As some of you know, I'm a lawyer by trade, and a good portion of my work involves writing briefs - think term papers. As you can imagine, writing briefs can be a real pain in the ass, and unfortunately, I'm pretty good at it (so I'm on the first team as far as brief-writing goes). Anyway, I'm writing a brief now, but I need a break and a chance to open up my imagination. So, here are a few things that have caught my eye in the last few days. . .
Iran is burning: Well, Iran has been in turmoil since the June presidential elections, but with the death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (liberal cleric who technically outranked the Supreme Leader), all hell has broken loose. A quick read of Juan Cole's website, indicates that the regime is willing to do things that Shah wouldn't dare do.
On one hand, this makes sense, religion and politics, despite being great discussion topics, don't mix. When religion and politics mix, both politics and religion (especially religion), gets dirtier. If anything, the fact that within thirty years of the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the regime is willing to violate all norms of behavior is a great indicator of why religion and politics don't mix.
At the same time, I am almost offended by the amateurish attempts at oppression. Rather than sow fear, Khamenei and Ahmadenijhad have only sown hatred. And make no mistake, when the people hate the regime, that's the end. The only question is what will happen next. Thus far, there hasn't been anyone who's willing to be the face of the protest movement. At the same time, politics abhors a vacuum, and at some point, someone will step up.
Avatar: I liked the movie. Despite a less than weighty script (hello, its "Dances with Wolves"), the characters were somewhat believable, and the effects were amazing. James Cameron didn't make a movie, he created a world unto itself. That's pretty cool. It was definitely worth the $15 to see in IMAX/3D. I probably wouldn't buy the DVD, though.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Why the TSA is Stupid. . .
On September 11, 2001, the passengers of United Flight 93, upon realizing that the terrorists who took over their plane were going to kill them all, retook the airplane, and ended up saving hundreds, if not thousands of lives in the process. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane with a bomb located in his shoe. After seeing what he was up to, his fellow passengers promptly beat the fuck out of him. And yesterday, or the day before, some jackass attempted to blow up an airplane. As before, the other passengers promptly beat the fuck out of the guy.
Okay, here's where I go off the reservation as far as liberal politics go - these three attacks occurred despite all of the terrorists went through security. As a result of Richard Reid, I have to take my fucking shoes off every time I go through security. That sucks. More importantly, though, individual action has been more effective than government action. So, allow me to tip my cap to my conservative friends. So long as the government can keep guns off the airplanes, the passengers will have no problem taking care of these terrorists. Okay, maybe having a government agent on board to lead the passengers would help.
So instead of making me walk through in my underwear, can you please just inform us of the threat? Each one passenger will happily assist in beating the fuck out of whomever tries to fuck with the plane - they didn't do it in the first three flights on September 11, because you told us to take no action.
Okay, here's where I go off the reservation as far as liberal politics go - these three attacks occurred despite all of the terrorists went through security. As a result of Richard Reid, I have to take my fucking shoes off every time I go through security. That sucks. More importantly, though, individual action has been more effective than government action. So, allow me to tip my cap to my conservative friends. So long as the government can keep guns off the airplanes, the passengers will have no problem taking care of these terrorists. Okay, maybe having a government agent on board to lead the passengers would help.
So instead of making me walk through in my underwear, can you please just inform us of the threat? Each one passenger will happily assist in beating the fuck out of whomever tries to fuck with the plane - they didn't do it in the first three flights on September 11, because you told us to take no action.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Why I'm Pissed About the Health Care Bill. . .
Under the recent Senate bill, 30 million uninsured Americans will have access to health insurance, and preexisting conditions will be covered. While all of that is great, here's my problem with the bill: what happens if your insurance company screws you?
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What to do with the Health Care Bill
As a progressive. . .fuck that. I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I believe that the free market/capitalism system is a good system, but the real world being what it is, we need government intervention when the market breaks down. I believe that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies, and that everyone should be free to spend their money on what they want, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. My previous work in housing rights was primarily correcting the market inefficiency of housing discrimination.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Conservative Media Bias
While Bogart in Towne guffaws at the title, I thought I'd rant a bit about the media biases, specifically when it comes to state/local politics. Last Friday, I was listening to the "Editor's Roundtable" on KPBS - which, as you can imagine, was a group of local news editors from San Diego. At the roundtable, San Diego's budget was discussed, and more specifically, how the Mayor and the City Council were ducking the main issue - that the City's taxes are so low that it can't provide the services the people want or need.
One of the editors complained about the lack of honesty by these politicians and the consensus was that the Mayor should level with the people of San Diego. All valid points to be sure, but they forget one thing - if the Mayor did that, another politician would claim he/she has a better way and undercut the Mayor. And the media would either praise this new politician, or not tell their readers the truth - that the new politician is lying to them.
For the past 30 years, I've seen the dismantling of the "California Dream" based on this very tactic. California has gone from having the best infrastructure in the U.S. to the worst, from the best education system to one of the worst, from rainy day funds to structural deficits. Why? Because politicians tell the public that they can cut taxes and maintain spending, or make only cuts to government waste. No one calls them on it. There are Republicans who spent their entire career in Sacramento voting against every budget the State produced. No one says anything. Budget tricks are hailed, and honesty is punished.
Moreover, outside of sports stadiums, the local media takes pleasure in pointing out the failures of local projects. Little wonder the interest and money for these projects is dwindling.
The one thing that makes me optimistic is the internet as a medium. Unlike TV, the internet is a collaborative process. If you hate what I'm writing, you can comment, and I'll comment back. But its going to take a long time before the internet outpaces TV. I just hope we can last that long.
One of the editors complained about the lack of honesty by these politicians and the consensus was that the Mayor should level with the people of San Diego. All valid points to be sure, but they forget one thing - if the Mayor did that, another politician would claim he/she has a better way and undercut the Mayor. And the media would either praise this new politician, or not tell their readers the truth - that the new politician is lying to them.
For the past 30 years, I've seen the dismantling of the "California Dream" based on this very tactic. California has gone from having the best infrastructure in the U.S. to the worst, from the best education system to one of the worst, from rainy day funds to structural deficits. Why? Because politicians tell the public that they can cut taxes and maintain spending, or make only cuts to government waste. No one calls them on it. There are Republicans who spent their entire career in Sacramento voting against every budget the State produced. No one says anything. Budget tricks are hailed, and honesty is punished.
Moreover, outside of sports stadiums, the local media takes pleasure in pointing out the failures of local projects. Little wonder the interest and money for these projects is dwindling.
The one thing that makes me optimistic is the internet as a medium. Unlike TV, the internet is a collaborative process. If you hate what I'm writing, you can comment, and I'll comment back. But its going to take a long time before the internet outpaces TV. I just hope we can last that long.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fuck You Joe Lieberman!
In wake of Lieberman's decision to filibuster the health care bill, allow me to point out a few things. First, prior to 2004/2006, Joe Lieberman was a known as a deficit hawk, very pro-Israel, and socially moderate with conservative leanings (hated Hollywood, supports abortion rights).
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
Friday, December 4, 2009
A Short Word on Iran. . .
So, apparently the Iranian Government is now going after its critics who live outside of Iran, by threatening their families and whatnot (see Bogart's link to the "What chaps my ass" post. As someone who has followed the upheaval in Iran over the summer (wherein, I learned the value of Twitter), and who has publicly criticized the Iranian regime, let me say the following:
Bring. It. On.
I am an American, and I have no friends or family who live in Iran. Rather, I am one of many concerned citizens of the world who see Ahmadenijhad and Khamenei for what they truly are - dictators of the worst order. You may dress up your regime under the auspices of Islam, but I see right through you. Your regime is composed of thugs, murderers and rapists. As Jesus has said:
And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which seeth in secret. (Matt. 6.27)
That is all that you are - hypocrites, rapists, thugs, murderers and thieves. To have you as enemies would only speak well for my character. Hell, a half-decent attack on me would spur a career in American politics. So, if you want me, here I am. Come and find me. Oh, and in the words of the Sea of Green - Allahu Akbar!
Bring. It. On.
I am an American, and I have no friends or family who live in Iran. Rather, I am one of many concerned citizens of the world who see Ahmadenijhad and Khamenei for what they truly are - dictators of the worst order. You may dress up your regime under the auspices of Islam, but I see right through you. Your regime is composed of thugs, murderers and rapists. As Jesus has said:
And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which seeth in secret. (Matt. 6.27)
That is all that you are - hypocrites, rapists, thugs, murderers and thieves. To have you as enemies would only speak well for my character. Hell, a half-decent attack on me would spur a career in American politics. So, if you want me, here I am. Come and find me. Oh, and in the words of the Sea of Green - Allahu Akbar!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
A quick word on Christmas. . .
Those of you who are pushing the religious angle on Christmas should remind yourselves that Christmas was set on December 25 as a way to preempt pagan winter celebrations. Christ was, most likely, born during spring when shepherds would sleep outside with their flock. So, lighten up about Christmas. If you want to nitpick, nitpick over Easter, which is far more Biblically centered. The whole chocolate bunny thing is complete bullshit (though the eggs, ironically, are based in the Christian tradition - Mary Magadalene supposedly explained the Resurrection using a colored egg).
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What's Chapping My Ass This Week: On Tiger Woods, Afghanistan, and Gay Marriage
Now, if I was a more fastidious blogger, I wouldn't have to do these compound posts. But the realities of my profession (not just the stress, but the time necessary to come down from said stress), is such that I don't blog as much as a I should. So, again, without further ado, I'm unveiling a new-ish feature on this blog: What's chapping my ass this week. Its a feature dedicated to whatever the hell bugs me.
Tiger Woods: I have to admit that I'm following this story for the sheer spectacle of the thing. Watching Tiger Woods the past few days is like watching Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, etc. And to be honest, when I first heard the news, I assumed that Woods was drunk. After all, why else would someone drive into a tree at 2:30 a.m.? Being caught by your wife cheating (allegedly) is a pretty good reason too. But here's what chaps my ass - people are saying that Tiger Woods should apologize, as if he owes the world something or another. That's completely ridiculous. Tiger Woods is a golfer and a corporate spokesman. He doesn't tell people how to live their lives, he doesn't necessarily hold himself out as a perfect person, and he certainly doesn't moralize about other people's choices. So, who cares what the man does with his time? Well, his wife does - and believe me, its going to hurt if she divorces him - but I certainly don't feel betrayed. And neither should you (provided, of course, that you're not related to Tiger Woods or his wife).
Gay Marriage: Speaking of moralizing. . .Actually, this post has less to do with gay marriage than with the recent happenings in Uganda. Apparently, Uganda is about to pass a law that would make homosexuality a capital offense. Worse yet, this law comes as the result of lobbying by American Evangelicals. So much for hating the sin but loving the sinner. In the last few days, a Catholic cardinal, in direct opposition to Church doctrine, stated that gays never enter the Kingdom of God.
Here's my point, and what chaps my ass - is that more than a few "protectors of traditional marriage" don't want to protect traditional marriage, but rather, want to recriminalize homosexuality, which I find repugnant. I think that there are basically two types of anti-gay people out there - the ones who see homosexuality as strange and scary, and those who hate gay people. The first type, hopefully, are the majority, and the longer there there is an existing gay culture, the less this type will freak out. If I had to predict anything, I'd predict that same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states at some point in my lifetime. But that said, we can't forget the second type - those that have taken hatred into their hearts and call it religion.
Afghanistan To be honest, I'm entirely conflicted about Afghanistan. On one hand, I want to see Osama bin Laden, Muhammed Omar and every other Al Qaeda bastard dragged through the streets of New York and then ritually killed. . .err. . .given a "fair trial," and then sentenced to death. Went too far with my Italian roots. Sorry everyone, sorry. At the same time, Afghanistan is the epitome of a quagmire and I don't want the U.S. to stay there any longer than absolutely necessary. That said, what chaps my ass here is that if we took Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, like we could have, we wouldn't need to be in Afghanistan.
Tiger Woods: I have to admit that I'm following this story for the sheer spectacle of the thing. Watching Tiger Woods the past few days is like watching Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, etc. And to be honest, when I first heard the news, I assumed that Woods was drunk. After all, why else would someone drive into a tree at 2:30 a.m.? Being caught by your wife cheating (allegedly) is a pretty good reason too. But here's what chaps my ass - people are saying that Tiger Woods should apologize, as if he owes the world something or another. That's completely ridiculous. Tiger Woods is a golfer and a corporate spokesman. He doesn't tell people how to live their lives, he doesn't necessarily hold himself out as a perfect person, and he certainly doesn't moralize about other people's choices. So, who cares what the man does with his time? Well, his wife does - and believe me, its going to hurt if she divorces him - but I certainly don't feel betrayed. And neither should you (provided, of course, that you're not related to Tiger Woods or his wife).
Gay Marriage: Speaking of moralizing. . .Actually, this post has less to do with gay marriage than with the recent happenings in Uganda. Apparently, Uganda is about to pass a law that would make homosexuality a capital offense. Worse yet, this law comes as the result of lobbying by American Evangelicals. So much for hating the sin but loving the sinner. In the last few days, a Catholic cardinal, in direct opposition to Church doctrine, stated that gays never enter the Kingdom of God.
Here's my point, and what chaps my ass - is that more than a few "protectors of traditional marriage" don't want to protect traditional marriage, but rather, want to recriminalize homosexuality, which I find repugnant. I think that there are basically two types of anti-gay people out there - the ones who see homosexuality as strange and scary, and those who hate gay people. The first type, hopefully, are the majority, and the longer there there is an existing gay culture, the less this type will freak out. If I had to predict anything, I'd predict that same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states at some point in my lifetime. But that said, we can't forget the second type - those that have taken hatred into their hearts and call it religion.
