must say, I'm impressed. I'm impressed at the garbage they will put on the radio these days.

I want to thank the Logician for helping Brew a fine cup o'Joe the other day. The feedback has been...limited, but what feedback I've received has been outstanding. With that, I hope that the Logician will write subsequent essays further enlightening us, in particular the "us" that do not wish to be enlightened. They are the ones who need it most.

He's a Rock:
In the Marine Corps, and I'm sure in other realms, the term "rock" means that someone is, let's say, less than brilliant. With this being the case, Chris Rock has recently shown the ability to live up to his surname. Sure, Rock is a funny, funny man; I've laughed at many of his jokes. But that does not preclude him from saying something stupid while on Larry King.

Rock says that Obama has more in common with "average" Americans in that he doesn't own 12 houses like McCain does. He says,

"The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses. Does this make any sense? Am I the only one that sees this? I'll go with the guy with one house. The guy with one house is scared about losing his house."

As the kids today might say, "ORLY?" (That's "oh, really?" for you old people who aren't as hip as the Coffee Brewer.)

This might make sense were he talking about some Average Joe, but he's talking about a sitting US Senator and bestselling author who also happens to have a wife who makes pretty good money as well. Obama is not at risk of losing his home. Thus the point Rock was attempting to make seems incredibly weak. Obama's not an Average Joe (no offense to all the Joes out there). Sure, McCain's family might own several homes, but that doesn't make Obama more like average Americans by default. They're both vastly different from average Americans.

The Cult of Obama:
But what of this difference? It's interesting to behold the schizophrenic nature of some political campaigns. Somehow, the supporters of Obama can maintain two separate identities for their candidate. On one hand, he's an average Joe with one house who drives a hybrid car. But on the other, he's a "scholar," a term I've heard thrown around about the candidate a great deal lately. Would you classify most Americans as scholars? I would not. But this assumes that Obama is a scholar. Is he? Or is it that he's neither an average American (average Americans do not generally run for President) nor a scholar?

It is true that Obama earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. It is true that Obama seems to have acquired a reputation as an intellectual man. If the former garners him points as a scholar, the latter annuls those points, being by all measure of the word, a cultivated image. He has written nothing scholarly. He doesn't engage in intellectual conversation in any public arena as his speeches and debates stick to campaign messages and talking points. Scholars are men like Benjamin Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Aristotle, and Marcus Aurelius. Men who are on a quest for knowledge, and are always putting forth their ideas for discussion. I know scholars; there are men for whom I've worked who I consider scholars. I have a good friend I consider a scholar. But in this case, scholar and intellectual are monikers given to us by the Obama Cult; said enough times, they become some sort of quasi-truth.

Obama's contribution to the political climate has been utterly short of scholarly. In fact, his contributions fall more within the realm of religious imagery than any sort of intellectual stimulation. His messages are the exact opposite intellectual, speaking entirely to emotion. "Change we can believe in." "Yes we can." "The audacity of hope." Just plain old "hope." These are not appeals to the intellectual, these are appeals to emotion. There is no substance to any of this. What sort of change? Yes we can what? What do we have the audacity to hope for? Must hope even be audacious? Is HOPE ENOUGH?

I would argue that hope is not enough. I would argue that Obama has little idea of what sort of change we need. He presents "change" in and of itself as enough of a reason. Communism is change, but it's not the kind of change we need. I would argue that Obama doesn't really have a well thought out, intellectually-driven idea of just what "we can." In a sense, he's all smoke and mirrors. Obama is the Wizard of Oz of politics. He's full of powerful imagery and flowery prose, but once you pull back the curtain, just the same old thing pulling strings. He's a Potemkin village.

The problem is, people have bought into it. With a campaign run on "hope" and "change" (whatever that might be), Obama is now poised to become President. But his messages are so vapid they might as well be coming from a cult leader. And that's what this is, a cult of personality. Why else would we have singing children extolling the name of a politician who's going to "change it and rearrange it?" This video should scare people. Watch it. (I warn you, it's been removed and replaced a few times, so you might have to look for it.)

But I wonder if these children thought they too were going to change the world. Maybe these kids thought their leader was pretty awesome. Children are so cute when used to profess the glory of a leader. Remember, it was a child and his penchant for the truth who told us that the emperor had no clothes. Messages that use children effectively are very powerful.

