Shots Across The Bow

I Won The Lottery!

Woo Hoo! Powerball is all mine baby!

No, I'm not lying. I matched the Powerball! That's $3 to me, baby!

And he said you can't win. What does an accountant know about money, anyway?

Wait. Strike that.

Of course, the bad news is that now I've used up all my luck and will never win the grand prize since the odds of winning twice (matching 1 and then matching all 6) are 1 in 4,218,436,950.

But who's counting? I won my $3!

The Qa Qaa Has Hit the Fan And Kerry is Downwind.

Oh No! There are hundreds of tons of high explosives (that the Iraqis never had, right? No WMD here folks. Move along) missing from bunkers in Iraq! How could President Bush be so careless?

This story is falling apart faster than the forged memos, partially because the media is actually doing their job. NBC was first to jump in, with contemporary reports that verified that the explosives were missing when the troops arrived. Now ABC is piling on, using IAEA memos that indicate that the amount of high explosives there was on the order of 3 tons, not 300 tons. Since IAEA moron in command el Baradei was the source of the original charge, how ironic is it that memos from his own organization are now showing it to bw a lie. Wizbang and NZ Bear have the full details, but, put simply, it appears the Russians (you know, part of the "real" coalition Kerry plans to build) working with the Iraqi army, may have moved the explosives out of Iraq into Syria prior to the war, and there may be satellite imagery to prove it.

This story is falling apart so badly that now there are some liberals claiming, as they did over the memo flap, that it was a flase story planted by Karl Rove to embarass the media and democrats.

At least those clowns are smart enough to know they should be embarassed. They should be ashamed.

Attacking the System III: I'm Angry!

Ok. It's bad enough that the New York Times decides to recycle a 19 month old story prior to the election. It's worse when they then hype the story as a new factor affecting the election, even as it is thoroughly debunked, not just by bloggers, but by NBC news, who had reporters on the scene at the time.

But the worst thing is hearing that CBS had the same story, but wasn't going to run it until the Sunday before the election.

It's time for us to decide if we want our news organizations to be reporters, or propagandists. Jeff Fager said that CBS had the story, but wanted to hold it until Oct 31, and the $64 question is "Why?" Now usually, in television, the "why" is about sweeps and ratings.

But Oct 31 isn't a sweeps period.

The answer that leaps to mind is that it is only 2 days prior to the election, giving the story time to build, but not be debunked, maximizing the impact on the Bush campaign. I'd rather not believe this explanation, but it has been a consistent pattern over the last few election cycles.

But this time, there's a difference. Before, the "story" came from the other campaign, and the media could claim that they were just reporting a valid story, not manipulating an election. But this time, Fager has admitted that the media, CBS at least, is in the business of manipulating the news to affect the election.

He admitted it! Not in so many words, but can you think of any other reason for holding the story? The story linked above gives the impression that the reason the story was being held was that they couldn't get enough taped interviews. But there are problems with that story as well. First, the article distorts the truth. The missing explosives were noted as missing when US forces first took possession of the base, as reported by NBC news at the time. Nowhere does the LAT piece mention that particular fact. Second, and more damning, it appears that 60 Minutes never intended to go with the story on the 24th. Based on the LAT piece, it was always scheduled for the 31st.

Why?

Damn it people, I don't care whether you're conservative or liberal; do you want your news organizations in the business of tampering with our system of government? Where's the outrage? A news organization was deliberately managing the news to affect the election of the President! It's unthinkable!

I'm betting even Water Cronkite is having trouble with this one.

The broadcast networks are licensed some very valuable chunks of the spectrum and as part of that license, they are required to operate in the best interests of the public. That has always meant that their news organizations had to be unbiased, and report the news.

Clearly, CBS has abandoned that standard, instead seemingly deciding that the public good is best served by making sure John Kerry gets elected. Even if you support Kerry, is that a role you want your news organizations to take on themselves?

Tailoring the news to gain a specific outcome?

In my opinion, CBS has violated their charter, and as far as I'm concerned, should have their broadcast license revoked. You can scream about freedom of the press all you want, but along with that freedom comes a responsibility to play by the rules, and CBS has made it abundently clear that they no longer intend to do so. They are misusing their influence.

Shut 'em down.

As for me, well, I will be informing CBS that as of today, I'll no longer be watching any of their programming, and I'll let their sponsors and my local affiliate know the same thing. If any of you out there are troubled by this whole mess, and even the most ardent Kerry supporter must feel somewhat uncomfortable with the media manipulating the flow of information in an attempt to sway the election, you're welcome to join me. But whether you do or not, I will be comfortable knowing that I am not supporting a network that has decided to tell me what they want me to know, instead of what I want to know.

Attacking the System II: It's Worse than I Thought

As I said below, my hope was that the sickness was confined to the fringe of the Democratic Party.

I just heard John Kerry bragging that he had 10,000 lawyers standing by to make sure every vote is counted.

Somehow, I don't think you can identify the chosen Presidential candidate as a member of the fringe. The madness has gone mainstream.

I have a question for my readers who are Kerry supporters: Is this election so important to you that you are willing to win it by any means necessary, including fraud? Given the widespread reports of voter fraud, including multiple districts with more registered voters than residents (Neat trick, that one, and they're all in swing states. Imagine that.), does unquestioned acceptance of a Kerry win implicitly accept that fraud?

Again hard questions, but these are hard times.

Peace and Serenity

or a reaonable facsimile thereof. Yes, it's time for another aquarium post.

So far, so good. Water chemistry is fine, although salinity is a bit high. BUt the cube looks great. I've added a few critters since the last pictures, a featherduster worm and a polyp rock.

I'll put most of the picks in the extended section, but here's a couple:

The rest of the pictures show the featherduster coming out of his tube. It's pretty cool.

Click to enlarge:

Attack Politics: Attacking the System

I was writing a detailed takedown of the Metro Pulse's endorsement of Kerry when it hit me that it really doesn't matter. Those who are going to vote for Kerry are going to vote for him regardless of what I or anybody else says. The same goes for those who are voting for Bush. There may be some true undecideds out there still, but I don't know any of them.