Afghanistan To be honest, I'm entirely conflicted about Afghanistan. On one hand, I want to see Osama bin Laden, Muhammed Omar and every other Al Qaeda bastard dragged through the streets of New York and then ritually killed. . .err. . .given a "fair trial," and then sentenced to death. Went too far with my Italian roots. Sorry everyone, sorry. At the same time, Afghanistan is the epitome of a quagmire and I don't want the U.S. to stay there any longer than absolutely necessary. That said, what chaps my ass here is that if we took Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, like we could have, we wouldn't need to be in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Hooray Beer!
Per the Men's Journal San Diego is the best beer town in the country. Suck it Portland! Anyway, in a belated post, being the week after Beer Week, I thought I'd write a tribute to beer in my hometown. Hooray Beer!
Contrary to the blandness that tends to befall San Diego (the result of waves of immigrants from the Midwest and elsewhere), the craft brews in San Diego have a distinctive local flare. In this case, we're talking about hops - the bitter herb used in the brewing process to preserve beer, and to give it aroma and spice. The classic San Diego style beer is the double IPA (which I could describe, but I much prefer that you all go and try it). The leader in this overhopped revolution is Stone Brewery, maker of such beers as Arrogant Bastard Ale (my favorite is Stone's IPA).
Interestingly, there is a second school of San Diego brews focusing on Belgian style ales. Of particular note is the Lost Abbey Brewery, which makes beers that have all the complexity of the best Belgian ales. My personal favorite is the Ten Commandments Ale.
But here's what I love about beer in San Diego - we have a lot of breweries to satisfy you. Check out this site for information on other breweries.
With all that said, for the life of me, I can't figure out how San Diego managed to pull this off. Los Angeles, which normally dominates everything in Southern California, has a pretty crappy beer scene. While there are Mexican breweries nearby (Tecate is made in Northern Baja, just south of the Border), none of them make the kinds of beer that San Diegans are drinking.
Moreover, the great cultural plague of my city is the constant flux of people moving in and out of San Diego. Most of the people I know in San Diego are from somewhere else. As a result, people tend to look outside of San Diego for culture. So we have Bronx Pizza (makes pizza "just like home"), and Lefty's Chicago Pizzeria, etc. For the longest time, it appeared that San Diego didn't have a culture of its own. The rise of craft brewing in San Diego shows that we do. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting thirsty. Hooray Beer!
Contrary to the blandness that tends to befall San Diego (the result of waves of immigrants from the Midwest and elsewhere), the craft brews in San Diego have a distinctive local flare. In this case, we're talking about hops - the bitter herb used in the brewing process to preserve beer, and to give it aroma and spice. The classic San Diego style beer is the double IPA (which I could describe, but I much prefer that you all go and try it). The leader in this overhopped revolution is Stone Brewery, maker of such beers as Arrogant Bastard Ale (my favorite is Stone's IPA).
Interestingly, there is a second school of San Diego brews focusing on Belgian style ales. Of particular note is the Lost Abbey Brewery, which makes beers that have all the complexity of the best Belgian ales. My personal favorite is the Ten Commandments Ale.
But here's what I love about beer in San Diego - we have a lot of breweries to satisfy you. Check out this site for information on other breweries.
With all that said, for the life of me, I can't figure out how San Diego managed to pull this off. Los Angeles, which normally dominates everything in Southern California, has a pretty crappy beer scene. While there are Mexican breweries nearby (Tecate is made in Northern Baja, just south of the Border), none of them make the kinds of beer that San Diegans are drinking.
Moreover, the great cultural plague of my city is the constant flux of people moving in and out of San Diego. Most of the people I know in San Diego are from somewhere else. As a result, people tend to look outside of San Diego for culture. So we have Bronx Pizza (makes pizza "just like home"), and Lefty's Chicago Pizzeria, etc. For the longest time, it appeared that San Diego didn't have a culture of its own. The rise of craft brewing in San Diego shows that we do. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting thirsty. Hooray Beer!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
On Mammograms
As per the recent Slate.com article, the Feds are not suggesting that breast cancer screening begin in earnest at age 50, instead of 40, and that self-exams are a waste of time. Now, as a straight man, I absolutely opposed to this notion, as it increases the risk to one of the things that makes life worth living: boobs.
That said, it appears that the Feds are basing their recommendation on sound statistical evidence. If you ever, on a theological basis, wanted to know how God can know everything, but yet still allow free will, then study statistics, or more specifically, the law of big numbers. The bigger the sampling data, the more you can predict virtually anything. So, as someone who believes in statistics, the Feds are probably right on this one.
But here's the problem: a woman deciding to start mammograms at 40 or 50 isn't going to play the percentages the way that I might. That's because, if the woman chooses wrongly, SHE DIES A HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH. Or, at least, she becomes disfigured and suffers greatly. Given that a HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH and/or DISFIGUREMENT is highly disfavored, women will, by and large, choose to continue to getting mammograms at 40, as well as do self-exams.
![]()
12-Year-Old Boy Scouts Volunteer To Give Women Breast Exams
All jokes aside, this represents a fundamental issue in health care - when faced with a risk of death, people will tend to overconsume health care. And, let's face it, when choosing between extra expense and HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH, the odds go out the window. That's why Doctors don't compete based on price, but rather, on the services they provide. Medicine is the only market where competition raises costs.
That said, it appears that the Feds are basing their recommendation on sound statistical evidence. If you ever, on a theological basis, wanted to know how God can know everything, but yet still allow free will, then study statistics, or more specifically, the law of big numbers. The bigger the sampling data, the more you can predict virtually anything. So, as someone who believes in statistics, the Feds are probably right on this one.
But here's the problem: a woman deciding to start mammograms at 40 or 50 isn't going to play the percentages the way that I might. That's because, if the woman chooses wrongly, SHE DIES A HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH. Or, at least, she becomes disfigured and suffers greatly. Given that a HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH and/or DISFIGUREMENT is highly disfavored, women will, by and large, choose to continue to getting mammograms at 40, as well as do self-exams.
12-Year-Old Boy Scouts Volunteer To Give Women Breast Exams
All jokes aside, this represents a fundamental issue in health care - when faced with a risk of death, people will tend to overconsume health care. And, let's face it, when choosing between extra expense and HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH, the odds go out the window. That's why Doctors don't compete based on price, but rather, on the services they provide. Medicine is the only market where competition raises costs.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
On Sarah Palin
I remember where I was when McCain picked Sarah Palin distinctly - I had just broken up with my fiancee, and for Labor Day, I went to stay with my friends Eric and Jessica, at their place in Santa Clara (speaking of which, St. Joe is a far better name for San Jose than San Jose: it fits the town better). Anyway, I remember the announcement and thinking - wait, isn't she the one who fired her brother-in-law up in Alaska or something. I thank Talkingpointsmemo.com for that.
Anyway, my thinking thereafter was primarily based on strategy - Sarah Palin had very little experience in politics, and that by picking Palin, McCain screwed up his best narrative against Obama - that he was simply not ready to become President. That narrative was so strong that Obama picked Biden to cover his ass. Not only did Palin kill that narrative, but she caused all kinds of headaches for the McCain campaign. It got to the point where McCain wouldn't let Palin give a concession speech (which, as it turns out, is relatively common in Presidential elections).
As we move forward to 2012, Palin is now on everyone's minds. Well, that and the fact that her putative son-in-law is posing for Playgirl, and Palin is putting out a book that she "cowrote" and was on Oprah and everything. So, allow me a few thoughts on Palin, from best to worst:
1) She's got "It" - Most candidates and politicians are like everyone else - they are relatively uninspiring, and modestly charismatic. Some politicians, though, ooze charisma from their pores. Obama's got It, Clinton has It, and Bush, to some extent, had It. And, Sarah Palin has It. When Sarah speaks, people react with cheers or jeers, but no one yawns. That's why, even as Palin created headache after headache, McCain thought, and probably still thinks, that Palin was the best thing for his campaign. The McCain of 2008 didn't have the It factor that McCain had in 2000. Moreover, Palin is the only Republican that has the It factor right now.
2) She's Ruthless - Palin refers to herself as the pitbull in heels, and she is definitely that. Like any good politician, Palin has no qualms about throwing anyone under the bus. That's a good thing.
3) She doesn't have much else - Herein lies the disaster for the GOP: Sarah Palin doesn't have the depth or convictions to run for President. She's not just inexperienced, but she's anti-experience, anti-intellectual, anti-depth. If, however, she buckles down, studies and gains some knowledge, she can be formidible. As we saw in California with Ahnuld, a little bit of knowledge with a lot of charisma is a powerful combination. But she has to be smart enough to pull it off.
And here's where Palin can be a real problem for the GOP - the base of the Party loves her, and is willing to cut her slack and that's the worst thing that can happen. For independents to take Palin seriously, she's going to have to be very strong on at least a few issues. The more popular Palin is, though, the less likely she's going to work hard enough to get strong enough. I could very well see Palin taking the nomination and then getting absolutely crushed by Obama.
4) Drama, Drama, Drama - Obama is fascinating because his talents are otherworldly - he's the Superman of oration - but most politicians who are "fascinating" are trainwrecks who create drama. Does Oprah and her viewers really care about Obama's puppy? Not really, but the idea that Superman washes dishes and puts his pants on one leg at a time is interesting. Palin, on the other hand (like Clinton), has a son-in-law posing naked (or mostly naked), an allegedly abusive brother-in-law, a teenage unwed mother daughter, a special needs child, odd personal expense reports, feuds with the McCain campaign, and the First Dude. Going rogue, indeed. At any point in time, Palin can, and will, go sideways on you. That has to scare the hell out of anyone.
****Of Topic Re:Terror Trials**** - Goddamned right in my opinion. Those bastards should face a New York jury for the crimes committed in New York. This isn't about their rights, its about the right of the People to condemn murderers to death. Yes, I get that terrorists are different, but the last thing we should do is elevate these assholes.
Anyway, my thinking thereafter was primarily based on strategy - Sarah Palin had very little experience in politics, and that by picking Palin, McCain screwed up his best narrative against Obama - that he was simply not ready to become President. That narrative was so strong that Obama picked Biden to cover his ass. Not only did Palin kill that narrative, but she caused all kinds of headaches for the McCain campaign. It got to the point where McCain wouldn't let Palin give a concession speech (which, as it turns out, is relatively common in Presidential elections).
As we move forward to 2012, Palin is now on everyone's minds. Well, that and the fact that her putative son-in-law is posing for Playgirl, and Palin is putting out a book that she "cowrote" and was on Oprah and everything. So, allow me a few thoughts on Palin, from best to worst:
1) She's got "It" - Most candidates and politicians are like everyone else - they are relatively uninspiring, and modestly charismatic. Some politicians, though, ooze charisma from their pores. Obama's got It, Clinton has It, and Bush, to some extent, had It. And, Sarah Palin has It. When Sarah speaks, people react with cheers or jeers, but no one yawns. That's why, even as Palin created headache after headache, McCain thought, and probably still thinks, that Palin was the best thing for his campaign. The McCain of 2008 didn't have the It factor that McCain had in 2000. Moreover, Palin is the only Republican that has the It factor right now.
2) She's Ruthless - Palin refers to herself as the pitbull in heels, and she is definitely that. Like any good politician, Palin has no qualms about throwing anyone under the bus. That's a good thing.
3) She doesn't have much else - Herein lies the disaster for the GOP: Sarah Palin doesn't have the depth or convictions to run for President. She's not just inexperienced, but she's anti-experience, anti-intellectual, anti-depth. If, however, she buckles down, studies and gains some knowledge, she can be formidible. As we saw in California with Ahnuld, a little bit of knowledge with a lot of charisma is a powerful combination. But she has to be smart enough to pull it off.
And here's where Palin can be a real problem for the GOP - the base of the Party loves her, and is willing to cut her slack and that's the worst thing that can happen. For independents to take Palin seriously, she's going to have to be very strong on at least a few issues. The more popular Palin is, though, the less likely she's going to work hard enough to get strong enough. I could very well see Palin taking the nomination and then getting absolutely crushed by Obama.
4) Drama, Drama, Drama - Obama is fascinating because his talents are otherworldly - he's the Superman of oration - but most politicians who are "fascinating" are trainwrecks who create drama. Does Oprah and her viewers really care about Obama's puppy? Not really, but the idea that Superman washes dishes and puts his pants on one leg at a time is interesting. Palin, on the other hand (like Clinton), has a son-in-law posing naked (or mostly naked), an allegedly abusive brother-in-law, a teenage unwed mother daughter, a special needs child, odd personal expense reports, feuds with the McCain campaign, and the First Dude. Going rogue, indeed. At any point in time, Palin can, and will, go sideways on you. That has to scare the hell out of anyone.
****Of Topic Re:Terror Trials**** - Goddamned right in my opinion. Those bastards should face a New York jury for the crimes committed in New York. This isn't about their rights, its about the right of the People to condemn murderers to death. Yes, I get that terrorists are different, but the last thing we should do is elevate these assholes.
Monday, November 16, 2009
About that Belicheck Call. . .
While I was returning from my parents' house last night for dinner, I turned on the radio to listen to the Sunday night game. At the time, the Pats were leading the Colts 34-21. Game over, I thought. So, I switched to other stations. Around the time I got home, I switched back to hear the game called - 35-34 Colts. WTF?
Apparently, the game was decided on a 4th and 2, on the Patriots' 28 yard line, where the Pats' coach decided to go for the first down instead of punting. For those of you who don't know, this means that rather than kick the ball downfield to the other team, the Patriots attempted to move the ball forward by two yards. They failed, and the Pats lost.
Now, I have seen and heard from both sides of the debate - from those who thought this was a terrible idea, to those who don't - and all I can say is, it was an awful, mind-blowingly bad decision. Don't get me wrong, coaches tend to punt the ball way too often. Yesterday, Andy Reid, the Eagles coach, kicked field goals instead of trying to score touchdowns and his team lost because of it. And punting when the team is at the 50 yard line is equally bad.