You might think it a stretch to compare Hitler, Stalin, and Jesus to Obama. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am indulging in histrionics. But the point is that such idolatry is not something that I wish to see in American politics. We rejected kings and tyrants even though they might be charismatic. We must always be on the lookout for men whose ambition outstrips their ability or desire to serve the people, and instead might wish that the people serve them.

I ask that you revisit the quote I gave you in Morning Coffee (130). Remember it.

Don't forget, the VP debate is on tonight. Let's see how Palin does, shall we?

Word of the Day: Donnybrook (noun): 1. A brawl; a free for all; 2. A heated quarrel or dispute.

On This Day in History: Jerusalem falls to Saladin after 88 years of Crusader rule (1187). George Washington sends the proposed amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) to the states for ratification (1789).

"These people remain here because I have thoroughly opened them to the Seven Seals." - David Koresh. Of the 76 people who died in the fire at the Davidian compound in Waco, seventeen were children under the age of 17. Surely, they adored David Koresh until the end.

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 (124)

It was a beautiful day today. At least it was for the 15 minutes I saw it during my drive to work. Now I sit in a building with no windows, in a cubicle with little ventilation, where the temperature is presently 76 degrees and rising. Anyway, I’m sure it’ll be lovely today. Go out and enjoy it if you can. Get some fresh air. Then rub it in.

Atreyu Stars in: The Never Ending Election:

In Morning Coffee 119, published on 26 Mar 08, I prophesized (sarcasm – it wasn’t a huge leap) that Clinton stood no chance of securing the nomination. Since none of my five readers will call me on my botched political assessments, I can do that sort of thing here at the MC. But anyway, it doesn’t look like Clinton did much to prove me wrong yesterday. As we all know (or don’t), North Carolina and Indiana held their primaries. As was expected, Obama won North Carolina rather handily, by 14 points (yesterday’s prediction was off by one point), and Clinton took Indiana rather narrowly. Nevertheless, Clinton vows to continue on. It’s like this: I wouldn’t be surprised if today she holds a press conference ceding the nomination to Obama, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if she’s running for the 2008 election in 2010. I’ll even shamefully admit that I’m rooting for the ole lass. I’m a sucker for the underdog (who’d have thought Clinton would be the underdog nine months ago?), but this also makes for an interesting experiment. Both candidates have made seemingly fatal missteps, and both seem to have recovered. For me, this offers remarkable insight into the human condition, both in looking at the candidates and the people who vote.

Don’t get me wrong though. My rooting for her is not saying I hope she’s the next President.

Tree Older than the Earth Found in Sweden:

Miraculously, a tree in Sweden was found to be roughly 9,550 years old, making it older than the Earth itself, which comes in at a comparably youthful 6,000+ years old. Creationists are understandably baffled. With a little “creativity”, this discovery is easily reconcilable though. Like all those ancient dinosaur fossils, God simply placed it here to test our faith. Or maybe the tree’s not REALLY 9,950 years old; God just made it appear to be that old through manipulation of the physics of carbon dating. Maybe this tree was grown in God’s private garden, and He teleported it hear soon after He created Earth. This tree could even be an embodiment of God. Maybe the tree is God. Perhaps the Earth grew from this tree. Or maybe the Earth really is four billion years old after all.

This tree is a remarkable find. Granted, this tree hasn’t been in its same bark and trunk for 9,550 years as one might think. Since it’s a spruce, it basically makes genetic copies of itself and has the ability to make new trunks to survive various stages of earthly inclement weather. Or at least that’s how I understand it. And because we can examine that fallen bark, we can determine the age of the tree via carbon dating rather than having to harm the current trunk. Regardless, this tree has been around in some manner or another since roughly 7,542 BCE; since the 8^th millennium BCE. The Ice Age had just ended. Agriculture had only recently (in relative terms) become practical in the Fertile Crescent. There were perhaps 5 million people on earth. Total. It predates the mythical Moses by 6,000 years. Think about how old that is. It’s unbelievably old. People were barely beginning to form permanent settlements. Humankind’s last known close relative, the homo floresiensis, had only become extinct about 2,500 years prior to the birth of this tree. Remarkable. I hope it lives another 9,500 years.

Word of the Day: Contrite (adj): 1. Deeply affected with grief and regret for having done wrong; penitent; as, "a contrite sinner." 2. Expressing or arising from contrition; as, "contrite words."