And this election will not be decided by the undecideds anyway; heck, it's probably not going to be decided by the voters at all. This election will be decided by the courts, and the party with the better lawyers. The contest has shifted; where politicians used to attack each other, we are now treated to the spectacle of politicians attacking the electoral system itself. And that's a damn shame, and quite possibly a tragedy.

While it is primarily the Democrats that are involved in this all out assault, that is only a function of circumstance. While I'd like to believe that the "win at any cost" currents running through the present election are mostly a liberal phenomenon, honesty compels me to admit that the same currents would be flowing on the conservative side if the situations were reversed. In fact, it can be argued that the entire Lewinski/Kenneth Starr mess was an example of the same passions expressed through a different outlet. (Yes, Clinton lied under oath and yes, that's a big deal, and should have been treated that way. But Starr backed into it; If there hadn't been a mentality to "get Clinton" we would never have heard of Monica.) At best, all I can truthfully say is that these attitudes might be confined to the fringe, rather than permeating the mainstream, but even there I have my doubts. But if Republicans started it with an attack on the systems in place for removal of the President, Democrats have targetted another system, more precious and fragile; the electoral process itself.

Already, phalanxes of lawyers are setting up shop in battleground states, ready to contest results unfavorable to Kerry. And you can be sure that Republican lawyers are massing as well, to counter them. Massive "get out the vote" campaigns have resulted in unprecedented numbers of invalid registrations, virtually insuring that the nuumber of people turned away at the polls will be higher than ever before, triggering more legal action. Laws that guard our system against fraud and abuse ensuring a fair count are being ignored, countered or removed completely in the name of fairness. This two pronged attack, stuffing the ballot box with a flood of invalid votes while fighting any attempt to have them discarded attacks the very foundation of our government.

The right to vote is a precious thing, yet it is also fragile because it rests on trust. We believe in our government because we believe in the process that put them in power. We trust that the reults of the election accurately reflects the will of the people. "We the People" is nowhere more evident than on election day. By exercising the franchise, we ensure, insomuch as is possible, that our government remains of, by, and for the citizens of this country.

But what happens if that process breaks down? What happens if we don't believe that the election accurately reflects our will? Take a look at liberal America for that answer. I've watched formerly rational people lose all sense of perspective, vecoming almost caricatures of themselves in their desire for payback. Cruise through DU or some of the other strong left sites, and check the mood.

Bitter, hateful, spite-filled, and angry.

Right or wrong, they feel like they were disenfranchised, and they are willing to go to almost any lengths to make sure it doesn't happen again. In fact, many have gone a step further, and want to ensure that their side wins, regardless of the cost, hence the attacks on our electoral system, the fraudulent registrations, the attacks on GOP campaign headquarters, etc. This election will be a close one, of that, there is little doubt. And, convinced that they were defrauded last time, there are those willing to use fraud and deceit in order to win this one. Thankfully, I was recently reminded that not all Democrats support or condone this kind of activity; many are as worried as I am about this issue. I just wish there were more of them and less of the fire eaters.

So, Nov 2 is coming up soon, and it is sure to be a firestorm of controversy, particularly in the battleground states. Allegations of voter fraud are sure to fly, no matter which candidate comes away with the initial victory. If it's Kerry, it will only be microseconds before challenges and recounts are called for based on the stories of fraud and inelegible voters being registered. Kerry's lawyers will counter with claims that the votes were all legal and should be counted, then go on to make claims of organized disenfranchisement carried out by Republicans on minorities.

So here's my question, and frankly, I don't think there's a good answer to it: If Kerry comes away with a victory based on very slim margins in Ohio, Minnesota, or other battleground states where there are documented instances of election fraud, what would be best for America? Should the Republicans allow a potentially fraudulent election to stand (think JFK and Illinois in 1960), or should they fight for the integrity of the electoral process, with the attendant damage to the electorate and to the electoral process itself?

There's simply no good answer to the question. You either have to accept possibly fraudulent results, or risk weakening the foundation of our government.

Which would you chose?

Heaven's Clocks

From my email:

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible" said the man. "And whose clock is that one?"

St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."

"Where's John Kerry's clock?" asked the man.

"Kerry's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

The Party of Open Minds?

Oliver Willis:

I would vote for a single celled amoeba over George Bush, as long as the amoeba was a Democrat.

I'm not sure John Kerry would be flattered by the comparison, but hey, if he's all you have...

Annan Says the World isn't Safer after Iraq War

I've got news for Koffi.

Making the world a safer place is his job.

President Bush's job is to make America safer. And he has.

Setting the Record Straight

The Kerry campaign must sense that it is in deep trouble, since John Kerry is out campaigning on what can only be characterized as outright lies.

1. President Bush has banned embryonic stem cell(ESC) research. This is absolutely untrue. In fact, this is so wrong it can't even be considered a distortion, but is a bare faced lie.

   Let's set the record straight. On August 10th of 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that for the first time authorized federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but only on 78 existing lines of stem cells. Until he issued that order, there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

   None.

   Not only did he not ban the research, he initiated funding for it. And if researchers aren't satisfied with the pre-existing lines, they are welcome to produce new lines, but with private funding. If ESC are as promising as Kerry/Edwards claim, then surely the big drug companies will be falling all over themselves to realize those promises, and the profits that go along with them.

2. ESC are a sure fire cure and the best avenue for treating a myriad of conditions from Alzheimers to spinal cord injuries.
   Since Kerry/Edwards are lawyers, not doctors, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one and call it a misunderstanding.

   Let's set the record straight. To date there are no successful therapies based on ESC, and the most optimistic researches say we are decades away from any any therapies. In the one clinical trial using ESCs for Parkinsons patients, the results were a worsening of the patients' conditions, including one death.

   ESC adaptibility and flexibility come at a price. They are hard to control, and quite often result in cancers in test animals as they grow out of control. There are other therapies that hold much more promise for the future of Alzheimer treatment and spinal cord repair.

   Ironically, adult stem cell(ASC) therapies do exist, and have a proven track record at helping the body heal itself. Additionally, ASC therapies can be autologous, negating any rejection issues, and neatly sidestepping the entire issue of distroying an embryo.

