Two down, two to go. This morning, Israeli troops crossed the border into Lebanon (or at least the part controlled by Hezbollah). At this point, Israel is now at war with two of her immediate four regional neighbors. Or if you would like to view it in historical Biblical terms: Israel is now at war with the Philistines and Tyre and Sidon.
Israel is currently not at war with anyone over in the West Bank, which is still nominally under the control of Fatah. However, Israeli forces are fairly concentrated there and only an invasion by Jordan would really ignite a conflict there and Jordan’s government is still pro-West (and therefore willing to ignore Israel at the moment).
Israel is also technically not a war with Syria yet. However, as Hezbollah receives the majority of its support from Syria (with weapons and support via Iran) it is probably only a matter of time before Syria feels compelled to declare war as well. That will be when the proverbial poop hits the fan. Unlike the terrorist organizations, Syria has a conventional army and air force. They also may have a large supply of chemical weapons, whether developed on their own or from Iraq, which could be loaded onto scud missiles (of which Syria has a lot).
Syria may bide her time a little bit to see how the incursion into Lebanon goes. Their first desire is to reclaim Lebanon as a territory, which they lost last year in the Cedar Revolution. Anything that allows them to reestablish themselves as a regional power will take priority first. I still believe that Syria believes they must act in a complete surprise attack with overwhelming firepower to even have a prayer of defeating Israel. I also believe that such an attack would fail and if Syria chose to use chemical weapons, Israel would respond by turning Damascus into a glass parking lot.
The storm clouds of war are getting darker and thicker.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Israel Realizes It's at War
For one brief moment, it appears that Israel has finally realized that they’ve been at war for the past several years. Yesterday, Israel invaded Gaza in response to a Palestinian raid into Israel that killed two soldiers and kidnapped a third (never mind the hundreds of homemade rockets that Hamas lobs into Israeli towns). Meanwhile, the Palestinians are crying foul for Israel finally acting like any sovereign nation would when they are attacked by a foreign power.
If a company from the Mexican Army drove over the border and killed national guardsmen in Arizona and took hostages back to Mexico and had fellow Mexican companies firing rockets into the adjoining towns in Arizona, I don’t image that the Federal government’s response would be to say everything is okay and let’s talk. It would probably be a race to see if a portion of the US Army or the rest of the Arizona National Guard invaded Mexico first. Given our previous experience with Mexico, I’m not sure we would stop until we had Mexico City at full surrender and then we would demand concessions (most likely Mexican territory).
Yet in all this, the rest of the world acts as though Israel is the warmonger and the Palestinians are these weak, helpless individuals that never did anything wrong. Its very sad and also very insulting to treat an adult population that is fully capable of making its own decisions like two-year olds. The Palestinian people, fully cognizant of their actions, elected a terrorist group to be their government and elements of that government have committed acts of war on a country that this same government refuses even the right to exist. Israel is fully justified in whatever force they chose to use to get their soldier back.
In fact, I fully believe that there will be a time in the near future where the light bulb will go on in the minds of the Israelis and when they go to war again, they will not stop with attacking Hamas elements. They will not even stop with occupying Gaza and Judah. They will physically expel the Palestinians, forcing them out to Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and any other country that will take them. Of course the world will scream about the barbarity of this act and anti-Semitism will reach a fever pitch around the world (even in havens like the US and Australia), forcing an even greater exodus of Jews to Israel. Of course, Israel will have all this new land to colonize, so they’ll have lots of room for the refugees.
Crisis is coming and it is coming by a people finally picking themselves off the mat and just saying “enough.”
If a company from the Mexican Army drove over the border and killed national guardsmen in Arizona and took hostages back to Mexico and had fellow Mexican companies firing rockets into the adjoining towns in Arizona, I don’t image that the Federal government’s response would be to say everything is okay and let’s talk. It would probably be a race to see if a portion of the US Army or the rest of the Arizona National Guard invaded Mexico first. Given our previous experience with Mexico, I’m not sure we would stop until we had Mexico City at full surrender and then we would demand concessions (most likely Mexican territory).
Yet in all this, the rest of the world acts as though Israel is the warmonger and the Palestinians are these weak, helpless individuals that never did anything wrong. Its very sad and also very insulting to treat an adult population that is fully capable of making its own decisions like two-year olds. The Palestinian people, fully cognizant of their actions, elected a terrorist group to be their government and elements of that government have committed acts of war on a country that this same government refuses even the right to exist. Israel is fully justified in whatever force they chose to use to get their soldier back.
In fact, I fully believe that there will be a time in the near future where the light bulb will go on in the minds of the Israelis and when they go to war again, they will not stop with attacking Hamas elements. They will not even stop with occupying Gaza and Judah. They will physically expel the Palestinians, forcing them out to Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and any other country that will take them. Of course the world will scream about the barbarity of this act and anti-Semitism will reach a fever pitch around the world (even in havens like the US and Australia), forcing an even greater exodus of Jews to Israel. Of course, Israel will have all this new land to colonize, so they’ll have lots of room for the refugees.
Crisis is coming and it is coming by a people finally picking themselves off the mat and just saying “enough.”
Friday, June 23, 2006
Waiting for the End
I’ve been reading the Left Behind series lately. It’s actually been pretty good with a fairly well engaging plot. It’s a little preachy but I think that’s hard to avoid given the subject matter. I’m on the sixth book right now and I think I have a good chance of polishing that off by this weekend. But reading this series and some of the other things that I’ve noticed while reading my blogs amuse me with how much people are hoping/expecting for the end of man’s dominion of Earth.
Of course, Christians have been doing that for a long time, but it seems that the whole society has been even twitchier about it for nearly 15 years now. I would place the principle portion of blame on three distinct events. The first is the refounding of Israel in 1948. The second is the calculations of Bishop Usher, in which he calculated that God created the Earth in 4004 BC. The third is a book published by Hal Lindsey called The Late, Great Planet Earth that postulated that the rapture would occur in 1988. Obviously, Mr. Lindsey was incorrect, but that began stirring up a lot of things.
People began to note things like President Bush (the first) talking about a New World Order and an alliance of nations. The various religions of the world began having discussions with each other in the Council of Churches. New Age thought began hitting mainstream. People began to sit up and take notice of them and there was a natural Christian blowback.
I remember another book that was published discussing the possible end in 1994. Although, surprisingly, there was very little discussion about it in 1997, which would have been the actual year 6000 if Bishop Usher’s chronology had been correct. Then there was all the hype around the year 2000, plus the recent publishing of both the Left Behind series and Joel Rosenberg’s Ezekiel series (Rosenberg has interesting insight, but his narrative style is a bit tedious for me).
As I have stated in earlier posts, I think additional events happening in Israel and around other areas of the Middle East are going to continue to feed into this trend and End Times predictions. There might even be a non-Christian tie in, as we get closer to the end of 2012 (which is where the Mayan calendar stops). But, in the end, I think all these events will pass and nothing will happen. I personally believe that the rapture and the return of Christ is still quite a few years away and that everything will happen when people are least expecting it. Not that I wouldn’t mind being wrong, but quite frankly, there is too much in the Bible talking about how things will happen when we are least expecting it (and least prepared for it).
Of course, Christians have been doing that for a long time, but it seems that the whole society has been even twitchier about it for nearly 15 years now. I would place the principle portion of blame on three distinct events. The first is the refounding of Israel in 1948. The second is the calculations of Bishop Usher, in which he calculated that God created the Earth in 4004 BC. The third is a book published by Hal Lindsey called The Late, Great Planet Earth that postulated that the rapture would occur in 1988. Obviously, Mr. Lindsey was incorrect, but that began stirring up a lot of things.
People began to note things like President Bush (the first) talking about a New World Order and an alliance of nations. The various religions of the world began having discussions with each other in the Council of Churches. New Age thought began hitting mainstream. People began to sit up and take notice of them and there was a natural Christian blowback.
I remember another book that was published discussing the possible end in 1994. Although, surprisingly, there was very little discussion about it in 1997, which would have been the actual year 6000 if Bishop Usher’s chronology had been correct. Then there was all the hype around the year 2000, plus the recent publishing of both the Left Behind series and Joel Rosenberg’s Ezekiel series (Rosenberg has interesting insight, but his narrative style is a bit tedious for me).
As I have stated in earlier posts, I think additional events happening in Israel and around other areas of the Middle East are going to continue to feed into this trend and End Times predictions. There might even be a non-Christian tie in, as we get closer to the end of 2012 (which is where the Mayan calendar stops). But, in the end, I think all these events will pass and nothing will happen. I personally believe that the rapture and the return of Christ is still quite a few years away and that everything will happen when people are least expecting it. Not that I wouldn’t mind being wrong, but quite frankly, there is too much in the Bible talking about how things will happen when we are least expecting it (and least prepared for it).
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Ohio Confusion
I recently read a post on Real Clear Politics that accused RFK Jr. of reviving the Democratic shriek of how Ohio was stolen in 2004 to discredit Ken Blackwell, who is now running for Governor. If this truly is what was on RFK Jr.'s mind, or any other outside Democratic operatives mind, they are the most stupid people on the face of this Earth.
Anyone who has spent any time in the this state for the past few years knows that the group of Republicans who control the top offices in the state are a group of lazy fat cats, who swap jobs every four years with each other to avoid the appearance of individual kingdoms. Then, on top of that, the current Republican governor (Bob Taft) is the least liked governor in the entire country (polling between 12 -20% approval). Taft is corrupt and the reek of scandal has tainted all those around him. All Ted Strickland needs to do to defeat Blackwell is keep his mouth shut (except to remind people of the corruption in Columbus) and breathe.
Yet, we see the possibility of the DNC coming in and screwing things up by reviving the "we was robbed" hysteria. Why? The prevailing theory is that its because Ken Blackwell is black and that he might peel off enough of the 90% African-American voters who normally vote Democratic to push him over the top and make further GOP inroads into the African-American community. Except that it won't happen and if Democrats continue to think in this racial manner, rather than appreciate the ability of the voters to think for themselves, they will start losing their block voters. Mr. Blackwell is extremely conservative and I highly doubt that any of his ideas will play well in the African-American community.
So the 90% is safe, assuming the Democrats don't push them into a state of disgust with them that they just stay at home. Discression is the better part of valor. Sometimes the donkeys need that whispered in their ears from time to time.
Anyone who has spent any time in the this state for the past few years knows that the group of Republicans who control the top offices in the state are a group of lazy fat cats, who swap jobs every four years with each other to avoid the appearance of individual kingdoms. Then, on top of that, the current Republican governor (Bob Taft) is the least liked governor in the entire country (polling between 12 -20% approval). Taft is corrupt and the reek of scandal has tainted all those around him. All Ted Strickland needs to do to defeat Blackwell is keep his mouth shut (except to remind people of the corruption in Columbus) and breathe.
Yet, we see the possibility of the DNC coming in and screwing things up by reviving the "we was robbed" hysteria. Why? The prevailing theory is that its because Ken Blackwell is black and that he might peel off enough of the 90% African-American voters who normally vote Democratic to push him over the top and make further GOP inroads into the African-American community. Except that it won't happen and if Democrats continue to think in this racial manner, rather than appreciate the ability of the voters to think for themselves, they will start losing their block voters. Mr. Blackwell is extremely conservative and I highly doubt that any of his ideas will play well in the African-American community.
So the 90% is safe, assuming the Democrats don't push them into a state of disgust with them that they just stay at home. Discression is the better part of valor. Sometimes the donkeys need that whispered in their ears from time to time.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Baby's Here
I know blogging has been light, but its been a wreck at work and now the baby is here. She was born at 1:24 pm on May 11, 2006. She was 20.75 inches long and 8lb 8.8 oz. For those close to us who would like to see a picture, go here and enter the pertinant information. I'll try to keep everyone abreast of the situation, but these will be some long nights. :)
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Anti-Illegal Elections
Well, its election time here in Ohio. We have no non-partisan issues, so Mrs. X will be staying home today (she’s still pregnant by the way). I am a registered Republican so I’ll be voting in the primary when I get off work. Most of the races are pretty cut and dry. We’ve got a couple of local races where I’m still tossing one candidate vs. the other. The big one is the governor’s race: Blackwell vs. Petrio for the Republican ticket. Blackwell is polling ahead of Petrio and Petrio’s last campaign ad reeked of desperation so it probably doesn’t really matter whom I vote for. Blackwell will win the nomination and be down anywhere from 7 to 15 points to Ted Strickland five months out.
Meanwhile, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a socialist workers group, organized a large protest with immigrants and has probably done more to hang them out to dry than any other event. Reading a few blogs from San Diego and Los Angeles, where the boycott had the widest participation, there seemed to be very little overall impact to businesses. Some inconveniences were reported, but nothing ground to a halt.
However, some snooping around to businesses that had significant percentages of people not showing up for work showed that the managers were not overly concerned. In fact, most responded that they would be firing a number of those who did not come in. Sadly, there is a feeling that you can just plug and chug. Someone who is more appreciative of the job can replace anyone who isn’t working out.
Worse for the immigrants than just the loss of their jobs is the public perception that has no entered in the thought process of most Americans. The winds were starting to blow against illegals, especially after many of them began demanding amnesty and reward for flouting the laws of this country. The biggest outcry has come from people who recently entered this country legally and have been going through the heavy bureaucratic red tape trying to get what these other folks are demanding to get easily. They have not helped their case by including members of fringe groups who go around waving Mexican flags and demanding that California and Arizona be returned to Mexico. The image of the Mexican flag over an upside-down American flag still burns rather hot in some people’s minds.
The boycott also called up what some will use as a powerful anti-illegal statistic. Los Angeles Public Schools reported approximately 25% absenteeism yesterday. Some of that were probably kids taking advantage of the situation even if they are not children of illegals. But throw in those children of illegals who did show up and 25% is probably a reasonably accurate number of the children of illegals (whether the children are citizens or not) who are in the school system of LA. The education budget for LA is approximately $13 billion. This means that anti-illegal groups are going to be talking about the over $3 billion that are spend educating the children of illegals in LA alone. If that statistic gets out to Joe and Jane six-pack of the mid-West and the South, guess what kind of hammer is going to be brought down on the local school boards?
Thus, by marching and attempting to demonstrate their power, power that is predominately an illusion due to the servitude that most are held in through fear, many illegal (and even non-illegal) immigrants are going to have some very hard times ahead. Arizona is already drafting legislation to create serious punishment and border enforcement for immigrants. The Democratic governor has promised to veto it, but the Republican congress is also crafting a ballot initiative to perform an end-around around that.
There have also been whispers that the minutemen or some other anti-illegal immigration group may field a third party candidate to get their concerns heard. When polled in Arizona, New Mexico, and other border states, a hypothetical third party candidate running on this issue does as well as a theoretical Democratic candidate and cuts deeply into the Republican base. Its an issue that cuts both ways and it’s not something that is going to go away anytime soon.
Meanwhile, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a socialist workers group, organized a large protest with immigrants and has probably done more to hang them out to dry than any other event. Reading a few blogs from San Diego and Los Angeles, where the boycott had the widest participation, there seemed to be very little overall impact to businesses. Some inconveniences were reported, but nothing ground to a halt.
However, some snooping around to businesses that had significant percentages of people not showing up for work showed that the managers were not overly concerned. In fact, most responded that they would be firing a number of those who did not come in. Sadly, there is a feeling that you can just plug and chug. Someone who is more appreciative of the job can replace anyone who isn’t working out.
Worse for the immigrants than just the loss of their jobs is the public perception that has no entered in the thought process of most Americans. The winds were starting to blow against illegals, especially after many of them began demanding amnesty and reward for flouting the laws of this country. The biggest outcry has come from people who recently entered this country legally and have been going through the heavy bureaucratic red tape trying to get what these other folks are demanding to get easily. They have not helped their case by including members of fringe groups who go around waving Mexican flags and demanding that California and Arizona be returned to Mexico. The image of the Mexican flag over an upside-down American flag still burns rather hot in some people’s minds.
The boycott also called up what some will use as a powerful anti-illegal statistic. Los Angeles Public Schools reported approximately 25% absenteeism yesterday. Some of that were probably kids taking advantage of the situation even if they are not children of illegals. But throw in those children of illegals who did show up and 25% is probably a reasonably accurate number of the children of illegals (whether the children are citizens or not) who are in the school system of LA. The education budget for LA is approximately $13 billion. This means that anti-illegal groups are going to be talking about the over $3 billion that are spend educating the children of illegals in LA alone. If that statistic gets out to Joe and Jane six-pack of the mid-West and the South, guess what kind of hammer is going to be brought down on the local school boards?
Thus, by marching and attempting to demonstrate their power, power that is predominately an illusion due to the servitude that most are held in through fear, many illegal (and even non-illegal) immigrants are going to have some very hard times ahead. Arizona is already drafting legislation to create serious punishment and border enforcement for immigrants. The Democratic governor has promised to veto it, but the Republican congress is also crafting a ballot initiative to perform an end-around around that.
There have also been whispers that the minutemen or some other anti-illegal immigration group may field a third party candidate to get their concerns heard. When polled in Arizona, New Mexico, and other border states, a hypothetical third party candidate running on this issue does as well as a theoretical Democratic candidate and cuts deeply into the Republican base. Its an issue that cuts both ways and it’s not something that is going to go away anytime soon.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
One Step Closer
This little bit of news caught my eye this morning. Of course, its glossed over with the typical tragedy of war and occupation, but it was the fact that the international community as well as the local officials that want to see the city rebuilt even beyond a simple archeological attraction. Still, I think its going to be a while before we can call this the Williamsburg of the Middle East ;)
If Iraq ever splits up, as I postulated in a previous post, look for Babylon to be declared the free city of the Middle East, especially once Jerusalem fully falls into Israeli hands.