But this was different. At 2:08, the Pats were up by six points - meaning that a touchdown and an extra point would win the game for the Colts with just two minutes left in the game. The Colts weren't just trying to score, but had to do so in two minutes - possible, but difficult. By going for it on fourth down, the Patriots cut down the number of yards the Colts needed to move the ball from seventy to thirty.
Moreover, even if the Patriots had gotten the first down, there's no indication that they would have been able to kill the clock - the Pats, after all, can't run the football, and the Colts had both timeouts and the two minute warning coming up. In other words, there was no guarantee that the Pats would've won the game had they gotten the first down. At this point, all Belicheck needed to do was milk the clock. Again, making the Colts go seventy yards (as opposed to thirty yards) was the right thing to do at that moment.
Apparently, the game was decided on a 4th and 2, on the Patriots' 28 yard line, where the Pats' coach decided to go for the first down instead of punting. For those of you who don't know, this means that rather than kick the ball downfield to the other team, the Patriots attempted to move the ball forward by two yards. They failed, and the Pats lost.
Now, I have seen and heard from both sides of the debate - from those who thought this was a terrible idea, to those who don't - and all I can say is, it was an awful, mind-blowingly bad decision. Don't get me wrong, coaches tend to punt the ball way too often. Yesterday, Andy Reid, the Eagles coach, kicked field goals instead of trying to score touchdowns and his team lost because of it. And punting when the team is at the 50 yard line is equally bad.
But this was different. At 2:08, the Pats were up by six points - meaning that a touchdown and an extra point would win the game for the Colts with just two minutes left in the game. The Colts weren't just trying to score, but had to do so in two minutes - possible, but difficult. By going for it on fourth down, the Patriots cut down the number of yards the Colts needed to move the ball from seventy to thirty.
Moreover, even if the Patriots had gotten the first down, there's no indication that they would have been able to kill the clock - the Pats, after all, can't run the football, and the Colts had both timeouts and the two minute warning coming up. In other words, there was no guarantee that the Pats would've won the game had they gotten the first down. At this point, all Belicheck needed to do was milk the clock. Again, making the Colts go seventy yards (as opposed to thirty yards) was the right thing to do at that moment.
Friday, November 13, 2009
My weekly random posting. . . .
So, I've come to realize that this blog will most likely be a weekly post - I'm too busy with work to really post as much as I'd like, and I'm too much of a loudmouth to do short postings. That said, here's another random topics posting:
JFK and Mad Men - I grew up going to Catholic school, with Baby Boomer parents and with a fawning Boomer media, but it wasn't until I saw the JFK assasination episode of "Mad Men" that I really understood the psychic wound inflicted by his death. But rather than being about the Boomer generation, this had more to do with the "Greatest Generation" - my grandfathers' generation who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Basically, after WWII, this group of people looked around, realized that the U.S. was the most powerful country on Earth (with the Soviet Union not too far behind) and felt pretty damn good about themselves. JFK's election was about breaking from the past and this generation asserting themselves. When he died, the reins of power fell to LBJ, an older and more traditional politician, and the Generation was denied its rightful place.
Carrie Prejean is now my favorite conservative trainwreck - Talk about local girl not going good. Whether she got screwed or not during the Miss America pagent (I didn't watch, and I don't care), is one thing, but her behavior is downright odd. From the nude pictures to the (no more alleged) sex tape to getting stripped of her title as Miss California to her recent odd behavior on Larry King, I am constantly amazed at what's going on, and I can't get enough.
I blame the "Tyson Zone." The "Tyson Zone" was coined by Bill Simmons to describe when a celebrity has done so many crazy things that it ceases to become shocking. Prime examples include Britney Spears, Mike Tyson, and Tara Reid. But here's the thing - as these celebrities entered the Tyson Zone, everyone was utterly fascinated. I feel the same way about Carrie Prejean - just when I think things have settled down, she gets crazier and crazier. Seriously, the Larry King thing was bizarre - he asked not-too-difficult questions, she demurred, and as he tried to move on, she threatened to leave the set. How bizarre is that?
Does her political beliefs play a role in my fascination? To some degree, yes. Last week, I went to a cheese shop by my house and purchased a really good Gouda. While watching the Chargers game, I paired said gouda with some apples and a Belgian style ale. The pairing of the apple and beer to the Gouda was amazing, but that didn't detract from the fact that the Gouda was excellent. In the same vein, the pairing of a celebrity who became famous for opposing gay marriage and espousing sexual purity with her utter self-destruction is an amazing pairing. But the self-destruction is the thing of fascination, not the conservative beliefs.
Lou Dobbs' Future - In a OMG/WTF move Lou Dobbs suddenly quit CNN. Not the, "I'm going to resign at the end of the month," thing, but the, "Fuck all y'all, I'm out of here." Now normally, I'd think that Dobbs was going to move to Fox, but his resignation statement was interesting - he left because people were pushing him to make a positive contribution. That makes my spidey sense tingling - someone is running for office. So, what office?
If he is thinking about running in 2012, leaving CNN would be an awful idea - he's off of TV too soon, and going to Fox would pigeonhole him. So, I think he's planning a run for office in 2010. Now, there's no way in hell Dobbs is going to run for anything less than a statewide position. He lives in Jersey, but Christie was just elected as Governor, and both Senators aren't up in 2010. So Jersey is out. But two neighboring states, New York and Connecticut, both have Senator and Governor positions up for grabs in 2010.
That said, Dobbs doesn't want to be a Governor - that's too much work, and it takes him too far from his core issues: trade and xenophobia-err-immigration. So, here's my guess, Dobbs is going to run against Chris Dodd for U.S. Senate. With Dodd's unpopularity, and Dobbs' name ID, Dobbs has more than a shot - and that's enough for Dobbs to quit CNN.
JFK and Mad Men - I grew up going to Catholic school, with Baby Boomer parents and with a fawning Boomer media, but it wasn't until I saw the JFK assasination episode of "Mad Men" that I really understood the psychic wound inflicted by his death. But rather than being about the Boomer generation, this had more to do with the "Greatest Generation" - my grandfathers' generation who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Basically, after WWII, this group of people looked around, realized that the U.S. was the most powerful country on Earth (with the Soviet Union not too far behind) and felt pretty damn good about themselves. JFK's election was about breaking from the past and this generation asserting themselves. When he died, the reins of power fell to LBJ, an older and more traditional politician, and the Generation was denied its rightful place.
Carrie Prejean is now my favorite conservative trainwreck - Talk about local girl not going good. Whether she got screwed or not during the Miss America pagent (I didn't watch, and I don't care), is one thing, but her behavior is downright odd. From the nude pictures to the (no more alleged) sex tape to getting stripped of her title as Miss California to her recent odd behavior on Larry King, I am constantly amazed at what's going on, and I can't get enough.
I blame the "Tyson Zone." The "Tyson Zone" was coined by Bill Simmons to describe when a celebrity has done so many crazy things that it ceases to become shocking. Prime examples include Britney Spears, Mike Tyson, and Tara Reid. But here's the thing - as these celebrities entered the Tyson Zone, everyone was utterly fascinated. I feel the same way about Carrie Prejean - just when I think things have settled down, she gets crazier and crazier. Seriously, the Larry King thing was bizarre - he asked not-too-difficult questions, she demurred, and as he tried to move on, she threatened to leave the set. How bizarre is that?
Does her political beliefs play a role in my fascination? To some degree, yes. Last week, I went to a cheese shop by my house and purchased a really good Gouda. While watching the Chargers game, I paired said gouda with some apples and a Belgian style ale. The pairing of the apple and beer to the Gouda was amazing, but that didn't detract from the fact that the Gouda was excellent. In the same vein, the pairing of a celebrity who became famous for opposing gay marriage and espousing sexual purity with her utter self-destruction is an amazing pairing. But the self-destruction is the thing of fascination, not the conservative beliefs.
Lou Dobbs' Future - In a OMG/WTF move Lou Dobbs suddenly quit CNN. Not the, "I'm going to resign at the end of the month," thing, but the, "Fuck all y'all, I'm out of here." Now normally, I'd think that Dobbs was going to move to Fox, but his resignation statement was interesting - he left because people were pushing him to make a positive contribution. That makes my spidey sense tingling - someone is running for office. So, what office?
If he is thinking about running in 2012, leaving CNN would be an awful idea - he's off of TV too soon, and going to Fox would pigeonhole him. So, I think he's planning a run for office in 2010. Now, there's no way in hell Dobbs is going to run for anything less than a statewide position. He lives in Jersey, but Christie was just elected as Governor, and both Senators aren't up in 2010. So Jersey is out. But two neighboring states, New York and Connecticut, both have Senator and Governor positions up for grabs in 2010.
That said, Dobbs doesn't want to be a Governor - that's too much work, and it takes him too far from his core issues: trade and xenophobia-err-immigration. So, here's my guess, Dobbs is going to run against Chris Dodd for U.S. Senate. With Dodd's unpopularity, and Dobbs' name ID, Dobbs has more than a shot - and that's enough for Dobbs to quit CNN.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
On Marriage Equality Campaigns
Well, it looks like California isn't alone. Shortly after gay marriage was legalized in Maine, a ballot initiative de-legalized it, similar to what happened in California with Prop. 8. Here though, the Maine campaign was, by all accounts, fantastic (unlike the California No on 8 campaign), but the turnout wasn't high enough.
The one common thread in both campaigns, though, is messaging. In both instances, the message was "don't take away our rights." The anti-gay marriage crowd responded by proclaiming that if gay marriage continues, then gay marriage will be taught in schools. And in both cases, the response by the gay rights groups was to dispute the notion - after all, the whole gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-schools thing is nonsense.
And this is where I think the messaging is wrong. Look, gay marriage is a BIG change for our culture (and even bigger if you live in Maine). Homosexuality has only been legalized throughout the country in the past ten years. So, rather than downplay the importance, play it up. Humanize the issue by having old gay and/or lesbian couples talk about their relationship in ads. Have survivors tell their stories about losing their partner and the aftermath. In other words, run ads in FAVOR of gay marriage, instead of OPPOSING taking gay marriage away.
With regard to the schools thing, don't deny that gay marriage will be taught in schools - because its a BIG change, some teacher is certain to bring it up - instead, point out that the whole "its going to be taught in schools" thing is scary only if you don't want to accept gay people. Tell them that even though its a BIG change, in ten years, it will seem like a trifle because nobody really cares about who marries who except those getting hitched.
The one common thread in both campaigns, though, is messaging. In both instances, the message was "don't take away our rights." The anti-gay marriage crowd responded by proclaiming that if gay marriage continues, then gay marriage will be taught in schools. And in both cases, the response by the gay rights groups was to dispute the notion - after all, the whole gay-marriage-will-be-taught-in-schools thing is nonsense.
And this is where I think the messaging is wrong. Look, gay marriage is a BIG change for our culture (and even bigger if you live in Maine). Homosexuality has only been legalized throughout the country in the past ten years. So, rather than downplay the importance, play it up. Humanize the issue by having old gay and/or lesbian couples talk about their relationship in ads. Have survivors tell their stories about losing their partner and the aftermath. In other words, run ads in FAVOR of gay marriage, instead of OPPOSING taking gay marriage away.
With regard to the schools thing, don't deny that gay marriage will be taught in schools - because its a BIG change, some teacher is certain to bring it up - instead, point out that the whole "its going to be taught in schools" thing is scary only if you don't want to accept gay people. Tell them that even though its a BIG change, in ten years, it will seem like a trifle because nobody really cares about who marries who except those getting hitched.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Democrats Make Me Crazy. . .
One year ago today, a majority of voters of the United States of America voted for Barack Hussein Obama to become our next President of the United States of America. As the comic strip "Tom Tomorrow" noted, if on September 12, 2001 someone told you this was going to happen, you'd think he was crazy. I remember the night very well. I spent much of the day working on a motion to compel (that wasn't a motion to compel - long story), and worked late into the night. Or rather, I worked for five minutes, and then checked the polls for five minutes, and so on. I remember the cheers from the streets when Ohio was declared, and when we all knew Obama was going to be President. And I remember weeping tears of joy at the thought, "My God, he did it. He actually did it."
In the intevening year, we've seen the promise of that night erode away. As of right now, Obama is as popular as he was on Election day - around 55% of the country supports him. What scares me, though, is that Obama and the Democrats seem to have forgotten how he won that night a year ago.
Here's the essence of the Obama strategy - make the pie larger, but make sure the other guy's slice doesn't get any bigger. In the Iowa caucuses, for instance, Obama won by turning out more voters to the Caucus than had ever voted before. Hillary and Edwards both got the amount of votes they needed to win, but Obama got more simply from the turnout. Over and over again, through his message of Hope and Change, Obama got record turnout by reaching out to people.
So, what do the Democrats do once Obama gets into power? They do the same dumb shit they did before. Obama won, even in relatively conservative areas (Appalachia, excluded), by reaching out to the disenfranchised and promised fresh, new ideas. His strategy was a break away from the New Democrat idea of being conservative to win. Yet, these morons in the Senate (Bayh, Lieberman, Lincoln, etc.), the Blue Dogs, and Creigh Deeds have put the Democrats in a precarious place by doing the exact opposite of Obama - trying to be "Republican Lite."
This extends to the health care debate. Orrin Hatch, who is by no means an idiot, tells it like it is. If the Democrats pass health care reform, and do it well, the Republican Party will be decimated. In fact, one totally wacko Republican House Member thinks health care reform is a bigger threat to the country than terrorism. Now, if you replace the word "country" with "Republican Party" she doesn't sound so crazy. When FDR implemented Social Security, and showed deft leadership during the Great Depression, the Democrats were able to stay in power in the House for sixty years. Health care reform would have a similar effect on middle class voters. So naturally, the Democrats are all set to pass major reform right? Right?
Um, no, not at all. In fact, we've seen the Democrats fight each other over the public option, triggers, robust public options, etc. As if on queue, Lieberman has announced that he's going to kill the public option because of its cost (although the public option, as currently designed, will actually lower the national debt significantly without raising taxes). No, the importance of being different is tantamount, not doing what's good for the Democratic Party or the United States.