3. If you elect President Bush, you increase the chance of a draft.
   Well, either Kerry is lying, or he's calling the President a liar. In both of the last two debates, President Bush stated flatly that there would be no draft while he's President.

   Let's set the record straight. There was a bill introduced into the Senate to reinstate the draft. It was co-authored by two Democratic Senators as a stunt. When it came to the floor for a vote, even they didn't vote for it. There are not now, nor have there been any announced plans to reinstate the draft, and in fact, every official associated with the Selective Service System from the President on down has stated that there will be no draft.

   Having settled that, I do want to take the opportunity to once again point out that, as Sen Kerry says, our military is stretched thin right now. Does it bother anyone else that we have to stretch to the limit to take out a third rate military power? Apparently it does bother Sen. Kerry, because he has a plan to ease that by expanding the Army by two more divisions.

   I wonder where he plans to find the bodies to fill those slots...

That Does It!

Whoever called the plays in tonight's game against Ole Miss should be fired tomorrow morning.

Period.

2 possessions, two touchdowns, then the offense pulls into a shell and darn near loses the game. That's not the players' fault; that's coaching. I sat here at home on the couch and predicted 5 plays in a row, including the screen pass that was intercepted for a touchdown. If I can do that, you know darn well that Cutcliffe and his staff can do it.

I don't care whether Sanders or Fulmer made the calls; whoever it is doesn't play to win; they play not to lose, and that'll kill a football team.

SUNDAY MORNING UPDATE: Ok, we won the game after all. NOw, in the light of day, I've had the chance to calm down a bit and reconsider my hasty and intemperate words of last night. And after careful and sober reflection;

SOMEBODY STILL NEEDS TO BE FIRED!

No disrespect to Ole Miss, who played their guts out, but had we played any team in the top 25, we would be 4-2 and wondering what the heck happened to our season. Everyone in the stadium knew that on first down, Riggs would be running off tackle.

Hey Randy or Fulmer, a quick hint for you. If you run the same play on forst down for 2 frakin' quarters, it doesn't matter if you run it out of 57 different formations, you're not going to fool anybody.

Except maybe for Vandy.

The first two series showed that you had the players and the plan to whip Ole Miss. The rest of the game showed you didn't have the heart. A football team feeds on emotion; you coaches durn near starved your team last night.

It's a good thing I waited until I was calmer to write this.

SUNDAY NIGHT UPDATE:

Ok, I'm calmer now. No, really, I am. LAst week, after our thrashing of Georgia, I was disappointed by how the polls reacted, particularly the coaches poll, which bumped us from 17 to 14 while leaving the Bulldogs in the top 10, 6 places above us. That is patently ridiculous, right? Consider a similar situation ion the Big 10, where Wisconsin beat Purdue. Wisconsin jumped 5 places in the poll while Purdue dropped 7.

That's more like it.

So this is more proof of the bias against us at ESPN, right?

Wrong. ESPN and the folks in the coaches poll know our coaching staff, and accounted for it in their rankings. And when we played that horrible game agqinst Ole Miss, we confirmed their judgment. Don't cry about ESPN being biased. Look a little closer to home for the problem.

Debate, Rd 3

I just spent the last several hours in the company of the gracious and lovely Katie Granju, who invited me to her debate watching party. I was a little hesitant about going since I haven't exactly endeared myself to the left side of the political spectrum over the last few weeks, and I knew I would be outnumbered, but in the end I decided that if I was going to watch the debate anyway, I might as well watch it with other passionate politicos, even if they were on the other side.

I arrived to a warm welcome as Katie introduced me to the seven folks who preceded me, and I sat back a bit to just listen and take in the general mood. It was very obvious that I was in pro-Kerry territory, but it was refreshingly different from most internet discussions as none of the folks there were moonbats, either of the barking or the shrieking varieties.

And I was the only wingnut.

It was actually a welcome reminder that unlike the blogosphere, which naturally attracts the most extreme/passionate partisans, there are folks out there who can disagree with each other, often strenuously, without assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is a drooling idiot or a raving lunatic. There were occasional whiffs of a little condescension as the debate went on, as one youthful observer commented that most people didn't want the truth, preferring to hear that everything was going well instead, but that kind of thing was the exception, rather than the rule.

One of the guests was a reporter for one of the local television stations, and I introduced myself to her as "one of those pajama-clad ankle-biters. Unfortunately, she didn't see the humor in the reference, which I guess I should have anticipated since it was probably still a sore spot. But I believe that was my only social gaffe of the evening, and it did give me an opening to let everyone know that I was a conservative.

As for the debate itself, both candidates came in for their share of ribbing, as they dodged and evaded the difficult questions, and worked like mad to score points off of each other. When either candidate came out with an exceptionally bad diversion (trial lawyers are to blame for the lack of flue vaccine? Give me a break!), the groaning was truly bipartisan.

The debate was so engrossing and entertaining that I took a short break at about hour 47 of one of Kerry's responses and chatted with the baby sitter about brands and flavors of hummus. She showed an excellent command of the subject, and recommended an eggplant flavored version that I will have to look into, although she said it was very difficult to find. So it's off to the Fresh Market tomorrow.

As the debate went on, it was very clear that there were major differences in the philosophies of both candidates, a pleasant change from 2000. John Kerry obviously believes that it is the government's job to fix people's problems. George Bush believes that the government's role is to help people fix their own problems. One clear example of this difference in approach was their discussion of outsourcing. John Kerry favors legislation to make outsourcing a less attractive option, a solution which will lead directly to inflationary pressure as the cost of manufacturing and services increase. George Bush's plan is to help retrain workers for new jobs, a solution that works to improve the workforce without introducing legislation that disrupts normal market forces or introducing inflation. This dichotomy dovetails rather neatly with a pre-debate conversation I listened in on, where one individual said, regarding recycling, that if people wouldn’t voluntarily do what’s good for them, then legislation was a viable alternative.

Incidentally, this is why the President addressed the jobs issue in the context of education, a swerve that caused some groaning among the debate watchers. Rather than making work, a function the government has very little to do with, and can accomplish best by staying out of the way of the entrepreneur, Bush’s philosophy is to make better workers. Where government can play a productive role is in making sure that an educated, trainable workforce is available to fill those jobs as they are created.

