Morning Coffee (101)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Update:

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

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

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

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

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 (94)

Good morning. I had no intention of Brewing a pot ‘o Morning Coffee today, but as it frequently happens while reading the news, I saw a few things this morning about which I simply had to make you aware. Sometimes there’s a wealth of things to discuss with you; other times there’s a dearth. I suppose we should simply sit back and rejoice about our good fortune…I will eschew pithy titles today, as I simply cannot muster up the creative energy required to amuse you (or myself).

Former First Lady: Bush + Oil + ‘Begging’ = Pathetic:

Okay, I guess that’s pithy enough. Anyway, as you may or may not know, George Bush is touring the Middle East. Yesterday, he visited with Saudi Arabian officials, and the conversation turned from camel racing to oil, as it is wont to do. Bush says (paraphrased) to his Saudi hosts, “Hey, you guys want to go ahead and increase oil output, ‘cause these prices are tough on our economy back in ‘Merica.” The Saudis replied that they’d increase output when justified by the market. Bush then pointed out that if the US economy suffers, then the US will purchase less oil and such. Case closed; fairly diplomatic sounding.

However, Hillary Clinton, potentially our next President, thought Bush’s actions were tantamount to groveling. She said, “President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic…We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence.”

First, I offer you the obvious. Bush didn’t ask that the Saudis drop the price of oil; he asked that they increase output. Sure, that would drop the price of oil, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that he actually said, “Hey, can you cartel guys drop the price of oil?” Second, this lays bear Mrs. Clinton’s disdain for the Office of the President. Being an elected official (who is also running for President) and calling a sitting President’s actions “pathetic” is contemptible. Hopefully, she will not get a chance to understand what it is like to be President, but if she is elected, I would think that she’d want a little respect from other elected officials, if not the citizenry at large. Which leads me to my next point: if doing one’s job is pathetic, what shall we call getting misty-eyed in front of a crowd of people and reporters because you lost the primary in Iowa? I suggested previously that this was somewhat staged, and hey, it might have won her New Hampshire. But couldn’t we go so far as to say it’s pathetic? Have some dignity Hillary, and lose with some grace. I understand that her tears were designed to show that she’s got a softer side to her steely-eyed demeanor, but if Bush’s actions were pathetic, so too were Hillary’s. Surely, someone who wants to be our President so badly as to cry (and one could argue that we needn’t a person who wants it that badly) could come up with a more eloquent critique of Bush’s energy policies. Apparently not.

All Democratically Elected Leaders are Equal, But Some are More Equal than Others:

Speaking of democracy and elections and Presidents, it’s important to put everything in to context. Sean Penn, who writes on occasion for the San Francisco Chronicle, has called that paper an “increasingly lamebrain paper.” He did this in response to an article that discussed celebrity’s interest in Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President. The article, which was “tongue-in-cheek”, “listed a number of potential matchups between celebrities and dictators or other authoritarian figures.” Penn took issue with this, and reminded us that Chavez is a democratically elected leader.

I really find this sentiment to be extremely hilarious. Penn is apparently so naïve that he thinks all “elections” are created equal, which couldn’t be further from the truth, and he utterly ignores the fact that Chavez recently tried to radically alter laws in Venezuela (and who can forget his failed coup in 1992…against a democratically elected President Perez). These alterations would have allowed him to be “elected” President any number of times. He failed in his bid for unlimited terms when the people rejected it in referendum. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. I implore you to read the Wikipedia article on Mr. Chavez for a clearer picture of his transgressions against democracy and liberty.

What’s more, Bush is a democratically elected leader, but that doesn’t prevent Penn and others from heaping scorn upon him, much of it alluding to the fact that Bush is a tyrant. We hear things like, “King George” or the ridiculous “emperor has no clothes” bits spewed forth from their maws constantly. Why then should we not mock the farce that is Hugo Chavez’s Presidency? Chavez has undermined more liberties in Venezuela than Bush has in the US. Who is has the deeper tyrannical aspirations?

It’s remarkable to me that someone who thinks themselves so smart can be so utterly blinded by a charismatic, would-be dictator turned elected President. Sean Penn, and many of his Hollywood friends, should stick to acting. If they cannot, then they should at least recognize that their positions as celebrities gives them a wide, easily influenced audience, and they should temper their remarks with some reason and logic, and should not make uninformed remarks. They have some responsibility for what they say, as do even we “little people.” And if they cannot temper their remarks, they should be prepared to be openly ridiculed and mocked by others.

