Dark Bilious Vapors

Today's Dr. Science Question of the Day:

Dear Dr. Science,
Q. Why are lawyers paid so much?
--from Mary Pat Hough of Pittsburgh, PA

A. As part of the pact they made with Satan when they were ordained, barristers made sure they were well compensated for the loss of their souls. The transformation to parasite caused each esquire to develop a low self-image. This manifests itself in strange compulsions, such as ambulance chasing, habitual arrogance, and the desire to own an expensive briefcase. Unfortunately, these afflictions seem to resist conventional psychiatry, and lawyers are doomed to the most horrible fate of all, to just be themselves. Of course, I'm not just saying this because of that lawsuit a few years back. Or any of the divorce settlements. I'm not that small.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 02:40 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Here's one for Karen.....

Happy 75^th birthday wishes go out to Ernie "Mr. Cub" Banks, one of the true Greats of the Grand Old Game....

It's a great day for a ball game.... Let's play two!

Len on 01.31.06 @ 02:37 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Yet Another Top Ten List....

this one stolen from Professor Juan Cole (links to sources at the original):

Top Ten things Bush won't Tell you About the State of the Nation

1. US economic growth during the last quarter was an anemic 1.1%, the worst in 3 years.

2. The US inflation rate has jumped to 3.4 percent, the highest rate in 5 years.

3. The number of daily attacks in Iraq rose from 52 in December, 2004 to 77 in December, 2005.

4. A third of US veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 40,000 persons, exhibit at least some signs of mental health disorders. Some 14,000 were treated for drug dependencies, and 11,000 for depression.

5. Increases in American consumer spending come from borrowing.

6. The $320 - $400 bilion deficits run by the Bush administration may push up the cost of mortgages and loans.

7. 58% of Americans think Bush is painting Iraq as rosier than it is. A majority thinks we should never have invaded the country.

8. The US military is at a breaking point.

9. In fact, The US and Iran are tacit allies in Iraq.

10. More money would be needed to finish the US reconstruction projects begun in Iraq.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 11:47 AM CST [link] [ | ]

How do we know Iran has a nuclear program? Well, we looked at the receipts....

[Apologies to a stand-up comic (I think) whose name is escaping my rapidly failing memory. Incipient senility is a bitch sometimes.]

Via Polar Donkey we get a pointer a most excellent guest editorial at Informed Comment: Beeman Guest Editorial: US to Blame for Iranian Nuclear Program Go read it, but the bottom line is: if Iran has a nuclear program, it's because we set it up for them (granted, that was before the ayatollahs took over, back when our puppet was sitting his fat ass on the Peacock Throne). The same way we know that Saddam Hussein once had chemical weapons--because we sold them to him.

Professor Beeman also makes the point that the Iranian nuclear facilities aren't optimal for the production of nuclear weapons, unlike the nuclear facilities of a certain ally of ours:

As the late Tom Stauffer and I wrote in June, 2003, the Bushire (Bushehr) reactor--a "light water" reactor--does not produce weapons grade Plutonium. It produces Pu 240, Pu241 and Pu242. Although these isotopes could theoretically be weaponized, the process is extremely long and complicated, and also untried. To date no nuclear weapon has ever been produced with plutonium produced with the kind of reactor at Bushire. Moreover, the plant would have to be completely shut down to extract the fuel rods, making the process immediately open to detection and inspection. (The plant IS shut down to change the fuel rods, but only every 30-40 months to provide longer and better energy generation)

By contract, the Dimona reactor in Israel--a "heavy water" reactor--is an example of a reactor that is ideal for producing weapons fuel. It produces Pu239 and the fuel rods can be extracted "on the fly." without any need to shut down the plant or alter its operation. The fuel rods are exchanged every few weeks.

A fascinating read; go check it out.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 11:44 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Funny, I don't remember seeing this, and I live nearby.....

Via Pulp Faction, we get this picture of the sign in front of a local entertainment establishment (picture opens in new window; may not be work-safe).

God, I wish I had the talent.....

Len on 01.31.06 @ 11:30 AM CST [link] [ | ]

And I'm counting my blessings....

Meanwhile, Serrabee gives me an insight into the fact that the grass may not be greener on the other side of the fence: 10 things every single girl must own.

After reading that, I've only got two reactions: 1) I'm more grateful than ever that I was born male, and 2) I'm thankful that I've retired from the dating scene (no, I'm not taken; I've just come to the realization that finding and keeping female companionship at my age isn't worth the hassle).

Len on 01.31.06 @ 11:24 AM CST [link] [ | ]

What can I do to take back that picture?

Memphis blogger Jen points us to a photo allegedly establishing that neo-Memphian David Gest (the ex-Mr. Liza Minelli) and rapper Da Brat are an item. She is skeptical:

I've seen the pictures of David Gest allegedly "making out" with "Da Brat" and I'd just like to say, what a load of malarkey. Let me be the first to call BS. I've waited on the guy several times and let's just say she doesn't seem like his type. If you get what I'm sayin.'.

I suspect some people are in need of a hobby.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 11:18 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Interesting.....

Via William Edmondson at the Leiter Report we get this pointer to an LA Times article on rising promotion rates in the Army:

Struggling to retain enough officers to lead its forces, the Army has begun to dramatically increase the number of soldiers it promotes, raising fears within the service that wartime strains are diluting the quality of the officer corps.

Last year, the Army promoted 97% of all eligible captains to the rank of major, Pentagon data show. That was up from a historical average of 70% to 80%.

Traditionally, the Army has used the step to major as a winnowing point to push lower-performing soldiers out of the military.

The service also promoted 86% of eligible majors to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 2005, up from the historical average of 65% to 75%.

The higher rates of promotion are part of efforts to fill new slots created by an Army reorganization and to compensate for officers who are resigning from the service, many after multiple rotations to Iraq.

The promotion rates "are much higher than they have been in the past because we need more officers than we did before," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman.

The Army has long taken pride in the competitiveness of its promotions, and insists that only officers that meet rigorous standards are elevated through its ranks.

But the recent trends in promotions have stirred concerns that the Army is being forced to lower its standards to provide leaders for combat units that will be deployed overseas.

Something immediately jumps to my mind here. The article doesn't point out whether the population of officers eligible for promotion being discussed here is that of officers in the Regular Army, or all officers including National Guard and Army Reserve officers on active duty to supplement the complement of troops needed for the Iraq occupation.

The distinction may be critical to determining the quality of the Army officer corps in the mid-to-long-term future.

If these figures are for the Regular Army officer corps, this isn't a development that fills me with confidence about the quality of the Army in the future. I don't know if the laws governing armed service officer procurement and personnel management have changed significantly since I was in the Navy, but back when I was serving the leap from O-3 (Army/Air Force/Marine captain; Navy/Coast Guard lieutenant) to O-4 (USA/USAF/USMC major; USN/USCG lieutenant commander) was a critical one. Pursuant to the laws on the books then, once you were promoted to O-4 you were pretty well guaranteed a full 20-year career if you wanted it. It was like achieving tenure at a college or university--once you got to that point, they couldn't force you out (save for severe disciplinary action--dismissal from the service pursuant to the sentence of a court martial, or possibly a massive reduction in force--not likely in the end stages of the Cold War when I was serving). Edmundson notes:

According to the LA Times's high-ranking Pentagon source, "Basically, if you haven't been court-martialed, you're going to be promoted [from captain] to major." Not a trivial incentive to re-enlist if you're among the bottom 20% that traditionally would dead-end at captain.

That's an especially non-trivial incentive if current officer personnel management laws still confer the guarantee of finishing twenty years (and the right to retired pay that entails).

In other words, it seems that the best and the brightest are bailing, while the dregs are hanging on for the job security. Not an enviable position to be in, if you're tasked with maintaining the quality of the officer corps.

If the whole officer pool being discussed here is the total of both Regular and Guard/Reserve officers, it's possible that the situation may be mitigated a bit (one would have to do a detailed analysis of retention and promotion in each component, Regular and Reserve), since at least the substandard Guard/Reserve officers can eventually be returned to civilian life; even if they have "tenure" in the Guard/Reserve they won't be dragging down the quality of the Regular Army officer corps once the present emergency has passed. On the other hand, since the War on Terra™ is, to all intents and purposes, something that has no real end in sight, that may not be much of a consolation.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 08:58 AM CST [link] [ | ]

How'd I miss that?

