I've spent the last two months blogging about the US election. It's a good thing I held off until September, or I'd be totally burned out by now. Still, pondering the ups and down of this election cycle is nothing compared to the worrisome news that I got last night.
The Red Wings have turnover trouble. A lot of it. I haven't seen the Wings give away the puck this much in years, if ever. Last week I watched a game and thought, "Ah, they're just rusty." Then I watched Wednesday's game against Anaheim. The Wings lost 5-4 in overtime, and a lot of it had to do with turnovers and penalties (they gave the Ducks two 5 on 3 power plays; that is not how you win hockey games). Last night I watched the San Jose game, and it was more of the same. The Wings managed to stay out of the penalty box, but again they turned the puck over like a hot potato. One turnover in their own end was so outrageously bad that I wondered if it was an intentional pass.
It was the second game of a back-to-back, so I can cut them some slack if they had slow legs, but open ice turnovers are mental errors, not physical. When you add the fact that every team gears up to take on the Stanley Cup champs, turnovers are deadly.
There's no need to panic. The Wings are still first in their division, and they've won 7 of their first 11 games. The last two losses, however, are a bigtime wake up call. Anaheim and San Jose are good teams. They're hungry. Both teams believe they should have been in the Cup final last year, instead of the Wings. They are the Red Wings' biggest contenders for the Western Conference this year, and they have just sent the Wings a message: you need to play your best hockey to beat us.
What's troubling about the turnover trouble is that it's a discipline issue infecting the whole team. The Wings have always been a team with extraordinarily crisp passing, but lately it seems like none of them wants the puck as much as the other guy. Coach Mike Babcock is going to have to kick some ass in practice and tell these "champs" to get on their game before this becomes a habit. If not, the Wings will have a winning season and get booted out the second they face San Jose or Anaheim in the playoffs.
A quick snapshot of how CNN sees things tonight. No Bias, No Bull, baby.
These are the items heading their Politics front page. Click to enlarge.
First, a whole lot of top stories to make Barack Obama look wonderful and McCain like a loser, plus a big headline saying...what? That conservatives are tweaking their tactics by putting guns to people's heads? The front page doesn't elaborate.
On the same page you'll find this cartoon by Bill Mitchell, who perfectly embodies the unbiased coverage of CNN. This cartoon is in keeping with the Halloween spirit. It shows Palin as a witch and says her best shot at national politics will arrive in 2012.
Hey, who needs an election, anyway?
Let's let Tito the Builder rough up the media a bit. Best lines: "Listen, don't pretend that we American people are stupid," and "These are to intimidate Colmes."
Here's two of my old ones about the creepiest day of the year. I've read them over and still agree with most of the stuff in there. Apologies if the first one reads kind of stilted and dry. I wrote it for a paper and had to write it in boring newspaper-speak.
Halloween Treats I bid you...Vellcome...
Halloween's on the way, so it's time to take a look at some favorite horror flicks you should be ordering at the corner video store. First, let's look at the horror genre in general. More...
Where There Be Zombies The zombie genre was invented by George A. Romero. His status as Master Zombie has been intact since his first zombie classic, Night of the Living Dead (1968). Shot in black and white, Night of the Living Dead was like nothing anyone had seen before. It was gritty, low budget, scary, gory, and funny. It was an entertaining horror picture that became a cult classic, and as with all cult classics, it found a rabid fan base that will protect it and its creator at all costs. More...
AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.
The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.
The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography [sic] and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Looks like they might be playing baseball tonight. The question is, who cares?
This World Series has been dismal. One game didn't start until 10:30pm because of rain, and another got chopped in half because of rain. Tonight we might get to see the Phillies win after only 3 1/2 innings of work.
I can't blame MLB for the weather, but I can blame them for these ridiculous 8:30 pm start times. When I was a kid I had to lie very quietly on the couch, just out of my dad's peripheral vision, in order to catch the first quarter of Monday Night Football. I couldn't cough, sneeze, sigh, or twitch my foot. If I did, he'd snap his head to the left and say, "You're still up? Time for bed."