A couple of things that bothered me about the debate;

1. How can you discuss domestic issues and never talk about the Patriot Act? To me anyway, that piece of legislation is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Bush Administration simply because of the power it gives the government, and the liberties it takes with our liberties. I would have liked to hear a discussion about it, especially since the only defense the administration has advanced regarding potential abuses of the sweeping powers contained in the Act is "Trust us. We wouldn't do that."

   Trust me; if they have the power, sooner or later, they will use it, then abuse it.
   

2. In a related question, did anyone else note Sen. Kerry saying that he'd like to use the Reserves and National Guard in Homeland Defense? I mentioned this, and one watcher immediately answered, "They're the militia; that's the militia's job, to guard the Homeland." The problem is that Homeland defense goes much further than that.

   With the Homeland Defense Department and the Patriot Act, these Guardsmen and Reserves could quickly come to constitute the worst parts of a national police force and domestic spy agency combined.

   And that, friends and neighbors, is a bad thing indeed.

Now, before you start showering me with tin foil top hats, I'm not suggesting an Illuminati-like conspiracy where Bush and Kerry (who, cue the ominous music, are both members of the same secret society) are actually working together to put all the elements in place for a tyrannical takeover of our government. What I am suggesting is that through the well intentioned efforts of both men, the pieces are being put into position, and I'm not going to be the only one who notices.

After the debate, I had an interesting conversation with one of the folks there that I thought shed an interesting light on the difficulties inherent in the liberal philosophy, albeit completely inadvertently. This man had tried to help his brother-in-law out of what he presumed was a tight financial spot by cutting his lawn for him. Sure, it only saved $50 bucks or so, but sometimes that's all we need to get through one of those squeezes we all seem to go through from time to time.

The problem was he soon saw his brother-in-law driving around in a brand new minivan. He was understandably irritated at this, since he was working for free to try and help out, and here the brother-in-law was going out and buying a new car. What I found interesting in the story is it points out a nearly universal flaw in the human character, one that makes the liberal philosophy tenuous at best.

When we are given the things we need, we come to expect that it will always be that way, and then progress on to the idea that we are entitled to these things by right. Instead of seeing them as a temporary gift to help out, we come to see them as permanent, and take that help for granted. I'll even take it a step further and suggest that charity can be corrosive to the human spirit. Give a man a handout, and you start to create a dependency. My problem with liberalism is not just that it is very expensive, but that, as currently practiced, it creates a cycle of dependency that is very difficult to break.

As I listened to the folks talking about the debate last night, it struck me how they all felt like they had the right to expect certain basic needs, and some not so basic ones, to be met by the government. One was concerned about the increase in tuition. Another, the cost of healthcare. Both took it as axiomatic that it was a function of the government to supply those things cheaply. Somehow, we’ve lost perspective. These things are not rights; they are the privileges of living in a wealthy society.

Unfortunately, it appears that I’ve already lost this argument, since even the Republican Party has bought into the notion that the government must insure that each citizen has his basic needs met, rather than insuring that each citizen is capable of meeting his own needs. The battle now consists of trying to lessen the deleterious effects of entitlements by requiring some sort of payment, whether in dollars or service. If a man feels he’s done something to earn what he’s given, it goes a long way towards maintaining his pride, enabling him to strive towards self sufficiency. If he puts back into the system more than he takes out, even if it’s at a much later date, then the system will thrive. It’s when people routinely take more than they give that we have a problem.

As we were leaving, Katie asked who we thought won the debate. As I said after the last one, I don’t think that’s the point. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a competition to see who crafts the better soundbite, or scores the most points off the other. It should be a forum for each candidate to express his plan for the next four years, and convince the electorate to vote for them. I think this debate worked well in that regard, as we heard several clear differences between the candidates, who did make several clear stands tonight. But if I have to pick someone for the best performance during the debate, my vote goes to the babysitter. She had a much better command of her material than did the President, and was more engaging than Sen. Kerry in her presentation.

My New Hobby

This is a 12 gallon NanoCube, an all in one aquarium. We've got a freshwater tank, with 6 African Cichlids, and two of the kids have betta's in tanks, but I decided I wanted to try something different, a Nano reef. (For those non tech geeks, "nano" in scientific notation means 10e-9. (Man, I wish I had one of those 1972 typewriters that did superscripts. Those were the days! I'm sure there's a text formatting code for superscripts, but I don't know it. 10^-9 Found it.) Used here, it just means very small.) The stuff you see in the aquarium is called live rock. It's got lots of critters like tiny shrimps and a few small snails and god only knows what all else growing in it. It makes a great base for corals and other invertebrates, and acts as a natural sort of filter, keeping the aquarium water clean.

Right now, I jus finished cycling the tank (allowing the water chemistry to stabilize due to the living, dying, and scavaging of said critters and other micro-organisms) and added a few snails and a couple of hermit crabs to start eating the algae. Once the water stabilizes again, I'm going to add a coral or two, or possible some feather duster worms if I can find some.

A Nuisance?

No.
I'm a nuisance. Just ask my ex-wife.
Fleas are a nuisance.
Mosquitos are a nuisance.
Those guys who slide flyers underneath your windshield wiper blade while you're shopping for groceries are nuisances.
The loud-talking cell phone guy at the next table is a nuisance.
The beautiful woman who won't go out with me is a nui...probably has a very good head on her shoulders.

A guy who blows up kids to make a political point qualifies as something other than a nuisance.

My god, is Kerry trying to throw this election or what? He gets a bit of a bounce from the debates and then comes out with this?

He wants to go back to a time when terrorism was just a nuisance. Just when was that, exactly? I really want to know, when was terrorism just a nuisance? I guess I could understand it if he said he wanted to reduce terrorism to a nuisance, but he said he wanted to go "back" to such a time. What time could he have meant, I wonder?

Was it when those sailors were blown up on the USS Cole? Was that a nuisance? How about the marines in the Khobar towers? Were their murders just a nuisance? Maybe Kerry was tlaking about 1993, when the terrorists tried to take out the WTC the first time, and barely failed. I guess since they parked in the wrong spot, they were just a nuisance. How about the flight over Lockerbee Scotland? Was the murder of all those people just as nuisance?