On This Day in History: The dome of the Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople, collapses (558 CE). Justinian I orders it rebuilt immediately. The tree in Sweden laughs at man’s feebleness; it is roughly 8,100 years old. Despite pulling an arrow from her own shoulder, Joan of Arc leads the final charge at the Siege of Orléans (1429). This is the turning point in the Hundred Years’ War, which is but a moment in time for our Swedish tree. The German submarine U-20 sinks the RMS Lusitania, killing 1,198 people (1915). Many formerly pro-German Americans turn against Germany and the US will soon enter WWI. The tree thinks that all man does is fight wars. Nikita Khrushchev announces that the Soviet Union is holding U-2 pilot Gary Powers (1960). The tomb of Herod the Great is discovered (2007).

“How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you were?” – Satchel Paige, baseball legend.

“By the time I have money to burn, my fire will have burnt out.” – Unknown.

Morning Coffee (123)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers.

Singing Fat Lady Proclaims It to be Over for Roosting Chickens:

Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Someone else opined that, “It’s not over until the fat lady sings.” Others have made comments about chickens coming home to roost. Then, there’s the straw that broke the camel’s back. More still have asserted that it was the final nail in a particular coffin.

Well today, for Hillary Clinton, that fat lady might start singing, and it might be over. Clinton’s campaign has for weeks been fueled by the notion that she has more electability than does Barack Obama, and she has survived one contest at a time. But she has faced an uphill battle, against math and inevitability. She has had to win - and win big - every contest for quite some time now and today might be the real beginning of the end. North Carolina holds its primary today (an epoch from the first in this cycle) and Clinton is expected to lose by as much as 15 points. Of course, she might stay in until next Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia. It’s even possible, but even more unlikely after today’s probable loss, that she could win the Democratic nomination. Who really knows except god and Yogi Berra (and a few hundred “superdelegates”)? I’m no expert, so I won’t predict her demise. The woman seems to have more lives than a Hindu cat, and an indomitable will so you can’t really count her out. It’s admirable, frankly. I don’t necessarily agree with the manner with which she seeks power, nor do I agree with her politics, but it sure is admirable. Would she make a better President than either of the two men still running? I suppose the voters will (or will not) decide.

Primus Primary:

All this conveniently provides me with an opportunity to gripe about our antediluvian election process. I find it remarkably odd that the Reverend Wright fiasco might do nothing to shift the chances of Obama being the Democratic nominee. I am not, in this instance, passing any particular judgment on his relationship with Wright. Instead I am pointing out that many of the people who voted for Obama in months past might not have done so had they known as much about Wright as they do now. Unfortunately for them, their votes have been cast. One may say that it’s no different than someone regretting their vote for a President, but it is because Obama is not yet President. I.e. we have a chance to prevent him from being so.

Certainly, Obama’s relationship with his pastor impacts his electability. So the Democrats may field a candidate who stands little chance of defeating John McCain, and they can’t do anything about it because he has an insurmountable delegate lead because half the nation has already held their primaries at one point or another before Wright was a household name?

I’m not about superdelegates. I do not want a bunch of party officials selecting our choices in elected officials. To me, it smacks of an aristocracy. “We know better than you mere citizens, so we’ll select some people for you to vote for.” No thanks. But I’m also not about a primary season that stretches for across six months. Campaigning is one thing. Let the voters get to know the candidates. But the disparate voting times makes some votes more meaningful than others. It might make some voters wish their states held primaries later, as they find out that the messiah for change with whom they fell in deep love has held a very close relationship with a bigoted preacher for 20 years.

I say we have a good and long campaign season. Let all the wonks talk and talk about the politicians. Let all the politicians make mistakes and faux pas. Let all those wanna-be Presidents blow through the equivalent of several small nations’ GDPs in cash campaigning for two years, and then we’ll all have us a good old fashioned democratic vote on a predetermined date. Sounds like fun to me. More exciting even.

Operation Chaos:

Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? Like some mad experiment by some secret government agency to control the minds of bee farmers in order to sew the seeds of the New World Order. It’s not though. It’s Rush Limbaugh’s foray into screwing with the Democratic campaigns. I wrote about it a while ago, and asked you all what you thought of it. But I never got back to you. Most of the respondents to my query opined that it was in bad taste. I agree. I’m all about doing what you can to win, or to make it harder for your prospective opponents to win, but encouraging people to switch parties to vote in primaries is despicable. Sure, Republicans haven’t much to vote for in their primary, as McCain’s “the man.” But I do not like this trend. It’s meddling. If you want to switch parties because you’ve developed an ideological difference with that party’s ideology, fair enough. But to do so simply to undermine the opposition…must we make politics even dirtier?

