lower case thought

It's still early, but Hillary keeps housing the debates.

2007-07-23T18:35:00.001-07:00

Look, I'm an Obama guy. Have been pretty much since I became disillusioned with John Edwards at the beginning of the year (and for a few days in Boston back in '04).

But let's be real about something here--Barack still can't take Hillary in a political debate yet. At least not in a sound-bite fest like these debates. In fact, nobody can take her right now. I've watched the last three debates, and while Obama seems to be getting a bit more polished, he still seems to be somewhat unprepared for tougher questions. He doesn't deflect to well-rehearsed sound-bite applause lines when hit with one like, "are soldiers dying in vain" as well as Hillary.

Sure, this is a bit troubling. But it's not the end of the world. Christ, it's only July. If Hillary still owns everyone in November like she owns them now, I'll start chewing my fingernails off. Putting it in perspective, Barack Obama's still in his first 6 months as a bona-fide presidential candidate. And hell, it's not like he had difficult, high-profile debates against Alan Keyes.

Also working for Obama: virtually nobody under the age of 40 watches the debates besides political wonks like me. That's his wheelhouse, and where he's going to get the lion's share of his support. And nobody else has ObamaGirl. Mmmm. ObamaGirl.

Finally though, I was throughly unimpressed with the CNN/YouTube format. It was overly "cutesy" and gimmicky. Here's a suggestion for CNN in the future if they're going to do this again: Keep the questions to 15 seconds or less. I don't need to see some dude feeding his invalid mother to get the picture that Alzheimer's research is important. I don't need to hear a nutjob go on about his "baby" AR15 assault weapon to pose the issue of gun control to the candidates. And for God's sake, no more candidate videos.

When there are 8 candidates vying for a slice of time on a 1-hour debate including commercial breaks, I'd like to hear more of their words and less from a Snowman in Wash state. I suppose I shouldn't expect more from our dumbed-down political process though. What's the next effort to make politics "sexy" to American youth? The Rave Party debate, complete with glow-sticks? No doubt Biden would rule that format with his Bhakti Yoga-inspired "Sleven Shake."

Warren Buffet for Fed Chairman?

2007-06-27T13:39:00.000-07:00

In late 2005 when Ben Bernanke was being offered up as a replacement for outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, he was trumpeted as "the right man to build on the record Alan Greenspan has established"--as though that were such a great thing. In hindsight, Greenspan could have done much more in the way of using his public soapbox to pressure public policymakers into making the tough fiscal choices needed in order to right the ship of our current financial state.

With that in mind, let me make a suggestion to the next President of the United States, whom we can assume will be a Democrat given on-going polling trends, the downward spiral in Iraq, and the uninspiring cast of Republican candidates. In 2010, at the end of Bernanke's first term as Chairman, replace him with Warren Buffett. I realize that Buffett would likely not want the position, given that he'd have to give up his post at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway. But you know, a man can dream.

Here's why: The "Oracle of Omaha" is perhaps the most intuitive mind alive in the United States when it comes to finance. Most investors would give their right testicle (or ovary, to be fair) just to have lunch with the guy in order to pick his brain, and his public comments regularly send large sums of money flowing at the drop of a syllable. Instead of convincing fund managers to get off their asses and make a move, perhaps it would be nice to have members of Congress or the Administration perking up to hear Buffett's sagacity.

Case in point--Buffett has been an outspoken critic among his corporate peers in spotlighting the idiocy of Republican efforts to cut the dividend tax rate, and has once again stated his disbelief in the unfairness of our current tax system.

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.

"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.

Buffett has hit the nail on the head. For all the bitching an moaning conservatives do about how overtaxed the rich are, the facts simply don't back it up. Despite this, we're supposed to make sacrifices in Social Security and Medicare, which benefit the poorest among our senior population, in order to balance the books. Just don't touch the Defense budget or record oil profits.

So do us all a favor, President Obama. Call Warren Buffett and ask him if he's willing to serve his country in a way that is perhaps even more selfless than the billions he's already given away in charity. Ask him to wield his wisdom as a big stick. Ask him to be the Fed Chairman.

The Continued Schmuckiness of John Edwards

2007-06-22T09:32:00.000-07:00

First of all, let me say that John Edwards would make an adequate President. Adequate. And right now, that's a significant upgrade. Let me also restate for the record that I worked for him in 2004 as a staffer for the PA Kerry/Edwards campaign. I was more than impressed with his political ability to connect with the rural, working-class folks I routinely interacted with there. But my admiration for the man stops there.

Today, the New York Times has great piece on the questionable way in which Edwards used an ostensibly anti-poverty not-for-profit organization in order to fund opportunities for political activity and lock up campaign staffers for the '08 cycle. To be honest, I'm not particularly troubled by this. Edwards is not the first political figure to use a supposedly legit public-service campaign as a way to keep alive presidential hopes (I'm looking at you, Al Gore).

But the real issue I have is somewhat buried in the article:

He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to “develop investment opportunities,” according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street’s most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler.

“Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel,” Mr. Turlington said, “but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people.”