Now, I'm not saying we follow the GOP into its current insanity - pushing out relative moderates - but there should be an awareness that taking strong stands for traditionally Democratic causes is a good thing. And health care reform isn't just good policy, but its a traditional Democratic value going back to FDR and Truman. Democrats who are against health care reform aren't Democrats, and we need to realize that.
Until such time as Democrats are willing to really step up to the plate and push their agenda, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire of indecision. And, to be honest, its pissing me off.
In the intevening year, we've seen the promise of that night erode away. As of right now, Obama is as popular as he was on Election day - around 55% of the country supports him. What scares me, though, is that Obama and the Democrats seem to have forgotten how he won that night a year ago.
Here's the essence of the Obama strategy - make the pie larger, but make sure the other guy's slice doesn't get any bigger. In the Iowa caucuses, for instance, Obama won by turning out more voters to the Caucus than had ever voted before. Hillary and Edwards both got the amount of votes they needed to win, but Obama got more simply from the turnout. Over and over again, through his message of Hope and Change, Obama got record turnout by reaching out to people.
So, what do the Democrats do once Obama gets into power? They do the same dumb shit they did before. Obama won, even in relatively conservative areas (Appalachia, excluded), by reaching out to the disenfranchised and promised fresh, new ideas. His strategy was a break away from the New Democrat idea of being conservative to win. Yet, these morons in the Senate (Bayh, Lieberman, Lincoln, etc.), the Blue Dogs, and Creigh Deeds have put the Democrats in a precarious place by doing the exact opposite of Obama - trying to be "Republican Lite."
This extends to the health care debate. Orrin Hatch, who is by no means an idiot, tells it like it is. If the Democrats pass health care reform, and do it well, the Republican Party will be decimated. In fact, one totally wacko Republican House Member thinks health care reform is a bigger threat to the country than terrorism. Now, if you replace the word "country" with "Republican Party" she doesn't sound so crazy. When FDR implemented Social Security, and showed deft leadership during the Great Depression, the Democrats were able to stay in power in the House for sixty years. Health care reform would have a similar effect on middle class voters. So naturally, the Democrats are all set to pass major reform right? Right?
Um, no, not at all. In fact, we've seen the Democrats fight each other over the public option, triggers, robust public options, etc. As if on queue, Lieberman has announced that he's going to kill the public option because of its cost (although the public option, as currently designed, will actually lower the national debt significantly without raising taxes). No, the importance of being different is tantamount, not doing what's good for the Democratic Party or the United States.
Now, I'm not saying we follow the GOP into its current insanity - pushing out relative moderates - but there should be an awareness that taking strong stands for traditionally Democratic causes is a good thing. And health care reform isn't just good policy, but its a traditional Democratic value going back to FDR and Truman. Democrats who are against health care reform aren't Democrats, and we need to realize that.
Until such time as Democrats are willing to really step up to the plate and push their agenda, we're going to be stuck in this quagmire of indecision. And, to be honest, its pissing me off.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Top Chef Blogging
Well, as predicted, since I couldn't get the information I needed, writing the goddamn brief took twice as long as it should. Getting a straight answer from people is goddamn annoying.
Anyway, while I try to break away from my legal woes for an instant - ugh - I want to do some more Top Chef blogging. Yes, I am a foodie. Or rather, I love watching people cook on TV. Last Wednesday was the annual "Restaurant Wars" episode, and I ended up watching it like four times (Bravo reruns the episodes over and over again, there was nothing else on TV except for "Criminal Minds," and I'm in serious need of escape-ism right now). So, for those of you who aren't following Top Chef, stop reading this now, because you won't get any of it.
As I've stated before, the level of competition is ridiculous this year. In a typical year, the chefs are low-end sous chefs or even line cooks, or caterers (not that there's anything wrong with catering). Anyway, this year, there are executive chefs everywhere. Not just chefs at run-of-the-mill places, but chefs with Michelin stars, and proteges of famous chefs like Charlie Palmer and Eric Ripert. One contestant, Michael Voltaggio employs Marcel Vigneron as a sous chef, and Marcel almost won the competition in Season 2 (and I think Michael Voltaggio employs Hung Huyuh, Season 3's winner).
So that said, here are my thoughts on the final seven:
The Contenders:
Michael Voltaggio - Personality wise, he's a total and complete dick. He curses out his brother, and anyone else who gets in his way. In the kitchen, shit has to be done his way, or else. The thing is, he's a talented asshole, and has the personality that works in the kitchen environment (See Ramsey, Gordon). In past seasons we saw chefs with the artistry, but not the flair or the natural understanding of flavor. In this past episode, the judges were literally fighting over the last bites of his chicken. If he manages to keep his head out of his ass long enough, he might pull off the win.
Kevin - Unlike Michael Voltaggio, Kevin is amiable, kind, and the kind of guy you want to hang out with. He's also brilliant, but where Michael is brilliant in an Adria sort of way (changes your perception of food), Kevin is brilliant in making simple food amazing (like making "bacon jam").
The Almost Theres:
Brian Voltaggio - Michael's older brother is, sadly, not quite the chef his brother is. This is a shame because Brian is exactly my age, and from all appearances is the professional and all around good guy his brother is not. But at this point, I think he lacks the utter brilliance that his brother has. In any other year, Brian would take this competition blindfolded. But he's not the artist his brother is, nor is he the craftsman that Kevin is.
Jennifer - A protege of Eric Ripert, Jennifer is the fish cook extraordinare. However, in the last few episodes she's had a real confidence problem, probably due to her perfectionism, if anything else. So, she's a bit like Casey in that sense, only more talented. If she gets her head in the game, she can run with the big boys. If not, she's done for.
The Also Rans:
Mike Isabella - Mike is an asshole. But Mike is the kind of asshole that you find among your friends - the guy who is so full of shit that you begin to ignore what he says because he'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. He's a good chef, but not great. At this point, he's trying to keep up, but ultimately, his days will be done.
Eli - Like Isabella, Eli is also an asshole. Except, Eli has the excuse of being young (he's 23 or 24). He's also quite talented for a young chef, but has a lot to learn. Like Isabella he can hold his own, but is nowhere near where the Voltaggios, Jennifer and Kevin are.
Last and Least:
Robin - I feel bad for Robin because she's gotten shit on by the other chefs as not being worthy. The truth is, Robin has been consistently the third worst chef. That would make her bad enough to be on the bottom three, but not enough to be eliminated. Plus, she's not bad, per se, just no where near the talent of the other remaining chefs. The only people I thought should have left after her are Hector and Ashley (both good chefs but who screwed up royally). Laurine leaving before Robin was all good.
Anyway, while I try to break away from my legal woes for an instant - ugh - I want to do some more Top Chef blogging. Yes, I am a foodie. Or rather, I love watching people cook on TV. Last Wednesday was the annual "Restaurant Wars" episode, and I ended up watching it like four times (Bravo reruns the episodes over and over again, there was nothing else on TV except for "Criminal Minds," and I'm in serious need of escape-ism right now). So, for those of you who aren't following Top Chef, stop reading this now, because you won't get any of it.
As I've stated before, the level of competition is ridiculous this year. In a typical year, the chefs are low-end sous chefs or even line cooks, or caterers (not that there's anything wrong with catering). Anyway, this year, there are executive chefs everywhere. Not just chefs at run-of-the-mill places, but chefs with Michelin stars, and proteges of famous chefs like Charlie Palmer and Eric Ripert. One contestant, Michael Voltaggio employs Marcel Vigneron as a sous chef, and Marcel almost won the competition in Season 2 (and I think Michael Voltaggio employs Hung Huyuh, Season 3's winner).
So that said, here are my thoughts on the final seven:
The Contenders:
Michael Voltaggio - Personality wise, he's a total and complete dick. He curses out his brother, and anyone else who gets in his way. In the kitchen, shit has to be done his way, or else. The thing is, he's a talented asshole, and has the personality that works in the kitchen environment (See Ramsey, Gordon). In past seasons we saw chefs with the artistry, but not the flair or the natural understanding of flavor. In this past episode, the judges were literally fighting over the last bites of his chicken. If he manages to keep his head out of his ass long enough, he might pull off the win.
Kevin - Unlike Michael Voltaggio, Kevin is amiable, kind, and the kind of guy you want to hang out with. He's also brilliant, but where Michael is brilliant in an Adria sort of way (changes your perception of food), Kevin is brilliant in making simple food amazing (like making "bacon jam").
The Almost Theres:
Brian Voltaggio - Michael's older brother is, sadly, not quite the chef his brother is. This is a shame because Brian is exactly my age, and from all appearances is the professional and all around good guy his brother is not. But at this point, I think he lacks the utter brilliance that his brother has. In any other year, Brian would take this competition blindfolded. But he's not the artist his brother is, nor is he the craftsman that Kevin is.
Jennifer - A protege of Eric Ripert, Jennifer is the fish cook extraordinare. However, in the last few episodes she's had a real confidence problem, probably due to her perfectionism, if anything else. So, she's a bit like Casey in that sense, only more talented. If she gets her head in the game, she can run with the big boys. If not, she's done for.
The Also Rans:
Mike Isabella - Mike is an asshole. But Mike is the kind of asshole that you find among your friends - the guy who is so full of shit that you begin to ignore what he says because he'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. He's a good chef, but not great. At this point, he's trying to keep up, but ultimately, his days will be done.
Eli - Like Isabella, Eli is also an asshole. Except, Eli has the excuse of being young (he's 23 or 24). He's also quite talented for a young chef, but has a lot to learn. Like Isabella he can hold his own, but is nowhere near where the Voltaggios, Jennifer and Kevin are.
Last and Least:
Robin - I feel bad for Robin because she's gotten shit on by the other chefs as not being worthy. The truth is, Robin has been consistently the third worst chef. That would make her bad enough to be on the bottom three, but not enough to be eliminated. Plus, she's not bad, per se, just no where near the talent of the other remaining chefs. The only people I thought should have left after her are Hector and Ashley (both good chefs but who screwed up royally). Laurine leaving before Robin was all good.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Profanity-Laced Tirade About Health Care. . .consider yourself warned
Two things about the health care debate have royally pissed me off. First of all, Congress is currently debating whether or not to end the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.
WHAT. THE. FUCK???? Seriously, why the fuck to do health insurance companies have the right to act as a fucking monopoly? When did we think this was a good idea? Furthermore, why in the FORTY FUCKING YEARS OF THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE HAS THIS IDEA JUST COME UP NOW?????? 45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health insurance coverage, and another 400,000 people every year are going bankrupt due to illness when they are insured, but I'm sure allowing health insurance companies to do whatever they fuck they want has nothing to do with it. Unfuckingbelieveable.
Going forward, the public option is a good way to promote competition, and I hope it passes. But you know what else helps competition? PASSING A FUCKING LAW THAT PROHIBITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR YOU HORSEFUCKED MORONS!!!! (Sidenote, I think I just created a new swear here - horsefucked - meaning those who have been fucked by a horse, as opposed to horsefuckers, wherein the horse takes the passive role of fuckee). Anyway, I'm glad to see that someone has figured this out.
The second thing about this debate that royally pisses me off - Old people protesting health care reform as socialism. Okay, I've written about this in the past, but today in front of my building there was a protest against health care reform (I think DiFi or Boxer's offices are located in my building). Of the twenty people there, I'd estimate that at least 80% were senior citizens.
Now here's what gets a hair up my ass - all of these fucking old people are RECEIVING PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE THAT I FUCKING PAY FOR. Medicare is a government run program, paid for by a 3% payroll tax. That means 3% of my salary and bonuses goes to pay for the health care of old people. The very same old people who are FUCKING PROTESTING in front of my building saying that government should stay out of health care. In other words, they're protesting me getting what they got.
FUCK YOU, you DECREPIT, OLD, FAT, FUCKS!!! I'll tell you what, if you don't want socialized medicine, the burn your Medicare card and get a fucking job. Not only am I paying your medical bills, but I'm paying for your fucking retirement. How dare you complain about socialism! If anyone should be bitching about socialism, its me, the guy who's taxes are paying to keep you alive.
WHAT. THE. FUCK???? Seriously, why the fuck to do health insurance companies have the right to act as a fucking monopoly? When did we think this was a good idea? Furthermore, why in the FORTY FUCKING YEARS OF THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE HAS THIS IDEA JUST COME UP NOW?????? 45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health insurance coverage, and another 400,000 people every year are going bankrupt due to illness when they are insured, but I'm sure allowing health insurance companies to do whatever they fuck they want has nothing to do with it. Unfuckingbelieveable.
Going forward, the public option is a good way to promote competition, and I hope it passes. But you know what else helps competition? PASSING A FUCKING LAW THAT PROHIBITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR YOU HORSEFUCKED MORONS!!!! (Sidenote, I think I just created a new swear here - horsefucked - meaning those who have been fucked by a horse, as opposed to horsefuckers, wherein the horse takes the passive role of fuckee). Anyway, I'm glad to see that someone has figured this out.
The second thing about this debate that royally pisses me off - Old people protesting health care reform as socialism. Okay, I've written about this in the past, but today in front of my building there was a protest against health care reform (I think DiFi or Boxer's offices are located in my building). Of the twenty people there, I'd estimate that at least 80% were senior citizens.
Now here's what gets a hair up my ass - all of these fucking old people are RECEIVING PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE THAT I FUCKING PAY FOR. Medicare is a government run program, paid for by a 3% payroll tax. That means 3% of my salary and bonuses goes to pay for the health care of old people. The very same old people who are FUCKING PROTESTING in front of my building saying that government should stay out of health care. In other words, they're protesting me getting what they got.