If Iraq ever splits up, as I postulated in a previous post, look for Babylon to be declared the free city of the Middle East, especially once Jerusalem fully falls into Israeli hands.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Hollywood Fantasyland
Sorry for the long delay but I've been a bit out of the blogging mood. Plus, its been all baby, all the time in my mind and Mrs. X provides much better commentary on that than I do.
The West Wing has been referred to as “if Hollywood had run the Clinton White House.” Last night, Hollywood stepped in again and tried to claim that they were still in touch with the American electorate. To make a compelling storyline for this season’s election, they decided they needed to show a liberal Democratic candidate win the White House against a moderate conservative who was going to win California, thus proving that the country is more liberal and that a Democrat can win the White House without winning California.
Their plan for this involved a standard electoral map from the 2000 election with swaps in six key states: California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and South Carolina. They also had this moderate Republican win Maine and Vermont but those electoral votes are small enough that it was only to make it more dramatic at the end.
That California and Texas would swap colors is possible, but rather unlikely. California has been receiving more and more liberal Easterners, inflating its population and driving it more to the left. Texas, meanwhile, hasn’t gone for a Democrat since it voted with the rest of the South for Jimmy Carter in 1976. But, Texans are definitely puffed up when it comes to native sons. A liberal candidate from Texas has a much better shot at winning the state than say a liberal from New England.
The idea that Santos could win Arizona and Colorado is tied into the mistaken idea of race block voting. Because African-Americans tend to vote 90% Democrat, there is this mistaken belief that Hispanics and other minority groups are this big voting block where if you convince one, you win them all. In fact, the two most recent elections showed that Hispanics especially are very nuanced and split along many different lines depending on what issues are important to them, much like many portions of white America. BTW, Colorado hasn’t gone Democrat since 1992.
Missouri has been a bellweather state for a long time. However, it has been trending more Republican over the last four years. In terms of the state of the country, a state like Ohio is a little more indicative of the mood of the country. Its fun to stick with trends so it’s easy to see why the writers gave Santos Missouri, however, in a real election, if Santos had won Missouri, he would have probably also won Ohio and Florida, ruining the storyline.
South Carolina is another non-sequitor. SC hasn’t voted Democrat since 1976, even when Bill Clinton won several states among the old Confederacy. Simply because a candidate visits a state many times during a campaign, that doesn’t mean you can necessarily reverse overlying trends. Again, if a Democratic candidate could carry a conservative state like South Carolina, they should nail states like Florida and Ohio, where the vote is much closer.
The producers of the show claim that up until John Spencer died, they were planning to have Vinick win the election. But when they were forced to write the death of Leo into the show, the writers decided that it would be too much of a downer if Santos lost his running mate and the election in one night. Actually, I think it would have been more real and would have given the show a biting edge that it once had back in the first four seasons. Your side doesn’t always win and those are the breaks. When it rains, it pours, etc. Of course, despite their claims, the way the show has laid itself out since the beginning of the season has presented a strong case that they were going to let Santos win from the beginning. So their explanation doesn’t exactly hold water in my mind.
I have no real problem with Santos winning, except for the fact that it seems so repetitive of Bartlett storylines. My only real problem is the manner in which it was done. The whole thing smacks of laziness on the part of the writers and only further exacerbates the cry of Mrs. X and myself, “Bring me the head of John Wells!”
The West Wing has been referred to as “if Hollywood had run the Clinton White House.” Last night, Hollywood stepped in again and tried to claim that they were still in touch with the American electorate. To make a compelling storyline for this season’s election, they decided they needed to show a liberal Democratic candidate win the White House against a moderate conservative who was going to win California, thus proving that the country is more liberal and that a Democrat can win the White House without winning California.
Their plan for this involved a standard electoral map from the 2000 election with swaps in six key states: California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and South Carolina. They also had this moderate Republican win Maine and Vermont but those electoral votes are small enough that it was only to make it more dramatic at the end.
That California and Texas would swap colors is possible, but rather unlikely. California has been receiving more and more liberal Easterners, inflating its population and driving it more to the left. Texas, meanwhile, hasn’t gone for a Democrat since it voted with the rest of the South for Jimmy Carter in 1976. But, Texans are definitely puffed up when it comes to native sons. A liberal candidate from Texas has a much better shot at winning the state than say a liberal from New England.
The idea that Santos could win Arizona and Colorado is tied into the mistaken idea of race block voting. Because African-Americans tend to vote 90% Democrat, there is this mistaken belief that Hispanics and other minority groups are this big voting block where if you convince one, you win them all. In fact, the two most recent elections showed that Hispanics especially are very nuanced and split along many different lines depending on what issues are important to them, much like many portions of white America. BTW, Colorado hasn’t gone Democrat since 1992.
Missouri has been a bellweather state for a long time. However, it has been trending more Republican over the last four years. In terms of the state of the country, a state like Ohio is a little more indicative of the mood of the country. Its fun to stick with trends so it’s easy to see why the writers gave Santos Missouri, however, in a real election, if Santos had won Missouri, he would have probably also won Ohio and Florida, ruining the storyline.
South Carolina is another non-sequitor. SC hasn’t voted Democrat since 1976, even when Bill Clinton won several states among the old Confederacy. Simply because a candidate visits a state many times during a campaign, that doesn’t mean you can necessarily reverse overlying trends. Again, if a Democratic candidate could carry a conservative state like South Carolina, they should nail states like Florida and Ohio, where the vote is much closer.
The producers of the show claim that up until John Spencer died, they were planning to have Vinick win the election. But when they were forced to write the death of Leo into the show, the writers decided that it would be too much of a downer if Santos lost his running mate and the election in one night. Actually, I think it would have been more real and would have given the show a biting edge that it once had back in the first four seasons. Your side doesn’t always win and those are the breaks. When it rains, it pours, etc. Of course, despite their claims, the way the show has laid itself out since the beginning of the season has presented a strong case that they were going to let Santos win from the beginning. So their explanation doesn’t exactly hold water in my mind.
I have no real problem with Santos winning, except for the fact that it seems so repetitive of Bartlett storylines. My only real problem is the manner in which it was done. The whole thing smacks of laziness on the part of the writers and only further exacerbates the cry of Mrs. X and myself, “Bring me the head of John Wells!”
Monday, March 13, 2006
Southern Straw Burning
This past weekend the Republican Southern Leadership Council held an informal straw poll among the various front-runners for the 2008 nomination. Most would not even take note of this except that Republican moneymen like to back front-runners early. Unlike Democrats, who are more willing to embrace an outsider, Republicans like to know whom they are voting and raising money for early. So this straw poll actually did a lot in lining up men with cash and making preparations for the jockeying that will take place next year.
Bill Frist, the Senate Majority leader from Tennessee, was the overall winner, but his victory is largely discounted. The event was held in Memphis and Frist is quite popular in his home state. However, he only received a few votes outside of the Tennessee delegation. What’s more, his leadership style has been almost completely lacking since Trent Lott was forced to resign. In any other state, Frist would probably consider himself luck to finish third. So, this doesn’t mean much overall, except that Frist might want to consider scrapping the Presidency and running for governor of Tennessee first.
The big surprise was who finished number two: Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. It was widely expected that the number two slot would be a horserace between John McCain and John Warner (senator from Virginia). That someone not even from the south won the number two spot is potentially very big. Depending on how the increased scrutiny on his record as governor of Massachusetts goes, Romney could have just made a major step forward. Most of the Washington insiders want someone a bit more moderate that President Bush who will work a little better with the Democrats and won’t bring this emotional baggage to the table. What’s more, coming from a New England state, Romney could force a Democratic candidate to spend money to secure states they would normally win hands down. If Romney gets the nomination, he’ll have to select a southern conservative like Warner to fully placate the base and ensure a good turnout. Fortunately, being a Mormon, Romney shouldn’t have too much trouble getting the religious vote, despite the fact that conservative Christians and Mormons don’t always see eye to eye.
The other amusing story was the performance of John McCain. McCain seemed to sense early that he would get thumped in a race where he really needed to finish second. So he began going around and telling people to vote for Bush as a measure of solidarity. Some did and Bush finished fourth in a race that he can’t win, but most saw through this a ploy for McCain to disguise his poor showing. Even assuming that all those who voted for Bush would have voted for McCain, combining the two stacks would still have given McCain a third place finish and a fourth place finish is probably more accurate of his standing among the SRLC. What this shows is that McCain, while popular with the Beltway insiders and the media, is still not very popular with the base, despite his pandering. I don’t know what kind of deal McCain cut with Bush to get McCain to campaign for him, but McCain is going to need some serious help if he wants to be a factor in the primaries after Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Now, much is still going on and I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next couple of years. For all we know, Mr. Cheney could have a fifth heart attack and be forced to resign for health reasons, prompting Mr. Bush to pluck someone from the masses and anoint them as a successor. But, I rather doubt that will happen. Still, this upcoming election is starting to take on more and more of a West Wing flavor.
Bill Frist, the Senate Majority leader from Tennessee, was the overall winner, but his victory is largely discounted. The event was held in Memphis and Frist is quite popular in his home state. However, he only received a few votes outside of the Tennessee delegation. What’s more, his leadership style has been almost completely lacking since Trent Lott was forced to resign. In any other state, Frist would probably consider himself luck to finish third. So, this doesn’t mean much overall, except that Frist might want to consider scrapping the Presidency and running for governor of Tennessee first.
The big surprise was who finished number two: Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. It was widely expected that the number two slot would be a horserace between John McCain and John Warner (senator from Virginia). That someone not even from the south won the number two spot is potentially very big. Depending on how the increased scrutiny on his record as governor of Massachusetts goes, Romney could have just made a major step forward. Most of the Washington insiders want someone a bit more moderate that President Bush who will work a little better with the Democrats and won’t bring this emotional baggage to the table. What’s more, coming from a New England state, Romney could force a Democratic candidate to spend money to secure states they would normally win hands down. If Romney gets the nomination, he’ll have to select a southern conservative like Warner to fully placate the base and ensure a good turnout. Fortunately, being a Mormon, Romney shouldn’t have too much trouble getting the religious vote, despite the fact that conservative Christians and Mormons don’t always see eye to eye.
The other amusing story was the performance of John McCain. McCain seemed to sense early that he would get thumped in a race where he really needed to finish second. So he began going around and telling people to vote for Bush as a measure of solidarity. Some did and Bush finished fourth in a race that he can’t win, but most saw through this a ploy for McCain to disguise his poor showing. Even assuming that all those who voted for Bush would have voted for McCain, combining the two stacks would still have given McCain a third place finish and a fourth place finish is probably more accurate of his standing among the SRLC. What this shows is that McCain, while popular with the Beltway insiders and the media, is still not very popular with the base, despite his pandering. I don’t know what kind of deal McCain cut with Bush to get McCain to campaign for him, but McCain is going to need some serious help if he wants to be a factor in the primaries after Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Now, much is still going on and I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next couple of years. For all we know, Mr. Cheney could have a fifth heart attack and be forced to resign for health reasons, prompting Mr. Bush to pluck someone from the masses and anoint them as a successor. But, I rather doubt that will happen. Still, this upcoming election is starting to take on more and more of a West Wing flavor.
Monday, March 06, 2006
IDIOT! Give me your money for this Crap!
So the Oscars were on last night. I didn’t really watch anything beyond Jon Stewart’s opening monologue, but I was in the other room and could hear a lot of it while Mrs. X watched it. However, she turned the TV off at 10 so I can’t say anything beyond that. In general of what I overheard, I was reminded of the scene from The Breakfast Club where Anthony Michael Hall’s character is spilling out about being unpopular and Molly Ringwald’s character says its because that they all look up to the popular kids (which include her and Emilio Estevez). Hollywood spend a good portion of last night slapping themselves on the back and chastising the public about not going to see the movies they make and slurping them for being on the cutting edge of culture.
There have been decidedly mixed reviews for Jon Stewart’s performance as host. I liked it, but it was easy to tell that the audience didn’t. Actors want to be lauded, not made fun of. Except that that’s what Jon Stewart does. But then again, with the trouble Hollywood has had in the past in getting people to host the show, its not surprising that they turned to Stewart. Maybe they thought it would make them hip or something.
No matter what you thought of Stewart’s performance, it was easily overshadowed by the almost palpable anger/irritation displayed by the Hollywood elite towards the unwashed masses for not recognizing them as the vanguard of culture and for giving them lots of money to see movies in a theater. There were at least two very snide comments about how nothing compares to seeing a movie in the theater and how we shouldn’t be buying DVDs because it doesn’t compare to a real movie experience. Actually, the last two movies I saw in the theater were Goblet of Fire and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. At Goblet of Fire, I nearly passed out from heat stroke, the theater was so packed and overheated and Mrs. X was almost reduced to tears she was in so much pain from sitting in the seats and being crowded by so many people. At Narnia, the aspect ratio of the movie was off so that any character’s head that was near the top of the screen was cut off at the nose. Neither of these is what I would call a truly enjoyable experience. Certainly not one that encourages me to go out and spend $9 on a random movie that may or not interest me.
The other thing that got me was the endless montages of how great Hollywood is. I made the snide remark to Mrs. X that if Hollywood could actually make a move as good as Ben Hur again, maybe people would actually go see them and they wouldn’t have to spend all this time and money yelling at people to remember how good they were and to try and get them to see a bunch of bad movies now.
One can only hope that the laws of capitalism eventually sink in to the Hollywood types and that if they make a good product, people will actually take part of that product. If not, the Oscars are only going to get worse in they’re living in the past and anger towards the masses.
There have been decidedly mixed reviews for Jon Stewart’s performance as host. I liked it, but it was easy to tell that the audience didn’t. Actors want to be lauded, not made fun of. Except that that’s what Jon Stewart does. But then again, with the trouble Hollywood has had in the past in getting people to host the show, its not surprising that they turned to Stewart. Maybe they thought it would make them hip or something.
No matter what you thought of Stewart’s performance, it was easily overshadowed by the almost palpable anger/irritation displayed by the Hollywood elite towards the unwashed masses for not recognizing them as the vanguard of culture and for giving them lots of money to see movies in a theater. There were at least two very snide comments about how nothing compares to seeing a movie in the theater and how we shouldn’t be buying DVDs because it doesn’t compare to a real movie experience. Actually, the last two movies I saw in the theater were Goblet of Fire and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. At Goblet of Fire, I nearly passed out from heat stroke, the theater was so packed and overheated and Mrs. X was almost reduced to tears she was in so much pain from sitting in the seats and being crowded by so many people. At Narnia, the aspect ratio of the movie was off so that any character’s head that was near the top of the screen was cut off at the nose. Neither of these is what I would call a truly enjoyable experience. Certainly not one that encourages me to go out and spend $9 on a random movie that may or not interest me.
The other thing that got me was the endless montages of how great Hollywood is. I made the snide remark to Mrs. X that if Hollywood could actually make a move as good as Ben Hur again, maybe people would actually go see them and they wouldn’t have to spend all this time and money yelling at people to remember how good they were and to try and get them to see a bunch of bad movies now.
One can only hope that the laws of capitalism eventually sink in to the Hollywood types and that if they make a good product, people will actually take part of that product. If not, the Oscars are only going to get worse in they’re living in the past and anger towards the masses.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Resurrection of Al?
In an article that appeared on The Hill, it appears that Al Gore might be ready to make a Nixon like run at the White House. In 1960, John Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon in a controversial election. Nixon was exiled where he became even more of a joke after being defeated in his run for Governor of California in 1962. However, after the more conservative Barry Goldwater was destroyed by LBJ in 1964, Republicans started having second thoughts about Nixon. Nixon, in turn, started glad-handing the party faithful, positioning himself for a run at the nomination in 1968. He locked it up and then narrowly defeated Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 election.
This could be a potential mirror for Al Gore in 2008. Gore was narrowly defeated in the 2000 election that had its share of controversy. Bush was blamed, but Gore received a great deal of scorn as well for not putting things out of reach by either winning Tennessee or New Hampshire. Gore was exiled to the political wilderness and was even see as the kiss of death after he endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 and Dean suddenly collapsed. But the more liberal John Kerry’s worse-than-Gore defeat to Bush kept shifting more of the 2000 election anger on Bush and the Democratic establishment rather than on Gore himself.
Gore has also been endearing himself more and more to the moveon.org portion of the Democratic base with his consistent attacks on Bush policies and complete opposition to the war in Iraq. In addition, Gore’s consistent position on global warming and energy policy are a bit more in favor following the aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina and the gas price spikes of last year.
With these as tools, as well as a couple of political favors that Howard Dean still owes him, Gore might be able to score a win in Iowa and a first or second finish in New Hampshire. This might be able to give him traction and generate more money to his campaign. Senator Clinton is already on the outs with the more liberal base because of her mixed position on the war and there are growing fears that she might not be electable. If Gore out-greens her, he might steal enough of her support in the party machinery to overcome the neck-and-neck race he’ll have to deal with from Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia). This is where the mood of the party will come into play as to see if they’ll be ready to embrace a more moderate candidate in the mold of former President Clinton.