Okay, so while John Edwards is peddling his "man of the people" and "son of a mill-worker" image, he's simultaneously rubbing elbows the who's-who of the global corporate clique as a representative of a German hedge fund. Edwards loves to claim that he's never taken corporate PAC money; but when you're personally paid big corporate dollars, is that any better? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think Sens. Clinton & Obama or Gov. Richardson have worked for a private investment firm in the recent past.

Couple that with Edwards' blatant politically-opportune "come to Jesus moments" on Iraq and the PATRIOT Act, and frankly, I'm embarrassed to have been in that picture on the left at his announcement--and not because I was 30 pounds heavier back then (as evidenced by the tightness of the t-shirt).

USA Hockey makes a good call.

2007-06-18T06:38:00.000-07:00

On Friday, USA Hockey (the official organization of American amateur hockey and our Olympic team) sent coaches an e-mail which detailed some rules clarifications adopted by its annual Congress this month. Most notably, in youth leagues the "immediate off-sides rule"--which whistles off-sides as soon as a puck crosses the offensive blue line while attacking players are in the offensive zone--was kept in place as opposed to the pro-style "tag-up" or "delayed" rules which allow teams to "dump" the puck into the offensive zone while players are still attempting to vacate without a whistle.

Hands down, USA Hockey made the right decision in keeping the immediate off-sides rule in place to discourage what former NHL head coach Mike Sullivan describes in the letter as a "Safe Hockey" trend in youth levels. Essentially, with "tag-up" or "delayed" off-sides, it pays to make the safer play of dumping the puck in while players are off-sides rather than try to keep puck possession and do something creative. If the goal of our youth leagues is to develop better-skilled players, then it follows that rules which encourage this sort of "Safe Hockey" should not be put in place.

Anyone who knows me from the hockey standpoint knows that I'm a believer in "Safe Hockey," the "Jacques Lemaire Neutral Zone Trap," as they've allowed players like me with limited ability (scratch that--little if any ability) to play a competitive game against higher-skilled teams. But winning games for your local club isn't the aim of youth hockey. The real aim is to give kids the experience and tools necessary to compete on higher levels. That goal is stunted by playing a trapping style in Pee Wee and, in some cases, even the Squirt levels.

On a side note, I'd like to see some advanced youth and high-school teams begin to implement the "Swedish Torpedo" system for their top 5-man unit. It's an innovative system which emphasizes the all-around play-making and defensive ability of budding defensemen and centers by making them "halfbacks." It may also be the way to energize the NHL game now that the red line is gone.

"Complex Interdependence" and Middle East conflict

2007-06-12T12:59:00.000-07:00

At the bottom of a BBC news article today, I found the following:

Speaking after briefing the [Security] council, [U.N. Regional Envoy Terje] Roed-Larsen said increased evidence that fighters and weapons were crossing into Lebanon was "alarming and deeply disturbing".

He also told reporters that the general picture of the situation in the Middle East was "very dark, and apparently getting darker".

He said the emergence of new and interlinked issues - such as Iraq, Iran and Syria-Lebanon - was complicating efforts to promote peace.

"The new phenomenon seems to be that all these conflicts are now completely intertwined so that it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to find a solution to one of them without finding a solution to all of them."

This reminded me of an international political theory known as "complex interdependence" which was developed by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane which describes more accurately the rising power of international organizations and movements as opposed to the declining power of the nation-state. Through this lens (a viewpoint I regularly take), it seems only natural that Roed-Larsen's concern is increasingly becoming reality as the borders between the state actors in the Middle East are less of a deterrant to the real threats in the region--armed religious and ethnic groups.

Take for instance the on-going--and escalating--conflict between the Kurds and various other actors. Groups such as the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party/Kongra-Gel) and most recently the TAK (Kurdistan Freedom Falcons) have been stepping up military and terrorist operations against both Turkey and Iran for years now, taking advantage of the relative safe haven provided by the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq. As noted by Juan Cole today, "Sawt al-Iraq says that Kurdish villages along the border with Turkey have been subjected to 90 artillery barrages in recent months. The Turks charge that the villages have given safe haven to PKK extremists that have blown up things inside Turkey."

The Turks are right: there doesn't seem to be much stomach, or better yet ability, among Iraqi leadership (or American leadership for that matter) to really reign-in the PKK and other groups by security crack-down. As such, Kurdish militants have been able to plan and coordinate terrorist activities across the border with relative ease. Multiply this situation by a factor of 30 or more, and you now see the difficulty on keeping a lid on the boiling pot known as the Middle East.

If there was one thing the Bushie neo-cons had right all along, it's that America's involvement in Iraq would have far-ranging consequences throughout the Middle-East. Of course, they were completely wrong not only about what those consequences would be, but how those consequences would be spread. Instead of being spread by the shining example of a democratic Iraq, the current trend of destabilizing armed conflict is instead being transported by interstate ethnic and/or faith-based actors.

It's a strange form of "complex interdependence," and one which Keohane and Nye, and certainly America's neo-con leadership, perhaps did not focus enough on.

If we could only be as sensitive...

