Morning Coffee (98)

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

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

GOP Debate (Boca Raton, Florida):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (91)

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

The Masturbating Debaters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Sends a Clear Message to Iraqi Date Palm Groves:

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (89)

I regret that I failed to brew you any Coffee this past weekend, dear readers. And it has been five days since you’ve tasted the robust flavor of the MC. The wait is over. Here is your fix.

The Battle for New Hampshire:

Big news everyone: Hillary and McCain are not out of the running for President of the United States. Sense my enthusiasm? They both won a significant battle against their rivals in the Shire of New Hamp. Since people seem to put such large stock in Iowa and NH, we can safely say that now there is no real front runner in either party. I could probably spend a half an hour of your time (and two hours of mine) closely examining the inanity of this whole deal. But I won’t and will instead summarize. McCain won despite having been virtually left for dead last summer. Romney lost despite spending beau coup bucks (of his own) there (similarly of course, he lost in Iowa to a man (Huck) who spent virtually nothing in comparison). Huckabee had a pretty poor showing this time around, coming in third. Not a whole lot of Army of God, evangelical types in the ‘Shire I guess. When I went to bed last night (pathetically early) Fred Thompson had roughly 850 votes, which I found somewhat hilarious. He ended with 2,800 votes, or roughly 81,000 less than McCain. I hope he didn’t expect more; I’m not even running and I have a more robust campaign for President than he has. Ron Paul accrued ~18,000 votes, which actually makes me fear for the future of my country (see below).

Hillary won, and I wonder if it was mostly because people felt sorry for her; she was nearly in tears the other day when, for a whole news cycle, there was talk of her quitting the campaign (which I thought was grossly premature). But now, pundits are wondering if she, like her husband in 1992, is a “comeback kid.” Obama’s second place finish didn’t damper his spirits any, since he’s still “fired up and ready to go.” For a man like Joe Biden, who finished sixth, it’s got to be like a blow to the solar plexus though, to not only finish behind Dennis Kucinich, but to net a mere 616 votes. If Mickey Mouse were on the ballot, he would have probably scored higher than Biden, who seems to be fairly reasonable despite the paltry amount of press he gets. And like Huckabee, he’s got great one-liners, which as you know is a make or break skill for a President. In a 30 Oct debate he said of Rudy Giuliani, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” Pretty funny stuff Joe.

Iran in a Boat:

If you get your news from outlets other than the bitingly bitter Morning Coffee (which you should), you might have missed, in the din of the coverage of New Hampshire’s primary, the real big news of the day yesterday. Five Iranian high-speed boats intercepted and made aggressive, threatening maneuvers towards three US Navy ships (one destroyer, one cruiser, one frigate) operating in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian boats had three to four people in them and rapidly approached the Navy vessels and made a number of runs toward USS Hopper, the lead ship. The Hopper’s crew apparently heard a radio call that threatened that the US ships would explode, and two of the boats dumped unidentified boxes in the water. It is unclear whether or not the radio call came from the boats or a ground station, however. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the Iranian vessels were aggressive. How is this clear? Because the Navy recorded their actions on video, and has accompanying audio, which they have released to the public. I’ve seen it, and the Iranian boats acted in a way not conducive to peaceful interrogation of unidentified vessels. The Iranian boats fled the scene just as the Navy ships were preparing to open fire, i.e. obliterate them.

The Iranians, of course, have a different take: they were simply trying to identify the large, gray, armed ships, which flew American flags. In broad daylight. Despite the ships having been identified earlier in the day by another Iranian ship (possibly a Revolutionary Guard ship), two or three Iranian ground stations, and an Omani station.

This event is interesting for several reasons. Had the Navy ships opened fire on the Iranian vessels, tensions between the US and Iran would have increased exponentially. And one thing you could be sure of is that oil prices (and thus gas) would have skyrocketed, since a great deal of our oil travels through the very waters in which this confrontation took place. Additionally, the US could have been portrayed by Iran as the aggressor, since three honest-to-goodness warships opened fire and (likely) destroyed several poorly armed Iranian boats. But the professionalism of the US Navy prevented this from happening, although from the sounds of it, this very thing was mere moments from happening. These ships would have been justified in taking such action, but Iran would garner sympathy. These boats do pose a legitimate threat to ships as large as the three Navy ships (USS Cole, anyone?), but they’re small, and inept looking in comparison to modern destroyers and cruisers. It would be like a trained police officer shooting dead five 120lb weaklings who might have had grenades under their shirts. They kept running towards the man, only to swerve way at the last second and even shouted that they were going to blow him up. His buddy was killed previously by a 120lb weakling armed with a grenade under his shirt. The officer might have been justified, but people would have sympathized with the weaklings, especially if they perceived the police as bullies, which is exactly how the US military is perceived by many in the Middle East and elsewhere. Could this have been an instance where the Iranians were trying to goad the US into action? It think so.