Now, could Gore win the election? I doubt it. He’s made himself too extreme with his cries in the wilderness and all those SNL caricatures are hard to overcome. I’m also not completely sure that Gore could beat Warner in a head-to-head match up. But, if he does defeat Warner, he might be able to capture enough momentum to seize the middle and take out the Republican candidate, especially if the nominee is a hard righter like Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan). Still, I’d keep an eye on Al in the near future.
This could be a potential mirror for Al Gore in 2008. Gore was narrowly defeated in the 2000 election that had its share of controversy. Bush was blamed, but Gore received a great deal of scorn as well for not putting things out of reach by either winning Tennessee or New Hampshire. Gore was exiled to the political wilderness and was even see as the kiss of death after he endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 and Dean suddenly collapsed. But the more liberal John Kerry’s worse-than-Gore defeat to Bush kept shifting more of the 2000 election anger on Bush and the Democratic establishment rather than on Gore himself.
Gore has also been endearing himself more and more to the moveon.org portion of the Democratic base with his consistent attacks on Bush policies and complete opposition to the war in Iraq. In addition, Gore’s consistent position on global warming and energy policy are a bit more in favor following the aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina and the gas price spikes of last year.
With these as tools, as well as a couple of political favors that Howard Dean still owes him, Gore might be able to score a win in Iowa and a first or second finish in New Hampshire. This might be able to give him traction and generate more money to his campaign. Senator Clinton is already on the outs with the more liberal base because of her mixed position on the war and there are growing fears that she might not be electable. If Gore out-greens her, he might steal enough of her support in the party machinery to overcome the neck-and-neck race he’ll have to deal with from Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia). This is where the mood of the party will come into play as to see if they’ll be ready to embrace a more moderate candidate in the mold of former President Clinton.
Now, could Gore win the election? I doubt it. He’s made himself too extreme with his cries in the wilderness and all those SNL caricatures are hard to overcome. I’m also not completely sure that Gore could beat Warner in a head-to-head match up. But, if he does defeat Warner, he might be able to capture enough momentum to seize the middle and take out the Republican candidate, especially if the nominee is a hard righter like Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan). Still, I’d keep an eye on Al in the near future.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Iraq Dissolved?
Mrs. X, her mom, and I have had several discussions regarding the recent war in Iraq. Generally, Mrs. X’s mom is a little more conservative, but in this she is quite of the mind that an Iraqi civil war is inevitable and that we should just leave now and let them get it over with. I’m not ready to buy into complete civil war such as we had, but I think I will honestly be surprised if I look at a map in 10 years and see a country labeled Iraq and looking like it is now.
In the north, you have a region that is completely controlled by the Kurds and has functioned as an autonomous region ever since the first Iraq war back in 1991. They have an independent state in all but name and between 80 and 90 percent of the population favor having an independent state of Kurdistan rather than staying with Iraq.
On the southern side, there is a strong presence of Shia Muslims who probably wouldn’t have too much of a problem being absorbed into the Iranian state. Some of the intelligencia wouldn’t care for this, but they might be outnumbered by the masses. The Sunnis are primarily in the western section of the country and could unite with Jordan and Syria.
The problem with the simple breakup idea though is the upcoming war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. I’ve talked before about how Israel might be invaded on three sides by various Arab factions. Iran might even get involved by attacking US positions in Iraq and keeping us pinned down long enough for the western Arabs to significantly weaken Israel. Its unknown as to how the Shia Iraqis would respond to an invasion like this, whether they would join the Iranians in attacking us or they would resist the invasion. The Kurds would back us as well as Israel as they have strong ties to both countries, but I could also see them using this war to completely entrench themselves in the city of Kirkuk, which they are steadily trying to get back from the Arabs. The Sunnis meanwhile would support the Arab invasion of Israel and try to grab their own base of power as well.
So what’s the outcome? It depends on how strong Israel decides to push back. If they just expel the invaders, things might return to a status quo with a low level civil war now going on in Iraq. But if Israel pushes back as hard as they should have in 1967, things will be very different. Israel would completely expel the Arabs from Gaza and take over the entire West Bank. They might even seize land in Syria and Jordan to create a buffer zone between Israel and any foreign invader. Kurdistan would recognize the expanded state and form a trading alliance with Israel, forming a territorial border and trading highway through land formally possessed by Syria. With this new alliance, the two would unite and be strong enough to refute any advance from Turkey, which is not partial towards the Kurds. Depending on how quickly the Iranians were pushed back, territorial concessions might be made there, although the status quo might be maintained. Eventually, some of the mostly Shia areas of Iraq might defect to Iran, but that’s still very iffy. But Iraq itself would probably be dissolved into several minor states, including a southern Shia zone and a central Sunni zone. The middle region where Baghdad currently is might be declared a free zone, monitored and maintained by the international community, leading to a possible reconstruction of the city of Babylon as a free city of the future for which the leaders of the world might hammer out any problems.
Extreme possibility? Perhaps. Possible? Certainly. We’ll see what happens in a couple of years.
In the north, you have a region that is completely controlled by the Kurds and has functioned as an autonomous region ever since the first Iraq war back in 1991. They have an independent state in all but name and between 80 and 90 percent of the population favor having an independent state of Kurdistan rather than staying with Iraq.
On the southern side, there is a strong presence of Shia Muslims who probably wouldn’t have too much of a problem being absorbed into the Iranian state. Some of the intelligencia wouldn’t care for this, but they might be outnumbered by the masses. The Sunnis are primarily in the western section of the country and could unite with Jordan and Syria.
The problem with the simple breakup idea though is the upcoming war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. I’ve talked before about how Israel might be invaded on three sides by various Arab factions. Iran might even get involved by attacking US positions in Iraq and keeping us pinned down long enough for the western Arabs to significantly weaken Israel. Its unknown as to how the Shia Iraqis would respond to an invasion like this, whether they would join the Iranians in attacking us or they would resist the invasion. The Kurds would back us as well as Israel as they have strong ties to both countries, but I could also see them using this war to completely entrench themselves in the city of Kirkuk, which they are steadily trying to get back from the Arabs. The Sunnis meanwhile would support the Arab invasion of Israel and try to grab their own base of power as well.
So what’s the outcome? It depends on how strong Israel decides to push back. If they just expel the invaders, things might return to a status quo with a low level civil war now going on in Iraq. But if Israel pushes back as hard as they should have in 1967, things will be very different. Israel would completely expel the Arabs from Gaza and take over the entire West Bank. They might even seize land in Syria and Jordan to create a buffer zone between Israel and any foreign invader. Kurdistan would recognize the expanded state and form a trading alliance with Israel, forming a territorial border and trading highway through land formally possessed by Syria. With this new alliance, the two would unite and be strong enough to refute any advance from Turkey, which is not partial towards the Kurds. Depending on how quickly the Iranians were pushed back, territorial concessions might be made there, although the status quo might be maintained. Eventually, some of the mostly Shia areas of Iraq might defect to Iran, but that’s still very iffy. But Iraq itself would probably be dissolved into several minor states, including a southern Shia zone and a central Sunni zone. The middle region where Baghdad currently is might be declared a free zone, monitored and maintained by the international community, leading to a possible reconstruction of the city of Babylon as a free city of the future for which the leaders of the world might hammer out any problems.
Extreme possibility? Perhaps. Possible? Certainly. We’ll see what happens in a couple of years.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Dancing with the Press
Sometimes the press can just get very annoying. We’ve all been quite amused by the story that has come out this week about Mr. Cheney accidentally shooting one of his hunting companions. The man unfortunately suffered a relapse when one of the small pieces of shot triggered a mild heart attack. I think we will all admit that this is a tragedy and just another example for those of us who don’t care for guns as to why to avoid using them.
However, I think most reasonable people would also agree that either Mr. Cheney or the White House Press Secretary (Scott McClellan) deciding not to inform the Washington Press Corp immediately does not equate to the withholding of the Nixon tapes. In fact, the press was notified very soon after the incident, the local Corpus Christi press. Now, the Washington Press Corp is throwing a very public temper tantrum about being scooped by the small town folks in Corpus Christi. In fact, there apparently was an incident prior to the cameras being turned on in one of the press briefings where the NBC correspondent asked a question about why the Vice President’s office hadn’t informed the press immediately after the incident. Mr. McClellan told the reporter to wait until the cameras were on, but also implied that he would tell the reporter to direct that question to the Vice President’s office. The NBC correspondent apparently got very angry and started yelling at Mr. McClellan, accusing him of being a jerk and withholding information. If this were a young child, I think most people would have taken this person over their knee and given him a good spanking or at least a time out.
Unfortunately, because the old guard media no longer has complete control over the story, they are losing market share and that in turn makes them more whiney, pompous, and under the delusion of privilege than ever before. In my profession, if someone new comes along and starts doing my job in a way that my bosses prefer more to mine, then it is up to me to find out what my bosses want and improve my performance to suit their desires since they are the ones that pay my salary. This concept of the Washington Press Corp needing to be the only ones who disseminate any information regarding political figures is just annoying and very tiresome.
On a lighter note, we are now the semi-finals of Dancing With the Stars. Given the way the marks have been going, I expect Drew and Stacy to lead the pack with Lisa coming in right behind in third and Jerry finishing fourth with the judges. However, because of the fan vote, Lisa will go home. In the finals, I suspect that the producers will encourage the judges to give Drew and Stacy tying first place scores, with Jerry rounding out the bottom. Thus, when the fan vote is tabulated, Jerry won’t be able to sneak in for the win. Let me elaborate:
Mrs. X and I think that the scoring is as follows: the scores from the judges determine the ranking order. In the finals, the top couple would receive 3 points, the second 2 and the last 1. Then the fan vote comes in. The top couple in the fan voting receives 3 points, next 2 and the last 1. Then the points are added together. Let’s say that in the finals, Drew receives the top score from the judges, Stacy is second, and Jerry is last. But, in the fan voting, their numbers are reversed: Jerry –1, Stacy – 2, and Drew – 3. Added together, all three couples would have 4 points, but fan voting breaks the tie and Jerry Rice would win the crown. But, if Stacy and Drew tie for first, each would receive 3 points while Jerry gets 1. Thus, even if Jerry gets the top spot in the fan vote, one of the two remaining would get 5 total points to top Jerry. Plus, the fans would feel reasonably mollified because it was their voting that decided which of the two top contenders would win and the show would avoid the cries of “foul” that marred last year’s show. I’m sure the fan vote has been reasonably consistent that the producers already know who is going to win and have only had to do a marginal amount of manipulation. My gut tells me that Stacy is who is going to win, because nothing ever beats sex appeal when it comes to marketing.
However, I think most reasonable people would also agree that either Mr. Cheney or the White House Press Secretary (Scott McClellan) deciding not to inform the Washington Press Corp immediately does not equate to the withholding of the Nixon tapes. In fact, the press was notified very soon after the incident, the local Corpus Christi press. Now, the Washington Press Corp is throwing a very public temper tantrum about being scooped by the small town folks in Corpus Christi. In fact, there apparently was an incident prior to the cameras being turned on in one of the press briefings where the NBC correspondent asked a question about why the Vice President’s office hadn’t informed the press immediately after the incident. Mr. McClellan told the reporter to wait until the cameras were on, but also implied that he would tell the reporter to direct that question to the Vice President’s office. The NBC correspondent apparently got very angry and started yelling at Mr. McClellan, accusing him of being a jerk and withholding information. If this were a young child, I think most people would have taken this person over their knee and given him a good spanking or at least a time out.
Unfortunately, because the old guard media no longer has complete control over the story, they are losing market share and that in turn makes them more whiney, pompous, and under the delusion of privilege than ever before. In my profession, if someone new comes along and starts doing my job in a way that my bosses prefer more to mine, then it is up to me to find out what my bosses want and improve my performance to suit their desires since they are the ones that pay my salary. This concept of the Washington Press Corp needing to be the only ones who disseminate any information regarding political figures is just annoying and very tiresome.
On a lighter note, we are now the semi-finals of Dancing With the Stars. Given the way the marks have been going, I expect Drew and Stacy to lead the pack with Lisa coming in right behind in third and Jerry finishing fourth with the judges. However, because of the fan vote, Lisa will go home. In the finals, I suspect that the producers will encourage the judges to give Drew and Stacy tying first place scores, with Jerry rounding out the bottom. Thus, when the fan vote is tabulated, Jerry won’t be able to sneak in for the win. Let me elaborate:
Mrs. X and I think that the scoring is as follows: the scores from the judges determine the ranking order. In the finals, the top couple would receive 3 points, the second 2 and the last 1. Then the fan vote comes in. The top couple in the fan voting receives 3 points, next 2 and the last 1. Then the points are added together. Let’s say that in the finals, Drew receives the top score from the judges, Stacy is second, and Jerry is last. But, in the fan voting, their numbers are reversed: Jerry –1, Stacy – 2, and Drew – 3. Added together, all three couples would have 4 points, but fan voting breaks the tie and Jerry Rice would win the crown. But, if Stacy and Drew tie for first, each would receive 3 points while Jerry gets 1. Thus, even if Jerry gets the top spot in the fan vote, one of the two remaining would get 5 total points to top Jerry. Plus, the fans would feel reasonably mollified because it was their voting that decided which of the two top contenders would win and the show would avoid the cries of “foul” that marred last year’s show. I’m sure the fan vote has been reasonably consistent that the producers already know who is going to win and have only had to do a marginal amount of manipulation. My gut tells me that Stacy is who is going to win, because nothing ever beats sex appeal when it comes to marketing.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Tppppppth!
To quote Bart Simpson, “I didn’t think it was possible, but this both sucks and blows.” Not only did Pittsburgh win a thoroughly non-entertaining Super Bowl, but the commercials pretty much stunk as well. All in all, I would say that there were about three good commercials. My rating would go as follows:
1) Fed Ex: Caveman – This one started out slow but the caveman getting chewed out by his boss for not using a service that hasn’t been invented yet and then getting squashed really amused me. Some good ultimate bad day humor.
2) Bud Light: Magic Fridge – Again, a slow start but an amusing pay off at the end. Skater guys bowing down to the magic fridge is always good.
3) Dove: Pretty Girls – Not funny, but something that needs to be recognized as to just how bad the problem has gotten with young women and their image of themselves, especially when there is nothing wrong with them. In some cases the opposite is true. But it was a good message and subtly played.
Some honorable mentions would go to the Budweiser Colt, the Kermit Hybrid, and the “I’m going to Disneyworld” commercials. Not the best, but at least mildly entertaining. In this group you could also add the Benny Hill Moto and the Monkey/Jackass commercials, but I thought both those premises were a bit tired.
The Diet Pepsi “brown and bubbly” was just bad but I rather dislike inanimate objects acting like people commercials. The first Hybrid commercial made no sense to me and I can’t recall any of the other commercials off the top of my head. Obviously they failed to garner my attention for memory. So I don’t believe we’ll be adding any of the commercials to the best list, which is still way too tilted towards that overly sappy “Mean Joe Greene” commercial.
As far as the game goes, I thought it was pretty bad. Pittsburgh had a grand total of three good plays that allowed them to score their 21 points. Seattle was in position for several good plays but the refs or the Seahawks themselves ended up screwing things up. As far as the pass interference call in the first quarter that negated a touchdown, I thought it was technically right, but the fact that the back judge didn’t call it until the Pittsburgh player complained made it something of a ticky-tack call. The holding call in the third quarter was a little more correct as I did see the arm bar. But I still thought the refs made themselves too obvious in this game, which is exactly what the NFL wanted to avoid. Any time you can look back on a game, and can say that a game changing moment was one that involved the refereeing of the game, its just not an entertaining or satisfying game. People want to talk about how either one team totally crushed the other or about how there was this one play that changed things (such as a last second field goal or a tackle at the 1 that saved a touchdown). Talking about officiating leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Now, Pittsburgh might have still won the game. They could have gone into the locker room down 14-7 and rallied to win 21-17. They certainly looked like they were getting things going a little better in the second half, even though they still didn’t do a whole lot.
Overall, I would say that this Super Bowl should be relegated to the scrap heap of history. People in Pittsburgh can enjoy it, but I can’t imagine anyone else wanting to watch highlights of this game in the future.
1) Fed Ex: Caveman – This one started out slow but the caveman getting chewed out by his boss for not using a service that hasn’t been invented yet and then getting squashed really amused me. Some good ultimate bad day humor.
2) Bud Light: Magic Fridge – Again, a slow start but an amusing pay off at the end. Skater guys bowing down to the magic fridge is always good.
3) Dove: Pretty Girls – Not funny, but something that needs to be recognized as to just how bad the problem has gotten with young women and their image of themselves, especially when there is nothing wrong with them. In some cases the opposite is true. But it was a good message and subtly played.
Some honorable mentions would go to the Budweiser Colt, the Kermit Hybrid, and the “I’m going to Disneyworld” commercials. Not the best, but at least mildly entertaining. In this group you could also add the Benny Hill Moto and the Monkey/Jackass commercials, but I thought both those premises were a bit tired.
The Diet Pepsi “brown and bubbly” was just bad but I rather dislike inanimate objects acting like people commercials. The first Hybrid commercial made no sense to me and I can’t recall any of the other commercials off the top of my head. Obviously they failed to garner my attention for memory. So I don’t believe we’ll be adding any of the commercials to the best list, which is still way too tilted towards that overly sappy “Mean Joe Greene” commercial.
