Morning Coffee (152)

All work and no play makes me a dull boy. And it makes me a terrible Brewer. It's been, oh...two weeks since I last had a cup of Morning Joe with you all. In that time, a lot has happened. The economy went further into the sheisse bucket. The candidate who ran on hope and change has become the President who peddles fear in order to pass his agenda, and does so better than his predecessor. Our extremely popular Congress semi-rushed to pass a, well, I don't know, $800 billion, $900 billion, or over $1 trillion (actual figure is just semantics) "stimulus" package full of the artist formerly known as Pork, which really stimulates nothing save deforestation in Brazil and the generation of global warmth-inducing Congressional/Presidential CO2 emissions. Oh, I say semi-rushed because, well, it "absolutely needed to be passed," but only after a three-day, holiday weekend. And there is talk about nationalizing some banks.

The sky really is falling.

Yes, I made that.

Let them eat Tax:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently mentioned in an interview with AP that, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." In layman's terms, this is a mileage tax. LaHood, who is one of two Republicans in President Obama's Cabinet and a former Congressman from Illinois, thinks that this would be a good way to "fund our infrastructure." It seems that the federal tax on gasoline is no longer providing enough revenue to maintain the highway system. But LaHood doesn't want to raise the federal gasoline tax in a recession. See, we don't to raise current taxes, because that looks bad. But making new ones is alright. Somehow. I don't really understand it.

Obama's press secretary Robin, er, Robert Gibbs says that the Obama Administration is not considering a mileage tax. Of course, they're not considering the "Fairness Doctrine" either...but if it walks like a duck...

Some states, however, are considering a mileage tax, which we've discussed in previous editions of the MC. In Rhode Island, the proposed tax would be one half a cent per mile driven. The tax would be calculated by using the mandatory GPS/clock/Big Brother apparatus that measures the miles you've driven, when you've driven them (peak vs. non-peak) and where you've driven them (highways/secondary roads). You'd then pay this at the gas pump. It'd be pretty transparent, I'm sure. A half a cent doesn't seem like a lot, but it's higher than the quarter of a cent tax proposed in North Carolina.

Using a baseline of 12,000 driven per year, you would pay roughly $60 in mileage taxes in Rhode Island. I'm still not clear on whether or not you'd pay Rhode Island tax for miles driven outside of the state, or if you'd pay taxes in neighboring states for miles driven there, or what. Compare this to the gas tax. If your vehicle were to get 24 miles per gallon, you would pay for approximately 500 gallons of gasoline. In Rhode Island, you pay the 18.6 cent federal gas tax, plus the 30 cent Rhode Island gas tax per gallon. That's 48.6 cents in tax, or roughly $243 per year. Would you rather pay the mileage tax or the gas tax? That's easy. The mileage tax. Unfortunately, you would probably pay both.

I've read a lot about mileage taxes, and I've never seen an instance where someone proposes a mileage tax and simultaneously proposes dropping the gasoline tax. Why would they, since the whole issue is lack of sufficient revenue (or inability to manage a budget, I'm not sure). So, contrary to LaHood's logic, this is technically a tax increase. It worse though. You would pay for the infrastructure to enact this plan, either in your role as a tax/fee-payer or as a consumer. It's also likely that you would pay both federal and state mileage taxes. And if I may indulge in conjecture, you might even have to pay a higher tax is your yearly mileage exceeds a certain threshold, just like you pay a higher tax if you make more money; I'm sure as is the case with most tax codes, this wouldn't be as simple as a flat tax. Your $243 yearly tax just got a little bigger. This, of course, ignores the ethical/philosophical issues of tracking citizens, which we discussed previously.