I wasn't planning another political post, but Jeebus! How damned arrogant can one man be?

And I'm sorry, but I don't think I can ever look at terrorism like prostitution or gambling. I mean, maybe I'm not nuanced enough, but somehow, I think there's a clear difference between some shmoe paying for sex and some Islamofascist blowing up a school bus for Allah.

Call me crazy.

By the way, how well can this play for Kerry internationally? After all, his basic point is that terrorism is only a real problem if they're hitting us on our soil. Isn't that in essense a big "Screw You" to the rest of the world? Kinda makes it tough to build alliances, wouldn't you think? You know, for a guy who's claiming he should be president because he can build true coalitions, he sure is ticking a lot of folks off.

Friday Night Lights

Short Version: Every football coach, assistant coach, and football parent should see this movie.

Friday Night Lights is a football movie that takes the spotlight off the gridiron action and shines it on a culture that makes heroes out of 17 year old kids playing a game on Friday night. It asks the question "How do you deal with knowing that your life has peaked at 17"

The answer is "Not very well" for most residents of Odessa, Texas, the town that provides the setting for this movie. As one character tells members of the current team "Enjoy this while it lasts, boys, because after it's over, all that's left is babies and memories."

A bleak picture indeed.

The movie, which is based on the book by H.G. Bissinger, follows the Permian High School team through their 1988 season. In the beginning of the movie, Coach Gaines, played brilliantly by Billy Bob Thornton, sets the tone.

"We're in the business of defending this town..."

He's completely serious; there's no sense of hype or exaggeration, because it is the simple truth. As seriously as we take football here in east Tn, we're casual fans in comparison to the folks of Odessa. When UT struggled in the 70's, Bill Battle came home to find a moving van in his yard. After Permian loses a game, Coach Gaines comes home to find "For Sale" signs in his yard from every agency in town, and you get the distinct impression that the signs weren't put there by hooligans.

What really impressed me about this movie is that, even in the midst of all the football hysteria in the town, and the graphic depiction of its effect on the lives of the kids who play the game, I still got caught up in the football. Somehow, directer Peter Berg and writer David Aaron Cohen manage to capture the spirit of the game in a way that movies very rarely do. Despite all the bad things happening off the field, injuries, sick mothers, and abusive fathers, once these boys step onto the field, they become the heroes the town needs them to be.

But there's a price to pay. Lucas Black plays quarterback Mike Winchell, a very quiet kid who rarely looks anyone in the eye, and almost never smiles. He's an intensely private kid, forced into the spotlight by a key injury to another player. Garrett Hedlund plays Don Billingsly, a fullback whose father won a State Championship and demands nothing less from his son. The father, well played by country singer Tim McGraw could easily become a caricature, but McGraw invests him with just enough humanity that we recognize him, possibly a little more closely than we're comfortable admitting. And Derek Luke plays Boobie Miles, star running back, who's so certain he's going to the NFL, he doesn't bother with school work.

It's Billy Bob Thornton, though, who makes this movie work. He plays Gaines as a very intense, controlled man who rarely tells us what he's thinking, instead showing us through his body language and facial expressions. He says almost nothing in a scene where an injured player wants to come back and play, but you can see the hope, doubt, and ultimately, an almost fatalistic resignation in his eyes as he realizes he has to let the kid play. I thought Kurt Russell's portrayal of USA hockey coach Herb Brooks was about as good as you could get, but Thornton really raises the bar here.

One final word: the movie is filmed in a documentary style, lots of quick cuts and shaky camera work. It reminded me of the opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. If you're susceptible to motion sickness, you might want to sit in the back of the theater.

Smokey Ain't Nuthin' but a Road Dog!

Yessir! Smokey showed Ugga what a real dog is all about. Ugga thought whoopin' up on an over sized pussy cat made him the big dog in the east; he forgot that Smokey has made a habit of going into other folk's houses and making a mess of all their plans. Like the Hurricanes last year and the Gators 3 years ago, the Georgia Dawgs underestimated the Vols and paid for it with the end of their home win streak.

Sorry about that boys.

What a game!

I was at a Little League football game taking pictures, and listening to the Vols on the radio. I announced much of the last 4 possessions as a crowd gathered around, hanging on my report of each play. Since I do the play by play for the teams during home games, it was pretty much same old same old for me, except I couldn't see the game and had to rely on Bob Kesling.

For about the last 10 minutes of the game, hearing down and distance along with time remaining in the game was critical and Bob would always leave at least one of these bits of info out, leaving us all hanging. Maybe he was trying to build suspense, but dog gone, how much more suspenseful can a game get? All the way down to the last play on the last second of the game? What more can you ask for?

This team reminds me a lot of the 98 team. There aren't any big stars, but they play as a team. Kelly Washington and Casey Clausen were corrosive to the heart off the team over the last few years; not that they're both gone, the Vols are playing with some heart.

Of course, they're very young, and I don't know if they have the maturity to maintain their intensity after a big road in like that, but no matter what happens for the rest of this season, I like this team.

Debate Rd 2

I listened to this one on the radio as I was driving home. (Thanks XM!) Without being able to see the images, I had to concentrate on the sounds of their voices. You really ought to try it sometimes; it's amazing what you can hear when you aren't looking.

The President's voice was a little raspy, and filled with a barely restrained emotion. I thought it might be nerves, or desperation at first, but as the debate went on, it became clear that it was passion. He clearly believes what he was saying up there tonight; they aren't just talking points. Mr. Kerry's voice, on the other hand, was flat and controlled with the standard cadences of the practiced lecturer. Polished and professional, but lacking any emotional fire.

In both men, it was pretty easy to hear when they were spouting rehearsed answers, and when they went off the cuff. Bush's canned answers sounded canned, and he scored his best points whne he abandoned them and spoke from the heart. Kerry rarely did so, meaning wither he was more prepared, or less willing to take a chance.

On substance, both men landed some good shots. I thought Kerry's best was when he accused Bush of choosing a tax cut for the rich over a better Homeland defense. While that comparison is demonstrably false, it does make an easy image for the voter to grasp, making it essential that Bush spend time countering it, which he did fairly effectively tonight.