Following up a passing thought engendered by James Berardinelli's musings on why he doesn't attend the Sundance Film Festival anymore (no permalink, navigate to the entry for January 29, 2006), I notice that Craig Brewer's "love letter to Memphis", Hustle and Flow (a big winner in the Sundance 2005 bidding wars, IIRC) has been released on DVD. How did I miss that? I'd have thought that this DVD release would have made a bigger splash in the Memphis media or the Memphis blogosphere than it did.

I suppose I'd better do my duty and go rent it....

And interestingly enough, in the "did they invent time travel technology, and I missed that too?" department, I was amused by this from Craig Brewer's IMDB filmography:

Writer - filmography
(In Production) (2000s)

1. Step in the Name of Love (2005) (announced)
2. Black Snake Moan (2006) (post-production)
3. Hustle & Flow (2005) (written by)
4. Water's Edge (2003)
5. Resolutions of the Complacent Man (2003)
6. Pressure (2002/I) (screenplay)
7. The Poor and Hungry (2000)

Neat trick to have a film in in the pipeline on January 31, 2006, for a scheduled 2005 release.

:-)

Len on 01.31.06 @ 08:23 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Better late than never....

(then again, who am I to talk? I'm a day late throwing this link myself....)

It so happens that "today's fun packed post" turned into "tomorrow's fun packed post" (for her; it became "yesterday's fun packed post" for me--confused yet?), but as always it's worth reading: Mad Kane targets some personal verse to four filibuster holdouts (audio here).

According to the news reports I heard, it didn't work (apparently there were a lot more than four Democratic holdouts, since the cloture vote passed 72-25 (and there are only 55 Repugnicans in the Senate)), but you can't blame someone for trying.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 08:14 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Gem o'the Day:

I woke up thinking about yesterday’s cloture vote. What’s stuck with me is listening to one Republican after another talk in the Senate about the potential filabuster being ‘partisan’ politics, pandering to ‘extremist groups.’

How does that complaint work exactly? The Republicans voted as a block. Isn’t that ‘partisan’ politics? The Alito Nomination is clearly a response to the Religious Right. Isn’t that pandering to ‘extremist groups’?

Is ’spin’ all there is?
--Mickey (Dr. Abby's Dr. Dad) at 1 Boring Old Man

Len on 01.31.06 @ 07:58 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Coulda fooled me....

Chasing a pointer from James Wolcott to Dennis the Peasant, I came across this, and I'm now afraid that I'm going to be seriously depressed for at least 24 hours:



Keep in mind that it was long ago proven beyond all doubt that Little Green Footballs (no link; I don't link to Pure Evil) is a moral cesspool frequented by the heirs to the Nuremberg defendants.

SOMEWHERE in my life's journey to my present status as an overeducated, underemployed (by some standards, at least, though that's by choice and I'm very happy with my choice, thanks) geek of little consequence (and very little brain, I'm sure some--even of my loyal readership--would argue), I remember being told that Education Is An Unalloyed Good--that it fosters such things as critical thought, that it undercuts such evils as rigid authoritarianism, groupthink, and prejudice (racial or religious).

If that's really true, then how the f*ck can it be that 68% of the slime that read LGF are "very educated"?

Something really doesn't add up here....

Len on 01.31.06 @ 07:51 AM CST [link] [ | ]

I hope I'm not opening myself up to a scathing "bloglashing" from Wolcott....

but it's interesting to catch him mixing up his quiz shows here:

If Condoleeza Rice were a Jeopardy contestant, she'd still be staring at the board with a blank expression and an equally blank mind long after the vowels had been chosen, the puzzle solved, show wrapped, the studio lights dimmed, and Vanna White home doing whatever it is she does to stay shiny and peppy.

I haven't watched an installment of either Jeopardy! (once a favorite of mine, and still in my mind the Platonic Form of the game show) or Wheel of Fortune in a long, long time (in the case of Wheel, add a couple more "long"s there), but I still know the difference between them.

:-)

Len on 01.31.06 @ 07:23 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Congratulations are in order....

to Stan Schwarz's daughter Lucinda, who passed an important coming-of-age milestone by losing her first top front tooth over the weekend. Follow the link for a cute picture of Lucinda. And then continue on to read the preceding post on their family's weekend adventure: An afternoon with the Jumbo Shrimp Circus Academy, which sounds like a perfectly delightful afternoon. And some perfectly delightful pictures to go along with it (such as the picture of Stan and his lovely and multitalented spouse making a nerd fashion statement--that one's the last one on the right there; for some reason Stan seems to be denying direct links to his pics).

Len on 01.31.06 @ 07:11 AM CST [link] [ | ]

A bit late to the party....

Yesterday was A Busy Day at work--an in-early-and-hit-the-ground-running kind of day--so I didn't get my accustomed time before work and during lunch to do my usual blog-and-news reading, and then the first stop on my regular blogreading (The Hardball Times) inspired a a longer, more extensive post than I normally write (thus blowing the evening's blogreading/blogging all to hell), so this is late and you probably know it already. But if not, check out the story which broke in yesterday's WaPo about how FEMA ignored offers (tendered virtually immediately after the landfall of Hurricane Katrina) by the Department of the Interior to provide assistance to the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. Eventually, some Interior Department assets simply acted on their own, without FEMA's asking for the help:

Also offered were rescue crews from the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, teams specially trained for urban search-and-rescue missions using flat-bottom boats.

"Clearly these assets and skills were precisely relevant to the post-Katrina environment," the memo said. Yet, the rescue teams and boats were not considered in the federal government's planning for hurricane disasters, the memo states.

Ultimately, many Fish and Wildlife teams did travel to the Gulf and assisted in the rescues of more than 4,500 people -- but they were "never formally tasked" for that assignment by FEMA, the document states.

Yep, Brownie, you did a heckuva job. You couldn't have been more incompetent if you were trying to be....

Len on 01.31.06 @ 07:01 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Sad news....

According to Air America Radio, we've just heard that Coretta Scott King has died.

Requesciat in Pace.

Len on 01.31.06 @ 06:36 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

George Bush is being criticized for acting like a king as he asserts extraordinary new powers for his office. So it would be clever political theater if this week he delivered his State of the Union address on paper. He could emulate Thomas Jefferson, who in 1801 mailed his speech in, arguing that the ceremony smacked too much of the British monarchy.

Today, Jefferson would weep. Tuesday night, by tradition, the Senate sergeant-at-arms will herald the president's arrival as if Bush were riding in a sedan chair. Then as the president makes his way to the well of the House of Representatives, members of Congress will pat him and moon at him and shake his hand like children trying to win a prize. Many of them will have skipped dinner to position themselves on the aisle so they can be seen touching Bush in prime time. Leaders who command this kind of sucking-up are usually the kind the president singles out as candidates for regime change.
--John Dickerson

Len on 01.31.06 @ 05:13 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Is the concept of intellectual property getting out of hand?

Maybe it's not as over the top as the RIAA's position, suing grandmothers for music piracy (for that matter, even suing deceased grandmothers if this story is to be believed). But over at The Hardball Times Maury Brown is examines the agreement between Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA). Reduced to its essentials, what this agreement does is assert ownership, by players (represented for these purposes by the MLBPA), of the association between player identities and the statistics that those players generate during the season and granting to MLBAM the exclusive license to regulate (via the grant of sublicenses) the use of associated player identities and statistics for the purposes of the creation of online games, online content, and and wireless applications. The target, of course, is fantasy baseball leagues:

On Jan. 19, 2005, MLB Advanced Media and the MLB Players Association announced a historic agreement via press release:

The five-year agreement, valued in excess of $50 million, extends beyond the 
expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement between Major 
League Baseball and the MLBPA. It provides MLBAM the exclusive rights to use, 
and to sublicense to others, Major League Baseball player group rights for 
the development and creation of on-line games, all other online content, 
including fantasy baseball and interactive games, as well as all wireless 
applications including cell-phone enabled games.

The announcement sent shockwaves through the fantasy sports industry.