2007-06-11T16:05:00.000-07:00

Apparently, some Brits are pissed off at Prince Harry for having a night on the town in Calgary (is that possible in Calgary?) during his current training deployment in Alberta. Why you ask? Because it was on the same night that Britain lost its 150th soldier in Iraq.

That's right, it's considered a national disgrace to some in Britain for the son of their next Head of State to have a few too many with a buxom girl on the same day the nation lost it's 150th service member in Iraq. This outrage is in stark comparison to the activites of our own "Princesses" Jenna and Barbara Bush last November, who were essentially asked to leave Argentina by the State Department because of their wild behavior back on the same weekend the United States lost 7 service members to bring the total death toll to 3133.

I think that puts our current "casualty fatigue" in perspective. In the UK, the loss of 150 in Iraq is greeted with widespread coverage, and a renewed look at withdrawal. Here, we lost our 3500th soldier just days ago to what I consider little notice (Anderson Cooper barely mentioned it on 360).

Oh, and let's not forget that Harry was blowing off steam during an overseas military training deployment while Jenna and Babs were just taking a little birthday jaunt. Yet, Harry gets no slack from the British press. I can't recall a single American pundit or journalist ask of the Bush twins, "how could they act so flippant while our sons and daughters are dying for their father's failed war?"

I suppose at this point I shouldn't be surprised at the lackadaisical treatment our current leadership have shown those who have sacrificed most for their transgressions. Especially not while Paris Hilton is in jail.

Not noticed due to the terror attacks, but...

2005-07-07T11:37:00.000-07:00

...is Alberto Gonzalez a consultant to Iraqi police as well?

Sure seems like his views on torture are shared by the Iraqis in charge of their prison system, according to today's article in the Times of London.

Now, let's think about this for a second. It's been quite sometime since we've heard anyone from the Bush Administration utter the phrase, "win the hearts and minds". The reason? It's not working. But then again, how could it? After the images of Abu Ghraib and the continued torture of Iraqis under the current American-backed regime (much like the former American-backed regime), it's likely that Sunni Iraqis have decided that this form of government is no better than the previous form--except that now the electricity and water don't work for more than 8 hours per day.

The answer from Bush? Stay the course, stay the course...

This ought to scare you.

2005-07-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

Ed Markey's requested report from the CRS just came out today about the vulnerability of large populations to attacks on chemical facilities, and it's shocking. 23 states were cited as having a facility at risk that could affect more than a million residents in the event of an attack. FYI--Maryland is one of those states with "3 to 6" facilities meeting the criteria.

Makes you wonder why we're spending exorbitant amounts of time, manpower and money fighting the War on Terror "over there", when we have so many chinks in the armor "over here".

Terri Schiavo update:

2005-06-15T08:48:00.000-07:00

Turns out that not only was Terri not abused by her husband, but the medical examiner of Pinellas County has determined in relation to her brain damage that, "this damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

So I suppose the right-wing crackpot doctors can refute this evidence? Or are we just going to see a new wave of attacks by their leaders (i.e. Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson) claiming that the Pinellas medical examiner is somehow anti-Christian and therefore cannot be trusted?

I wait with baited breath.

Update (6/16) -- The Houston Chronicle reports today :

"A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a physician who said during the fierce debate over the issue that he did not think Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, did not return a call seeking comment."

Interesting that Dr. Frist refuses to back up his medical opinions, huh?

The road to Hell was paved with complacency.

2005-06-07T10:07:00.000-07:00

Rwanda. The word alone conjures up images of death and destruction. To most Americans, it signifies more than just an Oscar-worthy performance of Don Cheadle. You would be hard-pressed to find a college-educated person in the U.S. these days who doesn't equate the word Rwanda with genocide. The coverage of Rwanda since the 1994 tragedy has been extensive, including not only "Hotel Rwanda" but numerous documentaries and major network specials on ABC's Nightline and CNN just to name a few. But hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and the common chorus since then has been "never again".

Never again? Sure.

Darfur. I asked a co-worker recently if the word Darfur rang a bell. She asked, "Isn't that the guy from Al-Qaeda in Iraq?" I don't think a clearer example can be made of just how derelict in their duties a number of American institutions have been in not bringing this genocide to the forefront of our social discussion.

First and foremost, the Bush administration must be held accountable for their utter lack of leadership. A piece in the NY Times by Nick Kristof again highlights the negligence of the world's most powerful government. Too engulfed in its own misadventures in Iraq, Bush and his crew are shying away from serious engagement in Sudan in much the same way the Clinton administration did in Rwanda. With political criticism currently aimed at a failing overseas deployment (Somalia then, Iraq now), the administration is loathe to allow political opponents the opportunity to use another military operation as a means of pointing out shortcomings elsewhere. It's terrible to think that after President Bush gloated about his amassed political capital following re-election in November, he is unwilling to spend just a bit of it on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Darfurian refugees and would rather it be wasted on a Social Security privatization scheme.