Census is Among-us:
Gerrymandering is the deliberate modification of electoral districts in order to influence future elections one way or the other by securing numerical advantage, generally for the incumbent. While named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, a notorious practitioner of redistricting, it didn't die with Gerry in 1814. As recently as 2006, the US Supreme Court upheld most of the Texas electoral map engineered by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and went so far as to say state legislatures may gerrymander districts at any time, so long as they do not harm ethnic minorities. Take a look at this map of Congressional District 4 in Illinois, or Congressional District 28 in New York, designed, I say again, designed to connect to heavily Democratic cities. Coincidentally, or not, the district has been represented by Democrat Louise Slaughter since 1993. It's also interesting that the number of votes her Republican challengers have received has significantly declined in the past 13 years. Perhaps it's because she does a bang up job. Or perhaps it's because gerrymandering has diluted the Republican block in NY District 28 to the point of being irrelevant.

Sometimes though, the opposing factions agree to redistricting in order to preserve the status quo. In California in 2000, the two parties decided to redraw districts to prevent unpredictable voting by the electorate. The results will astound you. Not one single state or federal legislative office changed party in 2004, this despite the fact that 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 assembly seats were at risk.

We've seen that gerrymandering can be effective, and that gerrymandering has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. That's good, because I'd hate to see politicians violating the constitution. The Court says, basically, that politicians, who have to be voted into power, can rearrange districts whenever they want, rather than just after a census (when they're constitutionally required), in order to stay in power. Call me a cynic, but that sounds like a conflict of interest. Of course, this is the same group of people who arranged a yearly raise, based not on performance or job approval, but one which automatically occurs provided they don't vote against it. As you can see, conflict of interest isn't such a big deal when you make the rules.

And when you're the incumbent, you generally make the rules. This is an issue now because President Obama has recently stated that the White House will take a more active role in the 2010 census, which is the purview of the Commerce Department. As the census helps determine congressional districts, the census is always an issue of contention between the left and the right. Conservatives favor a "door-to-door" approach to the census, while Liberals tend to favor statistical sampling because minorities and homeless are less likely to be counted in the door-to-door approach. The Obama's Administration's desire to have officials in the Commerce Department report directly to the White House doesn't seem like it would result in less gerrymandering. Being the skeptic that I am, it sounds like the possibility for further consolidation of Democratic power in the two chambers of Congress would be increased were Obama or his loyalists take an active part in "guiding" the census process.

I don't want partisan politics to be a part of the census at all, quite frankly. I would prefer it be pure, cold science. But I can understand that that is impossible. However, we can avoid, to some degree, gerrymandering and its imbalancing influence on the electorate's voting power. In Iowa, a nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB) determines electoral districts. Political factors cannot be considered in drawing district lines. Districts follow county lines. Why not take the power out of the hands of politicians, who are interested solely in reelection, and make them more accountable to the people? Of course, we can then talk about term limits and the such...

Fundraising, Recession-Style:
Certainly there are those among you who believe that politicians genuinely desire to serve. I would love to believe this, but I think that the prime desire of virtually all persons in power, save the rare George Washington or Cincinnatus, is to remain in power ad infinitum. This is why no serious discussion of mandatory term limits has taken place in Congress since the early days of the Republic. Then, the high Congressional turn-over of the period was not mandated, but was the result of inherent distrust of political power, even among officeholders themselves. Despite this prevailing sentiment, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason saw the potential danger of not mandating term limits in the Constitution. Mason said, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." Richard Henry Lee envisioned the lack of limits on tenure as leading to a "most highly and dangerously oligarchic" state. You don't say, George...

James Fennimore Cooper said that, "contact with the affairs of state is one of the most corrupting of the influence to which men are exposed." Eventually rotation of office simply became taking turns and sharing political wealth. Simply put, those in power simply agreed to continue sharing power amongst themselves. This practice was eventually phased out, not by a return to genuine idealistic sentiments of limiting one's own power, but by turning to a professional, ruling class. And in order to stay in power, one had to raise a lot of money. This aspect dominates a politician's life.