Political Update:

That’s the new moniker for the Morning Coffee. I kid. What I mean to say is Romney won the Michigan primary-thing yesterday. You might ask why there is no Democratic winner. Well, because Michigan opted to move their primary to earlier in the year than it used to be, the national-level Democratic Party basically didn't allow them to hold a primary. I had forgotten about this; it made the news some time ago. Clinton was the only person on the Dems ballot, so she sort of won. But Obama would have secured 73% of the African-American vote had he been on the ballot. Anyway, apparently independents and Democrats had to register Republican to have a say, and a lot of them did. They were disillusioned by their party's refusal to allow them a say. That's not to say they're going to vote Republican in the general election. I'm not saying that at all. But I wonder how the voting in the Michigan primary skews the projections for winners in that state, since a lot of Democrats voted for Romney.

Word of the Day: Maisma (noun): 1. A vaporous exhalation formerly thought to cause disease; broadly, a thick vaporous atmosphere or emanation. 2. A harmful or corrupting atmosphere or influence; also, an atmosphere that obscures; a fog.

On This Day in History: Speaking of dictators, the Roman Senate bestows the title Augustus upon Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, the adopted son of Gaius Julius Caesar (27 BCE). Thus ends the Republic. The 18^th amendment was ratified, authorizing Prohibition in the US (1919). John Holland, the 1^st Duke of Exeter, was executed (1400). Edward Gibbon, first modern historian and author of the great work “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” died of peritonitis, as a result of surgeries to correct hydrocele testis (1794). Imagine his discomfort; clothes during this age were very tight-fitting and likely caused his hycrocele testis some significant pain.

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say "Heil" to him, nor will they call him "Führer" or "Duce." But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of "O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!" – Dorothy Thompson.

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 (83)

Good Morning, dear Coffee drinkers. I hope you’ve had a chance to sample the new addition to our Coffee breaks. The Liquamen is available for consumption primarily on the website. Please, give it a try.

The sole motivating factor for getting to work early is securing a decent parking space.

Romney vs. Putin:

Mitt Romney was apparently on the Glenn Beck program yesterday being interviewed. Beck asked him what he thought about Vladimir Putin being named the Time Person of the Year instead of General Petraeus. The man was positively flabbergasted, replying, “Oh, you are kidding. Did they put Vladimir Putin on the cover?” Apparently, he had no idea, because he stammered about Beck being serious about the whole thing.

Romney was disgusted, citing political prisoners and suspicious murders and the suspension of public dissent and the press. He was angry that Putin received the award in lieu of Petraeus.

He looked foolish, because as you know from drinking yesterday’s Coffee, doing good things is not a prerequisite. He looked even more foolish when he suggested that Raul Castro be the next Time POTY because he too is a dictator (never mind that Putin is an elected official).

Don’t get me wrong, Petraeus has done some remarkable things in Iraq, but Person of the Year he is not. He and Putin are similar in that their names begin with “P” and that they were charged with bringing a nation out of smoking ruins. The difference is, Russia was a superpower that had been atrophying for 16 years or so, and Putin single-handedly brought the country back from the brink and into respectability again. After the first Iraq War, Iraq was a fringe player in its own region, and even with all the success Petraeus has had, it isn’t anywhere close to being even a fringe player again; it is instead where other regional players go to play superpower. Both countries have abundant petroleum wealth, but Russia’s the one that’s able to take advantage of the high prices of oil, not Iraq. Both had mighty armed forces once. But while Iraq’s army can barley achieve a muster, Russia’s military is conducting long range nuclear bomber patrols and sending carrier battle groups in to the Mediterranean. If the POTY is about being influential in the world, Petraeus doesn’t hold a candle to Putin. Romney, like most Americans, is too focused on America to realize someone else can be more influential than one of their own, and he clearly has barley a notion of what the “award” is about. If this is as sophisticated as his understanding of foreign relations gets, we’re in trouble. Maybe he should stick to CEO positions and governorships.

Canterbury: Nativity a Fraud:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has assailed the traditional view of the Nativity in a recent interview with Simon Mayo on BBC. This is not to say that he believes that none of it happened, he just contends the traditional view, replete with wise men, oxen and asses, snow and such, is extremely unlikely. Sounds terribly heretical, but it’s actually quite benign. The article on the Telegraph suggests that the interview was more radical than it was (as is my title line), but reading the transcripts, the Archbishop was merely saying that our contemporary view, as indicated on Christmas cards, doesn’t really line up with what the Gospels say. I found the topic interesting, but I also found the sensationalism of the Telegraph article compared to the interview itself to be equally interesting. You can read the article HERE and the interview HERE.