Second, the American media deserves an almost equal amount of blame. While it may be true that our nation's political leadership hasn't exactly do its part to put a spotlight on Darfur, our mainstream media has been complicit in following whatever frivolous story it is led to. Darfur? Not when Paula Abdul is sleeping with Idol contestants! Christ, let's waste twenty minutes on American Morning talking about how this alters her work relationship with Simon and Randy. Wait, we've still got a half-hour left...oh, just run another story on how fat Americans are and how we're not eating enough fruits and vegetables or drinking red wine. And if there is a minute or two remaining, fill it with clips of the President splitting logs at Crawford while uttering the words "freedom" and "liberty" randomly.

Finally, America's (and the world's for that matter) religious establishment should be absolutely ashamed at their silence. Sure, some leaders have stepped up and at least mentioned to their flock the disgusting atrocities being done upon the populace of Darfur. However, for the most part they've been mum whilst jumping up and down over judicial nominees. I'm also skeptical as to whether they'd even give a damn if it weren't a situation where Muslims were killing Christians.

Shame on all of you.

"A lawsuit a day keeps the liberals at bay!"

2005-06-03T12:15:00.000-07:00

That advice today was so eloquently offered to young Republican activists by UNC-Wilmington Professor Mike Adams at a leadership seminar in Rayburn HOB. This suggestion comes as his solution to the abundance of on-campus progressive organizations gaining official recognition or support from colleges and universities.

Once again this points out a fundamental hypocrisy among today's conservatives--while decrying "judicial activism" of what they consider a liberal judiciary they concurrently push for an activist jurisprudence in favor of their political positions. Finding gay marriage to be a protected right is supposedly "extremist activism", while vacating years of legal precedence in order to prolong the life of a single person in a vegitative state is not.

This of course all leads back to the lingering fight over the next Supreme Court nominee. A piece in today's Sun points out President Bush's plan to place nominees of "a certain temperament" on the Court. Translation: those who won't require John Cornyn and Tom DeLay to whip them in order to take the far-right's position on any issue.

I still get miffed by the hypocrisy of the extreme right, I suppose I'm just a bit more used to it now.

Slots Manifesto!

2005-05-31T14:37:00.000-07:00

Who gave Mike Miller (me, not the uppercase guy in Annapolis) the right to determine whether 5 million other Marylanders can gamble, and what they can gamble on? I'm all in favor of a referendum on slots. If there's a statewide referendum on slots, it would currently pass according to polls along the lines of 60-40. People are already voting with their pocketbooks (reference again that sign on I-95).

Yes, the sticky issue becomes putting them in someone's "backyard". Of course, when you tell the local residents in Park Heights that 5% of the take on the slots machines will be given to the City of Baltimore in addition to all of the money the State takes and you relay how many new jobs will be created, it seems to ease any of the fears. Enough so that Pimlico's state district representatives have consistently supported slots with no real fear of backlash. Remember, Pimlico is one of the few businesses that actually employ a good number of people in that area, and at this point another 50 jobs at the track for local residents would be a relative economic boom.

While we're at it, let's discuss the profitability to the State of Maryland and its residents of professional sports teams. While some may enjoy some hardball at Camden Yards, there are plenty of people who much rather a day at the track (especially Preakness) and can't stand a three-hour 2-to-1 pitch-a-thon. Those people may bitch and complain that the Maryland Stadium Authority has shelled out countless millions to subsidize the O's and Ravens being in Baltimore, but the fact remains that the public supports the expenditure in order to have those teams here. By the way, we support those expenditures through--you guessed it--legalized gambling (a.k.a. The Maryland Lottery. Let Yourself Play!)

I'd also argue that the Preakness has the same if not a greater local economic impact on the City of Baltimore than an entire season of either the Orioles or Ravens. According to DBED, the Preakness itself and is worth $60 million in business locally. Add to that the fact that it's the single most significant opportunity Maryland has to remind people in California and elsewhere that we actually are a state (with a State Capital and all), and the impact upon our tourism industry is almost immeasurable. A recent Daily Record article compared the fact that Maryland gets exponentially more free publicity out of the Preakness on ESPN than it did out of hosting the Miss USA pageant this year. ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball may have Morgan and Miller give about a minute's worth of comments about a post-commercial break picture of the Inner Harbor, but that's about it. ESPN's "Breakfast at the Preakness" features about a half-hour worth of spots about Maryland, Baltimore, and all things jiggy therein (I believe they even mentioned Lexington Market this year).

So no, we don't *need* slots and we don't *need* the Preakness just like we don't *need* the Orioles or Ravens either. But do you like the sound of the Nashville Orioles and Las Vegas Ravens? Me neither.

Disclaimer: I currently work for a firm who has represented the Maryland Jockey Club. And yes, my position was the same before I took this job, much to the chagrin of many fellow Democratic activists.

Here's what's wrong with Ohio:

2005-05-26T15:14:00.000-07:00

Rebeccah Ramey. Who's that, you ask? She's a recent graduate of Ashland University, and currently a Staff Assistant to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. But more importantly, Rebeccah Ramey is someone who so perfectly puts a voice to conservative thought that her words are prominently featured as by Ashland U.'s Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs.

Her current article, "I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers, I Want John Bolton", is possibly the greatest political come-back flung at those of us who oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination. Here's a snippet:

Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false.