The reason, of course, being that the entire industry then becomes dependent on MLBAM for its very ability to exist (something which, if sustained, might put a crimp in quite a few fantasy baseball leagues in coming seasons).

But the agreement relates to an even more basic legal question:

Needless to say, not all within the fantasy sport industry agree with the sentiment of the MLBAM and the MLBPA. At its core, this agreement has set off a firestorm of debate:

Who owns player statistics?

Past precedent suggests that there really is no such thing as ownership of player statistics; basically, player statistics are in the nature of historical fact, and therefore can't be "owned" by anyone:

In [the] favor [of a party presently litigating the validity of the MLBPA/MLBAM agreement] is the 2001 case Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal. App. 4th 400 - (file type: PDF), in which former players Al Gionfriddo, Pete Coscarart, Dolph Camilli, and Frankie Crosetti, sued MLB for printing their names and stats in game programs, claiming their rights to publicity were violated prior to 1947. The standard players contract within the Basic Agreement has since been revised to read:

[3.] (c) The Player agrees that his picture may be taken for still 
photographs, motion pictures or television at such times as the Club may 
designate and agrees that all rights in such pictures shall belong to the 
Club and may be used by the Club for publicity purposes in any manner it 
desires.

The court, however, held that the names and statistics of the players were historical facts, and therefore, part of baseball history. MLB was, therefore, allowed to use them. This case may set precedent for the ... case.

What interests me is the phrasing of the agreement, though:

The five-year agreement, valued in excess of $50 million, extends beyond the 
expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement between Major 
League Baseball and the MLBPA. It provides MLBAM the exclusive rights to use, 
and to sublicense to others, Major League Baseball player group rights for 
the development and creation of on-line games, all other online content, 
including fantasy baseball and interactive games, as well as all wireless 
applications including cell-phone enabled games.

[emphasis added --LRC]

Interpreted literally, the emphasized language doesn't just require that fantasy league owners get a license from MLBAM. It would also seem to apply to online statistical sites like Baseball Reference, or perhaps even to online distribution of stand-alone data files like the Lahman database.

The litigation I mentioned before, challenging the MLBAM/MLBPA agreement, is CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (PDF file), and is currently pending before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. It's an action for declaratory judgement in four counts. Count I asks for a declaratory judgement that CBC's business doesn't violate the Lanham Act (in this context, the Lanham Act forbids CBC from making false or misleading declarations or representations of fact which would serve to mislead or confuse CBC's customers that they are affiliated with or sponsored by Major League Baseball). Count II asks for a declaratory judgement that CBC's activities do not infringe any copyrights owned by Major League Baseball. Count III asks for a declaratory judgement that CBC's activities do not infringe any rights of publicity owned or controlled by Major League Baseball. Count IV asks for a declaratory judgement that CBC is not violating any state unfair competition or false advertising laws.

It'll be an interesting case to keep an eye on (Maury says it's scheduled for trial around about the time of the All-Star break). What fascinates me is the setup of the agreement: the agreement between MLBAM and MLBPA in effect asserts a property right in the association between the player's identity (his name, team affiliation and uniform number) and the statistics he generates:

It's not the use of the statistics, in and of themselves, that is at issue, but rather using stats in conjunction with a player's name or player number and team that is at the heart of the intellectual property debate.

In that sense it's a clever way of killing the golden goose: You can use the stats all you want, but stats without the ability to associate them to a player is nothing more than a collection of numbers that serves no purpose in a fantasy league format. For that purpose, the new agreement brokered by the MLBPA and MLBAM requires that a business be licensed to do so—for a fee.

What's ingenious about this agreement is that it's long been recognized that the commercial use of player identities (pictures, player names and uniform numbers) is a property right owned by the player (though, with a few exceptions--right now the one that immediately leaps to mind is Barry Bonds--players, as members of MLBPA grant MLBPA the authority to act as their agents with respect to licensing their likeness, names and uniform numbers for commercial use).

If the practice in the computer and board gaming industries is any sort of precedent, I'm not sanguine about CBC's prospects in getting the declaratory relief they want. If a computer game developer wants to make her computer baseball game more realistic by using team names and logos in the game, she has to get a license from Major League Baseball (I assume that MLBAM is now the entity that acts as MLB's agent in this regard). If not, she can place her computer teams in the same cities as the cities which have major league franchises, but she can't use the official team names or logos. If she wants to make her computer baseball game more realistic by using actual player identities in the game (perhaps using player pictures, labeling the various computer players with actual player names and uniform numbers, and perhaps using the real players' historical statistics to drive the simulation engine), she has to get a license for the players' identities from MLBPA as agent for the players. If not, she can use players' historical statistics in her game, but she can't use real player names nor associate those names with their real statistics.

Given that history, it's not a wild leap of legal fancy to conclude that the player has a property right in his identity, which (illustrated by the practice in the computer gaming field) is associated with his statistics in such a way that the player must issue a license to anyone wishing to exploit that association commercially. If the player owns that property right, then he can legally appoint MLBPA as his agent for managing the licensing of that right (and, as I noted, most players do so appoint MLBPA for that purpose). And MLBPA, it its agreement with MLBAM, has basically issued a license to MLBAM to "manage" the commercial exploitation of the player's property rights by sublicensing them.

Based on the factual allegations of CBC's petition for declaratory relief, it looks to me (barring some legal precedent I'm not aware of) that they're not going to prevail. The facts alleged by CBC in their petition note that prior to the MLBAM/MLBPA agreement they had in fact licensed the right to use of player identities from the MLBPA:

CBC had formerly entered into a licensing agreement with the Major League Baseball Players Association, covering, inter alia, rights to names, nicknames, numbers, likenesses, signatures, pictures, playing records and biographical data.
Paragraph 15, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Advanced Media, L.P., U.S. District Court (E.D.Mo), pending

About the only thing that might save them is an assertion of First Amendment rights--that CBC's use of "real time" player statistics is analogous to (and deserving of the same Constitutional protection as) a newspaper's or news website's publication of player statistics during the championship season.

Somewhat far fetched (after all, the Bill of Rights only applies to government action, and Major League Baseball and its associated entities isn't the government), but the law has seen stranger decisions....

Len on 01.30.06 @ 08:45 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Philosophy geek t-shirts

Via Brian Weatherson, here's a CafePress site selling T-shirts for philosophy geeks. The name of the site is apparently a reference to this paper, by my metaphysics teacher, Ted Sider.

Brock on 01.30.06 @ 06:22 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Kripke profile in NYT

With Karen off on her own blog, I guess I better start doing my fair share of the blogging here.

So, via Brian Leiter, here's an interesting profile of legendary philosopher Saul Kripke in the New York Times. Kripke is described therein as "thought to be the world's greatest living philosopher," which, since the deaths in recent years of W.V. Quine, David Lewis, and Donald Davidson, is probably true.

I only have two quibbles with the article. The first is this quote, regarding Kripke's Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language:

1980 book "Naming and Necessity," based on work he began in high school, is among the most influential philosophy books of the last 50 years, and his book-length interpretation of Wittgenstein, published two years later, is so thoroughgoing that some scholars now refer to a sort of composite figure known as Kripgenstein.

The book is not "thoroughgoing" at all; in fact it's rather short and terse. The appellation "Kripkenstein" for Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein is used because his interpretation is highly controversial among Wittgenstein scholars. But the arguments that Kripke attributes to Wittgenstein are so interesting in and of themselves, that philosophers want to discuss them without getting bogged down in the messy business of Wittgenstein interpretation.

My second quibble is with this quote from Richard Rorty. "Before Kripke, there was a sort of drift in analytic philosophy in the direction of linguistic idealism — the idea that language is not tuned to the world. Saul almost single-handedly changed that."

What is that supposed to mean? Couldn't they find somebody besides Rorty to summarize the influnce of Kripke?



Brock on 01.30.06 @ 06:10 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

Why is the [opposition party] response [to the State of the Union message] doomed to fall short, no matter who gives it? Consider the inherent disadvantages. First, it's a ten-minute rebuttal to an hour-long speech. By the time the opposition leader speaks, the television audience is desperate to go to sleep or change the channel to Sports Center.