Bush's best shots were when he countered the question about our overseas popularity by turning the question around, asking is it more important to be popular, or to do what's right. Again, a simple, easy to grasp response that should resonate with the voters, and one that's harder to attack. He was also effective in pointing out how the conduct of this campaign is going to make it difficult to impossible for Kerry to build the coalition he keeps promising. He repeatedly pointed out the inconsistency of asking our allies to join us in the "Wrong war at the wrong time." Kerry's response was disjointed, and ineffective, particularly in light of the recent announcements that even if Kerry wins, France and Germany will not send in troops, and the release of documentation showing france and Russia's involvement with Hussein's bribery, and the abuse of oil for food money.

I'm not going to pick a winner, because this wasn't a format where one man wins. It was a good one for pulling out differences between the candidates, and since I'm obviously going to agree more with the President, I would assume he won, just as a Kerry supporter would assume he won. However, President Bush showed not only better debate skills than the first debate, but a greater command of the facts, and was able to connect with the audience more effectively than Kerry. I think he may have helped himself more than Kerry did, but only because he was deep in a hole after the first debate.

The Slippery Slope in Action

A while back, I explored the issues involving government intervention in parents' rights to determine proper medical care for their children. We started off debating the case of Jessica Crank, who died from a massive tumor. The tumor could have been removed, but her mother refused the surgery, based on religious grounds. There was a major flap over this, and most folks sided against the mother, and wanted her prosecuted.

Then came a case in Michigan, where a girls parent's opted for alternative medicine over traditional surgery because the doctors told them that there were serious risks and a very good chance their daughter wouldn't survive the surgery, or would have very severe complications. The hospital sued to force the parents to allow the surgery. Once again, I spoke against this invasion of parental rights, and warned that we were progressing in a very dangerous direction. I was told I was too "black and white" and that there were "shades of gray" that most reasonable people would recognize.

The issue just got a lot blacker.

In England, the courts have ruled that doctors can allow a baby to die, despite the objections of the child's parents.

Doctors have been permission not to resuscitate baby Charlotte Wyatt the next time her condition seriously deteriorates.

A high court judge has ruled in favour of doctors at Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust who wanted the power to refuse life-saving treatment to 11-month-old Charlotte.

Her parents, who have decided not to appeal against the ruling, had wanted the doctors to resuscitate their daughter in the hope a miracle that would allow to her to grow and eventually be able to leave the hospital.

The judge, Mr Justice Hedley, said the case revolved around when Charlotte should be allowed to die rather than if she should. He said she should have a pain-free death in the arms of those who love her, and not be kept alive artificially.

Doctors will now resuscitate Charlotte long enough to ensure her parents, Debbie and Darren Wyatt, can be with her as she dies.

See how the bar has moved? Before, it was about not allowing parents to refuse treatment for their children, then about not allowing parents to choose which treatment is most appropriate for their child. Now, it's about not refusing treatment of any kind despite the parents wishes.

What is even worse is that England has government run socialized medicine; in essence, the government, not the parents is determining whether a child's quality of life is worth preserving.

That scares the hell out of me, and is probably the best argument to be made against socialized medecine. Unless you want a gov't functionary to determine whether your baby lives or dies.

Not so damn gray anymore, is it?

It gets worse. The doctors don't want to ventilate her because of the additional pain and suffering, yet they agree to ventilate her until her parents can get to the hospital to say goodbye. Why do I feel like Monty Python wrote this particular bit? We won't hurt her to keep her alive, but we will do it to let her die with her parents.

What the hell?

Finally, there's this from Mary Riddell, published prior to the decision:

Last month's Panorama programme, based on a tracking study, showed disturbing outcomes for babies born before 26 weeks. Of the 1,200 infants delivered alive in the UK and Ireland between March and December 1995, 314 survived to go home. Of those, 40 per cent had moderate to severe problems with cognitive development at six years of age.

That leaves out of account the 60 per cent of survivors who are effectively perfect, and the parents who would have made no other choice, however disabled their child. But it also crushes the myth of marvels. Modern medicine can keep babies alive at increasingly young ages, but it cannot guarantee their health. This imbalance has been glossed over for too long by a society primed to think that death is always the worst result.

I'm assuming she meant that of 1200 preemies, 314 made it out of the hospital, with 40% showing moderate to severe cognitive disabilities. Her point seems to be that since medicine cannot guarantee a favorable outcome, we should be more accepting of the idea that maybe they shouldn't really try so hard all the time. I'm sure the parents of the 60% would disagree, as would many of the 40%.

Nobody has more invested in the survival of their child than the parents; nobody cares more about the best interests of that child than the parents. For the state to step in and say, "No, your child must die" is simply wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

OK, now that this step on the slippery slope has been taken, what will be the next one? It's fairly easy to predict, actually. If quality of life is the arbiter of survival for infants, there's nothing to say that it can't do the same for cognitively disable adults. I'm guessing that the next fight will be similar to the Schiavo case, except with the sides reversed. The family will be fighting to keep the victim alive, but the doctors, or just as likely, the insurance company, will sue to remove a feeding tube, or stop a ventilator.

Anyone want to bet what the verdict would be?

Message to a Friend

Point taken

Did I Say That?

Whew! Bubba is a bit cranky this morning.
Warning: Link may not work. Bubba has installed a redirect. If it sends you to Free Republic, this is the correct addy for the link: http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2004_10.php#3556"

He says that not only are Democrats obviously responsible for the GOP headquarters shooting, but also suggests that specifically SKB is somehow responsible

Actually, no. I didn't say that Democrats are obviously responsible, nor did I say that Bubba was responsible. I specifically stated that the guy who pulled the trigger is responsible. I also specifically stated that it was ridiculous to claim that Bubba's page set this guy off. Bubba and his page were used as a local example of the passion that is running through the left wing of the Demoratic Party, and its unintended consequences.

Still, I hope Bubba takes it seriously; he needs to.