Any kid watching the World Series these days must be going through the same hell. They must be as amazed as I was at the pure focus of a father-fan. You can lie on the couch forever and fathers won't notice you. You get to hear them curse, rant, blame the QB, fire the coach, and hang the referee, all from the sanctity of your invisible couch. But take one deep breath, and you're in bed within two minutes.
MLB needs to bring the start times back down to earth and give kids a chance to see the game. Or at least what's left of it.
This happens a lot. Just as the World Series gets going, I start watching the Wings play hockey. Then it becomes an eternal battle of the "last" button: hockey - click - baseball - click - hockey hockey hockey - click - bas - click!
The World Series has to be pretty compelling for me to switch back and stick with it for two innings in a row while the hockey game's on. This year is no exception, and I'm having a harder time staying with the Series than I thought I would. Tonight I'll bet that I only watched one solid inning from top to bottom. The rest was a fit inducing carnival of channel surfing.
I thought I'd be more into the World Series this year because it is the first time the Rays have a shot at winning the title. Not so. It would have been a far better story line if the Red Sox and Dodgers had won, so we could see Manny getting booed like crazy in Fenway. Still, it was nice seeing the Red Sox lose and not even make it.
I'll keep rooting for the Rays, but I'm back in Wing Land and that's how it's going to stay.
Anyway, Philly won tonight. They're up 2-1 in the series.
Hollywood once again proves its bravery by taking on yet another controversial subject, ripped straight from the headlines. That's right, Ron Howard directs a stunning look at...the Watergate hearings!
More specifically, it's a movie about an interview between British talk show host David Frost and Richard Nixon. Pointless, because you can watch the real-life interviews on You Tube for free. But what would Hollywood be without heroic talk show hosts from bygone eras?
This movie may remind you of another brave foray Hollywood made a couple of years back. Good Night and Good Luck was the breathtakingly bold look at McCarthyism in the 1950's. Again, it showed the travails of a heroic interviewer as he attempted to question the system.
This is what passes for brave filmmaking these days. Looking back 30 - or 40, or 50 - years to subjects that have been done to death. Gimme a break. I'm still waiting for the movies about terrorism that don't deal with American torture, or a life story of Muhammad (death threats over a movie would probably make the death threats over cartoons look like nothing; Spielberg would soil his silk drawers), or a biopic about the slaying of Theo van Gogh. Then I might hang a "brave" label on one of these clowns.
Here's one part of the original David Frost interviews. Watch them and save yourself some cash.
Now that it's become clear that Obama's campaign has been knowingly receiving a ton of fraudulent donations, Steyn weighs in with this:
This should be Journalism 101. I'm not the guy who made Obama's fundraising a story. The media did that when they ran hundreds of puff pieces marveling at his record-breaking cash haul, and in particular the gazillions of small donors. Isn't the fact that his website has chosen to disable basic fraud protection procedures at the very least a legitimate addendum to those stories?
Yes, it should be Journalism 101, but good luck with that. As I've said a few times during this election cycle, this is the way it is. "Should" has gone out the window, and it's never going to come back. You can't ask the hacks to dedeem themselves. They don't see any need for redemption. The only thing you can do is fight back.
Oh, would that it were so. The new "can't beat 'em, join 'em," attitude of the right wing punditry is beyond defeatist, it's laughable.
I didn't mind the media ignoring "B girl," the spun woman who claimed that a man carved a B on her face. I knew that story was bogus the second I saw her picture. An enraged 6'4" man takes a knife to a woman's face and leaves chicken scratches? Please. But the media's treatment of the fraudulent donations story has been a joke.
So what's new? There is no more Journalism 101. 24 hour news has changed journalism from a fact-checking endeavor to a reality TV program. One look at the sets and the hair-dos on today's TV news tells you everything you need to know. It isn't about the news, it's about the way it's presented, and baby, you'd better fit the mold before showing up for a screen test.
Look at it this way: you could go to acting school, bust your ass at auditions, learn your craft, buck the 80% unemployment rate of your chosen career, and maybe, just maybe, make a living at it. Or you could go to journalism school, learn how a journalist should think and behave, get on TV right away, and find fame. When a reporter hopes to "go network" they don't mean they want to cover harder stories and do a better job. They mean they want to be really famous, as opposed to hometown famous.