I could ramble ad nauseum about term limits, but I wanted to use it as a tie in to discuss the recent fundraising activities of our ruling class. While always present, these fundraising activities grate on me even more in these economic "times of trouble." One would think that there would be less money to be had by politicians looking for cash to run their next big campaign. This isn't the case. For 2008 campaigns, House and Senate candidates have raised $1.4 billion. This is $400 million more than they raised in 2000. A lot of the money raised is tied to fairly swanky activities like a ski resort get together for Democrat Congressman Ed Perlmutter or a "Weekend of Aloha" fundraiser held for Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Republicans aren't innocent either, though I think the two aformentioned individuals do enough to illustrate my point.

Also, please remember that fundraising never stops for these people. The finance director for Perlmutter's campaign, Julie DeWoody says, "Almost every member of Congress is fundraising all the time. It's the reality of running for office and how expensive campaigns are." She also said that the ski resort getaway was a way to give "supporters a different way to interact with him and have fun." All you had to do to "interact with him" was donate $2,400. About 20 donors, each of whom raised or gave $5,000, attended Inouye's Hawaii...thing. His fundraising expert, Helen Milby said, "some were lobbyists; some were not." But, he would "never" allow lobbyist contributions to shape his decisions in his day job. Wait, his not so day job, since his day job is to raise money to support his off-duty job representing Hawaiians.

You cannot buy your Senator an expensive meal, but you can attend what is basically a party and donate a bunch of money that is ostensibly used for the sole purpose of keeping that individual in power. Interesting. Inouye "took home" about $100,000 from his weekend fundraiser, which will buy a decent amount of radio, print, or TV advertising. This is money that any challenger will not likely have at his disposal. By merit of being an officeholder, he holds an extreme advantage in terms of capital, and the ability to generate or regenerate said capital.

Remember, most aspects of my ideas of political reform tie together. That being said, the enactment of term limits would, to a large degree, nullify the need for campaign finance reform. Perhaps if we had term limits, politicians would not feel so tied to never-ending fundraising. Then they could work more. However, were we to implement some sort of comprehensive, crippling campaign finance reform, we could, at the very least, return to rotational offices by limiting the amount of money an incumbent can generate, perhaps over his lifetime. Certainly, I will concede that unlimited money does not guarantee reelection, but it does help. What's more, incumbents enjoy other advantages not available to challengers. Regardless, I would prefer that if we cannot have term limits, despite the overwhelming support for such limits by the general population, we at least have the possibility of perpetuity in office based largely on ability and results in executing the duties of of an office rather than the ability to raise cash and glad-hand with lobbyists.

Having said all that, I'm going to go attend a fundraiser for the cause "Getting Uncle Joe Koba's Student Loans Paid Off Before He Dies So He Can Save Money for His Retirement and Help Stimulate the Economy by Buying a New Computer Monitor and Drum Kit." It's a great cause, and you can donate by visiting THIS SITE.

Word of the Day: Nocuous (NOK-yoo-uhs): (adjective): Very hurtful; noxious.

On This Day in History: George Washington was born (1732). Jefferson Davis is inaugurated for a six-year term as President of the Confederate Statees of America (1862). The Confederate President was only allowed to serve one six-year term. Woolworth first opens in Utica, NY (1879). Calvin Coolidge becomes the first President to deliver a radio broadcast from the White House (1924). Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare (1915). The US hockey team defeats the Soviet Union hockey team at Lake Placid, NY. Called the Miracle on Ice, it is considered to be one of the greatest upsets in sports history, and spawned the "USA!" chant (1980). Aldrich Ames and his wife are charged by the US Justice Department with spying for the Soviet Union (1994).

"Lying through your teeth again, [motherfucking] imbecile. Think about it. You're pounding on a fault line. What will it take to get through you precious? I'm over this, why do you want to throw it away like this? Such a mess. Why would I wanna watch you?" - A Perfect Circle, "The Outsider", Thirteenth Step. A fitting, if slightly modified, line.

Edit: Apparently, I had a fourth grader take diction. Apologies for the spelling/grammar errors.

Morning Coffee (138)

Your Brewer is still in the Coffee business, I assure you. There's just so little time these days.