FUCK YOU, you DECREPIT, OLD, FAT, FUCKS!!! I'll tell you what, if you don't want socialized medicine, the burn your Medicare card and get a fucking job. Not only am I paying your medical bills, but I'm paying for your fucking retirement. How dare you complain about socialism! If anyone should be bitching about socialism, its me, the guy who's taxes are paying to keep you alive.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Totally Random Blogging
As I await the critical information for the purposes of writing briefs which, because I don't have the information for, I will end up having to work twice as long for the next few days (thanks guys), I've decided to occupy myself with a little bit of timely consideration: werewolves. It is, after all, nearly Halloween, and my favorite type of fiction is horror/sci-fi/fantasy (though more horror than anything else).
Right now, of course, vampires are a hot commodity in general entertainment. From the Twilight series, to "True Blood" and a fair number of other movies and fiction, people like vampires. And why not? Vampires are compelling because they trade immortal life with having to drink human blood. Throw in a love interest with a mortal, and you have immediate, unresolvable conflict (a.k.a. a story). So I get it.
But, I'm a little vampired out. For one, the best vampires are anti-heroes, not mopey protagonists. For instance, ask an Anne Rice fan who his or her favorite vampire is (or even Anne Rice) and the response will be the same: Lestat. And there's a reason for it - among all the vampires in her books, Lestat is the one guy who didn't choose to be a vampire, but when he became one, he tried to be the best vampire he could. He didn't bitch like Louis.
Now, of all the various other types of supernatural characters, werewolves are the ones who get the short end of the stick. Yes, there are werewolf movies, but those films are either: protagonists are being attacked by werewolves (werewolves as random monsters); protagonists are turning into werewolves (werewolves as a proxy for madness); or, protagonists are being helped by werewolves against vampires. In each case, the focus isn't on the werewolf, and the lycanthropy is a proxy for something else - our fear of nature, our fear of madness, etc.
There is one exception, of course, Teen Wolf wasn't about nature or madness or anything of that sort - Teen Wolf was about a teenager dealing with being a werewolf and trying to fit into society. The lycanthropy was a good thing - though it was also a metaphor general talents. I'm sure there are other examples, but I think my original thesis holds water.
And here's my big problem with werewolf literature - its based upon an outdated view of nature. When the werewolf legend first sprung up, nature was a scary place and wolves were viewed as mindless, relentless killers. We now know that to not be the case. Wolves are highly intelligent, social animals, capable of adapting to multiple environments and who have been known to work with both humans and badgers (of all things, I know) to hunt prey. So, the madness aspect of the werewolf legend is off. So too, is the idea that wolves eat people. In fact, wolves are generally scared of humans (which, considering that humans have wiped out wolf populations, makes sense), and don't consider humans prey animals.
My ideal reformation of the werewolf character then, is as follows:
Right now, of course, vampires are a hot commodity in general entertainment. From the Twilight series, to "True Blood" and a fair number of other movies and fiction, people like vampires. And why not? Vampires are compelling because they trade immortal life with having to drink human blood. Throw in a love interest with a mortal, and you have immediate, unresolvable conflict (a.k.a. a story). So I get it.
But, I'm a little vampired out. For one, the best vampires are anti-heroes, not mopey protagonists. For instance, ask an Anne Rice fan who his or her favorite vampire is (or even Anne Rice) and the response will be the same: Lestat. And there's a reason for it - among all the vampires in her books, Lestat is the one guy who didn't choose to be a vampire, but when he became one, he tried to be the best vampire he could. He didn't bitch like Louis.
Now, of all the various other types of supernatural characters, werewolves are the ones who get the short end of the stick. Yes, there are werewolf movies, but those films are either: protagonists are being attacked by werewolves (werewolves as random monsters); protagonists are turning into werewolves (werewolves as a proxy for madness); or, protagonists are being helped by werewolves against vampires. In each case, the focus isn't on the werewolf, and the lycanthropy is a proxy for something else - our fear of nature, our fear of madness, etc.
There is one exception, of course, Teen Wolf wasn't about nature or madness or anything of that sort - Teen Wolf was about a teenager dealing with being a werewolf and trying to fit into society. The lycanthropy was a good thing - though it was also a metaphor general talents. I'm sure there are other examples, but I think my original thesis holds water.
And here's my big problem with werewolf literature - its based upon an outdated view of nature. When the werewolf legend first sprung up, nature was a scary place and wolves were viewed as mindless, relentless killers. We now know that to not be the case. Wolves are highly intelligent, social animals, capable of adapting to multiple environments and who have been known to work with both humans and badgers (of all things, I know) to hunt prey. So, the madness aspect of the werewolf legend is off. So too, is the idea that wolves eat people. In fact, wolves are generally scared of humans (which, considering that humans have wiped out wolf populations, makes sense), and don't consider humans prey animals.
My ideal reformation of the werewolf character then, is as follows:
- The Werewolf Should Be Able to Transform Without Going Crazy. I could understand a first time craziness because the initial transformation would be horrendously painful, but after that, the werewolf should be able to switch from one form to another without issue. Oh, and the full moon thing, which is tied with the idea that lycanthropy is a form of lunacy (as in, involving the Moon), should go as well.
- The Werewolf Should Not Eat People - Again, people aren't prey items for wolves or humans, so why should werewolves eat people? Plus, that puts them a little bit too close to vampires. Although, you could do a story where the vamps drain the victims and turn the bodies over to werewolves for consumption. Hmm. . .anyway, for the protagonist werewolf, eating people shouldn't be in the cards. Instead werewolves should eat like. . .dogs. Now, I'm not saying dog food, but since dogs are wolves adapted to human life, they're the closest thing to a werewolf. So the werewolf should eat all the crap that a dog would (which is just about everything except lettuce).
- The Werewolf Should Be Mortal. Again, immortality basically makes werewolves like vampires, which is dumb. The only possible trade-off is immortality for madness, which sucks because its too close to vampirism. Additionally, let's make lycanthropy an inherited condition as opposed to something you get from being bitten.
- The Werewolf Should Have Badass Powers. I don't want to completely defang the whole werewolf story - after all, that would suck. So aside from transforming into a wolf, the werewolf should be able to look like the werewolves in "Underworld" and basically rip things to shreds and run ridiculously fast. I also like the silver allergy thing.
- The Werewolf Should Have Quirks - Every dog I've owned has been quirky, from barking at the sky during after a thunderclap, to jumping randomly on furniture, to fixating on cats/squirrels. Its the odd combination of canine senses in a human world that makes dogs fun. Werewolves should equally have personality quirks.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Back to Politics. . .
Today, Carville's polling group released an interesting report from one of their focus groups. You can find the link to the poll here:
Link to Poll
Now generally, one has to consider the source when it comes to polling, but generally these post-election focus groups are pretty spot-on. Luntz conducted a focus group in 2006/2007 about potential Democratic Presidential candidates and pretty much nailed Clinton - liked a lot at first, but the more the focus group looked, the less they liked.
Anyway, this focus group looked at the conservative base of the Republican Party (or a portion thereof). What Carville found was a deep fear that Obama was going to destroy the country with a socialist agenda. This is completely nuts of course. Obama can't even pass a friggin' health care bill (something Democrats have been working on since FUCKING TRUMAN) right.
Now some of you are saying, "Duh." Okay, that's a fair point. But what's interesting is that race/perceived religion isn't a factor here. I figured that the perceived religion thing would be bigger than it was. No, instead, the vitriol is based purely on Obama being a Democrat. That, and a total ignorance of what's happening as being fed by Glenn Beck (who the focus group members feared would be killed by Obama or something).
So, with that cleared up, I think we can split the opposition to Obama into basically four camps
And that, to be honest, scares me because I can very well see Democrats going the same way in 5-10 years. That's why I'm thankful for Mike taking part in these discussions. Sure he's almost always wrong, but he punctures the cocoon of my blog-fulled media world. And that's a good thing.
Link to Poll
Now generally, one has to consider the source when it comes to polling, but generally these post-election focus groups are pretty spot-on. Luntz conducted a focus group in 2006/2007 about potential Democratic Presidential candidates and pretty much nailed Clinton - liked a lot at first, but the more the focus group looked, the less they liked.
Anyway, this focus group looked at the conservative base of the Republican Party (or a portion thereof). What Carville found was a deep fear that Obama was going to destroy the country with a socialist agenda. This is completely nuts of course. Obama can't even pass a friggin' health care bill (something Democrats have been working on since FUCKING TRUMAN) right.
Now some of you are saying, "Duh." Okay, that's a fair point. But what's interesting is that race/perceived religion isn't a factor here. I figured that the perceived religion thing would be bigger than it was. No, instead, the vitriol is based purely on Obama being a Democrat. That, and a total ignorance of what's happening as being fed by Glenn Beck (who the focus group members feared would be killed by Obama or something).
So, with that cleared up, I think we can split the opposition to Obama into basically four camps
- The Normals (example - Bogart in Town) - Conservatives who live in the real world and whose differences with Democrats are philosophical. Tax cuts good, government efficiency good, too much spending bad.
- The Tea Baggers - Populist-Conservatives who live in an alternate reality wherein Obama and his evil forces seek to undermine the Republic and install socialism. William Ayers is believed to have written Obama's book. Glenn Beck is the savior. Rush is good, but has problems (primarily with race).
- The Birthers - Could be conservative, could be something else. Freaked out about Obama's name, believing he is a secret Muslim or the like. Total nutjobs.
- The Racists - pretty obvious, but are probably a smaller group than most think.
And that, to be honest, scares me because I can very well see Democrats going the same way in 5-10 years. That's why I'm thankful for Mike taking part in these discussions. Sure he's almost always wrong, but he punctures the cocoon of my blog-fulled media world. And that's a good thing.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What? No Way. . .
Apparently, Roger Goodell doesn't like the idea of Rush Limbaugh owning an NFL franchise either:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/13/goodell-limbaug/
The story links to a NY Times article, but regardless, this should come as no surprise. Nor was it surprising when Rush got canned from ESPN. Here's a brief factoid for you - a lot of NFL players are African American. Now, is Rush a racist? To be honest, I don't know. I do know that he has said a fair number of things that lead me to believe he is. And he is comfortable with racist humor. But you never really know about these things one way or another.
But, and I think this is important, Rush is perceived by players in the NFL (and other sports) as racist. That's why ESPN canned him - it depends on the cooperation and participation of African American athletes. Having Rush was too big of a risk. So too is having Rush as an owner. I could very well see a rookie refusing to go to the Rams because of Rush's ownership. Forget about free agent signings. No, having Rush as an owner would have been a disaster.
On a slightly different note, here is what I think the Pads should do in preparation for next year:
1) Trade Kouzmanoff - His defense is okay (what balls he gets to, he catches), but his batting average is low - .250ish - his OBP is only around 300, and he leads the league in double plays. He does have some power, which should improve outside of Petco. Meanwhile, Headley is about the same defensively, has a little bit less power (he hits doubles, not home runs), and hits for a higher average and OBP. Plus, Headley hits better when he plays third and doesn't have to worry about playing the outfield (where he's not good).
2) Trade Heath Bell - Okay, I like Bell, and I think he's a top closer. At the same time, he's older (around 30), and makes a decent amount of money. I think Gregerson could be an effective closer, at a tenth the price. Plus, Bell's value is probably as high as its going to get right now. Considering that the Cardinals, Rockies, and Red Sox all had their closers blow saves in the playoffs, I think we could get a lot for him.
3) Keep Gonzo - Adrian is the face of the franchise, a local boy, and a hell of a player. Yes, his value is high, but keeping him for at least another year (Adrian's contract runs through 2011) is a good call. At the same time, if someone offers the moon. . .
With these manuevers, the Pads have an infield of Gonzo, Eckstein, Cabrera, and Headley, an outfield of Veneble, Gywnn, Blanks, with Hundley behind the plate. That's a pretty good lineup, and its cheap.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/13/goodell-limbaug/
The story links to a NY Times article, but regardless, this should come as no surprise. Nor was it surprising when Rush got canned from ESPN. Here's a brief factoid for you - a lot of NFL players are African American. Now, is Rush a racist? To be honest, I don't know. I do know that he has said a fair number of things that lead me to believe he is. And he is comfortable with racist humor. But you never really know about these things one way or another.
But, and I think this is important, Rush is perceived by players in the NFL (and other sports) as racist. That's why ESPN canned him - it depends on the cooperation and participation of African American athletes. Having Rush was too big of a risk. So too is having Rush as an owner. I could very well see a rookie refusing to go to the Rams because of Rush's ownership. Forget about free agent signings. No, having Rush as an owner would have been a disaster.
On a slightly different note, here is what I think the Pads should do in preparation for next year:
1) Trade Kouzmanoff - His defense is okay (what balls he gets to, he catches), but his batting average is low - .250ish - his OBP is only around 300, and he leads the league in double plays. He does have some power, which should improve outside of Petco. Meanwhile, Headley is about the same defensively, has a little bit less power (he hits doubles, not home runs), and hits for a higher average and OBP. Plus, Headley hits better when he plays third and doesn't have to worry about playing the outfield (where he's not good).
2) Trade Heath Bell - Okay, I like Bell, and I think he's a top closer. At the same time, he's older (around 30), and makes a decent amount of money. I think Gregerson could be an effective closer, at a tenth the price. Plus, Bell's value is probably as high as its going to get right now. Considering that the Cardinals, Rockies, and Red Sox all had their closers blow saves in the playoffs, I think we could get a lot for him.
3) Keep Gonzo - Adrian is the face of the franchise, a local boy, and a hell of a player. Yes, his value is high, but keeping him for at least another year (Adrian's contract runs through 2011) is a good call. At the same time, if someone offers the moon. . .
With these manuevers, the Pads have an infield of Gonzo, Eckstein, Cabrera, and Headley, an outfield of Veneble, Gywnn, Blanks, with Hundley behind the plate. That's a pretty good lineup, and its cheap.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Anarchism, Terrorism and Nihilism
I love the internet for articles such as this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/blood-rage--history-the-worlds-first-terrorists-1801195.html
By the way, a round of thanks to Andrew Sullivan who pointed his readers to this article. Anyway, you've read my earlier blog about the importance of the average Muslim in the War on Terror and why torture was a stupid idea. But I've been thinking more and more about the War on Terror, and about the participants in the Islamic World. Clearly, there is a disparity between the leaders of Al Qaeda, the soldiers and average folk.