As far as the game goes, I thought it was pretty bad. Pittsburgh had a grand total of three good plays that allowed them to score their 21 points. Seattle was in position for several good plays but the refs or the Seahawks themselves ended up screwing things up. As far as the pass interference call in the first quarter that negated a touchdown, I thought it was technically right, but the fact that the back judge didn’t call it until the Pittsburgh player complained made it something of a ticky-tack call. The holding call in the third quarter was a little more correct as I did see the arm bar. But I still thought the refs made themselves too obvious in this game, which is exactly what the NFL wanted to avoid. Any time you can look back on a game, and can say that a game changing moment was one that involved the refereeing of the game, its just not an entertaining or satisfying game. People want to talk about how either one team totally crushed the other or about how there was this one play that changed things (such as a last second field goal or a tackle at the 1 that saved a touchdown). Talking about officiating leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Now, Pittsburgh might have still won the game. They could have gone into the locker room down 14-7 and rallied to win 21-17. They certainly looked like they were getting things going a little better in the second half, even though they still didn’t do a whole lot.
Overall, I would say that this Super Bowl should be relegated to the scrap heap of history. People in Pittsburgh can enjoy it, but I can’t imagine anyone else wanting to watch highlights of this game in the future.
Friday, January 27, 2006
For Three Sins... Even for Four...
Things are going to go to hell for Israel very quickly this year. Yesterday we learned that Hamas has won a full majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament. Abu Mazen of Fatah is still the president, but it is Hamas that is going to be calling the shots now. News of the Hamas victory has had mixed reactions. In the West, there has been a mixture of horror and anxiety. In Arab countries, however, there has been a generally positive reaction. Iran, Egypt, Syria, and the Hezbollah elements in Lebanon have all greeted the news with jubilation. No word yet on the reaction from Jordan about this. Hamas itself is still reeling a bit from their win. I think they were unprepared for their own success and tried to even get Fatah to form the new government. Fatah declined so now Hamas is scrambling to figure out what to do. In the end, they will form a new government but probably will not back down from their objective to destroy Israel.
Now, couple this with the scheduled Israeli elections to be held in March. Also throw in that there may be something of a deadline for which to make surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in either March or April. Syria is also still very twitchy about possible American advances on their border and a population that is getting restless with the current regime. Throw all these things together and the fruit of war is starting to look more and more ripe. I’m sure most people believe that the Americans are too bogged down in Iraq to make any significant coordinated effort with Israel to repel a multiple pronged attack. Especially if Iran decides to activate its forces and engage us on the Iraq-Iran border and if Hamas can coordinate with the Al-Queda cells in Iraq to disrupt our supply lines. As a result Israel would be forced to deal with the guerrilla tactics of Hamas in the south, supplied with Egyptian weapons, and hold off the Syrian army from the north with aid from Hezbollah. The true wild card would be Jordan. If Jordan stays out of it, Israel can divide its army fairly effectively. If Jordan does enter the fight, Israel then has to fight it out on the mountains of Ephraim while fending off the Syrian armies and Hamas. Then you add the fact that Syria may have some WMDs (whether of their own development or having come from Iraq is unknown) and will probably not hesitate to use them.
So, are we looking at war in a couple of months? I doubt it. I think things will need to fester for a little while. Too much has happened too fast and I think the Arab states need a couple of months to catch their breath. I’m also not totally sure they will opt for the complete surprise attack that they did in 1973. They could and achieve great success through this, but I think they might want to try and make Israel look like the bad guy. This takes time. Still, I would be rather surprised if there is not some sort of armed conflict within 18 months of now. I think the Arabs would like to try and get some sort of ironic revenge by dealing Israel a deathblow around the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, which is easily Israel’s greatest military victory. Of course planning that blow and delivering it are two very different things. We shall see.
Now, couple this with the scheduled Israeli elections to be held in March. Also throw in that there may be something of a deadline for which to make surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in either March or April. Syria is also still very twitchy about possible American advances on their border and a population that is getting restless with the current regime. Throw all these things together and the fruit of war is starting to look more and more ripe. I’m sure most people believe that the Americans are too bogged down in Iraq to make any significant coordinated effort with Israel to repel a multiple pronged attack. Especially if Iran decides to activate its forces and engage us on the Iraq-Iran border and if Hamas can coordinate with the Al-Queda cells in Iraq to disrupt our supply lines. As a result Israel would be forced to deal with the guerrilla tactics of Hamas in the south, supplied with Egyptian weapons, and hold off the Syrian army from the north with aid from Hezbollah. The true wild card would be Jordan. If Jordan stays out of it, Israel can divide its army fairly effectively. If Jordan does enter the fight, Israel then has to fight it out on the mountains of Ephraim while fending off the Syrian armies and Hamas. Then you add the fact that Syria may have some WMDs (whether of their own development or having come from Iraq is unknown) and will probably not hesitate to use them.
So, are we looking at war in a couple of months? I doubt it. I think things will need to fester for a little while. Too much has happened too fast and I think the Arab states need a couple of months to catch their breath. I’m also not totally sure they will opt for the complete surprise attack that they did in 1973. They could and achieve great success through this, but I think they might want to try and make Israel look like the bad guy. This takes time. Still, I would be rather surprised if there is not some sort of armed conflict within 18 months of now. I think the Arabs would like to try and get some sort of ironic revenge by dealing Israel a deathblow around the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, which is easily Israel’s greatest military victory. Of course planning that blow and delivering it are two very different things. We shall see.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Coffee and Steel
When I was in college, the dorm cafeteria would set the Super Bowl Sunday meal based on which two teams were in the game. For example, my freshman year we had Green Bay vs. New England in Super Bowl XXXI. So for Green Bay, the cafeteria served brats that had been boiled in beer and sauerkraut. For New England, they served New England style clam chowder. People who know me would immediately tell you that I must have eaten the brats as soup and I don’t get along. Super Bowl XXXII had Green Bay and Denver, so while the brats came back, the adjoining meal was Denver omelets. I’d never heard of them either so I stuck with the brats. I don’t remember what was offered for Atlanta during Super Bowl XXXIII but I must have had it since the alternative was the Denver omelets again. My senior year it was St. Louis vs. Tennessee and I didn’t get to see the menu as I was attending a Super Bowl party and we just ordered pizza.
Reminiscing on all this made me think as to what you would offer to eat for the current Super Bowl contenders. For Seattle, I was thinking something along the lines of salmon, whether smoked or grilled. Of course you would have to supplement it with some flavored coffees, but that would be up to the individual. My problem is that I can’t quite think of anything good to represent Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh’s primary representation has always been steel and a very blue-collar city. A singular cuisine has not necessarily been their forte. So I forced to regress back to something like lunch-pail food such as subs. Nothing big like a pohboy, but more like a simple sub. If anyone can think of something more representative of Pittsburgh (Andy?) I’d be curious to hear.
As for the actual game, Mrs. X and I will be rooting for Seattle simply because it feels wrong to support a team from your own division that is a sworn enemy of the hometown boys. I also have ties to Seattle so it’ll be easier for me. However, I feel that our rooting will be in vain and that Pittsburgh will win the game. However, I’ve though lots of things about lots of teams this year and been very wrong many times. Mrs. X actually beat me in our pick ‘em by 12 games. When you throw in the fact that we only pick 5 games a week, it makes me look really bad. I actually finished the season below .500 (.482). So if I think Pittsburgh will win, maybe Seattle will prove me wrong. I certainly wouldn’t mind that.
Reminiscing on all this made me think as to what you would offer to eat for the current Super Bowl contenders. For Seattle, I was thinking something along the lines of salmon, whether smoked or grilled. Of course you would have to supplement it with some flavored coffees, but that would be up to the individual. My problem is that I can’t quite think of anything good to represent Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh’s primary representation has always been steel and a very blue-collar city. A singular cuisine has not necessarily been their forte. So I forced to regress back to something like lunch-pail food such as subs. Nothing big like a pohboy, but more like a simple sub. If anyone can think of something more representative of Pittsburgh (Andy?) I’d be curious to hear.
As for the actual game, Mrs. X and I will be rooting for Seattle simply because it feels wrong to support a team from your own division that is a sworn enemy of the hometown boys. I also have ties to Seattle so it’ll be easier for me. However, I feel that our rooting will be in vain and that Pittsburgh will win the game. However, I’ve though lots of things about lots of teams this year and been very wrong many times. Mrs. X actually beat me in our pick ‘em by 12 games. When you throw in the fact that we only pick 5 games a week, it makes me look really bad. I actually finished the season below .500 (.482). So if I think Pittsburgh will win, maybe Seattle will prove me wrong. I certainly wouldn’t mind that.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Dating Easter
Yesterday, at church, the pastor gave a little sermon about reading and studying the Bible. He noted that in general, Southern Baptists rely more on direct Biblical teaching than church tradition than other denominations do (although we too suffer from the “upholding tradition” curse). This got me thinking about something that I read a couple of months ago and have given a lot of thought about: how errors creep into our celebration and understanding of things.
I’m not going to touch on Christmas, which has its own set of problems, but I specifically was thinking about Easter and the days in front of it. Tradition tells us that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday, He was arrested Thursday night after celebrating the Passover with his disciples, He was tried and crucified on Friday and then he rose on Sunday. On the surface, it seems to be very straightforward, however, when you look at it deeper, a key flaw develops. Jesus promised His followers a key sign: the sign of Jonah.
Jonah was thrown off a ship for violating God’s will and spent three days and three nights in the belly of a fish before he repented and was returned to do the job God originally asked him to do. Jesus promised his followers that like Jonah, He would spend three days and three nights in the belly of the Earth before emerging alive again. Yet if we count out the way we celebrate things, the timeline doesn’t match up. Jesus is buried before sundown on Friday (1 day), Friday night (1 day, 1 night), Saturday passes (2 days, 2 nights), and then Jesus rises from the dead on Sunday. You might argue that if Jesus did not arise until after sunup, this would be three days, but it still fails the three days and three nights test.
So what is the answer? Jesus was crucified and was buried on Thursday. This allows Him to stay in the tomb for the full three days and three nights and then arise as the sun breaks on Sunday. Now, I can hear at least a couple of you crying out that the day after Jesus died was the Sabbath so he had to die on Friday. Not so. We must remember that Jesus was also crucified on Passover (Nisan 14). You must also remember that Jewish days begin at sundown so Nisan 14 actually began on Wednesday night and Nisan 15 began on Thursday night. The day after Passover is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread and it was a holy day for the Jews. Thus it was to be treated in the same manner as a Sabbath no matter what day of the week it fell on. Much like how we celebrate Christmas on whatever day it falls on. It’s always December 25. Thus the Feast of Unleavened Bread is always on Nisan 15 and is to be treated special.
So what actually happened is this: Jesus enters Jerusalem to great acclaim on Nisan 10. He teaches for several days and then has a Passover meal with His disciples at the start of Nisan 14, which was Wednesday evening. That night He retreats to Gethsemane and is arrested. The Sanhedrin meets and convicts Him, handing Him over to Pilate early Thursday morning. Pilate gives in to the crowd and Jesus is crucified. He dies around 3 pm and is taken down shortly after. He is cleaned and buried in the tomb shortly before sundown. He stays there through both holy days and rises from the dead as the sun breaks early Sunday morning (Nisan 17). Thus, when we celebrate Maundy Thursday, we are celebrating His actual death rather than the Last Supper. Of course, I think we should tie the celebration in with Passover every year, but that’s my opinion.
I’m not going to touch on Christmas, which has its own set of problems, but I specifically was thinking about Easter and the days in front of it. Tradition tells us that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday, He was arrested Thursday night after celebrating the Passover with his disciples, He was tried and crucified on Friday and then he rose on Sunday. On the surface, it seems to be very straightforward, however, when you look at it deeper, a key flaw develops. Jesus promised His followers a key sign: the sign of Jonah.
Jonah was thrown off a ship for violating God’s will and spent three days and three nights in the belly of a fish before he repented and was returned to do the job God originally asked him to do. Jesus promised his followers that like Jonah, He would spend three days and three nights in the belly of the Earth before emerging alive again. Yet if we count out the way we celebrate things, the timeline doesn’t match up. Jesus is buried before sundown on Friday (1 day), Friday night (1 day, 1 night), Saturday passes (2 days, 2 nights), and then Jesus rises from the dead on Sunday. You might argue that if Jesus did not arise until after sunup, this would be three days, but it still fails the three days and three nights test.
So what is the answer? Jesus was crucified and was buried on Thursday. This allows Him to stay in the tomb for the full three days and three nights and then arise as the sun breaks on Sunday. Now, I can hear at least a couple of you crying out that the day after Jesus died was the Sabbath so he had to die on Friday. Not so. We must remember that Jesus was also crucified on Passover (Nisan 14). You must also remember that Jewish days begin at sundown so Nisan 14 actually began on Wednesday night and Nisan 15 began on Thursday night. The day after Passover is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread and it was a holy day for the Jews. Thus it was to be treated in the same manner as a Sabbath no matter what day of the week it fell on. Much like how we celebrate Christmas on whatever day it falls on. It’s always December 25. Thus the Feast of Unleavened Bread is always on Nisan 15 and is to be treated special.
So what actually happened is this: Jesus enters Jerusalem to great acclaim on Nisan 10. He teaches for several days and then has a Passover meal with His disciples at the start of Nisan 14, which was Wednesday evening. That night He retreats to Gethsemane and is arrested. The Sanhedrin meets and convicts Him, handing Him over to Pilate early Thursday morning. Pilate gives in to the crowd and Jesus is crucified. He dies around 3 pm and is taken down shortly after. He is cleaned and buried in the tomb shortly before sundown. He stays there through both holy days and rises from the dead as the sun breaks early Sunday morning (Nisan 17). Thus, when we celebrate Maundy Thursday, we are celebrating His actual death rather than the Last Supper. Of course, I think we should tie the celebration in with Passover every year, but that’s my opinion.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Ten (or so) Worst Americans
Just recently, the BBC History magazine published a list of the 10 worst Britons in the past 1,000 years. The BBC refused to let history get shorted and selected 1 individual per century. The blog All Things Beautiful picked up on this concept and decided to create an American version. She has not posted hers yet but she has linked to a bunch of blogs who saw what she had in mind and decided to voice their own opinions. Because I’d rather not discuss the Bengals shameful performance of Saturday, I thought I would join the pack of lemmings and offer my own list.
In my list I’ve tried to remain as objective as possible, something that was completely lost on many of the blog posters. Most are filled with at least one or two very obvious political rants of our times. I’ve tried to give history an even say, but I must admit that my lack of intimate knowledge of the 19th century does bias this list towards the 20th. There are several people that I’ve seen pop up on other lists that I would give consideration to if I had room, such as Charles Manson and Aaron Burr, but I’ve tried to narrow the list to the worst of the worst, especially with either far reaching consequences or the sheer volume of their atrocities.
10) William Randolph Hearst – Most people would immediately question this selection. Yellow journalism certainly isn’t a good thing, but is it worth a position on this list? I believe it is. The process of creating a story from rumor or flat out lies directly led the US into war with Spain, costing a lot of American blood. It also cemented a point into the large newspaper barons that it didn’t really matter what the truth was. As long as they told a story convincingly enough, people would swallow it and the media could then dictate public policy. This ran through the entire 20th century from things like the two Red Scares, the Vietnam War, and even current attitudes about our government and its policies. Only recently with the proliferation of blogs and other sources have there been enough people digging to get all the information that people have been able to make decisions based on all the facts.
9) H. H. Holmes – Holmes was the first major American serial killer (at least that was caught). It is believed that he murdered over 200 people. His favorite method was through a hotel he ran in Chicago. He soundproofed certain rooms and would release gas into them during the night. He was a very sick individual and probably one of the most successful serial killers in the US.
8) Jane Fonda – Again, I am trying to leave politics out of this and leave the person’s actions to defend them. To many, Fonda remains a stanch anti-war activist and if that were the only thing she did, I wouldn’t even consider her for this list. However, she did not just oppose the government as many people did, she aided the enemy and was celebrated for it. Fonda set up foundations where people could donate money and have it be funneled to the North Vietnamese. She visited North Vietnam, inspecting and approving of equipment used against Americans. A famous story is told how she visited a POW camp and one soldier gave her a note with his information and asked that she give it to his family so that they may know where he was. She gave the note to a guard who then took the American prisoner away and was beaten. All wars have objectors and many wars have people working for the enemy, but Ms. Fonda has been celebrated and hailed as a hero for her actions that could and should have hanged less famous individuals. This celebration clouds the differences between opposition to combat (as practices by many law-abiding Americans during this time) and open support and aid to enemy (which is illegal under the Constitution). This confusion has had a disastrous effect on any practical debate where a person who opposes a war is called a traitor (see Michael Moore) and any person who supports a war is called a fascist war-monger (see Republican Party). This is why I believe Ms. Fonda’s actions push her above the fray and on to this list.
7) Jim Jones – Jones is probably the most famous of all the death cult leaders. Jones was a nut job of a preacher who created a massive following, swindling millions out of people. The government came after him and he transplanted himself and his church to Guyana. There, things went from bad to worse with beatings and rumored murders until he convinced his followers to die with him. 914 people died amidst one man’s madness, including 276 children, although Jones was found shot and not poisoned.
6) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – There is much debate as to whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies prior to their delivering of nuclear secrets, but there is no doubt they did. In fairness, the Soviets had enough captured Germans that they would have figured it out eventually, but the material the Rosenbergs gave them certainly helped the case. Knowledge of nuclear weapons allowed the Soviets to rattle their saber just as loud as the Americans and also allowed them to be belligerent during the critical post-war clean up. At the very least, the Rosenbergs committed an act of high treason against the government and added fuel to a situation that eventually cost many American lives.
5) Eugene McCarthy – Despite what certain people’s convictions are about George W. Bush, it is McCarthy who pushed the US government to its closest embrace of dictatorship. McCarthy ruined many lives in his crowing and peacocking for the cameras. He trampled the rights of many Americans, most for certainly doing nothing more than holding opinions contrary to the mainstream. His creation of an atmosphere of fear and paranoia accelerated attacks not just on the cultural elite, but also in the masses. Modern versions of the Salem Witch Trials erupted throughout the country as anyone who uttered a leftist though could rightfully be charged with un-American activities and imprisoned. The specter of fear generated by McCarthy still lingers today, although we’ve changed the names from Communist to whatever the general bogeyman of the day is.
4) Franklin Pierce/James Buchanan – Both men are guilty of the same crime. Our 14th and 15th presidents were probably more responsible than just about anyone in history for allowing the events of the mid-19th century to descend into the Civil War. Pierce’s policies allowed direct confrontation between the two sides in Kansas. Any dialogue broke down and marauding bands on both sides attacked each other throughout the country. Buchanan came along and did nothing while he was in office, allowing things to further spiral out of control. The Civil War probably would have come at some point as the divisions were too great between the North and the South, however, the eight years over which these two men ruled were so full of incompetence and mismanagement that things were quickly brought to a head.
3) Jefferson Davis/Robert E. Lee – Davis is someone the Southerners will let me get by with, but a lot of people will get on me for attacking the patron saint of the South: Bobby Lee. No matter how good a commander or a man he was, he is still a traitor. People argue that he really wasn’t because he went with his “country” of Virginia. But Virginia was a member of the United States and Lee turned his back on it. Especially poignant is the fact that Lee was offered command of the Union armies and could have brought the Civil War to an end in less than a year. He might have been able to salvage the army that McDowell could not when things went array at First Manassas. But even beyond that, Lee and Davis were the two principles whom kept the war going as long as it did and continued to spill much innocent blood, to say nothing of keeping an entire race enslaved. The South’s beatification of Lee also obscures his role in history and trivializes the harm that he caused to the country. Even now, we may discuss openly the merits and faults of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but we may never dare breath that there might have been faults with Robert E. Lee and men like him.
2) Timothy McVey – Serial killers have come and gone, as have bizarre whack jobs. But no man has done more to murder fellow Americans and inspire fear than Timothy McVey. The mastermind and primary instrument of the Oklahoma City bombings McVey killed hundreds of people in a single moment, including many children. In my mind, no picture of that incident stands out more than of the firefighter holding the broken, bloodstained body of a child, maybe two years old. McVey never showed remorse or regret for his crime and the grand scale of his crime rifles him up to number 2 on this list.
1) Benedict Arnold – In the American lexicon, only two names are synonymous with treason: Judas and Benedict Arnold. Many people have committed treason and it is questionable to fully call it treason when one’s country is still more of an idea than a fact. However, the scale of what Arnold did is what propels him to the top. Benedict Arnold, prior to his treason was perhaps the greatest American hero at the time, second only to Washington. He captured Fort Ticonderoga; giving the Americans much needed heavy artillery. His delay tactics kept the British from advancing on New York in 1776 after the failed Quebec expedition. He almost single-handedly won the battle of Saratoga, destroying British hopes of reinforcement in the Northern colonies and convincing the French to enter the war on the American’s side. It has been said that if Arnold had died of his wounds that he received at Saratoga, he would be enshrined as one of the great heroes of America and we would sing psalms in his honor. Unfortunately, he turned for unknown reasons (although greed and love of a woman are the two most likely causes). The nature of his treason also damns him above all others. Arnold tried to give the British West Point. If he had succeeded, the British would have been in complete control of the Hudson River, allowing them to cut New England off from the other colonies and allowed the British to cut the Americans to pieces in smaller, easier portions. We well probably would have lost the war by 1782 or 1783 and the British would not have been generous when it came to dealing out terms and reparations. No man other than Arnold had such a means to destroy his country with a single stroke and for that reason we damn him as the worst American of all time.
You may disagree with my list and you are more than welcome to. My experiences and perceptions color my list as well as any other, but I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and hopefully you can see the merit of my argument if not fully agree with it.
In my list I’ve tried to remain as objective as possible, something that was completely lost on many of the blog posters. Most are filled with at least one or two very obvious political rants of our times. I’ve tried to give history an even say, but I must admit that my lack of intimate knowledge of the 19th century does bias this list towards the 20th. There are several people that I’ve seen pop up on other lists that I would give consideration to if I had room, such as Charles Manson and Aaron Burr, but I’ve tried to narrow the list to the worst of the worst, especially with either far reaching consequences or the sheer volume of their atrocities.
10) William Randolph Hearst – Most people would immediately question this selection. Yellow journalism certainly isn’t a good thing, but is it worth a position on this list? I believe it is. The process of creating a story from rumor or flat out lies directly led the US into war with Spain, costing a lot of American blood. It also cemented a point into the large newspaper barons that it didn’t really matter what the truth was. As long as they told a story convincingly enough, people would swallow it and the media could then dictate public policy. This ran through the entire 20th century from things like the two Red Scares, the Vietnam War, and even current attitudes about our government and its policies. Only recently with the proliferation of blogs and other sources have there been enough people digging to get all the information that people have been able to make decisions based on all the facts.
9) H. H. Holmes – Holmes was the first major American serial killer (at least that was caught). It is believed that he murdered over 200 people. His favorite method was through a hotel he ran in Chicago. He soundproofed certain rooms and would release gas into them during the night. He was a very sick individual and probably one of the most successful serial killers in the US.
8) Jane Fonda – Again, I am trying to leave politics out of this and leave the person’s actions to defend them. To many, Fonda remains a stanch anti-war activist and if that were the only thing she did, I wouldn’t even consider her for this list. However, she did not just oppose the government as many people did, she aided the enemy and was celebrated for it. Fonda set up foundations where people could donate money and have it be funneled to the North Vietnamese. She visited North Vietnam, inspecting and approving of equipment used against Americans. A famous story is told how she visited a POW camp and one soldier gave her a note with his information and asked that she give it to his family so that they may know where he was. She gave the note to a guard who then took the American prisoner away and was beaten. All wars have objectors and many wars have people working for the enemy, but Ms. Fonda has been celebrated and hailed as a hero for her actions that could and should have hanged less famous individuals. This celebration clouds the differences between opposition to combat (as practices by many law-abiding Americans during this time) and open support and aid to enemy (which is illegal under the Constitution). This confusion has had a disastrous effect on any practical debate where a person who opposes a war is called a traitor (see Michael Moore) and any person who supports a war is called a fascist war-monger (see Republican Party). This is why I believe Ms. Fonda’s actions push her above the fray and on to this list.
7) Jim Jones – Jones is probably the most famous of all the death cult leaders. Jones was a nut job of a preacher who created a massive following, swindling millions out of people. The government came after him and he transplanted himself and his church to Guyana. There, things went from bad to worse with beatings and rumored murders until he convinced his followers to die with him. 914 people died amidst one man’s madness, including 276 children, although Jones was found shot and not poisoned.
6) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – There is much debate as to whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies prior to their delivering of nuclear secrets, but there is no doubt they did. In fairness, the Soviets had enough captured Germans that they would have figured it out eventually, but the material the Rosenbergs gave them certainly helped the case. Knowledge of nuclear weapons allowed the Soviets to rattle their saber just as loud as the Americans and also allowed them to be belligerent during the critical post-war clean up. At the very least, the Rosenbergs committed an act of high treason against the government and added fuel to a situation that eventually cost many American lives.
5) Eugene McCarthy – Despite what certain people’s convictions are about George W. Bush, it is McCarthy who pushed the US government to its closest embrace of dictatorship. McCarthy ruined many lives in his crowing and peacocking for the cameras. He trampled the rights of many Americans, most for certainly doing nothing more than holding opinions contrary to the mainstream. His creation of an atmosphere of fear and paranoia accelerated attacks not just on the cultural elite, but also in the masses. Modern versions of the Salem Witch Trials erupted throughout the country as anyone who uttered a leftist though could rightfully be charged with un-American activities and imprisoned. The specter of fear generated by McCarthy still lingers today, although we’ve changed the names from Communist to whatever the general bogeyman of the day is.
4) Franklin Pierce/James Buchanan – Both men are guilty of the same crime. Our 14th and 15th presidents were probably more responsible than just about anyone in history for allowing the events of the mid-19th century to descend into the Civil War. Pierce’s policies allowed direct confrontation between the two sides in Kansas. Any dialogue broke down and marauding bands on both sides attacked each other throughout the country. Buchanan came along and did nothing while he was in office, allowing things to further spiral out of control. The Civil War probably would have come at some point as the divisions were too great between the North and the South, however, the eight years over which these two men ruled were so full of incompetence and mismanagement that things were quickly brought to a head.
3) Jefferson Davis/Robert E. Lee – Davis is someone the Southerners will let me get by with, but a lot of people will get on me for attacking the patron saint of the South: Bobby Lee. No matter how good a commander or a man he was, he is still a traitor. People argue that he really wasn’t because he went with his “country” of Virginia. But Virginia was a member of the United States and Lee turned his back on it. Especially poignant is the fact that Lee was offered command of the Union armies and could have brought the Civil War to an end in less than a year. He might have been able to salvage the army that McDowell could not when things went array at First Manassas. But even beyond that, Lee and Davis were the two principles whom kept the war going as long as it did and continued to spill much innocent blood, to say nothing of keeping an entire race enslaved. The South’s beatification of Lee also obscures his role in history and trivializes the harm that he caused to the country. Even now, we may discuss openly the merits and faults of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but we may never dare breath that there might have been faults with Robert E. Lee and men like him.
2) Timothy McVey – Serial killers have come and gone, as have bizarre whack jobs. But no man has done more to murder fellow Americans and inspire fear than Timothy McVey. The mastermind and primary instrument of the Oklahoma City bombings McVey killed hundreds of people in a single moment, including many children. In my mind, no picture of that incident stands out more than of the firefighter holding the broken, bloodstained body of a child, maybe two years old. McVey never showed remorse or regret for his crime and the grand scale of his crime rifles him up to number 2 on this list.
1) Benedict Arnold – In the American lexicon, only two names are synonymous with treason: Judas and Benedict Arnold. Many people have committed treason and it is questionable to fully call it treason when one’s country is still more of an idea than a fact. However, the scale of what Arnold did is what propels him to the top. Benedict Arnold, prior to his treason was perhaps the greatest American hero at the time, second only to Washington. He captured Fort Ticonderoga; giving the Americans much needed heavy artillery. His delay tactics kept the British from advancing on New York in 1776 after the failed Quebec expedition. He almost single-handedly won the battle of Saratoga, destroying British hopes of reinforcement in the Northern colonies and convincing the French to enter the war on the American’s side. It has been said that if Arnold had died of his wounds that he received at Saratoga, he would be enshrined as one of the great heroes of America and we would sing psalms in his honor. Unfortunately, he turned for unknown reasons (although greed and love of a woman are the two most likely causes). The nature of his treason also damns him above all others. Arnold tried to give the British West Point. If he had succeeded, the British would have been in complete control of the Hudson River, allowing them to cut New England off from the other colonies and allowed the British to cut the Americans to pieces in smaller, easier portions. We well probably would have lost the war by 1782 or 1783 and the British would not have been generous when it came to dealing out terms and reparations. No man other than Arnold had such a means to destroy his country with a single stroke and for that reason we damn him as the worst American of all time.
You may disagree with my list and you are more than welcome to. My experiences and perceptions color my list as well as any other, but I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and hopefully you can see the merit of my argument if not fully agree with it.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Its a Girl
For those of you who read Mrs. X’s blog, this will not come as any surprise, but we are expecting a baby. It’s due on May 5 and, of course, we’ve been bombarded with jokes telling us to name it something like Margarita or Tequila.
Anyway, we had the ultrasound yesterday and we found out that we are going to have a girl. Mrs. X and I are quite excited by this as it almost everyone around us. Both of us had feeling that we were going to have a girl and there has been a lot of anticipation from other relatives about it being a girl as well. Of course, we would have been very happy if it was a boy, but it was cool to have that gut feeling validated.
The ultrasound was quite neat. We got almost the whole thing on tape and a couple of times you can see the baby squirming and kicking. She’s not quite big enough to feel just yet. Mrs. X has said that she thought she felt something a couple of times while lying still, but she’s unsure if it was the baby or just digestion of food or any other bodily movement. Technically we’re at 19 weeks, although I’m guessing the ultrasound will knock us back a week or so to 18 and we should be right on the cusp of Mrs. X being able to really feel the baby. We’ve got a little further to go before I’ll be able to feel anything.
We’ve not fully decided on names just yet. We’ve got the middle name pretty much locked in, but we’re debating on two major selections for first names but I imagine that we’ll be open to other names as well. But we’re going to wait until the baby is born before we announce the name. We’d like everyone to hear the name and immediately associate it with the baby rather than hear the name in the abstract and start thinking, “why did they choose that name?”
We got a couple of still pictures along with the video and I might play with it to see if I can get one of them scanned in to the computer. If it looks okay, I’ll see if I can post it.
Anyway, we had the ultrasound yesterday and we found out that we are going to have a girl. Mrs. X and I are quite excited by this as it almost everyone around us. Both of us had feeling that we were going to have a girl and there has been a lot of anticipation from other relatives about it being a girl as well. Of course, we would have been very happy if it was a boy, but it was cool to have that gut feeling validated.
The ultrasound was quite neat. We got almost the whole thing on tape and a couple of times you can see the baby squirming and kicking. She’s not quite big enough to feel just yet. Mrs. X has said that she thought she felt something a couple of times while lying still, but she’s unsure if it was the baby or just digestion of food or any other bodily movement. Technically we’re at 19 weeks, although I’m guessing the ultrasound will knock us back a week or so to 18 and we should be right on the cusp of Mrs. X being able to really feel the baby. We’ve got a little further to go before I’ll be able to feel anything.
We’ve not fully decided on names just yet. We’ve got the middle name pretty much locked in, but we’re debating on two major selections for first names but I imagine that we’ll be open to other names as well. But we’re going to wait until the baby is born before we announce the name. We’d like everyone to hear the name and immediately associate it with the baby rather than hear the name in the abstract and start thinking, “why did they choose that name?”
We got a couple of still pictures along with the video and I might play with it to see if I can get one of them scanned in to the computer. If it looks okay, I’ll see if I can post it.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Football Clarity
The BCS bowls are now set and things fell almost the way that was expected. Ironically, because of two upsets in the championship games, the BCS is controversy free this year. Georgia upsetting LSU and Florida St. upsetting Virginia Tech propelled Ohio St. up to #4 in the BCS standings and Notre Dame to #6 in the standings. Notre Dame lives by the same rules as the non-BCS conferences in that they become BCS eligible when their BCS ranking is #12 or better and they get an automatic berth if the ranking is #6 or better. Utah got to the Fiesta Bowl last year because of this rule. As such, Notre Dame automatically qualified and the other at large berth went to Ohio St. by virtue of the fact that the top 4 BCS teams are guaranteed a BCS bowl berth. Texas pulled this little trick on Cal last year and now Ohio St. did it to Oregon, who is ranked #5 in the BCS standings. So our big four bowl games are as follows:
Fiesta: Ohio St. vs Notre Dame
Orange: Florida St. vs Penn St.
Sugar: Georgia vs West Virginia
Rose: USC vs Texas
Ohio St. and Notre Dame will be a good match up. I lean towards Ohio St. in this match up, just because of their defense. Notre Dame still isn’t quite up to stopping good teams from scoring and if Ohio St. stops Brady Quinn at all, they should be able to get ahead.
The Orange is being renamed the geezer bowl as you have the two oldest (and most winningest coaches) playing against each other: Bowden is 76 while Paterno is 79. Florida St. will have a nice home crowd, but Penn St. is a much better team. Penn St. should cruise to a win and depending on what happens in the Rose Bowl, could finish the season ranked #2.
Georgia and West Virginia is probably going to be a closer match up than LSU W. Virginia would have been, but I’m still going to take the SEC team over the Big East team, especially since the Sugar Bowl will be played in Atlanta this year, giving Georgia a huge home field advantage.
USC vs. Texas is probably the hardest game to pick. On paper the two teams are almost identical in stats. Texas has more of a defense but USC gets a home field advantage playing in the Rose Bowl. At the moment I am leaning a little towards Texas because of the defense, although Texas’ lack of a big name running back is a cause for concern. It should be a good game though.