Second, the contrast in settings is a killer. The State of the Union highlights all the president's majesty, as he speaks to a packed chamber of members who throng to shake his hand and applaud even his lamest lines. The rest of the year, the Founders' checks and balances are theoretically in effect—but on this night, the president looks down on Congress and the Supreme Court, sitting powerless in the well below. By contrast, the poor sap giving the official response is like a movie without a sound track—no buzz, no applause, no majesty.

With that much to overcome, an opposition party might seriously consider giving the time back, or ask to bank it for use a few days, weeks, or months later. We might try to avoid the contrast altogether: for example, by inviting Jon Stewart to give a 10-minute monologue, or letting Bill Clinton use the time to ask for contributions for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
--Bruce Reed

Len on 01.30.06 @ 07:02 AM CST [link] [ | ]

And speaking of Calvinball....

during some idle Web surfing this morning (in the cozy confines of Cafe Francisco, sipping some of their "Rebel Rouser" blend), I stumbled across several pages (all maintained by the same Calvin fan) of interest to other Calvin and Hobbes fans:

Calvin and Hobbes Items: Few and Far Between (an interesting illustrated listing of some legitimate C&H merchandise--"legitimate" because, as you know, Bill Watterson didn't want to merchandise Calvin and Hobbes.)

Calvin and Hobbes Bootleg Items: The Dark Side (an interesting illustrated listing of some illegitimate C&H merchandise, but not featuring any of the seemingly ubiquitous "Calvin pissing on a [insert logo of whatever you hate]" stickers.)

Calvin and Hobbes fan art (an interesting illustrated listing of various fan interpretations of Calvin and Hobbes in various media.)

Len on 01.29.06 @ 06:18 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Mad Kane has a miscellania post up today...

none of her poetry or filk (yet--she says in this one "Before I get to today's fun packed post", which implies that there'll be more to savor before the day is over), but she does provide some links to some political hilarity at other venues. If you are in need of some fun today, give her a gander.

Len on 01.29.06 @ 01:15 PM CST [link] [ | ]

From the "Too true to be funny" Department:

Shamelessly stolen from The Flypaper Theory

Len on 01.29.06 @ 12:41 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Several bloggers....

have pointed us to this morning's New York Times editorial which puts the smackdown on the bAdministration's specious justifications for their domestic spying operation.

Required reading this morning.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, over at KnoxViews the blogger-formerly-known-as-SKBubba draws our attention to a metaphor that I'm embarassed to say escaped my notice: how the bAdministrations shifting justifications of actions like the Iraq invasion and the domestic spying program show that Bush's favorite participant sport is Calvinball.

Len on 01.29.06 @ 12:13 PM CST [link] [ | ]

If you have a graduate degree in economics from Princeton....

I think we can safely assume you're intelligent. But over at The Leiter Reports, guest-blogger Jessica Wilson tells an amusing story of how her mother (who was the one with the Princeton economics grad degree) put those smarts to practical use:

Speaking of cards, younger readers may not know that just a short while ago women couldn't even get credit. After my mother and father divorced in '77, my mother (paid as poorly as journalists are usually paid, and with custody of 3 children, etc.) was short on cash. She had been using an Amex card for years (and had a perfect credit history, had been working, etc.), but the card was primarily in my dad's name; so she called up Amex and requested her own card. Some time later she got a letter saying, "We're sorry, but we are unable to give you credit at this time". No explanation.

Conveniently enough, my mother was working for PBS as a writer for a show called Economically Speaking. So she called Amex back and said "Hi there. I'm a scriptwriter for PBS and we're interested in doing a story on women and credit; conveniently enough you have just refused me credit. We'd like to bring down a camera crew and interview you about your reasons for doing so". (To be sure, the story wasn't actually on the drawing board; but my mother could have made it the case that it was.) The person at the end of the line said: "Let me get right back to you". One minute later they called to say "Your Amex card is in express mail, you should have it by tomorrow". Sensing a successful strategy, mama-san did the same thing with MC and Visa. In each case, she applied for the card, and was flatly turned down (no reason given). In both cases, she called and suggested that they might like to talk about it on-camera, in reference to a story about women and credit; in both cases, she not only got the card, she got it by overnight mail.

The story continues. A couple of years pass. My mom has moved from PBS to US News and World Report, where every month they brought in a speaker for a roundtable discussion with the reporters and editors. One month they bring in the president of Diner's Club. My mom is the only woman at the table. The president looks at her and says: do you have a Diner's Club card? Mom says no. He says, you really should apply for one -- we need more women with cards. So she says OK, fills in an application, and of course gets rejected. At this point she has had an Amex, MC, and Visa, respectable jobs, and perfect credit, for years. She calls up the prez, tells him what happened, and expresses her opinion that this would make a great article for US News. He says: I'm putting you on hold ... Something has gone wrong". Back in a flash: "There was a horrible mishap. Your card is in overnight mail".

Ah, the power of the press.....

Len on 01.29.06 @ 12:09 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Twenty Years After.....*

A couple of folks that I read every day (Bryan and James Berardinelli (no permalinks yet; navigate to his entry of January 28, 2006)) make mention of the 20^th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in their posts of yesterday. I had to confess mild amusement when Berardinelli wrote this in his "where I was when I heard the news" reminiscence:

I was a freshman in college in early 1986, largely insulated from the outside world as I concentrated on studying and going to classes.

Concentrated on studying and going to classes? Are you at all surprised when I mention that James is an engineer in his day job?

:-)

Frankly, I noted the date but decided not to post because my memory of that day isn't one that will redound to my credit. At the time, I was doing my bit for King and Country as an officer in the U.S. Navy (and in the interest of not further sullying anyone's reputation, I'm not going to say where and with whom I was serving then), and the Executive Officer at my duty station was renowned for his extensive collection of tasteless celebrity death jokes. He took great pride in the fact that before the workday of January 28, 1986 was over he had already managed to find (and tell the rest of us in the office) the first tasteless Challenger explosion joke.

In the interests of according due respect to the Challenger crew, I'm going to exercise unaccustomed discretion, and not repeat that joke here.

* Anyone get the allusion here? It's a bit of an obscure one, I think....

Len on 01.29.06 @ 12:00 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Kwitcher bitchin'

Via Josh Schulz (whom I have been entirely remiss in showing some linky love to recently), we get this gallery of jobs worse than yours. I think that this is my favorite (it almost caused me to blow my coffee out my nose and all over my laptop this morning):

Len on 01.29.06 @ 11:21 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Proof that President Bush is out of his fucking mind....

[Let's leave aside for the moment that this assertion implies the dubious proposition that Dumbya ever had a mind to begin with....]

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall gives us this startling news:

Sometimes the key to good politics (and good policy) is simply to say out loud what your opponents are saying amongst themselves. And that's just the case with these new health care proposals the president is set to unveil in his state of the union.

I'll leave it to the good folks over at our new health care blog to get down into all the details. But the core premise of the policies the president is about to lay out is that Americans are over-insured when it comes to health insurance. Over-insured. Got too much insurance.

These aren't my words. These are the words used by the conservative policy-wonks who came up with the president's proposals. Just hop over to Google and start googling the phrase 'over insured' along with 'health' and 'conservative'. This what they think; and what the president thinks. It's why he's behind these ideas.

So the president thinks the problem is that people have too much health insurance. People are over-insured.

I don't think that's how most Americans see the problem, do you? I'm confident that they don't. Really confident.

But let's let them decide.

Americans are over-insured?

I'm now convinced beyond any doubt that Bush is drinking and using cocaine again. And there is no evidence that anyone can provide that is going to convince me otherwise.

Len on 01.29.06 @ 10:35 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

Listening to the coverage of the victory of the Hamas in the Palestinian elections I beginning to suspect that among those most surprised and least prepared for the results was Hamas.

Fatah has held all of the offices and was in total control since the beginning. Hamas was running its paramilitary operations and social services, but it didn't have a "shadow cabinet", members that mirrored the government offices controlled by Fatah. I don't think Hamas has people ready to take over the government.

I'm getting a definite feeling that Hamas was expecting win enough seats in the legislature to be a respectable minority party and to gain some experience in the government, but had no plans for forming a government.