Just as you can link pro life propaganda calling abortion providers murderers to clinic bombings and shootings, so too can you link calling the President a coward, thief, Hitler, and mass murderer, and calling all conservatives evil manipulative bastards or clueless dupes to increasing violence against conservatives. The Knoxville shooting did not take place in a vacuum; there have been similar attacks nationally, some of which appear to be centrally co-ordinated.

Now, for those who feel I stepped over a line, maybe you're right. Maybe I should have addressed my concerns to Bubba in an email. But when folks start shooting at campaign headquarters, in my opinion that line has already been crossed. The overblown rhetoric (BusHitler, We Have to Take Our Country Back, Bush Lied, People Died, pResident, Commander in Thief, Selected, Not Elected, etc) used to be amusing, but when the shooting starts, it became serious. Or do you think we should wait until somebody starts shooting into occupied buildings to react? (Wait, they already did start.)I'm suggesting that words carry consequences, that there are people who take this stuff very seriously, and that those people will act accordingly.

We've already accepted the link between speech and action in our hate crimes legislation; all I did was apply the same link to political speech.

Look, I'm as deeply political as Bubba. I have very definite opinions on most issues, and will articulate them at exhaustive length at the drop of a hat. The difference is that I accord those on the other side respect. I don't believe all liberals are evil, dupes, ignorant, or stupid. As I noted yesterday, there are many liberal ideals I believe in. What I object to is what I see coming from some on the other side; the deliberate use of distortion, deception, and emotional jiu-jitsu to try and win, disregarding the inevitable cost to the process itself.

How much lower can we drag our political process? Heck, I'll even spot you the argument that Republicans started it with Nixon and Watergate. But where does it end? Do we keep sliding lower or do we finally come to our senses and stop it? Is there any great difference between Sumner and Brooks brawling on the Senate floor and what we routinely see today (VP telling a Senator to F**K off)? Politics has become nothing more than a game of character assassination. Do we want to walk that road again?

Now, I fully expect that there will be those who accuse me of hypocrisy, and want to air old gripes about who did what first, but will that get us anywhere except mired in another Civil War?

Peggy believes I owe Bubba an apology. I respectfully disagree. If I had said that Bubba was responsible for inciting violence, as he claims I did, then yes, I would owe him a deep and public apology.

But I didn't say that.

As I said, it's possible that what I wrote may have been better addressed in an email, but I felt the message was too important to handle that way, since it wasn't about Bubba specifically, but a larger group represented by him and his commentors.

I also could have written virtually the same piece without mentioning Bubba at all, but that would have been wrong for two reasons. First, without mentioning a specific site, I would be open to either charges of claiming all liberals were at fault, or that I was just making things up.

Second, contrary to what he believes, I had a great deal of respect for Bubba. I know that the man is not the blogger; SKB is a persona he uses on his site to stir things up. My fear, though, is that things are too stirred up already, and recent events are confirming that fear. We need reasoned, passionate debate right now, not rabble rousing propaganda. I hate to see Bubba contributing to a potentially catastrophic atmosphere.

That sounds patronizing I know, but I don't know how else to say it.

I'll add this much. There are those on the right who are just as exercized as the moron who shot at the GOP headquarters; while I haven't heard of any shootings, I've had a bellyful of hearing about rude behavior, insults, and physical assaults coming from jerks from the fringe right. While I can't stop that behavior, I can apologize for it, and do my best not to contribute to it by cranking out inflammatory propaganda.

Peggy, this is the best I can do; it's not an apology, but I hope it suffices as an explanation.

Updating the Drive By

You know, I was only kidding when I suggested below that SKB and Co would blame the drive by on republicans.

Turns out I underestimated the paranoia quotient over there.

The question is, who would do such a thing? If you think about it, even the stupidest, most unhinged Democrat would have nothing to gain and a lot to loose by something this retarded. Which leaves only one logical conclusion. You figure it out.

Sad doesn't begin to describe it. It's almost painful, like watching a good friend drink too much and make an absolute ass of himself at the company party.

Creating a Climate of Fear and Intimidation

Bubba and his commentors silence dissent through profanity and verbal abuse. Apparently other liberals take more direct action.

An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning.

The headquarters are located at 4618 Kingston Pike, next to Noveau Classics and in the same shopping plaza as Long's Drugstore.

According to Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am.

Now I am absolutely convinced that Bubba and his crowd will deplore this incident, unless they get sidetracked by blaming it on a K. Rove op to discredit dems. It stands to reason, first because the shooting was wrong, but also because it makes them all look bad. I'm reasonably certain that they wouldn't want somebody going out and shooting up Republican Headquarters, but to be perfectly honest, they and others like them contributed indirectly to the shooting. Something like this was inevitable, given the hyperemotionalism rampant in the left wing of the Democratic Party. It's analogous to the link between pro-life zealots and abortion clinic bombers. Most pro-lifers deplore the bombings, but the rhetoric of the zealots is so emotionally charged that it leads directly to other zealots taking direct action.

Don't get me wrong; the idiot who took a couple of pot shots at the building is the one responsible for his actions, but, just as the left wants to hold the rabidly pro-life orgs responsible for Eric Rudolph, those who engage in overheated anti GOP rhetoric should hold themselves responsible when some fanatic acts.

Am I saying that the guy who did this read Bubba's blog and went out on a rampage? Obviously not; that would be ridiculous. But something set him off, and it was very likely something similar to the hateful tripe Bubba is pushing.

A Rich Hailey Primer

OK, according to Bubba and his buds, I'm a deeply conservative right wingnut and troll, I guess mainly because I don't support John Kerry, and I object when they use lies and deception to attack President Bush.

If that makes me a wingnut, then I guess there's a lot of us out there.

Then again, as I catalog my personal beliefs, I don't think many wingnuts are going to welcome me to their meetings. (Do they have meeting?)

For example:

I support the right of 2,3, or 12 consenting adults to form whatever type of marriage suits them, as long as they take on the responsibilities as well as the rights, and as long as the state does not mandate that churches recognize these marriages.

I think drugs should be legal. If alcohol and tobacco are legal, then there's absolutely no reason why pot, coke and heroin shouldn't be. The one provision is that addiction should not be an excuse for criminal activity, nor should the state have the obligation to protect users from the consequences of abuse.