On the NFL side of things, people are quite happy around here. The Bengals defeated the Steelers in Pittsburgh and now have a two game advantage in the division. If they defeat the rival Browns next week, Cincinnati gains the tiebreaker with Pittsburgh and effectively will take a three game lead in the division with three games to play. That will all but lock up the #3 seed in the playoffs and leave a chance to gain the #2 seed and a first round bye. However, they will need help for that. Denver currently has the #2 seed by virtue of a better record against AFC opponents since both teams are now 9-3. The Bengals need Denver to drop another game for them to move up, which is unlikely in the face of Denver’s schedule for the rest of the season. Meanwhile, Indianapolis moved one step closer to securing home field advantage while San Diego moved into the #6 spot ahead of Kansas City and Pittsburgh. Jacksonville is in firm control of the #5 seed and will have the luxury of flying to New England for that first week of the playoffs.
On the NFC side, there was only a slight jostling. Seattle still holds the #1 seed, and will wrap up the division title if they defeat Philadelphia tonight. Chicago still holds its tenuous grip on the #2 seed despite the offense getting progressively worse. Any slip by Chicago will allow Carolina to move up from the #3 seed into the #2 spot. Also lurking nearby are the NY Giants who got into the driver’s seat of the NFC East and the #4 seed by beating Dallas. Tampa Bay and Dallas are the current #5 and #6 seeds with Atlanta and Minnesota lurking nearby. I expect some changing of the seedings before the playoffs, but the division winners are all but set in my mind. Some nasty fighting will occur for the two wild card spots before the end of the season though.
Fiesta: Ohio St. vs Notre Dame
Orange: Florida St. vs Penn St.
Sugar: Georgia vs West Virginia
Rose: USC vs Texas
Ohio St. and Notre Dame will be a good match up. I lean towards Ohio St. in this match up, just because of their defense. Notre Dame still isn’t quite up to stopping good teams from scoring and if Ohio St. stops Brady Quinn at all, they should be able to get ahead.
The Orange is being renamed the geezer bowl as you have the two oldest (and most winningest coaches) playing against each other: Bowden is 76 while Paterno is 79. Florida St. will have a nice home crowd, but Penn St. is a much better team. Penn St. should cruise to a win and depending on what happens in the Rose Bowl, could finish the season ranked #2.
Georgia and West Virginia is probably going to be a closer match up than LSU W. Virginia would have been, but I’m still going to take the SEC team over the Big East team, especially since the Sugar Bowl will be played in Atlanta this year, giving Georgia a huge home field advantage.
USC vs. Texas is probably the hardest game to pick. On paper the two teams are almost identical in stats. Texas has more of a defense but USC gets a home field advantage playing in the Rose Bowl. At the moment I am leaning a little towards Texas because of the defense, although Texas’ lack of a big name running back is a cause for concern. It should be a good game though.
On the NFL side of things, people are quite happy around here. The Bengals defeated the Steelers in Pittsburgh and now have a two game advantage in the division. If they defeat the rival Browns next week, Cincinnati gains the tiebreaker with Pittsburgh and effectively will take a three game lead in the division with three games to play. That will all but lock up the #3 seed in the playoffs and leave a chance to gain the #2 seed and a first round bye. However, they will need help for that. Denver currently has the #2 seed by virtue of a better record against AFC opponents since both teams are now 9-3. The Bengals need Denver to drop another game for them to move up, which is unlikely in the face of Denver’s schedule for the rest of the season. Meanwhile, Indianapolis moved one step closer to securing home field advantage while San Diego moved into the #6 spot ahead of Kansas City and Pittsburgh. Jacksonville is in firm control of the #5 seed and will have the luxury of flying to New England for that first week of the playoffs.
On the NFC side, there was only a slight jostling. Seattle still holds the #1 seed, and will wrap up the division title if they defeat Philadelphia tonight. Chicago still holds its tenuous grip on the #2 seed despite the offense getting progressively worse. Any slip by Chicago will allow Carolina to move up from the #3 seed into the #2 spot. Also lurking nearby are the NY Giants who got into the driver’s seat of the NFC East and the #4 seed by beating Dallas. Tampa Bay and Dallas are the current #5 and #6 seeds with Atlanta and Minnesota lurking nearby. I expect some changing of the seedings before the playoffs, but the division winners are all but set in my mind. Some nasty fighting will occur for the two wild card spots before the end of the season though.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Turkey and Football
Thanksgiving is now over. I cooked the turkey for the first time and it turned out very well, if I do say so myself. However, I have learned that its best to just read the directions on the turkey bag or on the bird itself. Don't follow a recipe unless you are going to follow it to the letter. We had my parents and my sister and her husband over. It was fun, although towards the end of the meal preparation, I was getting a little frazzled. Apparently while my mom, sister and I were cooking, dad and Mr. S thought it would be a good idea to park themselves in the kitchen for chatting. The kitchen started feeling very small by that point and I accidently snapped at Mrs. X. But she has forgiven me and now all that is past.
Now on to the real point of Thanksgiving: football. The bowl games are falling into place. The BCS is desperately praying that all things go according to plan in the championship games and in the USC-UCLA game. Things are as follows:
1) USC vs. UCLA: USC wins and remains undefeated, keeping is #1 ranking and goes to the Rose Bowl.
2) Big 12 Title game - Texas vs. Colorado: Texas should crush Colorado who has lost their last two games and backed in when ISU lost to Kansas.
3) ACC Title game - Va. Tech vs. Florida St.: Florida St. has also been losing a lot lately with a very suspect offense and special teams. Va. Tech should cruise for an Orange Bowl berth.
4) SEC Title game - Georgia vs. LSU: The BCS really doesn't care who wins as both teams are well qualified and the loss will knock the loser out of BCS contention.
The Fiesta Bowl hasn't made up its mind yet about whether to take Ohio St. or Oregon, but the feeling among the sports shows is that Oregon is going to get left out just because of the money that Ohio St. can bring to the table as opposed to Oregon. The real monkey wrench gets thrown if a team that's supposed to lose ends up winning and ends up winning the automatic berth, much like Kansas St. did to Oklahoma a couple of years ago. But if things go as the BCS prays, the match ups will be as follows:
Rose - USC vs. Texas
Fiesta - Notre Dame vs. Ohio St./Oregon
Orange - Virgina Tech vs. Penn St.
Sugar - LSU/Georgia vs. West Virginia (I think it'll be LSU)
Meanwhile in the NFL, the AFC gets clearer while the NFC gets murkier. Barring some major slippage, the Indianapolis Colts and the Denver Broncos will secure the #1 and #2 seeds respectively. I don't think the Colts will go undefeated, but if Denver keeps on their heels, they may have to play hard until the last game of the season. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are fighting it out for the division with next week's game in Pittsburgh almost sure to decide who gets the #3 seed. New England will limp in as the #4 seed. Jacksonville is the strong #5 now, even though Leftwich is going to be out 4-6 weeks. Their schedule is so soft that they should be able to finish either 12-4 or 11-5 without breaking much of a sweat. That leaves the Cincinnati/Pittsburgh loser, San Diego, and Kansas City fighting it out for the #6 seed.
In the NFC, Seattle's luck held and allowed them to hold onto the #1 seed. They should win the division next week and might hold on to #1 seed, simply by how the other teams keep beating each other up in division play. Chicago has the #2 seed at the moment, but the lack of offense may catch up to them eventually, allowing Carolina or Dallas to slip in, who are the current #3 and #4 seeds respectively. The NY Giants and the Tampa Bay Bucs currently have the #5 and #6 seeds, but Atlanta is currently in striking distance. Hard to believe, but Minnesota is still in the hunt as well. They're only two games behind and the NFC South and East are going to bloody each other up in the next five weeks.
As of yet, I see no reason why the AFC championship won't be between Denver and Indianapolis, with Indy emerging triumphant. The NFC, I think will pit Seattle against Carolina. Seattle might squeek out because of home field, but only if they play much better than they did against the Giants.
Now on to the real point of Thanksgiving: football. The bowl games are falling into place. The BCS is desperately praying that all things go according to plan in the championship games and in the USC-UCLA game. Things are as follows:
1) USC vs. UCLA: USC wins and remains undefeated, keeping is #1 ranking and goes to the Rose Bowl.
2) Big 12 Title game - Texas vs. Colorado: Texas should crush Colorado who has lost their last two games and backed in when ISU lost to Kansas.
3) ACC Title game - Va. Tech vs. Florida St.: Florida St. has also been losing a lot lately with a very suspect offense and special teams. Va. Tech should cruise for an Orange Bowl berth.
4) SEC Title game - Georgia vs. LSU: The BCS really doesn't care who wins as both teams are well qualified and the loss will knock the loser out of BCS contention.
The Fiesta Bowl hasn't made up its mind yet about whether to take Ohio St. or Oregon, but the feeling among the sports shows is that Oregon is going to get left out just because of the money that Ohio St. can bring to the table as opposed to Oregon. The real monkey wrench gets thrown if a team that's supposed to lose ends up winning and ends up winning the automatic berth, much like Kansas St. did to Oklahoma a couple of years ago. But if things go as the BCS prays, the match ups will be as follows:
Rose - USC vs. Texas
Fiesta - Notre Dame vs. Ohio St./Oregon
Orange - Virgina Tech vs. Penn St.
Sugar - LSU/Georgia vs. West Virginia (I think it'll be LSU)
Meanwhile in the NFL, the AFC gets clearer while the NFC gets murkier. Barring some major slippage, the Indianapolis Colts and the Denver Broncos will secure the #1 and #2 seeds respectively. I don't think the Colts will go undefeated, but if Denver keeps on their heels, they may have to play hard until the last game of the season. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are fighting it out for the division with next week's game in Pittsburgh almost sure to decide who gets the #3 seed. New England will limp in as the #4 seed. Jacksonville is the strong #5 now, even though Leftwich is going to be out 4-6 weeks. Their schedule is so soft that they should be able to finish either 12-4 or 11-5 without breaking much of a sweat. That leaves the Cincinnati/Pittsburgh loser, San Diego, and Kansas City fighting it out for the #6 seed.
In the NFC, Seattle's luck held and allowed them to hold onto the #1 seed. They should win the division next week and might hold on to #1 seed, simply by how the other teams keep beating each other up in division play. Chicago has the #2 seed at the moment, but the lack of offense may catch up to them eventually, allowing Carolina or Dallas to slip in, who are the current #3 and #4 seeds respectively. The NY Giants and the Tampa Bay Bucs currently have the #5 and #6 seeds, but Atlanta is currently in striking distance. Hard to believe, but Minnesota is still in the hunt as well. They're only two games behind and the NFC South and East are going to bloody each other up in the next five weeks.
As of yet, I see no reason why the AFC championship won't be between Denver and Indianapolis, with Indy emerging triumphant. The NFC, I think will pit Seattle against Carolina. Seattle might squeek out because of home field, but only if they play much better than they did against the Giants.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Stray Butterflies
My latest discovery on the alternative history front is a well written and very dark essay entitled Decades of Darkness. The premise for this one is that Thomas Jefferson dies while in office in January of 1809. Because of the turmoil involved with the transition to Madison (who is president-elect), the Embargo Act is not repealed. This was an act aimed at trying to punish British shipping for the impressments of American sailors but instead devastated the economies of New England seaports. As a result, New England secedes from the Union along with New York, New Jersey, and the Michigan territory. New England actually did threaten this and that was one of the reason Jefferson backed down right before his term expired.
In this new history, the United States is dominated by the slave holding states who expand the process, extending it in their conquest across North America. Meanwhile, New England forms a confederation government and become a powerful naval power, closely allied with Canada and Britain. Where I am now, is the mid 1860’s. Abraham Lincoln has just finished his term as the 13th president of New England while Mexican radicals in response to an intervention in Vericruz assassinate US President Jefferson Davis. The racial subjection that the United States descends to is rather appalling from a future perspective, but plausible at the same time.
The only problem I have with it is something that tends to plague all alternative history scenarios: the amount of unrelated “butterflies.” The principle point of any alternate history is to create alternatives based on your Point of Departure (PoD). However, many writers have specific things they want to have happen, so they postulate that some things happened a little differently that are completely unrelated to your original premise. Two of the biggest examples of that in Decades of Darkness involve Napoleon and Queen Victoria. In this scenario, Napoleon takes a different route in his retreat from Russia, causing him to lose fewer men. As such, he has a stronger army and actually defeats Wellington at the battle of Waterloo; although the arrival of Prussian reinforcements still force him to withdraw from the field and later abdicate the throne. This only creates small ripples and could easily be overlooked. The other one though is very significant. The author postulates that in the scenario, the monarch who is becomes Queen Victoria, is actually born a man and comes to the throne as Edward VII. He also changes the temperament of the king, making him more hands on and involved as opposed to Victoria who left nearly all governance to her Prime Ministers. To me, this creates a very large change that is completely unrelated to the events causing New England to break away from the United States. I understand some changes need to be made to make a compelling story, but if you change too many factors, the fun of the exercise of seeing down one juncture in history is taken away.
Still, it’s a good story and I look forward to seeing how it ends.
In this new history, the United States is dominated by the slave holding states who expand the process, extending it in their conquest across North America. Meanwhile, New England forms a confederation government and become a powerful naval power, closely allied with Canada and Britain. Where I am now, is the mid 1860’s. Abraham Lincoln has just finished his term as the 13th president of New England while Mexican radicals in response to an intervention in Vericruz assassinate US President Jefferson Davis. The racial subjection that the United States descends to is rather appalling from a future perspective, but plausible at the same time.
The only problem I have with it is something that tends to plague all alternative history scenarios: the amount of unrelated “butterflies.” The principle point of any alternate history is to create alternatives based on your Point of Departure (PoD). However, many writers have specific things they want to have happen, so they postulate that some things happened a little differently that are completely unrelated to your original premise. Two of the biggest examples of that in Decades of Darkness involve Napoleon and Queen Victoria. In this scenario, Napoleon takes a different route in his retreat from Russia, causing him to lose fewer men. As such, he has a stronger army and actually defeats Wellington at the battle of Waterloo; although the arrival of Prussian reinforcements still force him to withdraw from the field and later abdicate the throne. This only creates small ripples and could easily be overlooked. The other one though is very significant. The author postulates that in the scenario, the monarch who is becomes Queen Victoria, is actually born a man and comes to the throne as Edward VII. He also changes the temperament of the king, making him more hands on and involved as opposed to Victoria who left nearly all governance to her Prime Ministers. To me, this creates a very large change that is completely unrelated to the events causing New England to break away from the United States. I understand some changes need to be made to make a compelling story, but if you change too many factors, the fun of the exercise of seeing down one juncture in history is taken away.
Still, it’s a good story and I look forward to seeing how it ends.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Election Issues
Today is Election Day. Aside from the local issues, we here in Ohio are voting on five major ballot issues.
Issue 1 is a bond issue for highways and bridges as well as grants to try and bring high tech jobs to Ohio. The government is trying to sell it as a way to generate money without raising taxes. Most people aren’t buying it and since it’s seen as Taft’s pet project, it’s likely to fail.
Issue 2 is about easing the rules for absentee balloting and I think there might be some easing of voter registration in there as well. I’m not totally sure about the last part.
Issue 3 is a finance reform issue. This is the one most likely to pass.
Issue 4 is a competitive redistricting issue similar to the one they have out in California. It involves some funky mathematical formula and would twist the districts even more than they are now. I don’t think this one will pass.
Issue 5 is probably the dumbest one. It proposes striping the role of overseeing the elections from the Secretary of State and giving it to an appointed commission. It’s basically an angry rant against what happened with Blackwell last year.
Outside of Ohio there are four races that are pinging on the national radar:
In New Jersey, there is a governor’s race. Despite extreme incompetence on Senator Corzine’s (D) part, he will still probably win the election and then appoint a replacement to his senate seat.
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg may set a record for the largest margin of victory. The current record is around 19 points. Bloomberg is polling between 20 and 32.
In California there are 8 ballot initiatives, 4 that are being pushed by the Governator. All 8 are polling as though they may be defeated.
The closest race is the governor’s race in Virginia. The Democratic candidate (Kaine) is leading the Republican (Kilgore) by between 1 and 4 points depending on which poll you look at. I would be even closer but there is a far right candidate (Potts) who is running as an independent and is sapping a couple of points from Kilgore. Kaine will probably win, but this one will go late for the results.
Not as exciting as last year at this time, but I’ll be paying attention to the news to see how things turn out. Political junkie I am, yes.
Issue 1 is a bond issue for highways and bridges as well as grants to try and bring high tech jobs to Ohio. The government is trying to sell it as a way to generate money without raising taxes. Most people aren’t buying it and since it’s seen as Taft’s pet project, it’s likely to fail.
Issue 2 is about easing the rules for absentee balloting and I think there might be some easing of voter registration in there as well. I’m not totally sure about the last part.
Issue 3 is a finance reform issue. This is the one most likely to pass.
Issue 4 is a competitive redistricting issue similar to the one they have out in California. It involves some funky mathematical formula and would twist the districts even more than they are now. I don’t think this one will pass.
Issue 5 is probably the dumbest one. It proposes striping the role of overseeing the elections from the Secretary of State and giving it to an appointed commission. It’s basically an angry rant against what happened with Blackwell last year.
Outside of Ohio there are four races that are pinging on the national radar:
In New Jersey, there is a governor’s race. Despite extreme incompetence on Senator Corzine’s (D) part, he will still probably win the election and then appoint a replacement to his senate seat.
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg may set a record for the largest margin of victory. The current record is around 19 points. Bloomberg is polling between 20 and 32.
In California there are 8 ballot initiatives, 4 that are being pushed by the Governator. All 8 are polling as though they may be defeated.