Morning Coffee Does its Best Impression of TMZ.com:

Who would have thought that a person named Spears would receive two sequential mentions in the regal Morning Coffee? Nobody, that’s who. But the news on Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy has provided me with some amusement, I won’t lie. Yesterday, Lynne Spears, Jamie Lynn’s mother (who is a fantastic one by all accounts) announced that her book on parenting would be indefinitely suspended. I cannot imagine why, what with a whack-job like Britney and now a 16 year old pregnant daughter. The book was to be called, “Pop Culture Mom: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World.” I guess it was a “how-to” book about raising a good family while in the public eye. Perhaps this indefinite suspension will stave off an epidemic of teenage pregnancies and pop tart meltdowns in dozens, perhaps hundreds of families. Let’s see…how to raise a family…crazy eldest daughter who blows through $700,000 a month…check…16 year old daughter on the cusp of professional success who gets pregnant by her 18 year old boyfriend with whom she might have been living…check…divorce from husband…check. Quality family successfully raised!

The question about the law has been raised, since Casey Whateverhisnameis is 18 and Ms Spears merely 16 (turned in April). In many states, that’s statutory rape, even among consensual teenagers. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Ms Spears is a very old 16. Doesn’t make it right really, but she is. She makes far more money that 99% of 16 year olds, and has been exposed to money and that lifestyle for half her life. I doubt though, that anyone will be pressing charges on Casey What’shisname. We can say one thing though, at least Britney waited until she was 20 or 21 to engage in sex. I mean, that’s what she told us, right? It should also be mentioned that, failing bashing her baby’s head against a wall, Jamie Lynn will likely be a much better parent than her sister.

CNN.com has a whole huge article with input from readers on how they’re going to tell their kids. There’s a lot of “ground ‘em for life” sentiment, which is understandable. One woman says that Ms Spears is probably really scared and it’s good that she thought the problem through. I don’t think she’s the typical, naïve 16 year old (are there any of those left anyway?) The best answer I read was, “this is why I try to be the best dad I can be – so my kids will look to me as a role model and not these celebrities.” It would be nice if kids had their parents as role models, and it would be nice if they had role models outside the home. But it doesn’t appear to be the case anymore. Our rich, elite class have become pretty messed up. We have no sports stars, musicians, or actors for our kids to actually look up to and admire anymore. But at least we have our politicians.

Word of the Day: Tocsin (TOCK-sin): 1. An alarm bell, or the ringing of a bell for the purpose of alarm. 2. A warning. The Morning Coffee and its derivatives is a tocsin. Or is it a toxin?

On This Day in History: Vespasian enters Rome and claims the title of Emperor (69 CE). He was a general under Nero. Carl Sagan, astronomer, astrochemist, author, humanist and skeptic, died in 1996 at age 62. Sagan was a pioneer in exobiology and was an advocate of SETI. You might know of him only through movie, Contact, which was based on a novel he wrote. The man was a giant and his death (of a rare bone marrow disease) a brutal robbery committed against mankind’s brilliance. And for Luke, he and Apple didn’t see eye to eye.

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

“Personally, I would be delighted if there were a life after death, especially if it permitted me to continue to learn about this world and others, if it gave me a chance to discover how history turns out.” – Carl Sagan. I’m right there with you, Carl.

Liquamen I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (77)

Yesterday’s Morning Coffee was terrible. See, the first half was brewed with success, but then the Coffee filter developed a gaping hole, and all the incoherent grounds spilled forth into the pot. My apologies. Try as I may, one should not expect Pulitzer Prize worthy brew every day.

Ahmadine-Blog:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fellow blogger, as reports the New York Times. This is rife with irony. The President of Iran blogging in a country where most people cannot blog at all; censorship is so widespread in Iran that Mahmoud’s own blog was actually blocked for a whole day. Interestingly, his blog allows for the posting of comments, all of which are first reviewed before being posted. Obviously. If you were to read this blog, you would notice that comments by Westerners are generally more biting than those from Iranians, which generally praise Mahmoud and his government. You’d think, “Wow, they do allow some free thought and criticism.” Then you’d think, “Wow, Iranians love this guy.” Then you’d take a sip of Morning Coffee and realize that that is exactly what Mahmoud had in mind when he started this little propaganda device. Allowing angry tirades by (inarticulate) Americans merely illustrates Mahmoud’s point that we are belligerent war-mongers, and it shows that Mahmoud is capable of standing dissent. Allowing loving Persian praise, by people that live in Iran with a firsthand perspective, shows that he’s not as bad as we make him out to be. Nothing that goes on his blog is posted without being massaged, and that is the beauty of this sort of propaganda. Frankly, all of the comments posted could have been written by Iranian officials; there’s no way to know for sure.

One of Mahmoud’s posts refers to the prodigious freedoms that average Iranians have, such as the right of students to protest. He says, “It was a joyous feeling to see a small group insult the elected president of people fearlessly amid a majority.” Look closely at that sentence. The verbiage is very interesting. “Small group; insult; elected; of people; amid a majority.” I get the idea that the protesters’ opinions are on the fringe, and that they were allowed to insult the elected leader, despite incurring the ridicule of the majority, is a great thing. These students may very well have protested fearlessly, but if that was the case it was more the result of naiveté than a genuine right to dissent. Mahmoud has an odd way of showing joy over dissent in his country; most of the students involved are now in prison.