First off, I didn't know that you could get a degree from, much less be published by a reputable institution of higher education in this country if you used such absolutely, completely and utterly terrible language skills. Second, it might be tought to get all of the facts about Bolton if you're too busy ogling at Condi Rice's dominatrix outfit. Third, Ramey never mentions in the rest of her rant exactly how the accusations of intelligence manipulation were supposedly "proven false". Apparently she just assumes that you watch Fox News as well.

In case anyone doubted Ramey's view of Democrats, check this out from her critique of Condi's fashion-sense:

The feedback that I’ve received from my male co-workers, who have made their careers on Capitol Hill with the current majority party, have unanimously voiced that, "She looked amazing—beautiful, powerful and serious." I’m sure they were also thinking "And I’m glad she’s on our side and not the side of the bad guys."

Bad guys, eh? Yet we wonder why bipartisanship has left Washington when Committee staffers are so friendly towards the other side of the aisle...

Yes, I know that Rebeccah Ramey isn't the end-all-be-all of what's wrong with Ohio, but she's certainly a symptom. The simple fact that her treatise passes for a good opinion piece by alumnae at an American university (despite their conservative bias) is blatant evidence that it's not education our youth are receiving at far-right schools like Ashland, but rather ideological affirmation and indoctrination.

Maybe I should check out a Bob Jones U. senior thesis or two.

O'Malley takes credit for the wrong thing at the wrong time.

2005-05-25T14:24:00.000-07:00

Today's email from the Martin O'Malley campaign touts an article in today's WSJ on rising housing prices and increased investment thereof as proof that Marty's done a great job for the City of Baltimore.

Well, if you actually read the article, it does a pretty good job at showing the Baltimore housing boom for what it is--an effect of the skyrocketing prices in the D.C. area. While O'Malley would like you to think that folks are moving into Bawlmur because the violent crime rate has gone down, that simply isn't the case. Baltimore still has one of the top-5 murder rates in the nation at 44 per 100k (as noted in the article), and drug use and STD rates are still ridiculously high. In fact, it is these depressing figures that has kept the Baltimore City real estate market reasonable while suburbs such as Columbia, Ellicott City and Elkridge have ballooned.

If the greatest accomplishment that our mayor can point to is housing prices rising at a similar rate to the rest of Maryland, then I think it's safe to say that he's pulling at straws in order to combat the Ehrlich strategy of "Tie O'Malley to Baltimore City". I don't think a message of, "I decreased violent crime in Baltimore" is going to play in Purple counties like Anne Arundel, Howard and Baltimore County when they still see the City with the highest murder rate nationwide. The same fear soccer moms have of driving through Park Heights in their minivan will become associated with O'Malley if the GOP has anything to do about it--and they do.

Once again as in the Steffen saga, the guy who makes out on all of this is Mont. Co. Exec. Doug Duncan. In fact, I was at a board meeting of a local organization Monday night at which numerous City residents spoke of how much they liked Duncan. It makes me wonder whether or not O'Malley can hold as much of his Baltimore City base as he's banking on.

Update: Has anyone noticed that the title of O'Malley's site says, "Welcome to Matin O'Malley's website"? Oy.

Voinovich--reminding us that there are still reasonable Republicans.

2005-05-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

Steve Clemons has Sen. Voinovich's letter in PDF here. Great stuff.

Makes me wonder if maybe there are vestiges of common sense over on that side of the aisle.

Media hating the Military? Or military hating criticism?

2005-05-23T10:47:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the Bush Administration's stringing-up of Newsweek over their one-liner on flushing a Koran, here's a great piece which goes to the heart of the matter.

Pat Tillman's family is pissed, and rightfully so. Their son was killed in combat by friendly fire, yet the Army lied to the family in order to ratchet up the patriotism of football fans with a story of how Tillman supposedly led a charge up an enemy-held hill and was shot by Islamic militants in doing so. In fact, Tillman was shot and killed by his own comrades who mistook him for an enemy.

Does anyone remember how Jessica Lynch's story was fudged in order to spark nationalist fervor? I do. And Tillman's story is just another episode.

So to those who like to point at the Mainstream Media and yell, "Army-haters!", I'd say this: Without a critical media, we'd still believe that PFC Lynch's injuries were due to Iraqi thugs beating on the defenseless young woman, and that Taliban fighters shot Pat Tillman. Apparently, so might their families.

The Steffen situation and so-called media bias.

2005-05-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

Today's article in the Baltimore Sun reports that Melinda O'Malley, the Mayor's sister-in-law and a Maryland Insurance Administration attorney, was targeted in a Joe Steffen e-mail for removal. This e-mail inquiring as to the ability to "move" her from her job was sent while Mrs. O'Malley was on--prepare yourself--maternity leave. That's gall. It's also way outside the bounds of what we consider acceptable political activity.

Blair Lee's piece in The Gazette last week decried "Rumorgate" (as he calls it) as "the most sensationalized, over-reported news story in Maryland politics" and "news manipulation to sway views and votes". Note to Mr. Lee: if a story about a dirty-trickster doing his political deeds on taxpayer time isn't worth coverage, then perhaps you've become blind to your own bias. Maybe that's why he's on WBAL.