The leaders of Al Qaeda appear, prior to 2001 at least, to be outcasts in their societies. Bin Laden, for instance, left the relatively cushy life in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and never really looked back. He couldn't give up jihad. A look at the other leaders of Al Qaeda shows them all to have various home life problems, times spent in jail, and what not. I think this has to do with the fact that these guys are, for the most part, sociopaths. Not only do they not care about killing other people, but they actually revel in it. These guys actually do hate us, but not for our freedoms, but because we're there.
The fighters (like Muhammed Atta), on the other hand, fit the Nihilist as described in the Independent's article. They view the world as corrupt, and that the killing of a few to save their homelands is worth it. What strikes me about the article how it captures the sense of despair by even the well-to-do. The anarchists killed and were killed because they felt that there was nothing left to live for. So is the case with suicide bombers. Their idealism is betrayed by the leaders' sociopathy.
The third group are the average Muslims. While they do not engage in violence, they are willing to look the other way, and in some cases, help the jihadists hide from the authorities. Like the soldiers, they are angry with the West.
Ultimately, what's hopeful about the article is that, of course, anarchism faded away when social reforms were enacted. So too, I think, jihadism would fade as social reforms were to be made in the Islamic World. Not because making such reforms would convince the jihadist leadership, but because the reforms would convince the soldiers to do other stuff. Similarly, the average Muslim would less inclined to support or help the jihadists. Without soldiers willing to die for the cause, and the populace willing to hide them, the leadership would, once again, be outsiders in their own communities.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/blood-rage--history-the-worlds-first-terrorists-1801195.html
By the way, a round of thanks to Andrew Sullivan who pointed his readers to this article. Anyway, you've read my earlier blog about the importance of the average Muslim in the War on Terror and why torture was a stupid idea. But I've been thinking more and more about the War on Terror, and about the participants in the Islamic World. Clearly, there is a disparity between the leaders of Al Qaeda, the soldiers and average folk.
The leaders of Al Qaeda appear, prior to 2001 at least, to be outcasts in their societies. Bin Laden, for instance, left the relatively cushy life in Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and never really looked back. He couldn't give up jihad. A look at the other leaders of Al Qaeda shows them all to have various home life problems, times spent in jail, and what not. I think this has to do with the fact that these guys are, for the most part, sociopaths. Not only do they not care about killing other people, but they actually revel in it. These guys actually do hate us, but not for our freedoms, but because we're there.
The fighters (like Muhammed Atta), on the other hand, fit the Nihilist as described in the Independent's article. They view the world as corrupt, and that the killing of a few to save their homelands is worth it. What strikes me about the article how it captures the sense of despair by even the well-to-do. The anarchists killed and were killed because they felt that there was nothing left to live for. So is the case with suicide bombers. Their idealism is betrayed by the leaders' sociopathy.
The third group are the average Muslims. While they do not engage in violence, they are willing to look the other way, and in some cases, help the jihadists hide from the authorities. Like the soldiers, they are angry with the West.
Ultimately, what's hopeful about the article is that, of course, anarchism faded away when social reforms were enacted. So too, I think, jihadism would fade as social reforms were to be made in the Islamic World. Not because making such reforms would convince the jihadist leadership, but because the reforms would convince the soldiers to do other stuff. Similarly, the average Muslim would less inclined to support or help the jihadists. Without soldiers willing to die for the cause, and the populace willing to hide them, the leadership would, once again, be outsiders in their own communities.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
First Religion Post
As you might have noticed, the title of this website is "Politics and Religion," but all I've ever posted about is politics. There's a reason for that - politics and religion are the two topics you are never supposed to talk about in polite company, and this blog isn't about being polite. Still, when this came across my desktop, I had to comment.
According to the Conservative Bible Project, "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."
Now, generally speaking, I'm not what many would consider a Christian. I don't go to church, ever. I swear, I drink, I try to fornicate (which is apparently the same as adultery, though I completely disagree with that notion) as much as possible, and I can be a real prick, even to the ones I love. I'm also a cynic and a firm believer in science. Man evolved from apes. How that happened is still up for discussion (I like the aquatic ape theory, personally), but that's another story.
Maybe its my upbringing, or the theology classes, but there is some remaining sense of Christianity left in me. I know my theology, and during the whole Da Vinci Code deal, I convinced myself that the Gospel of John should be titled the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. So, I find the idea of changing the Bible - to the extent of taking out sections of the Gospels because they don't adhere to your political beliefs - to be anathema to core Christian beliefs.
For those of you who aren't up on your Biblical studies, the New Testament basically has two parts: the Gospels, which describe Jesus' life, his teachings, and his death, and the second part is composed of letters by various Christian writers (like St. Paul) to other Christians about how to be good Christians. So, at least in my opinion, the Gospels are much, much more important than the other stuff.
So what chaps my ass in all this is that these Conservatives are seeking to change the Gospels, and, in some cases, take words out of Jesus' mouth. And they aren't doing this because they believe Jesus didn't actually say them, but because they don't agree with what Jesus is saying. I call bullshit. After all, being a Christian is about believing in that Jesus Christ was God the Creator Incarnate. Whatever he said is literally the WORD OF GOD. And to be honest, I can't think of anything more heretical than modifying the WORD OF GOD.
Again, this is in contrast with the rest of the New Testament, which you could basically throw out - writers like Paul and Timothy were learned scholars, and while their writings are learned and somewhat well-reasoned, they're the words of dudes, not the WORD OF GOD. For those of you keeping track WORD OF GOD > word of dudes.
Ironically, the conservative position on the Bible is that it is literally the WORD OF GOD, and as such, it has to be read literally. (*Side note - the Koran is also supposed to be the WORD OF GOD, and has the benefit of having one writer/prophet, and has a disclaimer which states that the WORD OF GOD can't possibly be understood fully by mere mortals, and as such, reading the Koran literally is foolish*) Thus, homosexuality is unclean, etc. But how can the Bible be the literal WORD OF GOD when you can't agree what the Bible is supposed to say?
According to the Conservative Bible Project, "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."
Now, generally speaking, I'm not what many would consider a Christian. I don't go to church, ever. I swear, I drink, I try to fornicate (which is apparently the same as adultery, though I completely disagree with that notion) as much as possible, and I can be a real prick, even to the ones I love. I'm also a cynic and a firm believer in science. Man evolved from apes. How that happened is still up for discussion (I like the aquatic ape theory, personally), but that's another story.
Maybe its my upbringing, or the theology classes, but there is some remaining sense of Christianity left in me. I know my theology, and during the whole Da Vinci Code deal, I convinced myself that the Gospel of John should be titled the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. So, I find the idea of changing the Bible - to the extent of taking out sections of the Gospels because they don't adhere to your political beliefs - to be anathema to core Christian beliefs.
For those of you who aren't up on your Biblical studies, the New Testament basically has two parts: the Gospels, which describe Jesus' life, his teachings, and his death, and the second part is composed of letters by various Christian writers (like St. Paul) to other Christians about how to be good Christians. So, at least in my opinion, the Gospels are much, much more important than the other stuff.
So what chaps my ass in all this is that these Conservatives are seeking to change the Gospels, and, in some cases, take words out of Jesus' mouth. And they aren't doing this because they believe Jesus didn't actually say them, but because they don't agree with what Jesus is saying. I call bullshit. After all, being a Christian is about believing in that Jesus Christ was God the Creator Incarnate. Whatever he said is literally the WORD OF GOD. And to be honest, I can't think of anything more heretical than modifying the WORD OF GOD.
Again, this is in contrast with the rest of the New Testament, which you could basically throw out - writers like Paul and Timothy were learned scholars, and while their writings are learned and somewhat well-reasoned, they're the words of dudes, not the WORD OF GOD. For those of you keeping track WORD OF GOD > word of dudes.
Ironically, the conservative position on the Bible is that it is literally the WORD OF GOD, and as such, it has to be read literally. (*Side note - the Koran is also supposed to be the WORD OF GOD, and has the benefit of having one writer/prophet, and has a disclaimer which states that the WORD OF GOD can't possibly be understood fully by mere mortals, and as such, reading the Koran literally is foolish*) Thus, homosexuality is unclean, etc. But how can the Bible be the literal WORD OF GOD when you can't agree what the Bible is supposed to say?
Monday, October 5, 2009
On Afghanistan
While in college, my favorite subject wasn't just politics, but it was comparative politics - the study of political systems from around the world. While I liked the historical component, studying foreign political systems allowed me to study politics without my own personal views getting in the way. So, the following is my view, in general, of the way things are going in Afghanistan.
First off, all countries have two types of identities - a sociocultural identity (called a nation) and a political identity (called the state). Thus, in classical terms, the ideal is to have a nation-state, where the political and sociocultural borders are identical. Most of the countries in Western Europe have this to some degree. The French, for example, live in a place called France, and speak French, and eat French food, and generally are part of French culture. And France, the nation-state, has existed more or less for a thousand years. At the same time, unstable countries tend to have more than one nation within the same state. Yugoslavia, for instance, was a compendium of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, etc., all kept together by Tito's force of personality. When he died, the country dissolved into civil war.
Now, there is one exception to this rule, and that's Switzerland. The Swiss speak a myriad of different languages, practice different religions, and have four or five separate cultures. Moreover, Switzerland is a confederation - the local governments are more powerful, in general, than the national government. This works because the Swiss more or less came together because they didn't want to join any of the surrounding nations.
Like Switzerland, Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state. It is a mix of multiple ethnic groups, speaking different languages with different cultures. At the same time, Afghanistan the country has existed since at least 1747 - so there has to be some agreement among Afghans that Afghanistan should exist. But the fallacy of Afghanistan is trying to build a strong central government. The only way a country like Afghanistan has a strong central government is if the country has a strong and charismatic leader (like Tito), or is a brutal dictatorship (also like Tito, but also Saddam Hussein, etc.). The Taliban fit the bill, but they assisted Al Qaeda. And, in Hamid Karzai, we have neither a charismatic guy, nor a strongman.
So, what should be done? I think we should begin to devolve control to the provinces and turn the place into a Switzerland-type regime with a weak center and strong provincial control. At the same time, the U.S. should make it clear to everyone that we are there for Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda only. Okay, maybe we should also go after pre-2001 Taliban as well. But that's it. The key, I think, is to stop trying to dictate to the Afghans what their government should look like. When we do that, Afghans end up looking to the Taliban to fight the foreigners, and we're stuck. Like we are now.
So, I guess this is a long way of saying that we should ramp down our efforts to bolster Karzai, and instead, focus on the provinces.
First off, all countries have two types of identities - a sociocultural identity (called a nation) and a political identity (called the state). Thus, in classical terms, the ideal is to have a nation-state, where the political and sociocultural borders are identical. Most of the countries in Western Europe have this to some degree. The French, for example, live in a place called France, and speak French, and eat French food, and generally are part of French culture. And France, the nation-state, has existed more or less for a thousand years. At the same time, unstable countries tend to have more than one nation within the same state. Yugoslavia, for instance, was a compendium of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, etc., all kept together by Tito's force of personality. When he died, the country dissolved into civil war.
Now, there is one exception to this rule, and that's Switzerland. The Swiss speak a myriad of different languages, practice different religions, and have four or five separate cultures. Moreover, Switzerland is a confederation - the local governments are more powerful, in general, than the national government. This works because the Swiss more or less came together because they didn't want to join any of the surrounding nations.
Like Switzerland, Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state. It is a mix of multiple ethnic groups, speaking different languages with different cultures. At the same time, Afghanistan the country has existed since at least 1747 - so there has to be some agreement among Afghans that Afghanistan should exist. But the fallacy of Afghanistan is trying to build a strong central government. The only way a country like Afghanistan has a strong central government is if the country has a strong and charismatic leader (like Tito), or is a brutal dictatorship (also like Tito, but also Saddam Hussein, etc.). The Taliban fit the bill, but they assisted Al Qaeda. And, in Hamid Karzai, we have neither a charismatic guy, nor a strongman.
So, what should be done? I think we should begin to devolve control to the provinces and turn the place into a Switzerland-type regime with a weak center and strong provincial control. At the same time, the U.S. should make it clear to everyone that we are there for Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda only. Okay, maybe we should also go after pre-2001 Taliban as well. But that's it. The key, I think, is to stop trying to dictate to the Afghans what their government should look like. When we do that, Afghans end up looking to the Taliban to fight the foreigners, and we're stuck. Like we are now.
So, I guess this is a long way of saying that we should ramp down our efforts to bolster Karzai, and instead, focus on the provinces.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
On Alan Grayson
First, watch this:
Now, I am a liberal, and have been known to get a little bit fanatic, and yes, I gave the guy $100 yesterday. But instead of arguing that Republicans are bad, I have a completely different reason for supporting Grayson as this time - he made, for the very first time, the argument Democrats should have been making from the get-go.
Look, everyone knows someone who got fucked by their insurance company. 44,700 people die every year because they lack health insurance. 70% of all bankruptcies are caused by health issues (and over half of those people HAD health insurance). We pay more than any other country on health care (by a factor of two), but among industrialized nations, we're among the least healthiest. And for the past 50 years, people have been clamoring for health care reform.
So why the fuck didn't the Democrats start this thing out by saying that health care reform is meant to SAVE LIVES? Why hasn't Obama mentioned his mother, who spent her dying days fighting her health insurance company, once during the debate? While the Republicans were talking "death panels" and other completely made up shit, not one Democrat came forward with a gut-level argument for health care.