Limbaugh’s a moron. I’ve never liked his self-important rambling. Check out the top of his webpage. See him in his disgustingness with his smug look and expensive suit and cigar. See that gold microphone, as if he’s telling us that he’s speaking to us through an instrument of the divine. I don’t agree with Al Franken on much, but I do agree with his basic assessment of Limbaugh’s character.

In other news, I’m a fan of a few fringe celebrities (authors) that you’ve possibly never heard of. Thomas Friedman is sort of one of them, but he’s more in the mainstream than say, Victor Davis Hanson. Anyway, Freidman is one of the most perceptive people writing today, I think. Read this article if you’ve the time. In it, he talks about some topics I mentioned yesterday.

Word of the Day: Amalgam (noun): 1. An alloy of mercury with another metal or metals; used especially (with silver) as a dental filling. 2. A mixture or compound of different things.

On This Day in History: Renaissance ends as Spanish and German troops sack Rome (1527). The Hindenburg, a German zeppelin, is destroyed when it catches fire near Lakehurst, New Jersey. “Oh the huge manatee.” John Paul II becomes the first pope to enter a mosque (2001). That’s hard to believe.

Morning Coffee (121)

Ah, the changing of the seasons; from blustery Winter to meek and mild Spring. Some feel it’s time for Optimism; a time for a changing of the routine. Some might bring out their dusty bicycles or clean out the garage. Some might rejoice. And why not, it’s getting warmer after all. I’ll tell you why. People. Same as they ever were. Some people, if you can believe this, actually become more annoyingly imbecilic the warmer it gets, as if their stupidity is somehow retarded, frozen if you will, by the cold weather. For example…

How Can it be Wrong When it Feels so Wright:

Unless you’ve been living, albeit in a much reduced sense, in a block of Antarctic ice, you’ve almost certainly heard of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Why, he’s the pastor at Senator Barack Obama’s church. And, over the course of a number of years, he eloquently said all sorts wonderful things (“God bless America? No, I say God DAMN America!” and everyone’s favorite, “US of KKK A”). Woe is him, for the media coverage of his sermons has been oh so trite; and for no good reason, I might wistfully add. So, the great Rev has taken an opportunity to correct the situation; to clear his good name.

Old Boy spoke yesterday at the National Press Club. Of course, he didn’t really defend himself. Rather, he accused that the hoopla created by his sermons as an attack on “the black church.”

“This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church. Why am I speaking out now? If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

But wait, maybe he did defend himself and his stances. Asked what he meant about “the chickens coming home to roost,” on 9/11, he replied, "Have you heard the whole sermon? No. You haven't heard the whole sermon. That nullifies that question."

I would respectfully disagree with the good Reverend. Since he complains that only hand-picked sound bites are what are played, the question about his meaning is supremely pertinent. Why not explain himself, since obviously, the perception of the man is wrongly based on a few sound bites taken grossly out of context. Right?

Hugging Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam and no stranger to supreme controversy? No biggie, just taken out of context. Regarding his assertion that the US invented HIV to commit genocide against minorities, he said, “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.” See? Context. He went on to say that, “God damns some practices and there's no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done." So his beef is with the government, see, not the American people…who happen to make up the government. By the People. For the People. That sort of thing. No wonder his grandiloquence is confusing. He’s confounded me, and I’ve only read hand-picked sound bites and quotes. I wasn’t there. I didn’t hear his whole sermon, er, speech.

For those who might deign to question his patriotism (I like to say patriotism like the first syllable rhymes with Pat – sounds lofty), I’ve got news for you. He served six years in the military. I ask, as does Reverend Wright, how many bloody years did Dick Cheney serve? That’s right, none. Patriotism score: Team Wright: 1, Others: 0.

Wright also said, “My goddaughter's unit just arrived in Iraq this week while those who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military service while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls to die over a lie.” Take that, you sonsabitches who deftly avoided the draft and service in Iraq and Afghanistan by fleeing to Canada or having daddy purchase deferments. Team Wright: 2, Others: 0. What? Wait…We still have an all-volunteer force.