Semi-Change We Can Sort of Believe In:
Everyone, how is your change? No, I'm not asking for a status report on your pocket change. I'm asking about the change you were promised during the recent election and how it's working out for you. Personally, I'm impressed. President-elect Obama's choices for his Cabinet consist largely of unknowns. Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm. Arizona governess Janet Napolitano. Senator John Kerry. New Mexico governor and recent Presidential candidate Bill Richardson. I've heard Dick Gephardt's name thrown around too. Oh, wait. They're sort of well-known; infamous even. Good times. Well, when you're candidate's entire platform is as vague as "change" then I suppose you sort of get what you paid for. I mean, it is technically change, right?

Since we're talking about change, we might as well discuss the debacle of the Clinton nomination to the post of Secretary of State. Some say it's impossible, that Obama is suggesting her to placate some Democrats who feel jaded by Obama's failure to select her as his running mate. Some say that Obama will use Bill Clinton's many donors as a reason not to select her for the top diplomatic spot. Some say she won't accept it because after all, she's a Senator already. On one had, she should be wary, because as Colin Powell once noted, the Secretary of State serves at the President's leisure. He could fire her in two years. Then she'd be out of a government job altogether. But I say that she'll take the post, and will be confirmed with ease. This will be good in one sense, as New York will hopefully get a Senator who, you know, actually lived in New York.

"Let There be Jobs...and Other Stuff!":
By 2011, Barack Obama will "create 2.5 million jobs...to rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars." And on the Seventh Day, he will rest.

Final Political Thoughts of the Day:
Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.

Also, I would like to propose that all persons seeking higher office must relinquish their present position in order to run for that higher office. For example, if I'm a sitting senator, and I'm say, selected as a running mate to a Presidential candidate or if I decide to run for President myself, then I give up my seat in the Senate. If I fail in my VP/Presidential bid, then I'm out of a job. I'm welcome to run for office again in the future, of course.

Why would I have such a stupid idea? To avoid situations like in Delaware, where Joe Biden kept his seat in the Senate, but will not serve out his term as he's the next VP. I should also mention that he refused to debate his challenger, which meant that she was unable to do much campaigning. There are rules in Delaware that forbid certain campaigning unless both candidates are present. So now the governor of Delaware gets to pick the Senator, which doesn't sound terribly democratic in my humble view.

More pragmatically, I don't get to tell my boss that I'm going to leave work four days out of five in order to look for work elsewhere, but that I expect to be paid as if I were doing my job, and that if I fail to secure another job, I expect to be able to come back to work as if nothing had happened. Why should politicians be afforded something so utterly unfeasible most American workers?

Arrrr, these be pirate waters, matey:
Have you heard about this piracy situation? Well you would have five months ago had the Morning Coffee not been hijacked (pun intended) by the Presidential election. I had been planning on writing expressing my assessment that the problem would explode by 2009. Now I just look like a jumper of bandwagons.

Regardless, the problem has indeed exploded, most notably off the Horn of Africa (get a map), but also in the Gulf of Guinea. The Somali pirates have attacked more than 140 ships this year, and hijacked 36 of them, including the largest ship ever captured, the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star, which is carrying two million barrels of oil (~$100 million worth) and was destined for the United States. A few months ago, the pirates took the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying Soviet/Russian made weapons. The Kenyan government estimates that the Somali pirates have made $150 million so far. Nigerian pirates, both in and out of water, were blamed as part of the reason oil soared above $100 a barrel. Where is that money going? Some fear to Islamic extremists in Somalia. Check out THIS map to see the global activity of pirates.

Clearly, these pirates have become more brazen. I attribute this to companies' willingness to pay ransom demands for ships and crews captured. This is a cycle: pirates capture ships, demanding on average $2 million per, companies pay them, they buy new equipment intent on taking more ships and making more money. The problem grows. I think, though, that these pirates will become victims of their own success. The capture of the Sirius Star is likely the breaking point. Two million barrels of oil is a lot, and that does have an impact on the global markets. If these pirates get $35 million or more for the ship and its cargo, then they will be encouraged to do it again, and most nations don't like having their oil supply messed with.