Grayson, who comes from Central Florida, of all places, finally did that. Of course, he basically stole the joke about a few health insurance companies ("x insurance company is great until you get sick.") but at least he's making the argument. Why has no one asked any Senator how many people have to die before you're willing to reform health care? That would be a question that I'd love to hear Senator Lincoln's response to.
Now, I am a liberal, and have been known to get a little bit fanatic, and yes, I gave the guy $100 yesterday. But instead of arguing that Republicans are bad, I have a completely different reason for supporting Grayson as this time - he made, for the very first time, the argument Democrats should have been making from the get-go.
Look, everyone knows someone who got fucked by their insurance company. 44,700 people die every year because they lack health insurance. 70% of all bankruptcies are caused by health issues (and over half of those people HAD health insurance). We pay more than any other country on health care (by a factor of two), but among industrialized nations, we're among the least healthiest. And for the past 50 years, people have been clamoring for health care reform.
So why the fuck didn't the Democrats start this thing out by saying that health care reform is meant to SAVE LIVES? Why hasn't Obama mentioned his mother, who spent her dying days fighting her health insurance company, once during the debate? While the Republicans were talking "death panels" and other completely made up shit, not one Democrat came forward with a gut-level argument for health care.
Grayson, who comes from Central Florida, of all places, finally did that. Of course, he basically stole the joke about a few health insurance companies ("x insurance company is great until you get sick.") but at least he's making the argument. Why has no one asked any Senator how many people have to die before you're willing to reform health care? That would be a question that I'd love to hear Senator Lincoln's response to.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Random Thoughts Blogging
Re: NewsMax calling for the Violent Overthrow of the American Government:
Look, people are nutty, particularly these days. There are nuts on the left and nuts on the right. So, please take this statement the right way: if this was a columnist on a left-wing website that received money from the DNC, and he was talking about Bush, there would be an absolute shitstorm over this column. That website would have been forced to shut its doors, and the Republicans would use the name of that website as a smear. I know this because they did the same thing when someone uploaded a video to their site comparing Bush to Hitler.
But, because it was a columnist writing on a right-wing website (that's supported by the RNC), we hear nothing about it. Why? I could argue that the media has a conservative bias, which it does, but in this case, I put the blame solely on the Democrats. Why isn't Robert Gibbs out there demanding an apology from the RNC? Where is the outrage? Oh, and as far as I'm aware, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States Government is still a crime. So long as Democrats aren't willing to stand up for themselves, no one else will either.
Roman Polanski Getting Picked up in Switzerland: First rule of the criminal justice system is don't piss off the judge. The second rule of the criminal justice system is don't piss off the DA. Polanski did that, while running from the law because he raped a 13 year old girl. Sorry, people, but this wasn't a seduction, it was a full-on rape. Its not as if he gave her the opportunity to say yes (though her capacity to consent was iffy at best); he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.
That said, I can understand why people want to give the guy some slack. After all, he's one hell of a filmmaker. His movies aren't just good, they're classics. Plus, the guy is a Holocaust survivor and had his pregnant wife and unborn son brutally murdered by the Manson family. If I had a friend who went through any of that, I'd be willing to overlook the fact that the guy was a total douche for 10-20 years. The one thing about life is, black and white don't exist. Polanski is many things - a rapist and child molester, a brilliant artist, a tragic figure, a survivor. Oh, and he definitely should go to prison.
Finance Committee's Failure on the Public Option: I can understand the need for some Democrats to be more conservative than others. People have the right to vote for the person who represents their interests, and by virtue of geography, some areas are more conservative than others. That said, being a Democrat is supposed to mean something. There has to be an underlying set of ideals that drive the party forward, that every Democrat should support. Health care reform has been part of the Democratic Party's agenda since Truman. Health care isn't a new-fangled invention or a new social issue, but a bedrock Democratic position. So, if these Democrats aren't with us on economic issues, and aren't with us on social issues, when will they be with us? More importantly, why should I support them?
Obama and the Olympics: Look, I like Obama and all, but even I think this is stupid. The President has better things to do with his time, like whipping the Senate Finance Committee to do its fucking job.
Look, people are nutty, particularly these days. There are nuts on the left and nuts on the right. So, please take this statement the right way: if this was a columnist on a left-wing website that received money from the DNC, and he was talking about Bush, there would be an absolute shitstorm over this column. That website would have been forced to shut its doors, and the Republicans would use the name of that website as a smear. I know this because they did the same thing when someone uploaded a video to their site comparing Bush to Hitler.
But, because it was a columnist writing on a right-wing website (that's supported by the RNC), we hear nothing about it. Why? I could argue that the media has a conservative bias, which it does, but in this case, I put the blame solely on the Democrats. Why isn't Robert Gibbs out there demanding an apology from the RNC? Where is the outrage? Oh, and as far as I'm aware, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States Government is still a crime. So long as Democrats aren't willing to stand up for themselves, no one else will either.
Roman Polanski Getting Picked up in Switzerland: First rule of the criminal justice system is don't piss off the judge. The second rule of the criminal justice system is don't piss off the DA. Polanski did that, while running from the law because he raped a 13 year old girl. Sorry, people, but this wasn't a seduction, it was a full-on rape. Its not as if he gave her the opportunity to say yes (though her capacity to consent was iffy at best); he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.
That said, I can understand why people want to give the guy some slack. After all, he's one hell of a filmmaker. His movies aren't just good, they're classics. Plus, the guy is a Holocaust survivor and had his pregnant wife and unborn son brutally murdered by the Manson family. If I had a friend who went through any of that, I'd be willing to overlook the fact that the guy was a total douche for 10-20 years. The one thing about life is, black and white don't exist. Polanski is many things - a rapist and child molester, a brilliant artist, a tragic figure, a survivor. Oh, and he definitely should go to prison.
Finance Committee's Failure on the Public Option: I can understand the need for some Democrats to be more conservative than others. People have the right to vote for the person who represents their interests, and by virtue of geography, some areas are more conservative than others. That said, being a Democrat is supposed to mean something. There has to be an underlying set of ideals that drive the party forward, that every Democrat should support. Health care reform has been part of the Democratic Party's agenda since Truman. Health care isn't a new-fangled invention or a new social issue, but a bedrock Democratic position. So, if these Democrats aren't with us on economic issues, and aren't with us on social issues, when will they be with us? More importantly, why should I support them?
Obama and the Olympics: Look, I like Obama and all, but even I think this is stupid. The President has better things to do with his time, like whipping the Senate Finance Committee to do its fucking job.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
More Top Chef Blogging
I'm a political junkie, but I have to admit, I'm getting pretty tired of the health care debate. Yes, I know, most of you were there 6-8 months ago. Anyway, rather than another blog about health care, here's more Top Chef blogging.
One of the things that struck me about this season is the intensity of the competition. One of the favorites, Kevin, said in last night's show that he was happy to be remaking a mole because the judges didn't like his last mole. He also said that he needed to cook his food, and be more focused.
Now, these are the sort of things I hear a lot from competitors, particularly those who rise from the bottom to the top (in this case, Ashley, the lesbian who desperately needs to wash her hair, fits the bill). But Kevin wasn't on the bottom at all. He was consistently one of the top performers in this competition, and the judges have consistently liked his dishes. Its just that in the past episode, the judges liked some of the other dishes more. In other words, Kevin appears to equate not being in the top 3-4 to losing.
And that's a level of competitiveness that hasn't been part of Top Chef in past seasons. Usually, there are more than a few chefs who skate - trying to do enough to keep them in the competition rather then trying to win every Elimination Challenge - and at some point, the Head Judge berates them for it (particularly last season). This season, everyone is pushing themselves very, very hard. I think there's a couple of reasons for this:
1) Sibling Rivaly: Two of the top competitors, Bryan and Mike, are brothers. Both men are highly regarded chefs, and run excellent restaurants (Mike has a Michelin star). Its also clear that they are keeping score as to who wins what, with each man pushing the other. Together, the brothers Voltaggio have been in the top of every Elimination Challenge from the get-go. That level of competition has pushed everyone else to step up their game, and fast. One of the increasingly stronger competitor, the aforementioned Ashley, was almost kicked out early because it took her a couple of challenges to get her sealegs.
2) Better Equipment: In season 2, I believe, Marcel complained about not being able to use a specialized cooking apparatus, and thus overcooked his turkey roulade. In season 6, the chefs are regularly using liquid nitrogen, the circulator-thingee that Marcel complained of not having, and other high tech gadgets. As a result, the creative chefs are able to be more creative.
Lastly, as far as who was forced out - Ron reminds me of Mikey from Season 2 (but without the dickish attitude). He was clearly outmatched by this competition, but didn't necessarily embarrass himself (unlike Eve and Jennifer).
One of the things that struck me about this season is the intensity of the competition. One of the favorites, Kevin, said in last night's show that he was happy to be remaking a mole because the judges didn't like his last mole. He also said that he needed to cook his food, and be more focused.
Now, these are the sort of things I hear a lot from competitors, particularly those who rise from the bottom to the top (in this case, Ashley, the lesbian who desperately needs to wash her hair, fits the bill). But Kevin wasn't on the bottom at all. He was consistently one of the top performers in this competition, and the judges have consistently liked his dishes. Its just that in the past episode, the judges liked some of the other dishes more. In other words, Kevin appears to equate not being in the top 3-4 to losing.
And that's a level of competitiveness that hasn't been part of Top Chef in past seasons. Usually, there are more than a few chefs who skate - trying to do enough to keep them in the competition rather then trying to win every Elimination Challenge - and at some point, the Head Judge berates them for it (particularly last season). This season, everyone is pushing themselves very, very hard. I think there's a couple of reasons for this:
1) Sibling Rivaly: Two of the top competitors, Bryan and Mike, are brothers. Both men are highly regarded chefs, and run excellent restaurants (Mike has a Michelin star). Its also clear that they are keeping score as to who wins what, with each man pushing the other. Together, the brothers Voltaggio have been in the top of every Elimination Challenge from the get-go. That level of competition has pushed everyone else to step up their game, and fast. One of the increasingly stronger competitor, the aforementioned Ashley, was almost kicked out early because it took her a couple of challenges to get her sealegs.
2) Better Equipment: In season 2, I believe, Marcel complained about not being able to use a specialized cooking apparatus, and thus overcooked his turkey roulade. In season 6, the chefs are regularly using liquid nitrogen, the circulator-thingee that Marcel complained of not having, and other high tech gadgets. As a result, the creative chefs are able to be more creative.
Lastly, as far as who was forced out - Ron reminds me of Mikey from Season 2 (but without the dickish attitude). He was clearly outmatched by this competition, but didn't necessarily embarrass himself (unlike Eve and Jennifer).
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Quick Thoughts Blogging. . .
Top Chef - I'm a big fan of this show, but like any fan, the whole thing annoys me as well. Last week the chefs had to cook French food, and this week they had to cook in the desert. I can understand how a restauranteur would have a love of France because the French perfected how to run a restaurant, including how a restaurant should be run. But it should also be noted that, as any good foodie knows, most of the mother French sauces actually come from Italy, not France. And French cuisine isn't necessarily better than any other country's cuisine. In fact, the best chef in the world, Adria, is Spanish, not French.
The Western focus really does hurt chefs from other cuisines. The Season 3 winner, Hung Huyuh, was criticized all season long for not cooking from the heart (not cooking Asian cuisine), but was given a Western kitchen and only had access to Western ingredients. It was only in the final, when he could use ingredients of his own choosing that his "heart" showed through. Duh.
The desert thing was interesting - but where was the refrigeration? Do the producers want their judges to die? I am impressed by the high level of competition this year, and it is clear that chefs at the bottom probably would've been mid-level contestants in previous years. There are at least chefs who regularly produce high quality food (the Voltaggios, Kevin, Jen) and a couple others capable of doing the same (Mike I., Eli, Ashley, Ash) when motivated. The brother thing is probably driving this show a lot further than in past seasons because the Voltaggios are really pushing each other (to the point where both are keeping track of who wins what), and that, in turn, pushes the other chefs to step up their game.
Baucus Health Care Plan - The Finance Chairman released his proposal for health care reform - which he had been working on with the more conservative members of the Democratic Party and with the Republicans for the past several months - and it stinks. If anything, its going to make health care more expensive for middle-class families. This happened, in large part, because he was more interested in Republican support than writing a good bill. Anyway, with luck, this plan will get redone in committee.
My Health Care Reform Plan - So you know, my plan would essentially be a catastrophic insurance plan. Everyone pays in via an increase in the income tax, and then would be covered for any expenses over 1/3 of their income. So, if you make $60k a year, you pay the first $20k of expenses, and the Govt. pays the rest. If you can't afford $20k, get insurance - which will be cheaper because the insurance company knows its only on the hook for $20k, max. Oh, and the cost of said insurance would count as part of the first 1/3.
Beck and 9/12ers - In response to Joe Wilson's claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not getting benefits under health care reform (which is, itself, a lie), the fearful Baucus put in stringent proof of citizenship requirements into his crappy bill. Way to stand up for your President, Max. In the past few months, the Democrats have shown a willingness to be overly courteous to Republicans. As a result, we can't get anything done. So, here's an idea - tell the GOP to go Cheney themselves. Or rather, stop trying to make the opposition happy - they're trying to prevent the Democrats from doing anything. This is their stated goal. Educate the public, but don't be afraid to steamroll the opposition.
The Western focus really does hurt chefs from other cuisines. The Season 3 winner, Hung Huyuh, was criticized all season long for not cooking from the heart (not cooking Asian cuisine), but was given a Western kitchen and only had access to Western ingredients. It was only in the final, when he could use ingredients of his own choosing that his "heart" showed through. Duh.
The desert thing was interesting - but where was the refrigeration? Do the producers want their judges to die? I am impressed by the high level of competition this year, and it is clear that chefs at the bottom probably would've been mid-level contestants in previous years. There are at least chefs who regularly produce high quality food (the Voltaggios, Kevin, Jen) and a couple others capable of doing the same (Mike I., Eli, Ashley, Ash) when motivated. The brother thing is probably driving this show a lot further than in past seasons because the Voltaggios are really pushing each other (to the point where both are keeping track of who wins what), and that, in turn, pushes the other chefs to step up their game.