This may be an example of everyone hating the election results, even the winners.
--Bryan at Why Now?

Len on 01.29.06 @ 10:18 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Gem o'the Day:

Justice Department prosecutors are not expected to try and link President Bush to either the Libby or Abramoff scandals. They realize “the President knows nothing” is a phrase with a lot of credibility with prospective jurors.
--Will Durst, "Daily Dose of Durst", January 27, 2006

Len on 01.28.06 @ 04:42 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Equal opportunity scandal?

This research suggests that it wasn't:

Although Abramoff hasn’t personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for The Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff “directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.”

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

The analysis includes a detailed look at seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients, and a comparison of their giving with that of approximately 170 other tribes. (Abramoff is often said to have had nine tribal clients. But Morris omitted two of the tribes – the Pueblo of Santa Clara, whose donations were virtually nonexistent, and the Tigua Indian Reservation, because it isn’t listed in Federal lobbying files as having a lobbyist and Abramoff worked on contingency. At any rate Santa Clara’s post-Abramoff donations to the GOP were overwhelmingly higher than to Dems, so including them would have added even more to the GOP side of the ledger.)

The analysis shows:

• in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
• five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
• four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
• Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.

Government by the Repugnican Party: the best money can buy.

Len on 01.28.06 @ 04:25 PM CST [link] [ | ]

From the "How do you know President Bush is lying? His lips are moving..." department:

From Josh Marshall yesterday:

Sometimes the symbols of reality obscure reality. Whether there are one or five or a hundred pictures of President Bush and Jack Abramoff is really beside the point. What is the point is this line from President Bush from yesterday's press conference: "You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."

Even discounting for the inherent squishiness of the language, that's just a lie.

Doesn't know him? Please. Like most successful politicians President Bush has a knack for remembering names and faces. On top of that, well ... let's set aside the fact that Abramoff was apparently a frequent attendee at White House staff planning meetings, seeded the administration with a bunch of his former employees, and so forth.

Let's just focus on a few key facts.

For the first three years of Bush's presidency Abramoff was arguably the most wired Republican lobbyist in Washington.

Bush doesn't know him?

Abramoff was a long time associate of one of the president's top political advisors, Grover Norquist and his chief political guru Karl Rove.

Bush never made his acquaintance?

Every Republican power player in Washington knew Jack Abramoff. Many of them knew him very, very well. But President Bush never knew him? Their paths never crossed?

That is simply ridiculous.

What's more, everyone asking the questions knows it's ridiculous. The problem is that absent a 2+2=5 type statement they don't feel comfortable calling the president out as a liar.

But that's what we get from 5 years of the mainstream media's enabling of Bush's lying habit. If they'd called him out early and often (like, maybe, during the 2000 campaign), he'd have learned that he can't get away with that kind of crap. Or even better, he'd never have "won" the election to begin with.

Len on 01.28.06 @ 04:16 PM CST [link] [ | ]

For you poll junkies.....

Survey USA's latest state-by-state presidential approval numbers.

As for the summation, the President's nationwide numbers are:

Weighted average:       41% approve 56% disapprove.
Unweighted average:   43% approve 54% disapprove.

Yep. Looks like all's well in BushLand.

Len on 01.28.06 @ 04:02 PM CST [link] [ | ]

For those of you internet enabled food packaging enthusiasts...

we present for your consideration: The Original Condiment Packet Museum.

My favorites are probably the set of minimalist packets that Heinz uses for their non-ketchup condiments (I highlight Heinz Malt Vinegar here because I like that product (on fish, primarily), but they have a whole series of them):

but the entire site is strangely fascinating.

Len on 01.28.06 @ 02:25 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

And we doff our caps to you, Ben Affleck, for having invented an almost entirely new kind of Hollywood career (though we know you had lots of help). You have proved that if someone acts like a movie star often enough, and with enough sincerity, and is presented as such repeatedly to the public, and does all the things a movie star is meant to do, such as check into rehab, and make a big show of backing prominent politicians (though you don't actually vote yourself; who has the time?), and appear in magazines, and squint, and make the "sexy guy" face, and hook up with another big star in a paparazzi-friendly courtship, then -- dammit -- you can be a movie star. Even though none of your actual movies are big hits. You've almost -- almost -- managed to eliminate the movies from the equation altogether.
--Adam Sternbergh ["The Man From F.U.N.K.L.E.", fametracker.com]

Len on 01.28.06 @ 09:05 AM CST [link] [ | ]

War? What War?

At No Quarter, Larry Johnson calls bullshit on Bush and the War Red Herring:

When President George Bush is feeling political heat generated by questions about illegal domestic spying, secret overseas prisons, or prisoner torture, he seeks refuge in the solemn proclamation, "we are at war." The war excuse, which is usually accompanied by the elaboration that these excesses are necessary to protect the American people, does not hold water. If President Bush was serious about his insistence that we are at war, his Administration would be on a war footing. But, we are not.

If we were serious about this war there would be a supreme commander in charge of tracking down Bin Laden and the remnants of the Al Qaeda network. Instead, the NSC job for coordinating the war on terror has been held by seven different people since the President assumed office. General Wayne Downing, who held the post from October 2001 until September 2002, ultimately resigned in frustration after being repeatedly sand bagged and undercut by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rather than impose order and discipline, President Bush has allowed the coordination function to atrophy.

Today there is no one individual or agency in charge of finding Bin Laden or dismantling Al Qaeda. This fact was highlighted by the recent attempt to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's real number two honcho, with a military strike inside Pakistan. That attack was carried out under the direction of the CIA. US military forces operating in the area were not directly involved. Instead of a single, focused effort to destroy Al Qaeda, the CIA and the Department of Defense are pursuing separate tracks. A case can be made for having either organization in charge. I have no dog in that fight, notwithstanding my previous employment with the CIA. President Bush, despite his tough war talk, is sadly disengaged and has been unwilling to organize his Administration to win the war.

...

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we cannot fight and win a war against an ideology or theology relying primarily on military tactics and resources.. There is no doubt that Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists share a vision of creating a new world where people will be governed by the laws of God as contained in the Quran. They are pursuing a religious crusade. Fortunately, the vast majority of muslims, both Shia and Sunni, have not embraced this vision. At least not yet.

An exclusive military response would make sense if the Islamic extremists congregated in mass formations and drilled at fixed installations. They do not. which ensures that a narrow military strategy is doomed to failure. The Islamic terrorists intermingle in civilian populations. They do not wear uniforms and are not easily identified. We may have killed some senior Al Qaeda personnel in Pakistan earlier this month, but we also killed some women and children.

This much is certain, when the United States uses military forces and kills innocent civilians (we excuse it with the euphemism, "collateral damage") Al Qaeda's public support increases. Similarly, when Al Qaeda operatives kill muslims in a prominent attack, such as the hotel bombings in Jordan last year, their popularity wanes. Recent polls in Jordan show that support for Al Qaeda has slipped from almost 80% to around 20%. There is a lesson here for us. In the long run we are better off if we win the hearts and minds of people rather than alienating civilian populations and inflaming grieving relatives.

The road to a more realistic policy starts with language. If President Bush insists on calling the effort to quash Al Qaeda a war then his actions and policies should reflect this fact. However, to call it a war while treating it as a political prop does nothing to rally the public nor isolate the Islamists. It simply creates cyncism that eats away at the body politic.

Len on 01.27.06 @ 06:45 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

At my Tennessee high school in the mid-1970s, the head football coach taught "Earth Science," which was a kind of physics without math for the slower kids. One day, several students confirmed, he declared without irony (an alien concept to him) that light travels faster downhill.
--A Slate "Chatterbox" reader, on his most memorable coach

Len on 01.27.06 @ 05:56 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Well, if you have to be batshit crazy....

If you've hung around here a while, you may have run into a mention of (or maybe even seen a comment by) reader/occasional commenter Gooseneck.

I've had my suspicions that Goose is certifiably batshit crazy (though in an entertaining way); as it turned out he's gone and confirmed that by telling us all about one of his winter pastimes: polar dipping.

Well, whatever floats yer boat....

Len on 01.26.06 @ 08:28 PM CST [link] [ | ]

It rarely pays to be a blogger....

but occasionally one gets interesting freebies.