These days, every TV news reporter is hot with an H-O-T. CNN might use Candy Crowley to distract you now and then, but fact is, if you aren't under 50 with big breasts and a bee stung lip, you're out of luck. When's the last time you saw TV reporter that you wouldn't shag after a Bud Light and a two minute conversation beside the jukebox? If you think ability is the primary criterion for hiring a reporter on any news program, you need to put down the crack pipe.
To trust any of these hacks is a serious mistake. They hold gala dinner parties where politicians are in attendance. Trust? Sell me another one. I believe that any reporter who parties with a politician should be fired. Since they're all doing it, there wouldn't be any TV news tomorrow morning. What a tragedy.
Did you see that roast a couple of weeks ago, where McCain and Obama had a chance to rip on each other? Cute, huh? It's called the Alfred E. Smith dinner, and it's been going on for decades. The attendance list should make you want to barf. Politicians and reporters, all sitting down to dinner to enjoy some champagne and fine food. "Look, there's Hillary Clinton! Hey, look, there's Brian Williams, the anchor of NBC News!" Everyone was gussied up in white tie and tails, drinking good wine while the economy tanked. Then we're supposed to believe these wanna-be movie stars when they go on TV the next day with a hangover to tell us they're holding their dinner partner's feet to the fire? Right.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Waiting for reporters to get back to reporting instead of playing their part in the next episode of Political Pornography is like waiting for me to hit .300 in the World Series. It ain't gonna happen.
The Phillies took game 1 of the World Series in what was a pretty pedestrian game. No big highlights, a couple of errors, and some pretty poor hitting. It was easy to flick over to see how the Red Wings were doing and forget that the baseball game was still on (Red Wings won).
The Phillies should be happy with the win in Tampa, but the Rays can take some comfort in knowing that the Phillies have trouble driving in runs. Philly managed 8 hits and 6 walks, but left a whopping 22 men on base. While watching the game, I was thinking, "If the Phillies could hit when it counts, they'd be up by 10."
Tampa might have their own troubles in that department, at least as far as BJ Upton goes. He's been the Rays' slugger all post-season, but tonight he went 0-4 and left 5 men on while hitting into two double plays. He needs to get his groove back, or Tampa will lose the series in 4 or 5.
She's been getting stronger every day as this thing drags on. If McCain doesn't win this year, it will be interesting to see where her career goes after her term in Alaska.
The only words I don't like in the piece below are "a record-shattering $3 billion dollars." That's fine if the money's coming from revenue generating operations year to year. Otherwise "surplus" to me means "over-taxed." Bigtime surpluses should be followed by checks from the government with a note attached: Turns out, we didn't need all of your money after all. And yes, we'll have that flat tax coming next time around.
The superlatives, it turns out, were justified: in his mid-term mini-budget, [Saskatchewan Premier] Mr. Wall unleashed the deepest single personal income tax cut in the prairie province's history, the biggest infrastructure spend, and its largest debt paydown since Saskatchewan discovered red ink. The province's unbudgeted surplus is projected at a record-shattering $3-billion.
"It's a great day to be Premier," Mr. Wall enthused - a statement many provincial leaders would not likely share about now. With the tax-free portion of income tax boosted to $40,0000 for families, more than 80,000 Saskatchewanians immediately, and retroactive to January of this year, can forget paying a dime in provincial income tax, while households earning a just slightly higher $50,000 saw their provincial tax bill cut nearly 60%. A 50% boost in infrastructure spending, to $1.5-billion, will send a "clear signal to industry," a government backgrounder trumpeted, "that Saskatchewan is Ready for Growth..."
Saskatchewan...is projected by the same study to be "the sole province whose economic growth rate in 2008 will exceed that of last year," expected to beat everyone for top GDP gains through 2009.
I heard Campbell Brown, host of the laughably named "No Bias, No Bull" show on CNN, call socialism the "S-word." Some guy at another news website claims that "socialism" is a racist's codeword for "black."
Good grief.