Note that in his piece, Lee certainly doesn't decry the reporting of Ehrlich's MD4BUSH blame-game. If anything has gotten too much coverage, it's the nearly without-evidence claim that a Democratic operative under direct orders from the state party is behind baiting Steffen into his boasts on FreeRepublic. Unless MD4BUSH is a government employee using taxpayer-bought computers, who cares? There's no evidence that MD4BUSH has done anything wrong other than outsmarting a dim-witted operative who was too full of himself to keep his mouth shut. If I could sucker a Republican trickster into outing himself in a similar fashion, you're damn right I'd do it. And don't think there aren't Republicans trying the same thing on Democrats.

So here's a tip Mr. Lee--keep your self-righteousness to yourself. Your bitching about the media's bias while simultaneously perpetuating it is hypocrisy at its greatest.

Yeah. This makes me feel really good about the Bush plan.

2005-03-28T16:22:00.000-08:00

Check out this article from Bloomberg on why Bush's Social Security privatization assumptions are a joke. Here's an even better article today from Standard & Poor's about the risks involved in Bush's plan.

Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

By the way, here's the chart for the S&P 500 and Dow 30 returns over the past 5 years in case you were wondering whether you could lose money in stocks:

Note to Schindlers: Playing with fire gets you burned.

2005-03-28T13:17:00.000-08:00

Check this out. Apparently there may be a *money* rift at the basis of all this hooplah.

The situation seems pretty plausible to me. The kind of fun Bobby Schindler is having with this tragedy really doesn't seem to be in line with the grave nature of the situation.

It was shocking to hear him say, "You don't speak for us" to the crowd. What a schmuck! I'm sorry, but he and his parents deserve every bit of grief they get as a result of their efforts to whip up the frenzy around their court case.

Imagine the mindset of the folks outside the hospice. At the request of the Schindlers and the nutzo right-wing activists they've cuddled up to, dozens of people have come from out-of-state to spend day-after-day camping out to protest. Then, as they realize they can't get their way, the Schindlers say, "Go home." The Schindlers haven't realized yet that it isn't about them and how they feel anymore. To think that the very people they've incited to bash down the gates of the keep could be pulled back with the battering ram in their hands is laughable.

Sit back and enjoy the fireworks folks. It's still only beginning. When Terri dies, the powderkeg blows.

If you play with fire...

Bush-style Democracy in action.

2005-03-11T07:10:00.000-08:00

Take a look at this graphic from CNN:

Is this the example of "democracy" that Bush talks about? Keep in mind that both the United Iraqi Alliance (Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's crew) and the Iraqi List (Ayad Allawi's crew) are Shi'a, as well as the Islamic Labor Organization (closely affiliated with the United Iraqi Alliance). The Kurdish Alliance and the Islamic Kurdistan Society are Kurdish, the Turkmen Front is Turkomen. That leaves 13 seats out of 275 to be represented by Sunnis. The Iraqiyun is basically the main Sunni party, headed by Ghazi al-Yawar (the U.S.-appointed Iraqi President seen here with stooge Jerry Bremer)--they got a grand total of 5 seats. Whoopee.

Whoever claims that the success of this election has caused the calls for Syrian withdrawl in Lebanon, the sham elections in Egypt, the pre-determined Palestinian vote, or the spotted local men-only elections in Saudi Arabia is fooling themselves out of misplaced hope. Max Boot's article in the LA Times last week is a perfect example of this self-congratulatory nonsense. The Lebanon situation has been simmering since 2000, and was only brought to a head with the assasination of Rafik Hariri allegedly by pro-Syrian forces. Mubarak's call for elections is nothing more than a global PR stunt.

Don't believe the hype. If you look at the internals of the situation the outlook isn't so rosy, nor has it happened overnight.

Cowards on Parade

2005-01-20T14:44:00.000-08:00

When I noticed that Norm Ornstein (from that noted bastion of right-think The American Enterprise Institute who brought you the musings of compulsive gambler William Bennett) wrote this piece, I nodded knowingly. Ornstein has been working on his terror scare-tactics for quite some time. In fact, BEFORE September 11th he was working on a "presidential succession" project at AEI in order to better protect the "will of the people" (read: make sure a Bushie kept control incase someone offed the guy).

FUD is indeed the operative word today. Did anyone notice that the sonofabitchin' coward wouldn't even get out of his car to face the public until the last block where the people allowed in those stands had to pay $200 a pop? Not surprisingly, there were none of the signs in that crowd that had lined the route earlier like, "Four More Wars" and "ImpeachBush.org". Sure, he can hide behind the guise of "security" all he wants, but the entire 5-block area surrounding PA Ave. was on lock-down in a fashion never seen before. Also, did you see the convoy of black Suburbans and Secret Service? As one of my co-worker's noted, "Jesus, what does this say about American society when the guy is that isolated from the masses?"

The fact is, Bush has always been isolated from any criticism, and that's what burns us (his detractors) up more than anything. If you're going to be "bold" with your agenda, at least have the balls to answer questions at regular press conferences rather than three-hour love-fests with Bill O'Reilly and The Washington Times.