Rachel "and the City" Hurley just got the most interesting (if not out and out most valuable) of anyone I "know" (hey, she and I have been in the same room together on at least one occasion, which is a closer acquaintanceship than I have with, say, Halle Berry): a trip to Amsterdam, courtesy of Holland.com. So go by "Rachel and the City', wish her bon voyage, and withstand the pledge drive (it's brief and relatively painless).

I've not gotten anything that nice (and probably never will; I'm not "totally famous on the internets!" and never will be), but somehow I managed to find myself on a list of recipients of a review copy of a soon-to-be-published novel:

Now, I've just got to somehow get my life under enough control so I can take the time to read it. And maybe even review it.

Now that I've broken into the ranks of Interweb book reviewers..... ;-) I'm actually hoping that I will get chosen to receive a review copy of a book that I'm really interested in reading and reviewing. I'm not going to mention the title, because I don't want to jinx myself, but trust me.... If I rate a review copy, y'all are going to be the first to hear about it.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 08:22 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Way to go!

Congratulations to Peggy Phillip's son, Charlie, on his acceptance to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 07:45 PM CST [link] [ | ]

From the "Careful what you wish for, because you might get it" Department:

An interesting observation from AP Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan, on the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian election:

After making democracy a defining marker for American foreign policy, President Bush got a jolting message from Palestinian voters: Be careful what you wish for.

The United States promoted the democratic Palestinian election that now has produced an upset victory for the militant Islamic group Hamas. The election could install an organization the United States considers terrorist in place of a Palestinian leadership that, while weak, was pledged to work with
Israel and with Washington.

The administration is caught between Bush's clarion rhetoric about spreading liberty even in unlikely places and the reality that self-determination can yield results that appear counter to U.S. interests. That's a challenge the United States may have to confront someday in other places as well, including
Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the Balkans and — closer to home — South America.

"We in the United States have got to get used to the idea that other countries are going to have changes, and they may not be ones that" traditional Western thinking can readily grasp, said Council on Foreign Relations Mideast expert Judith Kipper.

...

Still, the success of religious-based candidates or parties, many of whom are hostile to Bush and opposed to American ideas, is sobering.

Muslim religious slates did far better in this month's Iraqi parliamentary elections than did the secular candidates preferred by Washington. Empowered by the U.S.-led overthrow of
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Shiite voters could one day tilt their nation toward
Iran.

The Muslim Brotherhood increased its power in Egypt's parliament nearly sixfold last year. Its lawmakers have tried to ban alcohol and some books, rid state TV of racy music videos and have violators punished with 30 lashes.

Saudi leaders regularly whisper to U.S. diplomats that open elections there would replace a government friendly to the United States with one dominated by radical Islamic politics.

Elsewhere, the Bush administration is at pains to say it is ready to work with democratically elected leaders with whom it doesn't agree, so long as they govern responsibly. That leaves Bush to try to gracefully suffer such thorns in his side as new Bolivian President Evo Morales, a leftist leader of coca growers who once vowed to be "Washington's nightmare."

Len on 01.26.06 @ 04:41 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Pet Peeve Time....

Over at the Leiter Reports, co-blogger Benj Hellie channels Steve Gilliard referencing Mark Crispin Miller in screaming bloody murder over a purported provision of the New PATRIOT Act. Let's quote Professor Miller:

What BushCo wants, according to the fine print (Sec. 605) of the new PATRIOT Act, is a permanent Praetorian Guard, or Cheka, or Gestapo. It's all too easy to come up with apt historical analogies--but not with any from this nation's history.

"A permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,'" empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence" (what is "an offense against the United States?), "or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony" (what are "reasonable grounds"?).

I'm not making this up. See the text and URL below.

Why has this really been making my skin crawl?

If we're going to go batshit paranoid, folks (and remember, just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you), at least let's get our facts straight. Whatever its other faults (and I'm sure they're legion), the new PATRIOT Act doesn't create the United States Secret Service, Uniformed Division (USSS, UD). The USSS, UD has existed since 1977 (under that name; it actually traces its lineage back to the "protective force", first under the direction of the White House Military Aide, that has guarded the White House under one name or another (White House Police Force, Executive Protective Service, USSS, UD) since 1860).

Yes, the New PATRIOT Act does seem to extend the jurisdiction of the USSS, UD a bit (see the update to Talk Left's discussion on the matter). It doesn't create a new Praetorian Guard, though.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 01:17 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Why not filibuster the Alito nomination?

This analysis at Daily Kos makes some sense. I'm not sure I agree, but it is at least a reasoned approach.

The Short Form: if Roberts, C.J., represents the O'Connor swing vote (i.e., he'll be more centrist than Alito will be), then basically Alito replaces Rehnquist, C.J. (deceased), and the overall ideological balance of the Court remains roughly the same. That saves the showdown over the potential invocation of The Nuclear Option for a time that it really might be needed: the next nomination, when a (presumably) more liberal justice retires/dies (the most likely prospect here being John Paul Stevens).

As I say it makes sense. If I had reason to believe that the Democratic leadership was really thinking like this (as opposed to just rolling over because they do it out of habit), I would feel less apprehensive....

Thanks to The Umpire at Corked Bats for the pointer to dKos.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 12:43 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Nice try, but not close enough, I think....

According to The Raw Story, an organization called "Friends of Roy Blunt" has bought the Internet domains "roybluntsucks.com", "roybluntsux.com", and "stoproyblunt.com". Maybe a few others. To give you an idea of their intentions, roybluntsucks.com takes you to Blunt's congressional campaign page (funny; I'd have thought that pointer means that Blunt's engaging in a little truth in advertising, myself).

However, it's pretty obvious that Blunt and his cronies aren't going far enough. Some quick research at GoDaddy.com's WHOIS database shows that these domains are still available (as of the time this was posted; I hope I haven't given Blunt's supporters an idea here):

royblunteatsshit.com
roybluntisacrook.com
roybluntisacrookedsonofabitch.com
roybluntisalyingasshole.com
iwanttoseeroybluntinprison.com
iwanttoseeroybluntanallyrapedinprison.com
sweetjesusihateroyblunt.com (with apologies to the proprietors of Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly; I'm tempted to buy sweetjesusihateroyblunt.com myself. If I were still living in Missouri, I would.)
roybluntfatheredmymutantchildoutofwedlock.com

I'm sure you get the idea. I'm sure that Mr. Blunt's enemies can, by simply exercising a little creativity, come up with an appropriately insulting domain name for their anti-Blunt site.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 12:30 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Better not whistle near us....

Seen at Big Stupid Tommy

Len on 01.26.06 @ 11:33 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.
--Douglas MacArthur

Note: Today is the 126^th anniversary of MacArthur's birth.

Len on 01.26.06 @ 07:10 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Apropos the "Conservative Appeal"

Over at The Flypaper Theory, The Pesky Fly (himself a practicing Memphis journalist, though not with the Commercial Appeal) makes this perceptive comment:

The CA: Is the CA Rightist in tone and content? Not really; they did endorse John Kerry, after all. The fact is it's neither liberal, or Rightist. It's corporate, and as such it creates its own politics. Let's not forget which big radio group gave Air America its first big break: Clear Channel. And the company was honest about both their conservative politics and their reasons for picking up Air America: They are in the business of selling radio, and if there was a serious market devoted to German Toilet Tasting by golly, there would be a Clear Channel station devoted to German Toilet Tasting. Corporate Newspapers are still profit cows by any sane standard of private ownership, but now they are reared up to feed Wall Street, and that's a hungry beast. Everything that can be done to reduce cost is being done to wrench out every last drop of revenue--which, discounting product degredation--isn't necessarily a bad thing altogether. But these are all reactive, and temporary measures that do nothing to address the real problem:readership.

Readership is falling, and thanks to the new electronic media revenue models are changing--and nobody really knows into what. With TiVo etc. Broadcast media is feeling the first serious twinges of the same affliction as the model determining the cost and results of advertising goes in and out of focus. What we're seeing from the CA, with its constant reinvention, and frequent shifts in attitude is a newsprint answer to the Bill Dance Hour: lots and lots of good fishing.