It also could have been a simple probe of the Navy ships’ security measures; a simple test of the ships’ responses. Information gleaned from this could be used in a future conflict in the Gulf. Make no mistake about it, Iran’s navy is capable in the confined waters of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. There is no point in the Gulf that is not within range of Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missiles, which would be launched at ships in salvos which would overwhelm the ship’s defense systems. Iran’s small ships would engage in swarm tactics, much like yesterday’s incident, and would seek to attack larger, better armed targets by using a high number of these smaller vessels, possibly armed with RPGs or even in a suicide role. I know it’s popular to believe that the US Navy is only vulnerable by a comparable force, but that simply isn’t the case, especially when room for maneuverability and stand-off is so limited.

The Iranian Navy’s actions could presage similar actions with the goal of desensitizing the US Navy. This is a common tactic. Time after time these ships approach and push the confrontation to the brink, only to flee. The crews become inured to this, and are blindsided when the Iranian vessels don’t turn away at the last second and then damage or destroy a ship. While it is likely that the media will report, however ineptly, on Iranian action similar to this, it will not prevent Navy crews from becoming numb to the threat over time and let their guard down. Only their professionalism can prevent this.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming days and weeks.

The title of this section is a pun on peoples’ mispronunciation of Iran. It’s actually pronounced Ih-Ron rather than I-Ran.

The Deceived Cult of Paul:

Ron Paul became a legitimate Presidential candidate in the eyes of the media not through his policies, but through his successful grassroots internet effort to raise money. People were astounded at the haul he took in. He’s becoming less viable with every passing primary, despite his impressive bank account and impassioned supporters. The information contained within THIS article from The New Republic and others will do little to bolster his support, and might actually do what nothing has been able to do: drive away his fans.

The New Republic’s (TNR) article, “Angry White Man” is lengthy, so I don’t expect you to read it all on top of reading my long-winded diatribes. But in it, a few things will become painfully obvious. TNR reports that Paul has since 1978 published monthly newsletters with a variety of different monikers (Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, etc.). Many of the articles are published without bylines, so it’s hard to say who wrote them. Many of them are written in the first person, which gives the impression that, since the publication is “Ron Paul’s Something or Other”, that Paul wrote them. If not, one would think that Paul at least approves of these articles published in a newsletter with his name brand on it, which suggest that they reflect his views.

The problem is, the contents of many of the articles contained within these newsletters are very controversial, and in many cases downright racist and paranoid. Skim through to get an idea. It’s actually quite appalling, these being better suited to a Klan publication rather than one possessing the name of a viable Presidential candidate.

Paul’s campaign has apparently stated that Paul “had granted various levels of approval to what appeared in his publications.” Over the years his level of approval ran the gamut, from writing the articles himself to having no approval at all. Jesse Benton, the campaign spokesman, said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He said this after being read some of the passages. TNR makes a good point that this might be believable had these sorts of racist views popped up sporadically, or if the newsletter been around for but only a little while, but the newsletter has contained such content since its inception 30 years ago. A further issue I have, which is mentioned obliquely in the article, is that Paul apparently has no concern for what his subordinates do on his behalf and in his name. How good of a President will he be then, if one were to completely ignore the content of these newsletters and simply focus on the fact that Paul, for years, apparently had no knowledge of what “his” newsletter was saying. It had his name on it, for the love of the gods. Will underlings make statements on behalf of the United States that have not been approved by Paul? Will these statements be grossly out of touch with American sentiment (beyond the KKK that is)? Can we really elect a guy whose name is on a publication that says things such as, “Racial violence will fill our cities because mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves,'" regardless of whether or not he wrote it or believes it? I hope not. And thankfully after New Hampshire, I don’t think he has a prayer. But even though he will probably not be President, TNR points out that he has been “increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate.” And in light of some of his passively sanctioned views, this is scary enough.

Word of the Day: Pertinacious (adjective): 1. Holding or adhering obstinately to an opinion, purpose, or design. 2. Stubbornly or perversely persistent.

On This Day in History: In a move that might have been supported by Ron Paul’s newsletter authors, the Jewish population of Basel, Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated because they are believed to have been the cause of the ongoing bubonic plague (1349).

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” - Plato

Liquamen I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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