I think all the blue laws in general should be abolished. What 2,3, or 12 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of the government's business. There should be no legal drinking age, but the consequences of abuse should severe. Regulations should be imposed to make sure that children are not endangered; beyond that, government has no legitimate interest.

I believe in racial equality, but disagree with Affirmative Action, or any system that takes any notice of racial or ethnic background. You don't erase prejudice by embracing it.

I believe in a limited role for government, strictly circumscribed by the boundries set in the Constitution. To that end, I support limited taxation, in the form of a consumption tax, not an income tax. Tax policy should not be a social engineering tool, ie exemptions for home owners or parents. If the general tax rate is so high that parents can't afford to pay, then it's too damn high to begin with.

I believe we need a strong, capable military, one that can react to and defeat diffuse threats. This will require a painful transformation of our armed forces, since we've spent 200 years building a force effective against concentrated threats, but it must be done, or we'll have the most expensive, useless luxury in the owrld, an ineffective military.

I believe the environment is very important, but that most envioronmentalist groups operate on an extremist agenda that is not scientifically or ethically sound. For example, I've heard lefties say that the hurricanes this year in Florida are a sign that the climate is changing and that we have to do something about it. As any climatologist will tell you, we've been building towards a natural peak in the hurricane cycle for the last several years, and the role of global warming in that peak is negligible at best.

I believe in reason over emotion, in facts over feelings. Don't tell me that we have to DO something. Tell me what we have to do and why, and how it will work. Show that you've achieved some success before. Welfare was a complete failure, trapping people in a cycle of dependency. At the same time, private charities turned lives around with far less resources.

I believe in honesty over deception. If you have to lie to win, you shouldn't win the argument.

I do not support government support for faith based charities, despite their record of effectiveness. Not on establishment grounds, but on free expression. Any time government puts money into an organization, it has a de facto control over that organization. This cannot be allowed.

I believe strongly in personal responsibility. Charity is corrosive to the human spirit; we need to earn what we get. By requiring those who need assistance to pay for it later, whether in cash or services, we save something just as important as their bodies; their spirits. It's true that you can't get something for nothing; a free handout will eventually cost you your pride.

I believe that the United States has a duty to lead the world. If we've learned one thing throughout history, it's that collective goverments are always failures. That simple fact dooms the UN. Corruption and personal agendas always render collective governments weak and ineffective. So, it's not a question of whether or not their should be a global superpower, but who will it be? If the US renounces the role, I will guarantee that China will not miss a beat, but will step in immediately. Do we want a planet dominated by freedom and democracy, or a totalitarian dictatorship? Make no mistake, that's the decision we face over the next few decades. Either America leads, or China does.

I believe the second amendment applies to individuals, and gives me the right to purchase and carry a weapon. I believe that arms refers to what we call small arms, ie rifles, shotguns, andguns, which eliminates all the nonsense about nuclear missiles, etc.

Now, I don't know what all the above makes me, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure that extreme conservative is off the list.

As for who I'm voting for, there's simply no choice. AS much as I dislike the Patriot Act and other aspects of the Bush Administration, Kerry is worse on every front. And so, my vote will be cast for George W. Bush.

Big surprise there, I know!*grin*

Maybe They Need a New Tailor

Yesterday, Bubba admitted that liberals will "tailor" their message to get the appropriate response.

Yesterday, Nightline showed a clip of Edwards saying this:

I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.

See, this is the problem with trying to tailor a message. You no longer have complete control over how far that message spreads. I'm sure Edwards was talking to party faithful, trying to rally them since the campaign appears to be sinking rapidly, and this is the kind of over the top comment that would be sure to get a cheer from the crowd. But it won't play in Peoria.

All this will do is alienate moderates and undecideds, as well as fire up the Bush base.

Just for Fun

OK, I'm sure most of you have noticed the button to the left chronicling the current electoral vote count as tabulated by Electoral-vote.com I don't know how acurate his projections are, how he chooses which polls to report, and I also note that he just shifted methodology, running a 3 day average of polls rather than relying on daily polls.

Regardless, he's done a lot of work gathering all of this data, and it makes for a fun way to keep at least one measure of the campaign. Also on his site, he projects the final electoral count, evaluating existing data and formulating a line using a linear regression. I question that approach, since I doubt voter movement is going to be anything close to linear, so I use a different way to track voter movement. I'm tracking a 3, 5, and 10 day moving average. No weighting inviolved, just a straight average.

As you can see below, the results are interesting. Bush shows more volatility, but tends to sit well above the 270 line. Kerry works on a more even keel, which isn't good for him since he tends to rest below the 270 threshold. Both candidates show a slight upward trend, Bush a bit stronger than Kerry (3 and 5 day moving up for Bush, Kerry 5 day flatlined), indicating that undecideds are deciding, making states easier to call. Based on the data, I'd have to say that this is Bush's race to lose, but it's not in the bag by any stretch. Kerry could be building a strong base that could break out at any time.

Or this could be totally meaningless, but it's kinda fun.

I thought tailoring was for suits!

I found the following comment over at Bubba's:

I think most Democrats are smart enough to tailor their message appropriately for their audience to evoke the desired response

Ain't it cool?

Here's a dem admitting that they will change what they say in order to get a favorable response.

Doesn't that throw a new light on the Kerry campaign? He's not flip/flopping; he's just "tailoring his message."

Of course, this isn't really a new development; I can remember the story about Kerry sending a pro war and anti war campaign letter to the same donor by mistake. In typical Kerry fashion, he didn't disavow either letter; just the error that sent them both to the same guy. It is refreshingly honest though to see a lib come out and admit to this fundamental dishonesty.

What does it say about your platform when you have to dissemble in order to make it palatable to anyone that isn't part of the extreme wing of your party?

Hey. Never Let It Be Said I failed to Pick Up on a Straight Line

Check this link. No further caption is needed.

We Did It Again!

Yep, I've published another book. The Gathering Dark is a collection of four tales of the supernatural by Andrew Ian Dodge of dodgeblogium. If you're a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, then this offering will satisfy your taste for the Great Old One.

This is the second book I've published, for those of you playing along at home. The link is over there on the left. Buy a copy and help a starving artist feed my kids.

I feel so...Republican!