Bush the 41st, for all his misgivings, was still a decent President who would answer the tough questions without hesitating and with minimal ducking. There's also something to be said for his ability to go to war with a true international coalition and with an actual exit strategy, but we'll leave that aside for now.

On to the discussion of the $50+ million pricetag for the inauguration. Many folks have said that it's just sour grapes on the part of Democrats and the "liberal media" for even bringing it up. Let's look at the numbers, shall we? Bush the 41st's inauguration cost $30 million. Clinton's inauguration in 1993 cost $33 million. Bush's 2001 inauguration cost $40 million. So while we're asking kids to scrounge up fitty cent to donate to their school's tsunami-relief collection, the nation's elite are dropping fitty dime on celebrating their benefactor's re-election.

The most troubling is the more than $2.7 million donated as of Friday by the energy industry--the very same group who is benefitting most from Bush's War on Iraq. Needless to say, United Technologies gave their $250K.

Take a hint from Nike: Just Do It.

2005-01-12T13:04:00.000-08:00

Recently I've been speaking/meeting with a small group of young Maryland Democratic activists and professionals with political backgrounds. The overlying theme of what we're interested in is focusing the Democratic party on those areas where the Republican Party has made inroads in the past 10 years and turning them around by creating a Democratic "farm-team" of leaders on the grassroots and local-elected levels. We're also taking a long look at the unified message that Democrats need to form.

These "purple counties" are the front lines of the political battle and can be won if the Party focuses on those values that Rural America shares with Urban America. I like to identify these with the buzzwords Opportunity, Security, and Responsibility.

Opportunity refects the belief among Democrats that we should strive to provide all Americans with the ability to pursue success through adequate education and eradicating discrimination on gender or race.

Security speaks not only to the post-9.11 need for adequate Homeland Security funding, but also a common-sense foreign policy approach. Security also emcompasses our vision of long-term economic strength versus the current Republican approach of short-term gains while mortgaging the future.

Responsibility is the obligation we have to our citizens in need of adequate healthcare, affordable housing, military/veterans benefits, unemployment assistance, Social Security and other areas.

It'd be hard to find to find a rural voter, Democrat or Republican, who disagrees with these beliefs. It's up to all of us to reshape the Democratic Party in this light.

Why do we lose? Because the losers keep leading.

2005-01-12T11:47:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting article by Amy Sullivan in this month's Washington Monthly titled, "Fire the Consultants". I'd recommend everyone who is still shaking their heads about the past election cycle read it.

Those of you who know me well enough know that I regularly rant and rave about the need to change the party's leadership and focus.

Well, Amy's hit the proverbial nail on the head--we lose because we keep putting losers in charge. The case studies of Joe Hansen and especially seven-time loser Bob Shrum point to the fact that the Democratic Party can't shake it's "consultocracy".

Seems like our candidates are hooked on a nicotine-laced consultant habit that they just can't shake. The way to start is by making a statement with our race for a new DNC Chair. I've supported Donnie Fowler, Jr. for some time now, and I continue to do so. While I'm well aware that he's a bit of a long-shot for the post, the ideas he puts forth in this area are shared by many of us in the trenches. Regardless of who wins, these issues need to be discussed by the DNC on a broad basis.

It's time to win. Let's kick the habit.

Blame the lawyers? Blame the Bush Economy.

2005-01-05T19:42:00.000-08:00

In the midst of this malpractice insurance crisis, I've noticed what has become the conservative credo over the past year or so:

Blame the lawyers.

High HMO premiums? High malpractice premiums for docs? Blame the lawyers suing on behalf of patients who have been the victim of medical malpractice.

High drug costs? Blame the laywers for suing on behalf of class-action plaintiffs who have taken these drugs under the assumption that due diligence was done by the companies and FDA to ensure their safety.

Ted Olsen is on Hardball right now blaming the lawyers at the Justice Dept. for the memo in August 2002 suggesting that various "inhumane" torture methods would be fine when used on detainees who were accused of serious terrorist actions. According to the former Bush Administration Solicitor General, Gonzales is the victim of subordinates who gave bad legal advice which was then passed on to the President. When asked whether Gonzales is simply a "messenger boy" who does nothing but pass on others' opinions as his counsel to the President, Olsen ducks the question.

On the malpractice insurance front, we've got a fight on our hands right now in Maryland where the Governor is blaming lawyers and juries for the 30%+ increase in Med Chi malpractice insurance. He's vetoed the overwhelmingly passed bill from the legislature because it erases the 30-year exemption for HMOs from the state 2% insurance premium tax.

Instead of defending trial lawyers, here's a new tactic for Democrats: Blame the Bush Economy.

The reason HMO premiums have gone up is that insurance companies bought into the BS line from our administration that the economy had "turned the corner". MedChi's Exec. Dir. Michael Preston stated in his testimony last week that the stock market's flatness over the past year has nothing to do with the increase in rates since the majority of their investments are in bonds, including T-bills. However, the Fed's need to lower interest rates dramatically has pushed the yield on these bonds down slightly, although not much more significantly than the rate of decline during the Clinton years. The difference is that during the Clinton years, insurance companies were not forced to go with low-yield bonds as the basis of their portfolios, ans subsequently they saw regular double-digit returns. Now, the best MedChi can hope for is the meager 4.5% yield on T-bills. That has to be taken into account.