The US Navy has been chomping at the bit for a mission, with the Army and Marine Corps getting all the glory in Iraq and Afghanistan. It now looks like they might have one. Problem is, the Navy has been shadowing the MV Faina since September, and hasn't really done anything. This is not due to a lack of capability, but a lack of guidance and direction from higher (i.e. the President/NATO/UN). The US Navy would make mincemeat out of most pirate vessels, and the Marine Corps and special ops units deploying from Navy ships have a capability called VBSS - visit, board, search, and seizure. I will say though, 2.5 million square miles of ocean is a lot of area to cover, so finding ships is sometimes problematic. But again, someone has to direct the Navy to act. This is all very touchy with the Law of the Sea and what not. Of course, the United States and its sailors and Marines do have some experience fighting piracy.

That is all for today. Perhaps more tomorrow?

Word of the Day: Nabob (NAY-bob) (noun): 1. A native ruler in India in the Mogul empire; by extension, a person from Indian who has made a fortune there. 2. A very wealthy and prominent person, a mogul.

On This Day in History: British pirate Edward Teach (Blackbeard) is killed off the coast of North Carolina by a boarding party led by Lieutenant Robery Maynard (1718). President John Kennedy is assassinated (1963). Mike Tyson defeats Trevor Berbick to become the youngest heavyweight champ in history (1986).

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." - Anonymous.

Edit: Corrected my apparently atrocious spelling.

Morning Coffee (115)

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

People Suspect Vote Worthless; People Right All Along:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics for Dummies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Coffee (90)

Good Morning Coffee drinkers; or afternoon, depending on your reading habits. It’s another semi-fine day, right? I leave that to your judgment.

A Touch of the Ole Midas:

If my ancestors had more foresight when they came to this New World, they would have perhaps assisted Cortez in relieving the natives of their precious metals. Or perhaps they would have bolted for California 1849. Because if they passed onto me a mere pound of gold, I would have at present a pretty good sum of money in the form of the glimmering metal. Yesterday the price of gold rose to $894.40 an ounce before settling back down to $881.80. I’m told that’s a record high (although it still falls well below the inflation adjusted high of 1980 when gold reached $2,200 an ounce). Silver, gold’s oldest competitor for worship by shiny-object-loving primitives, rose to a paltry $15.94 an ounce. Platinum though would run you about $1,558 per, which means if I liquidated all of my assets, including the ownership of the highly profitable Morning Coffee, I could purchase roughly 1/10^th of an ounce of platinum. Clearly, I haven’t the curse of Midas.

Unlimited Refills:

Do you know what is scary? A significant percentage (I think it was 30%, but I’ve lost the source) of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire’s primary said that if given a choice, they would have voted for Bill Clinton again. You might assume that this is scary for a number of reasons; that Bill was a bad President or made a mockery out of the Office of the Presidency or was weak in some area or another. But this isn’t what I think is scary about this. No, it’s scary because it means that a surprising percentage of our citizenry have no regard whatsoever for an integral part of our political system, and a part that I think should be expanded far beyond its present use. I’m talking about term limits. Apparently, a check on the personal accumulation of power isn’t all that important provided people feel good.