I found one comment mildly amusing though. Ibrahim Sadegh-al thanked the president for creating more jobs with his visionary economic policies. Before these policies, there were only two gas stations in Ibrahim’s town, and only one was open at any given time. Now Ibrahim says there are 3,000 people selling fuel. Can anyone say, “black market?”

Political Nausea:

I’m really to the point where I become physically and psychologically ill when I read about politics. No, scratch that. It’s not politics with which I have a problem, since that is an abstract. It’s the practitioners of politics that make me ill. Below are a few issues, none of which I’ll bloviate about for long.

Is it me, or has the election cycle become so dragged out that it seems to have actually started before any of the candidates were born? It’s becoming analogous to Christmas: it starts earlier and earlier every year. This leaves politicians plenty of time to actually do their jobs, since they have to begin running for the next election immediately after being elected.

I read an article that stated that most of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are with her simply because of Bill Clinton. Then I thought, “Boy, I’d really feel crappy if people were voting for me because of their adulation for my spouse.” But you know what? I’ll bet it doesn’t even matter to Hillary, or anyone else seeking power, er, public office. She, for example, doesn’t seem to have an original idea in her head. She was oh-so-close to power, and now wants to experience it for herself. Whatever happened to those reluctant leaders, leaders who assumed the mantle not because they wanted power, but because they were needed? The colonies would have made Washington a virtual king, but he retired. Then you have the famous Cincinnatus, called to Roman service to save the city, he was given absolute power and could have ruled as a dictator for life, but he returned to his life as a farmer. Now we’re left with power drunk morons who will do nearly anything to gain and keep power; who would rather die in office than relinquish that power and who long ago became void of any desire or ability to effect positive change. They feel as if they’re the shepherds and we are but the flock, and it is their duty to grip and wield the power we gave them because we haven’t the ability or comprehension to do it ourselves. We have, in essence, an aristocracy. Why do you think term limits will never exist for our Congress? Fields become unproductive if crops are not rotated and the earth tilled and turned over from time to time. Leadership is no different.

The Drudge Report cites internal DNC officials who state that Mike Huckabee shall not be subject to attack ads until after he secures the nomination for President. They view him as being easily defeated in the general election, and are waiting until he is nominated to unleash their assault. They also claim to have a lot more on him than pardons and HIV faux pas. The leak could be that they’re scared of him though, and are merely bluffing. Either way, I retch.

Mitt Romney says that attacking someone’s religion is “really going too far.” Okay, maybe attacking a religion is going too far, but why is questioning someone’s religion a taboo? The majority of Americans don’t the first thing about Mormonism, and what they do know is not likely to be very objective, so it’s entirely reasonable that he get, and answer, questions posed to him about it. But we all know that beliefs are unquestionable. Same with feelings. “I know that (X), but this is the way I feel (Y)…and I believe this.” This pretty much automatically makes any challenge impossible. People must be allowed to have their beliefs and feeling no matter how illogical and/or stupid they may be. Americans have a right to know what sort of beliefs are espoused by Mormonism, and the man who aspires to be the first Mormon President has a duty to supply those answers; to articulate how his faith will “inform” his leadership.

Shooting Spree Update:

It appears that Jeanne Assam, the security guard whose pistol hand was steadied by God, might not have actually killed Matthew Murray. The coroner has ruled Murray’s death was the result of suicide, despite him being struck multiple times by Assam. It turns out Murray shot himself in the head. I am curious as to the location of the bullet wounds from Assam’s pistol. I guess God wasn’t too steadying after all. Well, perhaps steadying was God’s effort, but imparting accuracy just wasn’t his bag.

Also of note, Assam was fired from her job as a police officer in 1997 for lying during an investigation into whether or not she swore at a bus driver. Tsk, tsk.

Prior to the shooting, Murray had left messages on an internet forum stating that he wanted to kill Christians. Apparently, the language he used was almost identical to that used by the late Eric Harris. Interesting…

Word of the Day: Dishabille (dis-uh-BEEL) (noun): 1. The state of being careless or partially dressed. 2. Casual or lounging attire. 3. An intentionally careless or casual manner.

On This Day in History: Crusaders lay siege to and breech the walls of Ma’arrat al-Numan and kill about 20,000 inhabitants. Then, observing their lack of sufficient food, they decide to dine on the inhabitants flesh to ward off that pesky hunger (1098).

"But I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way, and I think people will reject that." – Mitt Romney on the “Today Show.” Said while thinking to himself that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church and that everyone in the room, and most Americans, will be unable to reach the highest levels of heaven.