Soon, I suspect, there will be no Commercial Appeal, but rather a series of targeted journals: the triumph of the Appeal sections. This, I believe, has been part of the paper's agenda since instituting the Neighbors section 10-years ago. The Suburban Journals, CA Publisher Joseph Pepe's last gig, functioned like this. They were also a free paper, and if the daily is to survive they will eventually have to go with this model. But it will be interesting to see--when there are many appeals--how the news is framed in Midtown vs. how it's framed in Germantown.

Len on 01.25.06 @ 08:20 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Gem o'the Day:

President Bush announced plans to personally get involved in the combat against bird flu. I guess we can expect him to run the operation from the Alabama National Guard again.
--Will Durst, "Daily Dose of Durst", Jan 25, 2006

Len on 01.25.06 @ 07:46 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Josh Marshall makes an excellent point

over at Talking Points Memo, and gives us a little-voiced reason why "Hillary '08" is a bad idea:

I see there are a lot of people around the web taking shots at Hillary Clinton, or more specifically at her probable presidential candidacy in 2008.

Though I wrote five years ago that I find the whole idea of a Hillary presidential bid wildly improbable, I say the following as an admirer and supporter of Sen. Clinton. (She's my senator now, after all.)

But here's a reason for not supporting her candidacy that I don't hear often enough: political dynasticism.

...

George H. W. Bush left office to be followed by two terms of Bill Clinton. He in turn was followed by two terms of Bush's son. If those two terms of the son are followed by the election of Clinton's wife, I don't see where that's a good thing for this country. It ceases to be a fluke and grows into a pattern. It's dynasticism.

Len on 01.25.06 @ 07:40 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Thought for the Day:

I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of 'em. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane ... throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun." "Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom, boom. "You all saw him. He had a gun."
--Bill Hicks

Len on 01.25.06 @ 07:04 AM CST [link] [ | ]

And this deserves an IgNobel prize, for sure.....

Over at the Annals of Improbable Research, we get some preliminary results answering the earth-shaking question, "Is it possible for a decade-old sandwich to remain mold-free without divine intervention?"--the question being posed, of course, is a reference to the infamous Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich. The results:

The results were that if the sandwich had been grilled then it would, on average, mold 47 days later, if store-bought bread would have been used it would mold 27 days later and margarine added 15 days to the time to mold. Adding cheese, however, took 15 days off the time to mold. The last 3 sandwiches did not mold and are not likely to mold ever because they are rock hard.

Nothing like some news you can use.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 08:35 PM CST [link] [ | ]

No surprise here.....

AP: Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

And the idiots still rattle their cracked sabers at Iran..... Sheesh.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 07:13 PM CST [link] [ | ]

For those of you who insist....

on being early adopters (even though being an early adopter of a Microsoft OS is, IMHO, the height of foolishness), here's a visual preview of the latest build of Windows Vista, the operating-system-formerly-known-as-Longhorn. The picture show is a feature of this article on building a Vista system today (that is, collecting the right components so your system will be ready to run Vista when it's released). Fred Langa, of the LangaList has addressed the same issue from the less geeky "buy your Vista ready system" (vice building it), if you're in the market for a new PC and wanting a Vista ready system.

As for me, I'll pass. I only very recently (within the last several months) got around to moving to Windows XP, and I'm a strong believer in the principle that one should never move to a new Microsoft OS until Service Pack 2 for that OS has been released. If past history is any basis for prognostication, I won't have to worry about Vista for another 3-4 years, minimum.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 07:07 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Music to Karen's ears....

Over at Dadahead, we get a pointer to a message board post at Democratic Underground claiming that the Bush bAdministration is bracing for impeachment hearings. Normally, I'd accuse the DU denizens of inhaling a bit too much of the "wacky tobaccy", but they point to an article in Insight magazine, which is, as cognoscenti know, a sister publication of noted Moonie soapbox The Washington Times.

Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. About the only way that Bush is likely to be impeached is if those infamous Time magazine photos feature Bush and Abramoff sucking each other's cocks--and even then, the vote would be close, and could go either way.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 01:01 PM CST [link] [ | ]

How things change....

Over at Cherry Blossom Special, EJ spearheads an initiative to get a little truth in labeling in the Memphis Media: Petition to Rename Our Newspaper "The Conservative Appeal".

I remember when my father used to, jokingly, call our local morning paper “The Comical Appeal”. Now that I’ve seen their recent handiwork, I’ve been outraged, like many progressives in Memphis, about the Commercial Appeal’s downward spiral into a conservative rag, frequently and openly portraying itself in a way that makes it unfit even to perforate and place on a roll for appropriate usage.

Actually, I still refer to it as "The Comical Appeal".

But what I find really amusing..... Before I took my present job, I worked for the Memphis office of an IT consultancy headquartered in St. Louis. While there, one of my co-workers was an Oracle database administrator/technical instructor who, in a previous lifetime was a Memphis cop (he segued into the MPD's IT department, which is how he got his entree into the IT field), and he told me about how, when he was a beat cop, the Commercial Appeal was regularly referred to by the Memphis constabulary as "the Communist Appeal".

Len on 01.24.06 @ 12:54 PM CST [link] [ | ]

Diagnosis and prescription....

Over at Main and Central, Lurch channels his partner-in-blog, the Fixer (though he fails to give us a pointer to the original):

The calm, sedate and always remarkable Fixer makes a point about today's Democrats.

What's even more unconscionable is Barack Obama, sitting there and letting Tim Russert link the Dems to Harry Belafonte, a question Timmy would never have asked a white man.

...

We have idiots like Lieberman and Nelson, who suck up to the Repubs at every turn, just to protect their own positions.

...

...Hillary Clinton, the person who was most harmed by the Repub juggernaut...

...

...Harry Reid, a guy who talks a very good line but backs down when it counts.

...

So, I ask the Dems, do you actually think you're gonna win anything in November? Do you actually think there will be any change in the status quo at this time next year? At the rate you're going, the future looks dismal. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Fixer, of course, is right on. You got a quarter inch group right in the X-ring, bud. It's time for these Dems to either start bringing their guns to the knife fight or to step aside and let some Americans with testicles take up the fight.

By happy coincidence, William Rivers Pitt at truthout.org, came up with the same diagnosis, and gave us his prescription for a brilliant little protest. Details below the fold....

Len on 01.24.06 @ 12:44 PM CST [more..] [ | ]

Speaking of deserving recognition....

Our (well, my) favorite poet, Mad Kane, was tagged to provide a recipe to a blogger cookbook being published as a fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders. That deserved recognition serves as grist for Mad's poetic mill, and gives us the pleasure of both a limerick, and a filk to be sung to the tune of "My Favorite Things" (from the score of "The Sound of Music"). And yes, there's an audio version.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 12:25 PM CST [link] [ | ]

And it appears it's that time of year yet again......

As long as I'm mentioning Pete, I note that apparently A Perfectly Cromulent Blog (Pete's home on the Interweb) has been nominated for a 2005 Koufax Award in the category of Most Deserving of Wider Recognition.

My personal attitude towards blog awards is that they're a singularly silly exercise, and I (usually) neither vote in them nor do I generally take notice of them. However, given my admiration for APCB (and because, dammit, any blog that's Perfectly Cromulent is by that fact alone Deserving Of Wider Recognition), I'll suspend my apathy to the extent necessary to vote for Pete in this one.