In this case, as in most, Wright’s argument is as insipid as it is out of touch with reality. I don’t like this argument for a number of reasons. For one, we’re really talking about the service record of two vastly different generations, separated greatly by time and ethos: one from the 1960s and 70s, which included people who may or may not have used their privilege to avoid service, and one from the present, who may or may not choose to serve. But Wright, in his comparison, seems to imply that he’s talking solely about today because his critics live in the now as much as he does. More importantly, patriotism in no way hinges upon having served in the military. I know of plenty of former military members who I would classify as not overly patriotic (some have become less so as a result of said service), and plenty of people who have never served that are very patriotic. So the argument that he’s served and his goddaughter has served somehow equates to a certain level of patriotism is invalid.

By all means, Wright should keep speaking and defending himself and his beliefs. His further explanations will keep him in the news (bad for Obama) and what he believes will soon become abundantly clear. Frankly, I think that the fundamental power of the First Amendment is its ability to expose stupidity, burn away false pretenses, and subject idiots and their foolish ideas to widespread ridicule.

Burger King Endorses Dodd, Who Endorses Casey, Who Endorses Obama:

Endorsements. If you’re an athlete or a musician, you want them. If you’re a politician, you want endorsements too. Not from companies, but from other important people. You may not receive cash awards for wearing a Dodd t-shirt on stage, but you will accrue political capital, which in the political sphere is easily as good as money.

Having provided a sufficient back story to draw you in, I should now hit you with the plot: Obama now has more Senate endorsements than Clinton. Your response should be…wait for it…Who Cares?

Endorsements of politicians by fellow politicians should be all together meaningless. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed to endorse jack. In today’s society, endorsements mean sales. Kobe Bryant endorses Kruk’s Enemas and everyone must go out and get one for themselves. If Kobe uses them, they must be good. No matter that it’s unlikely that Kobe uses them. He just gets paid to say that he does. Same with politicians. Except they trade political capital and favors. They’re all rich, so cash means less, you know.

But we elect these people. Doesn’t it seem odd that the people we elect are now passively telling us who we should vote for? I find it creepy. Why should Dick Durbin’s endorsement of Obama signal to me that Obama’s got the right stuff? It shouldn’t. There was likely a significant amount of horse-trading that took place in order for Obama to secure that endorsement. You read about it all the time. Politician X is going to endorse Guy A, but is waiting for the right time to do so. If it weren’t so staged, don’t you think that the endorsements would come more naturally? So many politicians wait until so late in the game to endorse because no one likes to be on a losing team. It’s like waiting until the Red Sox are up 3-0 in the World Series before finally picking a team to root for and you choose the Sox. Chances are that you’ll be right. And the Sox’ll owe you some favors because maybe your endorsement helped them sell a few thousand more tickets on Opening Day. Same thing with Obama. He’s beginning to look more like a sure thing, with his delegate lead and all, so he’s getting more endorsements. But Clinton’s still in the race, and she could pull off something, so maybe it’s best to wait. It’s all about favors, and I find it distasteful and disingenuous, not to mention inappropriate. You will almost never see someone endorse a member of another party, and once the nomination is secured by one of the candidates, you will see virtually all the endorsers fall in line and campaign for or back the nominee. Probably no one will refrain from supporting the party’s nominee, because it’ll cost him/her favors in the future.

So, to be frank, political endorsements, like celebrity endorsements, which are equally worthless for other reasons, should carry about as much weight as fortunes as told through the reading of goat entrails.

Word of the Day: Gimcrack (JIM-krak) (noun): 1. A showy but useless or worthless object; a gewgaw. (Adj): 1. Tastelessly showy; cheap; gaudy. Political endorsements by politicians, are as much a gimcrack as a sermon by Reverend Wright.

On This Day in History: Joan of Arc arrives to relieve the Siege of Orleans (1429). Muhammad Ali is stripped of his boxing title after refusing induction in the US Army (1967). Privilege. Random other events.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." – Reverend Jeremiah Wright, 2003.

Morning Coffee (120)

I am a liar. A horrible, horrible person. I present a very short Brew (we’ll call it an espresso shot) because, well, why not? Still, I am constrained by time and responsibility, so who knows what tomorrow will bring.

No Country for Ol-Bama:

This guy is an arrogant putz. I use such basely derogatory terms because he’s juvenile. An amateur. Youthfully naïve. A political abecedarian. There are, of course, any number of areas in which one could question Obama’s credentials. But perhaps the finest example of his arrogance is claims of foreign policy expertise.