The closest race is the governor’s race in Virginia. The Democratic candidate (Kaine) is leading the Republican (Kilgore) by between 1 and 4 points depending on which poll you look at. I would be even closer but there is a far right candidate (Potts) who is running as an independent and is sapping a couple of points from Kilgore. Kaine will probably win, but this one will go late for the results.
Not as exciting as last year at this time, but I’ll be paying attention to the news to see how things turn out. Political junkie I am, yes.
Monday, November 07, 2005
BCS Predictions
With only two weeks left in the college football regular season, its time to start looking at the BCS standings, especially since things got a lot clearer this week.
First, the likely conference champs:
PAC 10 – USC. UCLA’s loss exposed their great weakness. They and Cal will try hard, but USC is too good to get taken down by either team.
Big 12 – Texas. Texas will meet Colorado in the title game and squash them appropriately, much to the chagrin of my uncle Chuck.
Big 10 – Penn St. Penn St. has a bye and then Michigan St. With as badly as Michigan St. is reeling and with two weeks to prepare, Penn St. should have no trouble at all in this game.
Big East – West Virginia. West Virginia still has its big showdown game with the University of South Florida, but I think West Virginia is the more talented team and will probably win out.
ACC – Miami. Miami now has the inside track to the ACC Coastal title and would probably play Florida St. in the championship game. Miami is better and will probably win out.
SEC – Georgia. Georgia has the inside track to the SEC East title. Alabama has to go through LSU and Auburn, both of which are still contenders for the SEC West title. I expect Alabama to lose at least one game and have LSU go to the title game. With Georgia’s quarterback back, they should win the SEC and advance to the Sugar Bowl.
Now to the bowl selections. The Rose Bowl is the national championship this year with the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar picking after it in that order.
Rose Bowl – USC vs. Texas. These will probably be the only teams remaining undefeated when the season ends, so the game will be an easy selection.
Orange Bowl – Miami vs. Penn St. The Orange Bowl automatically gets the ACC Champion and will almost certainly honor that with the hometown Hurricanes winning the ACC. The Fiesta Bowl will likely have snatched Notre Dame up by this point, so the Big 10 Champions will make for a nice alternative.
Fiesta Bowl – Notre Dame vs. Ohio St. (Oregon/Alabama?). This is where it gets a little fuzzy. The Fiesta Bowl gets the first pick after the Rose Bowl to replace Big 12 Champ Texas. With this they will take Notre Dame who will be available assuming they win their last two games and the strength of schedule holds to keep them in the top 12 of the BCS standings. If Ohio St. beats Northwestern and Michigan, the Fiesta Bowl will jump at the chance to take them, but that’s a big if. Oregon could win the rest of its games and finish 10-1, a reasonable second choice, although one that won’t generate as much money as Ohio St. Also possible is if Alabama has only 1 loss but misses the SEC title game, they might get the nod over Oregon. Whatever the Fiesta Bowl thinks will make it the most money. But Ohio State and Notre Dame would be their first choices I think.
Sugar Bowl – Georgia vs. West Virginia. The Sugar Bowl gets the bad luck of drawing last this year and, as a result, gets stuck with the Big East champion to face off against its automatic SEC champion berth.
If these hold out, every game should be a good one, except for the Sugar Bowl, which will turn out to be a complete slaughter and a yawner of a game.
First, the likely conference champs:
PAC 10 – USC. UCLA’s loss exposed their great weakness. They and Cal will try hard, but USC is too good to get taken down by either team.
Big 12 – Texas. Texas will meet Colorado in the title game and squash them appropriately, much to the chagrin of my uncle Chuck.
Big 10 – Penn St. Penn St. has a bye and then Michigan St. With as badly as Michigan St. is reeling and with two weeks to prepare, Penn St. should have no trouble at all in this game.
Big East – West Virginia. West Virginia still has its big showdown game with the University of South Florida, but I think West Virginia is the more talented team and will probably win out.
ACC – Miami. Miami now has the inside track to the ACC Coastal title and would probably play Florida St. in the championship game. Miami is better and will probably win out.
SEC – Georgia. Georgia has the inside track to the SEC East title. Alabama has to go through LSU and Auburn, both of which are still contenders for the SEC West title. I expect Alabama to lose at least one game and have LSU go to the title game. With Georgia’s quarterback back, they should win the SEC and advance to the Sugar Bowl.
Now to the bowl selections. The Rose Bowl is the national championship this year with the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar picking after it in that order.
Rose Bowl – USC vs. Texas. These will probably be the only teams remaining undefeated when the season ends, so the game will be an easy selection.
Orange Bowl – Miami vs. Penn St. The Orange Bowl automatically gets the ACC Champion and will almost certainly honor that with the hometown Hurricanes winning the ACC. The Fiesta Bowl will likely have snatched Notre Dame up by this point, so the Big 10 Champions will make for a nice alternative.
Fiesta Bowl – Notre Dame vs. Ohio St. (Oregon/Alabama?). This is where it gets a little fuzzy. The Fiesta Bowl gets the first pick after the Rose Bowl to replace Big 12 Champ Texas. With this they will take Notre Dame who will be available assuming they win their last two games and the strength of schedule holds to keep them in the top 12 of the BCS standings. If Ohio St. beats Northwestern and Michigan, the Fiesta Bowl will jump at the chance to take them, but that’s a big if. Oregon could win the rest of its games and finish 10-1, a reasonable second choice, although one that won’t generate as much money as Ohio St. Also possible is if Alabama has only 1 loss but misses the SEC title game, they might get the nod over Oregon. Whatever the Fiesta Bowl thinks will make it the most money. But Ohio State and Notre Dame would be their first choices I think.
Sugar Bowl – Georgia vs. West Virginia. The Sugar Bowl gets the bad luck of drawing last this year and, as a result, gets stuck with the Big East champion to face off against its automatic SEC champion berth.
If these hold out, every game should be a good one, except for the Sugar Bowl, which will turn out to be a complete slaughter and a yawner of a game.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Mushroom Clouds
So there is now enough political news to make it worth discussing again.
First, the indictment of Mr. Libby. Many on the left were left a wee bit deflated by this indictment. They had really gotten their hopes up that Mr. Rove would be taken down. I suspect there was that possibility and people are still holding out hope that Mr. Libby will squeal like a stuck pig and finger Mr. Rove. Alas, I don’t believe that is happening. Mr. Libby is accused of lying about his testimony, not anything actually related to the leak. He may not actually have any good information to trade that would give the prosecutor reason to not go after him. Second, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have been very good about selecting loyalists around them. I believe that Mr. Libby knows far better than to sin against the family. People who do that get buried.
Will it be of any major interest? I don’t know. Very few people in the country seemed to care when Mr. Clinton was indicted for perjury or when Mr. Berger was indicted for destroying documents. People seem to accept that politicians are crooks and we only want them to do more good than harm in the long run. I suspect that as soon as it becomes clear that Mr. Libby is not turning on the Bush administration it will fade from the headlines, especially if the talk of the prewar intelligence does not help the Democrats in 2006. Mr. Libby will probably be convicted on a count or two of making false statements and get a year or less in some cupcake prison, ala Martha Stewart.
Now, to the Supreme Court. Mrs. X is not fond of Mr. Alito and has voiced an opinion that the Miers nomination and withdrawal was a Rovian plot to pave the way for a justice as conservative as Mr. Alito appears to be. I think Mr. Rove was a bit too distracted to hatch a plot this complicated, plus I’m not sure Mr. Bush and his associates are that good with the acting skills. I think they honestly thought Miers would be acceptable because of her religious nature. We know Mr. Bush has a problem with cronyism and I think this was just a glaring case of it.
So, how will it play in the Senate? I think Mr. Alito will get the recommendation from the judiciary committee on party lines 10-8. Mr. Specter is pro-choice but apparently has a bit of a history with Mr. Alito and I think his acknowledgement of Mr. Alito’s credentials will outweigh his misgivings over this issue. Mr. Specter also still owes the Bush administration for backing him in the Republican primary in 2004. Then it goes to the floor. At this point I don’t know if the Democrats will filibuster. Two members of the gang of 14 (Mike De(s)wine and Lindsey Graham) have said that they will support the nuclear option. John McCain has given the impression that he will at least abstain from the vote if not vote for the nuclear option. This gives the Republicans a 50-49 edge and I think John Warner will vote with the party as well for a 51-48 option. So, do Democrats go down swinging or do they hold back keep the filibuster in the arsenal on the off chance that Justice Stevens or Ginsberg drops dead in the next three years? I’m not sure. Kos, MoveOn, and others want the fight to go nuclear on the impression that it will backfire on the GOP. I’m not sold on that argument. Harry Reid has promised to become more obstructionist if the Republicans go nuclear (as last night’s closed door session would indicate) but that might hurt Democrats as well. It would certainly kill Ben Nelson (D-NE) and could cripple Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Kent Conrad (D-ND). I can’t imagine Robert Byrd (D-WV) would be helped much by it either.
While it might enrage their base, I don’t believe that Democrats can afford to filibuster and then appear whiny when things don’t go their way. They have the opportunity to turn 2006 into 1994 and if they play spoiled child, then that might slip out of their fingers. The best option would be to try and highlight the extreme levels of conservatism in some of Mr. Alito’s decisions and look like the party of sanity. Then try and show the Republican majority as government gone amok. But I doubt they will take that road.
First, the indictment of Mr. Libby. Many on the left were left a wee bit deflated by this indictment. They had really gotten their hopes up that Mr. Rove would be taken down. I suspect there was that possibility and people are still holding out hope that Mr. Libby will squeal like a stuck pig and finger Mr. Rove. Alas, I don’t believe that is happening. Mr. Libby is accused of lying about his testimony, not anything actually related to the leak. He may not actually have any good information to trade that would give the prosecutor reason to not go after him. Second, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have been very good about selecting loyalists around them. I believe that Mr. Libby knows far better than to sin against the family. People who do that get buried.
Will it be of any major interest? I don’t know. Very few people in the country seemed to care when Mr. Clinton was indicted for perjury or when Mr. Berger was indicted for destroying documents. People seem to accept that politicians are crooks and we only want them to do more good than harm in the long run. I suspect that as soon as it becomes clear that Mr. Libby is not turning on the Bush administration it will fade from the headlines, especially if the talk of the prewar intelligence does not help the Democrats in 2006. Mr. Libby will probably be convicted on a count or two of making false statements and get a year or less in some cupcake prison, ala Martha Stewart.
Now, to the Supreme Court. Mrs. X is not fond of Mr. Alito and has voiced an opinion that the Miers nomination and withdrawal was a Rovian plot to pave the way for a justice as conservative as Mr. Alito appears to be. I think Mr. Rove was a bit too distracted to hatch a plot this complicated, plus I’m not sure Mr. Bush and his associates are that good with the acting skills. I think they honestly thought Miers would be acceptable because of her religious nature. We know Mr. Bush has a problem with cronyism and I think this was just a glaring case of it.
So, how will it play in the Senate? I think Mr. Alito will get the recommendation from the judiciary committee on party lines 10-8. Mr. Specter is pro-choice but apparently has a bit of a history with Mr. Alito and I think his acknowledgement of Mr. Alito’s credentials will outweigh his misgivings over this issue. Mr. Specter also still owes the Bush administration for backing him in the Republican primary in 2004. Then it goes to the floor. At this point I don’t know if the Democrats will filibuster. Two members of the gang of 14 (Mike De(s)wine and Lindsey Graham) have said that they will support the nuclear option. John McCain has given the impression that he will at least abstain from the vote if not vote for the nuclear option. This gives the Republicans a 50-49 edge and I think John Warner will vote with the party as well for a 51-48 option. So, do Democrats go down swinging or do they hold back keep the filibuster in the arsenal on the off chance that Justice Stevens or Ginsberg drops dead in the next three years? I’m not sure. Kos, MoveOn, and others want the fight to go nuclear on the impression that it will backfire on the GOP. I’m not sold on that argument. Harry Reid has promised to become more obstructionist if the Republicans go nuclear (as last night’s closed door session would indicate) but that might hurt Democrats as well. It would certainly kill Ben Nelson (D-NE) and could cripple Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Kent Conrad (D-ND). I can’t imagine Robert Byrd (D-WV) would be helped much by it either.
While it might enrage their base, I don’t believe that Democrats can afford to filibuster and then appear whiny when things don’t go their way. They have the opportunity to turn 2006 into 1994 and if they play spoiled child, then that might slip out of their fingers. The best option would be to try and highlight the extreme levels of conservatism in some of Mr. Alito’s decisions and look like the party of sanity. Then try and show the Republican majority as government gone amok. But I doubt they will take that road.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Return from the Lost
Okay, sorry about the extreme layoff time, but I got into a bit of a funk where I didn’t feel like writing about anything. Plus, the summer is a bad time to think of interesting things to write about in terms of TV and politics. Of course, there are so many political blogs that my two cents doesn’t usually count for much, but I like to say what I can now and again. But no politics for today.
Today, we discuss Lost. We are now five episodes into season two and we have many new questions to go along with most of our old ones. Obviously we now know what is in the hatch, but what is the significance of the timer, what material was lost when Desmond spliced the training film back together, where did Desmond run off to, and of course, who exactly are the others? Things will get answered over time, but now we have to figure out who is going to get killed in the next episode.
Jack – our main protagonist who has a large backstory that hasn’t been fully answered yet. He’s safe.
Kate – principle female character who also has a large, unanswered backstory. There is also the love triangle between her, Jack, and Sawyer. She’s safe.
Sawyer – Sawyer is the easy kill, much like Boone was last season. His backstory has no significant loose threads. He’s also wounded and clearly sick. But I think they’re going to keep the triangle alive. He’s also offered as the red herring. 25% death chance.
Claire – If you kill her, you kill the baby and there are too many questions surrounding the demon baby (as Mrs. X likes to call him). Safe.
Charlie – Charlie has not delved back into his heroin addiction and that would seem to be a big plot bit. However, he has no outstanding backstory left and he’s been relegated to a minor role in the show so far. 30% death chance.
Locke – Our spiritual leader if you will. He knows too much and we haven’t learned enough about his past. Safe.
Sayid – He’s useful to have on so he can explain anything technical. He’s also one of the few bits of color on the show. Yet his backstory is at a safe point. Only his relationship with Shannon keeps him in current storylines. 25% death chance.
Hurley – We don’t know about the time Hurley spent in the mental institution and we just had exposure to new aspects of his life. He also is the only character that provides a significant amount of comic relief. 10% death chance.
Jin – Jin has taken major strides as a developed character and there is depth remaining in his backstory. Yet he remains someone who puts himself in harm’s way a lot and if he was lost, the story wouldn’t suffer much. 30% death chance.
Sun – Sun remains completely unused as a character. She helps Jack with medical stuff and she grows food, but other than that, she isn’t used much. Her death would propel Jin and Michael’s story much more. There is also a rumor that the death is a woman. 50% death chance.
Michael – A significant portion of this season is going to be about getting Walt back. Michael is at the heart of that and I think he and Locke are going to be the primary drivers of this season. 5% death chance.
Shannon – Killing her would throw Boone out of the picture in terms of flashbacks. But she is the one that seems to be able to see Walt’s projections. He clearly has a connection to her, by his choice of her to take care of Vincent. There have also been rumors that she and Sayid start getting it on. 15% death chance.
Rose – Rose was just picked back up into the cast and with the reunion with Bernard, we would lose a storyline chance. 5% death chance.
Today, we discuss Lost. We are now five episodes into season two and we have many new questions to go along with most of our old ones. Obviously we now know what is in the hatch, but what is the significance of the timer, what material was lost when Desmond spliced the training film back together, where did Desmond run off to, and of course, who exactly are the others? Things will get answered over time, but now we have to figure out who is going to get killed in the next episode.
Jack – our main protagonist who has a large backstory that hasn’t been fully answered yet. He’s safe.
Kate – principle female character who also has a large, unanswered backstory. There is also the love triangle between her, Jack, and Sawyer. She’s safe.
Sawyer – Sawyer is the easy kill, much like Boone was last season. His backstory has no significant loose threads. He’s also wounded and clearly sick. But I think they’re going to keep the triangle alive. He’s also offered as the red herring. 25% death chance.
Claire – If you kill her, you kill the baby and there are too many questions surrounding the demon baby (as Mrs. X likes to call him). Safe.
Charlie – Charlie has not delved back into his heroin addiction and that would seem to be a big plot bit. However, he has no outstanding backstory left and he’s been relegated to a minor role in the show so far. 30% death chance.
Locke – Our spiritual leader if you will. He knows too much and we haven’t learned enough about his past. Safe.
Sayid – He’s useful to have on so he can explain anything technical. He’s also one of the few bits of color on the show. Yet his backstory is at a safe point. Only his relationship with Shannon keeps him in current storylines. 25% death chance.
Hurley – We don’t know about the time Hurley spent in the mental institution and we just had exposure to new aspects of his life. He also is the only character that provides a significant amount of comic relief. 10% death chance.
Jin – Jin has taken major strides as a developed character and there is depth remaining in his backstory. Yet he remains someone who puts himself in harm’s way a lot and if he was lost, the story wouldn’t suffer much. 30% death chance.
Sun – Sun remains completely unused as a character. She helps Jack with medical stuff and she grows food, but other than that, she isn’t used much. Her death would propel Jin and Michael’s story much more. There is also a rumor that the death is a woman. 50% death chance.