The press as well as McCain's opponents (I'm drawing a distinction because I'm feeling friendly after a rye and water) seem especially touchy about the socialism angle, going so far as to not mention it by name. Interesting.
Incidentally, who started the whole fad of naming girls after surnames like Mackenize and Campbell? It's always a cheapshot going after someone's handle, so apologies to any Smiths, Joneses, and McTavishes out there.
Boris Johnson: Or, to put it another way, it is not clear how America under McCain would recover her standing in the eyes of the world.
I got that from Steyn, who's also keeping an eye on the columnists that are jumping on the Obama band wagon.
I won't go through Johnson's article except to say that it's the usual tripe. He perceives Obama as an agent of change and hope, then goes on to say that he hopes Congress can stymie any "ill-considered tax proposals" that Obama puts forward. Earth to Boris: the only change Obama has ever put forward is a hope for new taxes.
I just noticed how many times I used the word "hope" in that last paragraph. When it comes to Obama, people find themselves saying that a lot.
Anyway, as for McCain being unable to recover America's standing in the eyes of the world...who cares?
I love how this is supposed to be some sort of campaign talking point, as if presidents need the vote of a guy in Canberra.
Nobody on the foreign diplomatic circuit much liked America before Bush, and none of them will like America after he's gone. When I was in university in the mid-90's, I heard ton of anti-American vitriol from profs and students alike. Even when loverboy Bill Clinton was in office, Canadians supposedly "hated" America. Bush had nothing to do with it, unless these people hated baseball in general and the Texas Rangers in particular.
America is rich and powerful. They're envied, so they're disliked by foreign governments who use the US as a bogeyman and whipping boy (except when these nations are attacked by a bad guy or get hit by a hurricane; then Americans are welcome to come on over to get shot at and spend billions). The only way to make America as warm and fuzzy as Sweden is for them to pawn their military hardware, run government funded health care, and chop their economy in half. Then they'll be "liked." But who would want to live there?
I can't get my head around the idea that the United States is despised by the whole world, when hundreds of illegal immigrants come over the border every day and the visa line-ups at American embassies go out the door.
Politicians and rich faux philosophers may not "like" America, but the regular working stiff keeps banging on the door to get in. That says more to me than anything a politician might whisper under his breath at a cocktail party.
I paid a visit to Steyn's website this morning and saw that the conservative pundits are still heading for the hills. Last week, David Brooks made for the lifeboats, describing Sarah Palin as a certain type of disease afflicting the Republican Party. Steyn mentions Brooks and says he doesn't know what Brooks is thinking anymore. Beats me. I never knew what Brooks was thinking and always figured he was some whacked out left-winger until somebody told me he's a conservative. Oh.
Steyn likes to blog on National Review's "The Corner." It's a running blog where conservative commentators can go to yell at each other or pat each other on the back. Lately, it's just a place where they can go to bitch and moan about the state of the presidential election. But not too many of them: in the last week, they've been jumping from the McCain booster club like clowns from a Volkswagen.
The Corner is getting quieter and quieter as malaise sets in. You can hear the crickets chirping and 10th story windows being thrown open. But why?
I went on about it last week, but I figure it's worth repeating: Barack Obama is not certain to win this race, yet commentators have bought the hype that he will. They're chicken.
The sad fact is that most commentators have been reading the media's headlines the past few weeks, and they've caved. What losers. For years they've been saying that the mainstream press are a bunch of left-wing blowhards. Did they honestly believe that these blowhards wouldn't be holding an Obama victory parade three weeks from election day?
Memo to right-wing yellow belly columnists: it was always going to be this way. McCain was always going to receive unfair press, his supporters were always going to be called racists, and the polls covered were always going to be the ones that made Obama look good. If you really didn't see this coming then you should turn your Mac in to your editor and call it a day.
The polls are killing the poor yellow bellies. That should make you nervous only if you believe that the commentators are a reflection of the public at large. The media use these polls for only one reason: to affect voter turnout. If they can convince enough people that the race is already over, then those people will stay home and not vote at all. The press want McCain supporters to believe, like the commentators have, that McCain's already lost. If voter turnout ends up reflecting the sudden drought of bloggers at The Corner, then Obama should win by a shutout.