The man has said on numerous occasions that all it takes is for him to get in a room with people, and he can win them over. This may be true with many left-leaning American voters, but not with adversarial foreign leaders. Surely, this sort of bravado is what enables him to think that he has the right and duty to speak one on one with anyone from anywhere. He’s almost never faced a hostile crowd. I remember only one time: him marching into a press conference full of smiles and confidence and being blindsided by a few diligent (for once) reporters. In response, after a mere eight questions, he skulked away like a spoiled child with wounded pride. How dare they question him, right? The people that attend his rallies are the converted masses of liberal voters. Obama has promised that he will speak to Iranian President Mamoud Ahmedinejad, as if he can chastise him into capitulation. Ahmadinejad will not arrive fully converted, nor will he be even slightly liberal. As far as I can tell, Obama’s never been rebuffed. Ahmadinejad would gladly meet with him, I’m sure, and then he’d have all sorts of fun (i.e. propaganda schemes) with the freshman Senator who makes absurd statements like:

"[Regarding his choice for Vice-President] I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I am not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more commander in chief-like. ... Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

This article, from which I derived the above quote, brilliantly and somewhat methodically fillets some of Obama’s most basic foreign policy tenets. For example, he has voted against funding US troops in Iraq twice. From a troop’s perspective, this is not very Commander-in-Chief-like. Troops don’t like partisan politics being played with their lives, especially when it’s so utterly transparent. What’s more, a Roman Emperor (whose name escapes me at the moment), once told his successor to pay the troops first, and worry about all else second. This advice is perhaps not as pertinent today as it was in the middle-Roman Empire, but the military is as important to the success of our Republic as it was to the Empire (and we all know how military atrophy worked out for them).

What Really Matters: A Story I Don’t Care About:

Time’s webpage has run a seven page story about Obama’s mother. Seriously. Seven pages not about the candidate, but the mother of the candidate. I will grant that the woman, like many mothers, wielded significant influence on who Barack would eventually become, but she’s not even slightly as important as who he became. The “how” is not as important as the “is.” Read it if you wish, but I don’t think it offers any shining insight on Obama and how qualified he is or isn’t to become our President. Because it’s not relevant.

Word of the Day: Caesura (noun): 1. A break or pause in a line of verse, usually occurring in the middle of a line, and indicated in scanning by a double vertical line; for example, "The proper study || of mankind is man" [Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man].
2. Any break, pause, or interruption.

On This Day in History: The last execution for witchcraft in Germany takes place (1775). Einstein reveals his Theory of Relativity (1905). Buchenwald liberated by American forces (1945). The crew of a US Navy EP-3E which was detained after a collision with a PRC J-8 fighter was released (2001). I was very busy during this period. Alessandra Ambrosio, Brazilian model, was born (1981). She’s my second favorite model…I have a weakness for Brazilians apparently.

Morning Coffee (118)

Bona Dea, can you believe that March is in its 20^th day already? I believe today is the vernal equinox, which would make today the first day of spring. I think that also means that I need to sacrifice a sheep or something to the many evil, pagan gods we atheists worship. I’ll have to check my Necronomicon and Book of the Dead when I get home. I shan’t shirk my sacrificial duties.

Let’s see…what’s happening today. Oh, Usama bin Ladin released his newest EP today, called “To All My Martys in the FATA, Or Federally Administered Tribal Areas for Those Thugs Who Don’t Know.” Sounds long, but it’s best read in the original Arabic. Nevertheless, “FATA” shows that the Islam-West battle is still raging, and through Usama’s acerbic hooks can you tell that the feud is showing no signs of letting up. For example, in the enchanting, droning rap, “Slammin’ the Pope” bin Ladin sings “Gonna grab ya by your funny robe and throw ya down, then stomp on ya till your pulp stains the groun’.” One must ask, what will the Pope’s Posse reply with? My favorite tune is, “Gonna build me an IED, What, WHAT!” This tune has a driving drum beat which will surely blow up in all the dance clubs in Pashtunistan. The title track, “All My FATA Martyrs” might be the most ambitious of the songs. In it, Usama attempts to weave the Hadith with the names of, well, all the martyrs. Problem is, there are only like five different names, so the variety is a bit lacking. Overall, I’d give “TAMMITFATA” three and a half stars out of five.