I guess it should come as no surprise, since we are talking about the same species who has been a-okay with handing over near unlimited powers to all sorts of people, provided that they make their problems appear to go away and make them feel safe and snug in their beds. I’m not talking, of course, about people who’ve been forced to bear the yoke of tyranny by violence or were unlucky enough to have been born into it. I’m talking about people who actively cede power to an individual or to an office (which are generally occupied by people). Our version of Cincinnatus, George Washington, would have been given a crown by the people had he desired and accepted it. We would have simply handed over all for which we had so recently fought because a man gave us a warm and fuzzy feeling of security; because he was a competent leader and because he had helped win us our freedom. Wouldn’t that would have been the height of irony? Ceding our freedoms to the man who helped us win them? We have already created our own aristocracy, and while it may be that titles and honorifics are not passed down from generation to generation, the concept is the same. Knowing that, what would our government look like had Washington not wished to retire to Mount Vernon? It’s a blessing (and a curse) that our political institutions are now pretty firmly entrenched, as limits on Presidential terms are a Constitutional Amendment (22^nd, ratified in 1951). But as history has shown us, firmly entrenched is a mere illusion of permanence when it comes to man’s institutions, for without conscious renewal of the vows of constraint, they will be slowly eroded by those who seek more power. What’s surprising, though, is that it took so long for the Constitution to be amended in the first place, considering what Jefferson wrote about it in 1807 ("if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life”) and what others thought before and after him. What is not surprising, however, is that while the purveyors of our laws have limited Presidential power in this regard, they have not taken the opportunity to similarly constrain themselves. Hopefully that can be changed in the future, and we can implement another check against “benevolent tyranny.” And hopefully, we don’t someday, in a fit of irrational fear, repeal the 22^nd Amendment and crown ourselves a new Caesar.

The aforementioned bit of New Hampshire exit polling, about which I was speaking prior to mounting the soapbox, also suggests that perhaps a third of those who voted for Hillary Clinton might have done so solely out of nostalgia. That is not as scary as the disregard for term limits, as it’s simply part of human nature to be nostalgic, but it is jarring to think that Mrs. Clinton might be elected, whatever her merits or demerits, based largely on the fact that her husband was once President and the passage of 8 years has bathed his term in a rose-colored light. Is this how simple we are as an electorate? Rhetorical question. If this is the case, what I wrote in previous Morning Coffee (81) certainly must be even more foreboding. Imagine another Clinton or a Bush getting a chance because of nostalgia.

Sensationalism is Grand:

I was itching for something else to write about, since the above is simply too short considering yesterday’s grandiose composition. Thankfully, I found something about which to complain. Here is the Drudge Report’s headline for an article on some local news station’s website about school lunches:

“School bans desserts; Parents given strict policy for bag lunches…”

That sounds great, right? I was actually sort of angry that a school would dictate what I was allowed to put in my child’s Transformers lunch box. I was going to write up an angry diatribe about the nanny state and what not, because it’s getting out of hand and this article would have illustrated that. I’m fine with the school changing their lunch policy and providing my kid a quality meal for a mere $7 (sarcasm), but not with dictating to me. But here’s what the article says about bag lunches:

“Parents can pack anything they want in their kids' lunch, but they've all received the school's wellness policy that encourages them to go for healthy snacks.”

The difference between what the headline suggests and how the article reads on that topic is radical. Drudge is known for sensational headlines, but this is probably the worst I’ve ever seen. In no way do I read that parents are given a strict policy for bag lunches. I wish people were a little less inflammatory. Here at the Morning Coffee we (I) try to approach issues with a certain amount of constraint and objectivity. I probably fail more often than not considering I’m but a man and imperfect and such, but I hope I’m never as blatant as the above example.

Word of the Day: Ephemeral (adjective): 1. Lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory. 2. Lasting but one day. 3. Anything short-lived, as certain insects.

On This Day in History: In one of my favorite moments in history, Julius Caesar crosses the Rubicon, starting a civil war which would be the beginning of the end of the Republican Era of Roman history (49 BCE). Eventually, the Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) would shower upon Caesar numerous accolades, and would elect to make him Dictator for life. He would soon be killed by the famous tyrannicide Marcus Junius Brutus and his cohorts, but the damage to the Republic was irreversible, and Rome would be ruled, for better or for worse, by emperors until its end. It should be noted that Rome’s disdain of tyrants and kings was even more deep-seated than our own, and yet they succumbed. Of equal relevance to the today’s overarching theme, Thomas Paine first published his Common Sense on this day (1776). In this publication, Paine asserts that he will “offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense…”

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." – Thomas Paine