"Ah, come on, Berry. The media aren't trying to affect voter turnout. They're just reporting the polls."
Conspiracy theorist? Not me. Look at the framing the media uses with these polls. They do not say, "It's very tight," or "It's going to be close," or "Taking the margin of error into account, McCain could actually be winning." Instead, it's "McCain's done."
What exactly are "polls," anyway? When you get down to it, you're taking the word of some guy named Gallup that he knows what millions of people are thinking because he made a few phone calls. Do you honestly believe that asking 1000 people a few questions over the telephone can tell you what an entire nation believes? I don't.
Another question is which polls do you want to read? There's dozens of them. If I wanted you to believe that the race is over, I'd tell you that the ABC News/Washington Post poll says Obama is 10 points ahead. But if I wanted you to think McCain's still got a shot, I'd quote the Gallup (Traditional) poll, which gives Obama only a 3 point edge, well within their margin of error.
Some news guys, like Drudge, report an average of the polls. I call this the Margarita Method. This takes any number of polls and puts them in a blender. Hence you can have a poll giving Obama an 8 point lead, a Gallup (Expanded) poll that gives him a 5 point lead, a few more polls like Pew Research, La Times/Bloomberg, Ipsos, Newsweek, Rasmussen, some crushed ice, a little salt, a slice of lime, and out comes 4.8.
If you're like me, maybe you're starting to have a hard time seeing how these polls can be called "scientific." The pollsters say that you can't just open up the phone book, call 1000 people, and ask them how they're going to vote. Instead, you have to throw on a white lab coat, giggle maniacally, and start dialing. But if one crazy scientist ends up with an Obama edge of 14, but another says McCain's only down by 4, how can polling possibly be "scientific" unless it's being run by the global warming kooks?
I'm willing to concede that polling might give you some general idea of how those specific people felt when they picked up the phone that very minute, but the amount of certainty that the pollsters claim is a laugh. Gallup virtually admits it, because they have two polls. One is called "expanded" and the other is called "traditional." Now, unless they're phoning obese people and hardcore Episcopalians, I have no idea what they mean by expanded and traditional. My guess is that one of these two polls falls under the "cover my ass" category.
For the record, Gallup's latest has McCain losing by 3 points in its traditional poll, and 7 points in its expanded edition. The conservative columnists should read the traditional number, ignore the expanded one, turn off the gas oven, and get back in the ring. Crybabies.
Here's a good example of why I hate reporters. From ABC:
Let's hope Joe the Plumber doesn't charge by the minute -- the 15th can be the roughest.
Maybe John McCain's last great comeback isn't possible. Maybe it's only possible on the back of a plumber from Ohio (albeit one who could have used some vetting).
Note to private citizens: if you ask media darling politicians a question, but you don't like the politician's answer, you will be vetted - journalist lingo for gutted.
And if this Joe dude had agreed with Obama? My, my, what a rock star he would be.
I clicked on the "Lifestyle" section of Yahoo! a couple of minutes ago. I like to check in there from time to time to see what the ladies are thinking.
Like most newspapers and websites, Yahoo! doesn't mean Lifestyle when they say Lifestyle. They mean, "women." Men, according to the Life section of most papers, don't exist, at least not until their women want to dress them, feed them, hump them, or dump them.
Here's a bit I found under the headline Dressing Him Up. It's an article about making your slob boyfriend a little more presentable.
Here's what you do: take him shopping. Find an occasion - his birthday, Valentine's Day, heck, make something up: 'Guess what honey, it's official Take Your Boyfriend Shopping day!' Then guide him, gently and enthusiastically, through the men's department, pointing out things you think would look really hot on him.
It's fairly obvious that women must think men are pretty stupid, but I dig the whole made-up-occasion thing. I wonder what a girlfriend would say if a guy responded with, "There's a holiday called Take Your Boyfriend Shopping? Awesome. My mistress has been saying for weeks that I need a new outfit for Bang Your Secretary Fridays."
"Nobody feels worse than the guys in our bullpen. I thought we played a great game. You can't dwell on it. We have to move on. We have another game to play." - Joe Maddon, Tampa Bay Rays manager.