Okay, give me a break, this isn’t Pulitzer Prize winning journalism here. I try to keep it interesting. Current events are hard when you’ve got to compete with “Lost” and “American Idol.”

In all seriousness, bin Ladin did release a new tape. Or the message has been attributed to bin Ladin; who knows if he actually did it or not. Anyway, in it, he condemns/slams Europe, the US, and the Pope. He primarily discussed the whole cartoon bit of 2005/2006, as apparently a dozen or so newspapers in Denmark have reprinted those cartoons. By the way, one Danish cartoonist is still in hiding, and several people plotting to kill him were recently arrested. In my opinion, this new tape is a shining example of glorious hypocrisy. For example, Usama says that those cartoons mocked Islam’s founder and violated “the etiquettes of dispute and fighting.” Seriously, he really said that. I guess he forgot about, you know, flying planes into buildings containing civilians. If we count that as within the bounds of etiquette, how about using mentally disabled women as suicide bombers? What about telling a man he must drive a delivery to a certain location or you’ll kill his entire family, but in reality, you’re going to blow up his car with him in it? Is that etiquette enough? Usama bin Ladin is one to lecture on the etiquette of fighting. The only etiquette al-Qaida follows in fighting and disputing are the rules they adhere to when it suits them. He then followed that gem up with, “the laws of men which clash with the legislation of Allah the Most High are null and void, aren’t sacred, and don’t matter to us.” Mother of god the puerile intellect of the man is startling, no? I have no problem agreeing with this statement, so long as we can say the same. “The laws of Allah the Not-So Merciful which clash with the laws of reason are null and void, aren’t sacred, don’t matter to us, and best left in the 13^th century where they belong.” We’ll agree to disagree. Meanwhile, we should not fear those who purport peace and tolerance while throwing bricks through windows of Danish businesses because of some cartoons. Bin Ladin and his friends are welcome to enforce their archaic rules in their lands; our lands are by their nature exempt from such rules.

Obama’s Pastoral Gaff:

Some people have asked me what I think of the issue that has recently come up about Obama’s pastor, who has given sermons which one might describe as divisive. Well, what I think has already been opined by a plethora of pundits, that being that it seems impossible to believe that he didn’t know or hear about the things that Wright had said, even if he wasn’t in sermons in which Wright said those things. But Obama responded as he usually does; by giving a powerful performance in the form of a very eloquent speech. Kudos to him. It doesn’t change the fact that his spiritual advisor said some pretty damning things. I hate to mess with racial issues, but if a white pastor were to say those things, I think the response would have been obvious. Mort Kondracke wrote a decent article on the issue here, but you could easily read about it just about anywhere or by doing a little searching. Mort always seems to get run over when he’s on Brit Hume’s show on Fox News (not that I’ve watched Fox or any news in a long time), but he’s a pretty good writer.

The thing of it is, this issue might have been deadly to Obama were it revealed six months ago, or even three. But he’s got a lot of momentum now, and frankly, his numbers are virtually insurmountable. That sort of sucks. I’d hate to think that we might elect someone whose entire message of bringing people together was an absolute falsity, and we found out about it, but were unable to do anything about it because it was too late to change in the moronic primary system. Ho hum, another day in paradise.

Another short one today folks. For that, I apologize. Hopefully you’ve been entertained for a few minutes anyway.

Word of the Day: Acerbic (adjective): Sharp, biting, or acid in temper, expression, or tone.

On This Day in History: The Roman poet Ovid, who wrote a great deal about love, was born (43 BCE). Napoleon enters Paris after escaping Elba. With him he brings an army of 140,000 regulars and 200,000 volunteers (1815). Talk about charisma. Upon his return to France, he approached the 5^th Regiment, which was ordered to meet his return and prevent it, alone and upon dismounting his horse said, “Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now.” Their reply was not gunfire, but “Vive L’Empereur!” French minister Richelieu, notorious in his own right, said in anger after hearing of Napoleon’s visitors while in exile on St. Helena, “this devil of a man exercises an astonishing seduction on all those who approach him.” Despite this, he basically demolished France’s standing as a world power. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published (1852). Albert Einstein publishes the general theory of relativity (1916). A sarin gas attack, perpetrated by the cult Aum Shinrikyo, killed 12 and wounded 1,300 (1995).

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” – Napoleon Bonaparte.

Morning Coffee (115)

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

People Suspect Vote Worthless; People Right All Along:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics for Dummies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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