Baucus Health Care Plan - The Finance Chairman released his proposal for health care reform - which he had been working on with the more conservative members of the Democratic Party and with the Republicans for the past several months - and it stinks. If anything, its going to make health care more expensive for middle-class families. This happened, in large part, because he was more interested in Republican support than writing a good bill. Anyway, with luck, this plan will get redone in committee.
My Health Care Reform Plan - So you know, my plan would essentially be a catastrophic insurance plan. Everyone pays in via an increase in the income tax, and then would be covered for any expenses over 1/3 of their income. So, if you make $60k a year, you pay the first $20k of expenses, and the Govt. pays the rest. If you can't afford $20k, get insurance - which will be cheaper because the insurance company knows its only on the hook for $20k, max. Oh, and the cost of said insurance would count as part of the first 1/3.
Beck and 9/12ers - In response to Joe Wilson's claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not getting benefits under health care reform (which is, itself, a lie), the fearful Baucus put in stringent proof of citizenship requirements into his crappy bill. Way to stand up for your President, Max. In the past few months, the Democrats have shown a willingness to be overly courteous to Republicans. As a result, we can't get anything done. So, here's an idea - tell the GOP to go Cheney themselves. Or rather, stop trying to make the opposition happy - they're trying to prevent the Democrats from doing anything. This is their stated goal. Educate the public, but don't be afraid to steamroll the opposition.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama and Racism
So it appears that 60,000 to 70,000 people protested yesterday in a somewhat impressive showing of frustration with Obama's policies from conservatives. Now, the reason this is somewhat impressive is because conservatives aren't generally the protesting type. So, its kinda like seeing San Diego State play okay against UCLA - sure, they didn't win, but they didn't lose as badly as you thought they would. Or, in this case, sure 60,000 isn't huge, but its a lot higher than you'd intially expect. On the other hand, lying about the number of people there is pretty pathetic. You had a decent turnout teabaggers, but you didn't match the Inauguration.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Doing Something Old School to "Protect Marriage"
One of my favorite blogs is the Slog, the blog of the Stranger, Seattle's alternate weekly, and edited by the sex advice columnist Dan Savage, who writes Savage Love, and with the help of his readers gave relatively innocent words like "pegging," "saddlebacking," and "Santorum" alternative meanings, all of which have something to do with anal sex. Google these words if you want to know what I'm referring to. Anyway, Dan Savage is gay and so same-sex marriage is important to him.
In one of his blog posts yesterday, he found a new initiative to "protect" marriage in California. Check out this website: RescueMarriage.org. Like most liberals, I opposed efforts to prohibit same-sex marriages, for a variety of reasons - consenting adults should be able to love who they want to love. While most so-called "Christians" strongly oppose same-sex marriage, it should be noted that Jesus wiped away the old law (Leviticus), and the only part of the New Testament that refers to homosexuality comes from Paul. And while Paul should be respected, his word isn't law.
On the other hand, Jesus arguably opposed all divorces. In fact, that's why even today the Catholic Church does not sanction divorce. Instead the Catholic Church annuls marriages, that is, it declares that the marriage never existed. And to some degree, I have to agree with the Catholic approach. Of course, I'm a lawyer, and so the legalistic approach speaks to me on very deep levels.
That said, I don't think that divorce should be illegal anywhere. Keeping two people together who don't want to be is a recipe for very bad things. We all know of people who are together and shouldn't be, and in those instances, divorce is a godsend (no pun intended). But if we're going to use Christian law to govern our relationships, then let's be consistent.
In one of his blog posts yesterday, he found a new initiative to "protect" marriage in California. Check out this website: RescueMarriage.org. Like most liberals, I opposed efforts to prohibit same-sex marriages, for a variety of reasons - consenting adults should be able to love who they want to love. While most so-called "Christians" strongly oppose same-sex marriage, it should be noted that Jesus wiped away the old law (Leviticus), and the only part of the New Testament that refers to homosexuality comes from Paul. And while Paul should be respected, his word isn't law.
On the other hand, Jesus arguably opposed all divorces. In fact, that's why even today the Catholic Church does not sanction divorce. Instead the Catholic Church annuls marriages, that is, it declares that the marriage never existed. And to some degree, I have to agree with the Catholic approach. Of course, I'm a lawyer, and so the legalistic approach speaks to me on very deep levels.
That said, I don't think that divorce should be illegal anywhere. Keeping two people together who don't want to be is a recipe for very bad things. We all know of people who are together and shouldn't be, and in those instances, divorce is a godsend (no pun intended). But if we're going to use Christian law to govern our relationships, then let's be consistent.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tila Tequila v. Shawne Merriman
Getting outside of politics for one day, I wanted to write a little bit about the Shawne Merriman/Tila Tequila incident that occurred on Sunday evening. I am, after all, a huge, huge Charger fan. At the same time, I am currently a NBA fan without a team because of the Kobe Bryant incident in Colorado. Still, there is a difference between the NBA and the NFL. For one, San Diego doesn't have a NBA team. Plus, the Chargers are in no way wedded to any player, not even LaDanian Tomlinson, so Merriman can go at any time.
This is a long way of saying that I'm completely conflicted about this. Or rather, I have no idea what or who to believe. Is it possible that Tila Tequila is telling the truth, and that Merriman struck her, choked her and tried to keep her in his home. Yes, that's entirely possible. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of NFL players, even the "good" guys who beaten the women close to them. If the whole O.J. thing taught us, its that you don't know these guys at all. Moreover, football is a violent sport and takes a certain kind of mentality to succeed. Linebackers are known especially for their aggressiveness and ability to get angry fast, because they need that to run through a line, beat off the block of a man 50 lbs. heavier and put a hurting on a someone. Then again, Merriman doesn't have a history of domestic violence.
At the same time, and not to attack the victim here, but Tila Tequila isn't exactly the most reliable witness. She tweets that she's allergic to alcohol and so she never drinks, but also tweets about being drunk. She cleverly used MySpace, and later MTV, to bolster her career by appearing to be promiscuous and bisexual. Her whole image is based on being a party girl - the kind of girl who'd get drunk and crazy.
And ultimately, its that image that makes Merriman's claim that he was restraining Ms. Tequila to prevent her from driving drunk believable. Can I believe that Tila Tequila got drunk at a nightclub? Yes, yes, I think I can. Can I believe an intoxicated Tila Tequila decided to drive home drunk? Absolutely - particularly if she got into an argument with Merriman. Can I see Merriman trying to prevent her from driving drunk? Of course! After all, the last he would want is the attention he'd get from having Tequila arrested driving drunk when coming home from his house (ironic, I know).
The other question I have is about the extent of Tequila's physical injuries. Shawne Merriman weighs around 270 pounds, Tequila weighs around 95 pounds. Merriman hurts people professionally, and does it well. So, how could an enraged, and probably drunken, Merriman not have left a mark on her? He leaves marks on men who weigh over 300 lbs, and are covered head to toe in body armor. She claims he hit her, choked her and held her down - but there's nary a mark.
I guess what I saying is that I just don't know.
This is a long way of saying that I'm completely conflicted about this. Or rather, I have no idea what or who to believe. Is it possible that Tila Tequila is telling the truth, and that Merriman struck her, choked her and tried to keep her in his home. Yes, that's entirely possible. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of NFL players, even the "good" guys who beaten the women close to them. If the whole O.J. thing taught us, its that you don't know these guys at all. Moreover, football is a violent sport and takes a certain kind of mentality to succeed. Linebackers are known especially for their aggressiveness and ability to get angry fast, because they need that to run through a line, beat off the block of a man 50 lbs. heavier and put a hurting on a someone. Then again, Merriman doesn't have a history of domestic violence.
At the same time, and not to attack the victim here, but Tila Tequila isn't exactly the most reliable witness. She tweets that she's allergic to alcohol and so she never drinks, but also tweets about being drunk. She cleverly used MySpace, and later MTV, to bolster her career by appearing to be promiscuous and bisexual. Her whole image is based on being a party girl - the kind of girl who'd get drunk and crazy.
And ultimately, its that image that makes Merriman's claim that he was restraining Ms. Tequila to prevent her from driving drunk believable. Can I believe that Tila Tequila got drunk at a nightclub? Yes, yes, I think I can. Can I believe an intoxicated Tila Tequila decided to drive home drunk? Absolutely - particularly if she got into an argument with Merriman. Can I see Merriman trying to prevent her from driving drunk? Of course! After all, the last he would want is the attention he'd get from having Tequila arrested driving drunk when coming home from his house (ironic, I know).
The other question I have is about the extent of Tequila's physical injuries. Shawne Merriman weighs around 270 pounds, Tequila weighs around 95 pounds. Merriman hurts people professionally, and does it well. So, how could an enraged, and probably drunken, Merriman not have left a mark on her? He leaves marks on men who weigh over 300 lbs, and are covered head to toe in body armor. She claims he hit her, choked her and held her down - but there's nary a mark.
I guess what I saying is that I just don't know.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Fallacy of Tort Reform in the Health Care Debate
Last night, as a gesture to the Republicans, President Obama signaled that he would be willing to discuss medical malpractice tort reform as part of an overall health care package. In very short order, let me throw some cold water on this idea. Here are two reasons why tort reform is not going to work:
1) Federal Courts don't do Med/Malpractice Cases: Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts only take cases where Congress says its okay for them to take cases. The types of cases that go to Federal Court are either cases involving a federal statute (Civil Rights Act), or involve "diversity" wherein two people from different states sue each other. Medical Malpractice cases, by and large, fit neither of these bases of jurisdiction. Med/Mal (as we lawyers call it), is a negligence tort - that is, the Doctor hasn't violated the law, per se, but rather, has failed to act competently. There's no statutory basis for Med/Mal, but its part of the area of law called the "common law" - the stuff that we got from England. So, no statute, no jurisdiction. Additionally, Med/Mal typically involves people who live within the same state. So, there's almost never diversity jurisdiction. Oh, and Federal judges know this, and HATE to take cases they don't have to take. At any point in any federal litigation, even before the Supreme Court, someone can throw a monkey wrench into a lawsuit by questioning federal jurisdiction.
This point is important because Congress and the President only have the authority to change Federal law. You know that 10th Amendment that Conservatives talk about, well, here's where it comes into play. The Feds can create a law that supercedes State law, but that doesn't mean state law goes away. Hence, the California law on medical marijuana, wherein State authorities (the police) will let someone go for possession if they have the medical marijuana card (or whatever it is), but the Feds can, and have readily, arrested people for possession. So even if the Feds were to outlaw all Med/Mal cases, or limit the damages, it would only apply to those cases brought before a Federal judge (which is a ridiculously small amount).
2) Tort Reform Won't Help Much: Since 1975, California has had limits on Med/Mal cases of the kind the Republicans talk about. These limits are found in MICRA, and the details of the law can be found here. Basically, MICRA limits the amount that someone can recover from a Med/Mal case, requires arbitration, etc. Look, read the description. Anyway, since its enactment, MICRA has been the darling of the California Medical Association. The mere mention of changing even a comma is practically a call to jihad. If you ask the CMA, MICRA is the foundation upon which doctors can practice medicine in California.
Strangely enough, though, medical costs continue to go up in California, more or less at the same rate as everywhere else in the country. And one of the worst instances of insurer neglect came from California. Read the sad story here. Even though California has MICRA, the medical malpractice reform that the GOP wants, Californians have the same problems with health care as everyone else - its too expensive to go without insurance, and the insurance they get is bad.
1) Federal Courts don't do Med/Malpractice Cases: Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts only take cases where Congress says its okay for them to take cases. The types of cases that go to Federal Court are either cases involving a federal statute (Civil Rights Act), or involve "diversity" wherein two people from different states sue each other. Medical Malpractice cases, by and large, fit neither of these bases of jurisdiction. Med/Mal (as we lawyers call it), is a negligence tort - that is, the Doctor hasn't violated the law, per se, but rather, has failed to act competently. There's no statutory basis for Med/Mal, but its part of the area of law called the "common law" - the stuff that we got from England. So, no statute, no jurisdiction. Additionally, Med/Mal typically involves people who live within the same state. So, there's almost never diversity jurisdiction. Oh, and Federal judges know this, and HATE to take cases they don't have to take. At any point in any federal litigation, even before the Supreme Court, someone can throw a monkey wrench into a lawsuit by questioning federal jurisdiction.
This point is important because Congress and the President only have the authority to change Federal law. You know that 10th Amendment that Conservatives talk about, well, here's where it comes into play. The Feds can create a law that supercedes State law, but that doesn't mean state law goes away. Hence, the California law on medical marijuana, wherein State authorities (the police) will let someone go for possession if they have the medical marijuana card (or whatever it is), but the Feds can, and have readily, arrested people for possession. So even if the Feds were to outlaw all Med/Mal cases, or limit the damages, it would only apply to those cases brought before a Federal judge (which is a ridiculously small amount).
2) Tort Reform Won't Help Much: Since 1975, California has had limits on Med/Mal cases of the kind the Republicans talk about. These limits are found in MICRA, and the details of the law can be found here. Basically, MICRA limits the amount that someone can recover from a Med/Mal case, requires arbitration, etc. Look, read the description. Anyway, since its enactment, MICRA has been the darling of the California Medical Association. The mere mention of changing even a comma is practically a call to jihad. If you ask the CMA, MICRA is the foundation upon which doctors can practice medicine in California.
Strangely enough, though, medical costs continue to go up in California, more or less at the same rate as everywhere else in the country. And one of the worst instances of insurer neglect came from California. Read the sad story here. Even though California has MICRA, the medical malpractice reform that the GOP wants, Californians have the same problems with health care as everyone else - its too expensive to go without insurance, and the insurance they get is bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)