Furthermore, let's take a look at states that have passed the kind of restrictions on malpractice claims that the insurers are pushing for. California has, since the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act 1975, had significant caps on medical malpractice claims. However, those caps have had almost no effect whatsoever on malpractice insurance rates.

Blame it on the Bush economy. Blame it on the Bush economy over and over and over again until it reminds you of the repetitiveness of the phrase "flip-flop" during the recent election.

"Stop Snitching" in Iraq?

2005-01-04T11:04:00.000-08:00

Newsday's photog embed Moises Saman reported this today:

Yesterday's morning patrol of eastern Mosul yielded one find: A man carrying a CD titled "Mujahadeen in Fallujah" with images of someone beheading an Egyptian man and insurgents firing mortars at Americans.

It seems that Carmelo Anthony and his boys here in Baltimore have started something.

так! I mean, ні!

2004-11-30T22:41:00.000-08:00

Well, I've finally found it. Proof that President Bush is the lightning-rod for anti-Americanism. And no, I'm not talking about the raving-mad canucks banging their hockey sticks against the walls of Government House in Ottawa or the Colombian coffee-bean (wink) farmers who, in their pity for us poor Blue Staters, thought they could bust a few caps in his ass.

A right-wing friend of mine who shall remain nameless recently tried to convince me that the impression that Americans are less well-liked by the world because of Bush has been completely over-blown by the Liberal Media(tm).

Well, I submit to you the following:

Background: For those of you who crawled under a rock since Nov. 2nd or refuse to watch CNN for fear of missing "My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss", there's a bit of what I like to call a "Florida 2000" mess going on in Ukraine--putting the East-West post-Cold War relationship over hot coals.

Anyways, to make a long story short the scary thing here is that the government/Russian-backed campaign of Viktor Yanukovich felt it a good political attack to tie his opponent Viktor Yushchenko (who is western-leaning, as in towards Poland, Romania and the EU) to Bush. The fact that it's now an effective tactic in domestic politics across the world to tie one's opponent to the American Monkey marks a sad day in the moral supremacy of the United States (just ask Jose Maria Aznar).

There's an easy way to relate to this from our standpoint: Imagine the same poster with the forehead, mouth and torso of John Kerry with a donkey behind him, and the ripped out eyes and nose of Jacques Chirac and the French Tri-Couleur.

In other words, our President has become the new Frenchie Bastard of the world. Come to think of it, maybe we should've countered the "Kerry looks French" thing with "Bush looks Ukrainian".

Vice-Presidential Debates are best watched with lots of lager

2004-10-06T14:05:00.000-07:00

Last night, Andy (the guy who lives just two doors up and lets me crash in his basement) and I sat down at Pottsville Dem. HQ to watch the debate the Weekly Standard called, "freestyle wrestling". I must say, 220z. of Yuengling Lager helped get me by through that love-fest without banging my head against a wall.

Anyways, here's my take on what happened: Edwards has obviously never conducted a *political* debate, particularly one that focuses its first 45 minutes to foreign affairs and the War Of Terror. He tried to use his natural charisma much like he did in the courtroom to woo the jury of the American Public.

That shit just doesn't play with "security moms". It's the same reason why Bush had his ass handed to him by JK in the first debate. "Security moms" want experience, knowledge and gravitas. Middle-aged single women as seen on "Sex and the City" want a leader with a cute smile that makes you feel special. Note to John Edwards: There are ten times as many "security moms" as there are "Carries", and about twenty times more in the major battleground states of OH, PA, WI and MI.

Not only this, but Edwards doesn't fit the important, traditional role of the Veep candidate as "attack dog" very well. His smiling, southern charm simply doesn't lend itself well to calling the opposition a bunch of idiots and misleaders. That's a good job for a brooding, overly serious former Defense Secretary who warns of imminent attack if you pick the other guys.

All of this goes back to what I've said since the beginning of this thing: John Edwards was the wrong pick for the VP nomination. That doesn't mean that my buddy Wes was the right guy either, but there were much better choices hands-down.

Dick Gephardt comes to mind here. Howard Dean, despite his penchant for going on the offensive, does not. Cheney does not exhibit anger when tearing apart the other side, but simply the air that he honestly believes that Democrats are pinko commies who would turn the United States into New France if they had the chance.

Bill Richardson would've rocked. Unfortunately he turned the job down.

All in all, I like John Edwards and frankly he might have made a decent nominee for the Presidency. As VP though, he needs to do some serious political "growing up", or John Kerry will need to defend himself on his own.

30 days to go...

2004-10-03T13:50:00.000-07:00

...and things are starting to heat up here in Schuylkill County. I've only been on the ground here for about 5 weeks, but I'm finally picking up the pace.

Being on staff for the PA Coordinated Campaign is everything I expected--long hours, lots of local politicking and quite a bit of fun.

A local elected official told me a few weeks ago when I first got on the ground here that I could "write a book about politics in this county." She was right. If I was working on writing one, I'd have probably finished 3 chapters already.