Michael – A significant portion of this season is going to be about getting Walt back. Michael is at the heart of that and I think he and Locke are going to be the primary drivers of this season. 5% death chance.
Shannon – Killing her would throw Boone out of the picture in terms of flashbacks. But she is the one that seems to be able to see Walt’s projections. He clearly has a connection to her, by his choice of her to take care of Vincent. There have also been rumors that she and Sayid start getting it on. 15% death chance.
Rose – Rose was just picked back up into the cast and with the reunion with Bernard, we would lose a storyline chance. 5% death chance.
Friday, August 26, 2005
The Dark Blue Vs. The Light Blue
Things are becoming a bit strange in the United States of Canada. With the 2006 elections coming up and the Democratic Party desperate for any kind of pick up, you would think they would be fully formed on the attack against Jesusland: gas prices are up, people are getting frustrated with the War in Iraq, and Republicans are getting lapse and corrupt (or more corrupt than your average politician). Instead, we are seeing the beginnings of a major civil war.
On Monday, Markos Zuniga, operator of the left wing site Daily Kos, announced a new initiative where he would take on and destroy the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). For those of you not familiar with them, the DLC a center-left group that tries to push the party more towards the mainstream middle of the road voters. They are most famous for launching Bill Clinton up to national prominence, from which he was able to win the presidency. Most of the prominent members are mid-western and southern politicians such as Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Hillary Clinton has recently been cozying up to them as well as an attempt to move her image more to the political center. Kos’ complaint is that the DLC is moving more to the right and might as well be Republican for all he’s concerned. So, in his mind at least, this is a purification of the party during the lean times so that the Democrats will be unified for the 2006 elections.
On the surface, this might seem like the amusing rantings of one person, but the danger for Democrats is quite real. Kos has announced that the formal unveiling of the war will begin on Labor Day and he has apparently kept quite mum about the tactics and methods. The danger is who is backing him. Kos almost certainly wouldn’t have been so outspoken about this unless he had the backing of organizations like MoveOn.org and the like. That means he has money behind him and money will summon named people. It could even attract DNC chairman Howard Dean, whom, I imagine, doesn’t like seeing a second group that might challenge his position of power.
Whatever the plan, I don’t expect Kos to win the war. He has come up short on most of his escapades before and the DLC is well financed. But the attack will probably result in the loss of money combating each side while the Republicans just sit back and wait to see who emerges from the fray.
The only good things that may come out of this is that one side may become so disgusted with each other that they leave the Democratic Party and form a new party. That might allow the centrist factions to take over and form a legitimate middle of the road party that would appeal to people like me.
The other good thing is that the site Little Green Footballs has been posting photoshoped images of Kos’ head on Dr. Evil’s body with various amusing quotes. Quite funny actually.
On Monday, Markos Zuniga, operator of the left wing site Daily Kos, announced a new initiative where he would take on and destroy the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). For those of you not familiar with them, the DLC a center-left group that tries to push the party more towards the mainstream middle of the road voters. They are most famous for launching Bill Clinton up to national prominence, from which he was able to win the presidency. Most of the prominent members are mid-western and southern politicians such as Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Hillary Clinton has recently been cozying up to them as well as an attempt to move her image more to the political center. Kos’ complaint is that the DLC is moving more to the right and might as well be Republican for all he’s concerned. So, in his mind at least, this is a purification of the party during the lean times so that the Democrats will be unified for the 2006 elections.
On the surface, this might seem like the amusing rantings of one person, but the danger for Democrats is quite real. Kos has announced that the formal unveiling of the war will begin on Labor Day and he has apparently kept quite mum about the tactics and methods. The danger is who is backing him. Kos almost certainly wouldn’t have been so outspoken about this unless he had the backing of organizations like MoveOn.org and the like. That means he has money behind him and money will summon named people. It could even attract DNC chairman Howard Dean, whom, I imagine, doesn’t like seeing a second group that might challenge his position of power.
Whatever the plan, I don’t expect Kos to win the war. He has come up short on most of his escapades before and the DLC is well financed. But the attack will probably result in the loss of money combating each side while the Republicans just sit back and wait to see who emerges from the fray.
The only good things that may come out of this is that one side may become so disgusted with each other that they leave the Democratic Party and form a new party. That might allow the centrist factions to take over and form a legitimate middle of the road party that would appeal to people like me.
The other good thing is that the site Little Green Footballs has been posting photoshoped images of Kos’ head on Dr. Evil’s body with various amusing quotes. Quite funny actually.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
2006 Senate Considerations
I know its way too early for this, but the recent election around here got me thinking about the Republican’s desire to win the supermajority in the Senate. So I looked at who was up for reelection and who would be vulnerable. The answers are very interesting.
Democrats are defending 18 seats to the 15 being defended by Republicans (this count assumes Jim Jeffords to be with the Democratic Party). As in all Senate elections, a number of seats are safe and some are in trouble. I’ll stick with the possible ones to avoid useless clutter:
1) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring. His seat will probably go to the Democrats so there is no real race here unless the GOP decides to waste a lot of money for principle’s sake.
2) Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Mr. Chaffee is a Democrat in Republican clothing. This is the only reason why he’ll probably win reelection. The Democrats are throwing people at him, but his family is still very popular in Rhode Island. I think they would have a better chance to let him win easily and then convince him to switch parties.
3) George Allen (R-VA). If the Democratic governor (Mark Warner) were running, Mr. Allen would be a lot of hot water, but Mr. Warner is gearing up for the 2008 Presidential race and isn’t wasting money. Mr. Allen should be able to survive other opponents.
4) Rick Santorum (R-PA). This is the first real trouble spot. Pennsylvania is moderate to liberal and Santorum is very conservative. He’s also going to be going up against a very popular Democrat. The only thing that could save him is if he gets Arlen Specter to seriously campaign for him and Mr. Specter is still recovering from cancer treatment. I seriously expect a party switch here.
5) Bill Nelson (D-FL). If Mr. Nelson were going up against Jeb Bush, the contest would be over. But the leading candidate for the GOP is Katherine Harris (yes, that Katherine Harris) so the race falls back into 50-50 range. This will be a very bloody fight and will probably require personal visits by President Bush to take this seat.
6) Mike De(s)wine (R-OH). Dewine could have won reelection easily, but he torqued off conservatives in Ohio with his membership in the gang of 14. He will be forced to spend money fending off more conservative primary candidates. If he survives that, he will do better because it appears that the Democrats are just going to throw Fingerhut forward again. But if the Democrats can find a stronger candidate and Dewine suffers badly in the primaries, the seat could be free to steal.
7) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The GOP has vowed to go after this relatively weak freshman senator, but they’ve been unable to grab a strong candidate. Stabenow will probably retain the seat unless labor openly revolts, which is unlikely.
8) Herb Kohl (D-WI). Normally this wouldn’t even be a contest, but former governor and HHS secretary, Tommy Thomson may try for this seat. If he does, the race moves to a toss up due to Thomson’s still high popularity in Wisconsin.
9) Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd has not committed as to whether he will run again and he is getting up there in years. If he chooses to run, he’ll probably win reelection, but if the seat is free this is a seat that could easily become Republican.
10) Ben Nelson (D-NE). Nelson treads a very careful line not to tick off his conservative constituents. But the Nebraska Republicans have not been able to coalesce around a strong candidate. If Nelson makes a wrong move or the GOP pulls a strong candidate out of it’s hat, this seat could switch.
11) Kent Conrad (D-ND). Conrad is quite popular but his state is very red. If things get too sour in Washington with the Democratic Party and the Republicans find a strong candidate, they might be able to take this seat.
12) Mark Dayton (D-MN). Dayton is not running and the Minnesota Democratic party has been bleeding badly every since the death of Paul Wellstone. The Republicans will make a strong push for this seat in a blue state and could win it if the Democrats don’t get their act together. Nominating Al Franken probably would not be best move in that direction (yes, he has mentioned running for the seat).
13) Conrad Burns (R-MT). Burns was almost taken down in 2000 and the Democrats have made serious inroads in Montana. However, his 2000 challenger has decided not to run against him and he is a little more prepared this time. Burns will probably survive with room to spare.
There has been idle talk about serious challenges to Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI), but neither candidate is seen as being in any kind of trouble. If the Republicans want to make more inroads towards the 60 seats, they can’t lose anyone besides Santorum, whom I think is a dead man walking. If they only lose this seat, I believe they can pick up several more seats. Minnesota, Florida, and Nebraska are strong possibilities, while Wisconsin and West Virginia are longer shots. But, I would be very surprised if the Republicans picked up all of these. If, somehow, the GOP did secure all these for 59 seats, I would expect some serious plums to be dangled for a Democrat to turn. Most of the focus would probably be directed at a southern Democrat, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA) or Mark Pryor (D-AR). But if Joe Lieberman (D-CT) receives too much flak from within his own party for the nomination this year, some cautious overtures may be made in his direction as well.
Democrats are defending 18 seats to the 15 being defended by Republicans (this count assumes Jim Jeffords to be with the Democratic Party). As in all Senate elections, a number of seats are safe and some are in trouble. I’ll stick with the possible ones to avoid useless clutter:
1) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring. His seat will probably go to the Democrats so there is no real race here unless the GOP decides to waste a lot of money for principle’s sake.
2) Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Mr. Chaffee is a Democrat in Republican clothing. This is the only reason why he’ll probably win reelection. The Democrats are throwing people at him, but his family is still very popular in Rhode Island. I think they would have a better chance to let him win easily and then convince him to switch parties.
3) George Allen (R-VA). If the Democratic governor (Mark Warner) were running, Mr. Allen would be a lot of hot water, but Mr. Warner is gearing up for the 2008 Presidential race and isn’t wasting money. Mr. Allen should be able to survive other opponents.
4) Rick Santorum (R-PA). This is the first real trouble spot. Pennsylvania is moderate to liberal and Santorum is very conservative. He’s also going to be going up against a very popular Democrat. The only thing that could save him is if he gets Arlen Specter to seriously campaign for him and Mr. Specter is still recovering from cancer treatment. I seriously expect a party switch here.
5) Bill Nelson (D-FL). If Mr. Nelson were going up against Jeb Bush, the contest would be over. But the leading candidate for the GOP is Katherine Harris (yes, that Katherine Harris) so the race falls back into 50-50 range. This will be a very bloody fight and will probably require personal visits by President Bush to take this seat.
6) Mike De(s)wine (R-OH). Dewine could have won reelection easily, but he torqued off conservatives in Ohio with his membership in the gang of 14. He will be forced to spend money fending off more conservative primary candidates. If he survives that, he will do better because it appears that the Democrats are just going to throw Fingerhut forward again. But if the Democrats can find a stronger candidate and Dewine suffers badly in the primaries, the seat could be free to steal.
7) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The GOP has vowed to go after this relatively weak freshman senator, but they’ve been unable to grab a strong candidate. Stabenow will probably retain the seat unless labor openly revolts, which is unlikely.
8) Herb Kohl (D-WI). Normally this wouldn’t even be a contest, but former governor and HHS secretary, Tommy Thomson may try for this seat. If he does, the race moves to a toss up due to Thomson’s still high popularity in Wisconsin.
9) Robert Byrd (D-WV). Byrd has not committed as to whether he will run again and he is getting up there in years. If he chooses to run, he’ll probably win reelection, but if the seat is free this is a seat that could easily become Republican.
10) Ben Nelson (D-NE). Nelson treads a very careful line not to tick off his conservative constituents. But the Nebraska Republicans have not been able to coalesce around a strong candidate. If Nelson makes a wrong move or the GOP pulls a strong candidate out of it’s hat, this seat could switch.
11) Kent Conrad (D-ND). Conrad is quite popular but his state is very red. If things get too sour in Washington with the Democratic Party and the Republicans find a strong candidate, they might be able to take this seat.
12) Mark Dayton (D-MN). Dayton is not running and the Minnesota Democratic party has been bleeding badly every since the death of Paul Wellstone. The Republicans will make a strong push for this seat in a blue state and could win it if the Democrats don’t get their act together. Nominating Al Franken probably would not be best move in that direction (yes, he has mentioned running for the seat).
13) Conrad Burns (R-MT). Burns was almost taken down in 2000 and the Democrats have made serious inroads in Montana. However, his 2000 challenger has decided not to run against him and he is a little more prepared this time. Burns will probably survive with room to spare.
There has been idle talk about serious challenges to Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI), but neither candidate is seen as being in any kind of trouble. If the Republicans want to make more inroads towards the 60 seats, they can’t lose anyone besides Santorum, whom I think is a dead man walking. If they only lose this seat, I believe they can pick up several more seats. Minnesota, Florida, and Nebraska are strong possibilities, while Wisconsin and West Virginia are longer shots. But, I would be very surprised if the Republicans picked up all of these. If, somehow, the GOP did secure all these for 59 seats, I would expect some serious plums to be dangled for a Democrat to turn. Most of the focus would probably be directed at a southern Democrat, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA) or Mark Pryor (D-AR). But if Joe Lieberman (D-CT) receives too much flak from within his own party for the nomination this year, some cautious overtures may be made in his direction as well.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Good or Bad Thing?
So last night I got a new congressperson. Ms. Schmidt (R) narrowly defeated Mr. Hackett (D) in a race that is sure to ping on a couple of radar screens. The vote was close with Ms. Schmidt beating Mr. Hackett by about 3,500 votes out of about 112,000 cast (51.6 - 48.4). In the past 30 years, only one Democrat has ever won an election for the second district of Ohio and Mr. Portman (the previous representative) consistently throttled his token opponents with upwards of 70% of the vote.
So, should Ohio Democrats be encouraged by their good standing? Well, yes and no. Yes it was a good run and I think the Democrats have a very good chance to recapture the governorship in 2006, especially if they nominate Coleman, but with as many circumstances working in the Democrats' favor, they could have won this race.
First, turnout was only about 20%. Low turnout will almost always work in the minority's favor, since it only brings out the die hards and political junkies. To remain with the minority party in a heavy majority district usually means you've got a bit of a fire in the belly for your party.
Second, there were almost no other issues on the ballots. There were three school levies on various ballots in our region, but I'm not sure if all three were in District 2. I know that my ballot only covered the congressional race. So that reduces the normal turnout and you revert back to point one.
Third, the attitude of the candidates. After winning the nomination, Mr. Hackett immediately started going door to door and getting his name out. Ms. Schmidt, on the other hand, flew to Washington to meet with Speaker Hassert and have a few gladhanding sessions. She did come back and campaign, but in a very reserved and impersonal way. I know that turned me off immediately.
Fourth, the DNC did a fairly good job of tying Ms. Schmidt to the Taft administration. Governor Taft is currently under investigation concerning a scam involving speculative coin buying with government employee pension money and its also just been disclosed that he spent upwards of $50,000 for golf trips and a few other frivolities. Put simply, Bob Taft's name is close to mud right now (approval ratings are somewhere between 12-20%).
Fifth, there are still a lot of people around here who would have either refused to vote for Ms. Schmidt simply because she's a woman or only voted for Mr. Hackett because he's an Iraqi War veteran. On the surface it does seem a bit transposed from the usual stereotypes.
Given all these considerations, I think Mr. Hackett could have won. Perhaps he would have if he'd had a little more time to get his message out. Either way, in 2006 I expect Mr. Hackett to get renominated for the office, assuming he doesn't turn his eye towards something more local and powerful. I also expect the Democrats to pour a little more money into this district next time around.
So, should Ohio Democrats be encouraged by their good standing? Well, yes and no. Yes it was a good run and I think the Democrats have a very good chance to recapture the governorship in 2006, especially if they nominate Coleman, but with as many circumstances working in the Democrats' favor, they could have won this race.
First, turnout was only about 20%. Low turnout will almost always work in the minority's favor, since it only brings out the die hards and political junkies. To remain with the minority party in a heavy majority district usually means you've got a bit of a fire in the belly for your party.
Second, there were almost no other issues on the ballots. There were three school levies on various ballots in our region, but I'm not sure if all three were in District 2. I know that my ballot only covered the congressional race. So that reduces the normal turnout and you revert back to point one.
Third, the attitude of the candidates. After winning the nomination, Mr. Hackett immediately started going door to door and getting his name out. Ms. Schmidt, on the other hand, flew to Washington to meet with Speaker Hassert and have a few gladhanding sessions. She did come back and campaign, but in a very reserved and impersonal way. I know that turned me off immediately.
Fourth, the DNC did a fairly good job of tying Ms. Schmidt to the Taft administration. Governor Taft is currently under investigation concerning a scam involving speculative coin buying with government employee pension money and its also just been disclosed that he spent upwards of $50,000 for golf trips and a few other frivolities. Put simply, Bob Taft's name is close to mud right now (approval ratings are somewhere between 12-20%).
Fifth, there are still a lot of people around here who would have either refused to vote for Ms. Schmidt simply because she's a woman or only voted for Mr. Hackett because he's an Iraqi War veteran. On the surface it does seem a bit transposed from the usual stereotypes.
Given all these considerations, I think Mr. Hackett could have won. Perhaps he would have if he'd had a little more time to get his message out. Either way, in 2006 I expect Mr. Hackett to get renominated for the office, assuming he doesn't turn his eye towards something more local and powerful. I also expect the Democrats to pour a little more money into this district next time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