Of course, in taking this position I'm now running the risk of alienating a number of my blog-friends and acquaintances but what the hell, I've "known" Pete longer than most, and we Cardinals fans have to stick together (that Pete seems, based on a comment or three he's left here, to have an appreciation for the music of Kraftwerk as well as for the Cardinals only cements that decision further). But, looking over the list of nominees in this category (which looks to be about as selective as the Memphis telephone directory, to judge from the number of nominees), if you don't think that Perfect Cromulence is reason enough to make a blog Deserving Of Wider Recognition, then if you decide to vote for one of the below named almost-as-equally-deserving nominees, I promise I won't get my knickers in a twist:

Apostropher (who has been seen haunting our comments)
Bark Bark Woof Woof
BattlePanda (a favorite of my co-blogger, Brock Sides, and an occasional reader/commenter here)
The Daily Howler (is the Howler really "deserving of wider recognition"? This is a site that became a daily read for me ages ago. If it's merely "deserving of wider recognition", that's a pretty clear sign that the collective brains of the blogiverse doesn't come up to the intelligence of a pile of shit)
Democratic Veteran (what I want to know is WTF wasn't Main and Central nominated?)
Driftglass (probably Karen's personal favorite)
Elayne Riggs (though it's spelled "Elaine" in the nomination list)
Facing South (part-time bloghome of the-blogger-formerly-known-as-South-Knox-Bubba, new home of "Friday Bird Blogging", and a must-read resource for folks interested in politics and culture in the South)
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time (another Kraftwerk fan, to judge from the pic of the Man Machine cover)
Lean Left
Mad Kane's Notables (Web home of The Poet Laureate of Left Blogistan (© Len Cleavelin; all rights reserved))
Newsrack (another proud member of The Rocky Top Brigade)
The People's Republic of Seabrook
Steve Bates, the Yellow Doggerel Democrat (frequent commenter at, and often cited by the proprietor of, Why Now?. That Why Now? isn't a nominee shows how ridiculous the idea of "blog awards" is)

And that's just the list of blogs that I read at least semi-regularly. I'm sure that there are others on the list that I'm doing an injustice to by not naming them.

Screw it. So many blogs, so little time. And so many other worthwhile activities in the world.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 12:19 PM CST [link] [ | ]

I'm jealous.....

Pete Vonder Haar, in Park City, UT covering the Sundance Film Festival for Film Threat, actually got to meet Roger Ebert, who is on the short list of one of the four film critics I actually would like to meet face to face:

"You're gonna need a bigger coat."

Sage words spoken by the master of movie reviewing, Mr. Roger Ebert, whom I met (where else?) at a Chinese buffet. A very nice guy, who mentioned how much he liked Film Threat. I wonder what he would've said if I lied and told him I was with AICN.

The short list I've alluded to: Ebert, of course, James Berardinelli, Mark Ramsey of MovieJuice, and Pete himself. Though I'd want to meet Pete as much (or perhaps marginally more) because he's another Cardinals fan, as I do because I enjoy his film reviews.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 10:07 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Take heart, those of you wanting a flying car.....

it looks like some demented genius in Perth, Australia, is working on your wish: Flying Car captured on Google Earth

Here's a question for you: what have the Nazi wartime test facility at Peenemunde and the Australian city of Perth got in common? Well, the first thing (and just about the only thing, truth be told) which springs to mind is that they are both next to large bodies of water. This is useful if you're going to test things which might go bang. Like V-2 rockets and - wait for it - flying cars:

So wait patiently; I'm sure commercial sales of this wonder are only a matter of time.

Len on 01.24.06 @ 09:27 AM CST [link] [ | ]

Surprised I'd find myself agreeing with him....

Listening to Air America Morning today, Rachel Maddow threw an on air reference to conservative blogger Dale Franks. Apparently, blogging übermensch N.Z. Bear organized conference calls for right-leaning bloggers with the leading candidates to take over the post of House Majority Leader (John Shadegg (R-AZ), John Boehner (R-OH), and Roy Blunt (R-MO)). Franks merited the mention because the series of conference calls led to Franks issuing an interesting "unendorsement" in the House Majority Leader's race. I'm going to take the liberty of quoting Franks's "unendorsement" extensively, because it provides an interesting insight into how things are going to be run in the House if Blunt does become Majority Leader (and interestingly enough, Blunt seems to believe, according to Franks, that "the fix is in"):

And then there was Roy Blunt.

After spending a half hour listening to him, I think...let's see...how do I put this...

I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as Majority Leader. I'm not at the point of making a firm endorsement of either Reps. Shaddeg or Boehner, but the sun will set in a blazing red sky to the east of Casablanca before I'd want Roy Blunt as Majority leader.

Well, not that I have any say about the issue, but I'm in perfect agreement with Mr. Franks here (right down to licking fire ants off a stick), though I base that opinion on being a Missouri resident most of my life, and being a first-hand witness to Rep. Blunt's political career.... But I digress.

The first troubling thing about the Blunt conference call was the way it was handled. In the other two calls, [the conference calls with Reps. Shaddeg and Boehner] the conversation was unmoderated, and we all had chances to get our licks in. We asked candid questions and, for the most part, got equally candid answers. All of the bloggers who were there were part of the group organized by NZ Bear, and the Congressmen had no idea who was gonna be there when he got on the line.

The Blunt people put a stop to that. They required us to email David All, one of Rep. Blunt's staffers, for permission to attend the conference call. Then, Mr. All asked us to submit our questions in writing, and informed us that the call would be moderated. Also, once we were on the line, we had to hit "*1" to be recognized before we could ask a question; otherwise, we were muted. That, though is a technical thing, which is no big deal.

When we got on the line, Rep. Blunt made a statement, part of which I found confusing, because he said that he knew most of us had already endorsed Shadegg, which was news to me. Indeed, one of the email conversations that we've had between the blogger group was whether or not we should provide an endorsement of anybody at all, and the consensus seemed to be that, while some of us might individually do so, as a group we should not. My impression was that most individuals wouldn't be providing an endorsement, either. So, this statement caught me by surprise.

Then, when Rep. Blunt opened the floor for questions, the next surprise was that the first question came from someone from GOP Bloggers. He wasn't a part of our group, i.e., the one organized by NZ Bear. How did he get on the call? This guy then proceeded to throw a softball at Rep Blunt, essentially asking him if those naughty Democrats were just dirty liars for denying that they had anything to do with Jack Abramoff, and was the Congressman going to fight back properly? Then, the next questioner was from Townhall.com. WTF? I mean, while Townhall has what is technically a blog, Townhall is nothing more than an organ of the Heritage Institute. And they weren't part of our group either. He tossed another softball at Rep. Blunt, asking why Blunt hadn't gotten support from Conservative icons. Icons like...well...Townhall. And NRO. [Townhall's Tim Chapman has notified me that he objects to my characterization of his question. He should feel free to publicly correct me at Townhall.com. Just be sure to get the link URL to QandO right, Tim.—EDF]

So at this point it was obvious that, rather than just talking to our group, which was already organized, Rep. Blunt had pulled in ringers, and, having asked for questions in advance—which I declined to provide, by the way—had screened them prior to the conference call. So, at this point, I'm feeling like we're being played. Unlike the calls with the other candidates, which were unscripted, Blunt had turned this into the least spontaneous event possible.

Then, Rep. Blunt just outright pissed me off. He said words to the effect that, while he understood that many of us supported someone else, and he knew we'd be writing up the call later, he hoped we wouldn't write or do something that would jeopardize our ability to work together later, and since he was gonna win—already had the votes locked up, in fact—we would be dealing with him.

OK. I admit I have a slight problem with authority. So, maybe I'm taking this wrong, but I took that as veiled threat to mean that, if we expected any access in the future, maybe we'd better think about what we wrote about him. I really don't respond well to threats. Even pleasantly veiled ones.

Huh. OK. I'll make a deal with Rep. Blunt. How's this sound? I'll go ahead and write whatever the hell I want to write. In return, if Rep. Blunt doesn't like it, then he can cry me a river. I think that sounds fair. Somehow, I managed to get along fine for the first 41 years of my life without talking to Roy Blunt, and things turned out OK. I'm not a Washington journalist. My livelihood doesn't depend on having access to powerful DC insiders. So, I think I'll be fine if I never talk to him again.

Indeed, I would prefer it.

But this little statement brings up an interesting point. One of the later questioners (I think it was Mike Krempasky from Red State, but I'm not sure), asked, why Rep. Blunt wouldn't step down from his Republican conference leadership position, since some members might fear some retaliation from him if they publicly came out for Shadegg or Boehner. Rep. Blunt responded that he was shocked—shocked!—that anyone would think of him in that way, and besides, he had to stay in the job, keeping the wheels of the conference turning, and whatnot.

Frankly, after the thinly veiled threat he had just dropped on us, I was thinking that, if I was a Congressman, I'd be pretty careful about offending the vindictive SOB myself.

As far as I'm concerned, the Blunt call was a disaster f