Really Joe? Nobody feels worse than the guys in the pen? Admittedly, they should feel awful after blowing a 7-0 lead. But how about you Joe? The manager. The dunce.
Let me lay it out for you: your star starter, Scott Kazmir, has just pitched 6 great innings. He's only given up 2 hits and 3 walks. The game is going splendidly. You are 9 outs away from the first World Series in franchise history. Even Boston's unbeatable closer is having a bad night, as he gives up 2 runs to make the score 7 - 0. Your team is rolling. So what should you do?
Well, of course, you throw in a guy cold from the pen. He gives up four hits and four runs in two-thirds of an inning, followed by another guy who gives up three hits and three runs in 1.1 innings, followed by another reliever who gives up the winning run in another two-thirds of inning. Great decision, Joe. And hey, who can blame you? Why not chuck a couple of cold, young guys out there to see if they can take their minds off the fact that they're 3 innings away from a World Series...unless they blow it.
Baseball managers and their love of pitch count and relief pitchers literally makes me sick to my stomach. There's nothing worse than seeing a manager reach for the telephone when his starting pitcher is doing just fine, thank you very much.
Note to managers: no matter how great you think your bullpen is, there is only one reason why those guys are in the pen and not starting games: they aren't good enough. When your starter is rolling towards a shutout, keep him rolling.
Joe Maddon apparently had his nose buried too deeply in the Manager Handbook, or his head too far up his ass, to see how perfectly things were going for his team. Hopefully the players don't suffer for his idiocy by having Boston come back and win the series altogether.
A journalist writing in the Telegraph attempts a McCain bash, and inadvertently describes the healthy, lovely, capitalist heart of America:
Brittany Crandall, 23, who lives in a similar, one-floor home with a pumpkin scarecrow just a few doors down [from Joe the Plumber], has never met Mr Wurzelbacher, but she felt he was being unfairly treated. "He is just an ordinary person, let him be," she said, opening the door for a New York journalist to use her internet connection. "I just don't understand what the fuss is about."
But as the evening drew in, her husband, Dan, 26, wheeled out his barbecue and began cooking hotdogs to feed the crowd of journalists camped outside, selling them for $2 each.
A woman thinks the media are vultures, but kindly lets one of the vultures use the internet by welcoming them into her home. Meanwhile, her husband finds a way to make a buck out of them. Beauty.
It's election day in Canada and I'm one of those swing voters that the media and politicians keep talking about.
All right, all right, stop rolling around on the floor. I know most of my friends and all of my enemies think I'm somewhere right of George W. Bush, but the fact is I vote Liberal or Conservative when the occasion suits me. My most recent Liberal vote was in the Ontario election. I voted for McGuinty because he was the "other guy," as opposed to butthead Conservative John Tory who had the election in the bag until he announced a faith-based schools program. Somewhere, there's failed Conservative candidates still throwing darts at his photograph.
Generally, I vote for the issues first and the candidate second. I'm willing to overlook minor "scandals" like smoking pot in college or other stuff from pre-political days. But the second I get suspicious that you might raise taxes, increase the size of government, nationalize almost anything, stifle my right to free speech, or otherwise be a pain in the ass, you're outta here.
I've never been a fan of the parliamentary system. The British gave it to us and we should have handed it back. It stinks.
I chuckle whenever Canadians freak out about the separation of church and state. So the guy says "God" once in a while. Who cares? That's nothing compared to the fact that the parliamentary system has no separation of legislative and executive authority.
The parliamentary system is tyranny in a prom dress. It's a system for cronies. Let's say I like the leader of the Conservative party, but the MP in my riding is a total jerk. The way it works in Canada, I have to vote for the jerk in order to elect their leader PM. I may get the PM I want, but now I have to listen to the jerk for the next four or five years.
My fondness of a republican system comes from a desire for the separation of the legislative and executive branches of government. This puts lots of names on the ballot. Voting for a "party" as opposed to a "person" has always smacked of totalitarianism. There's just something creepy about saying LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE when asked, "Who do you want to speak for your county and country?" Why can't I pick a different person for each, no matter which party they belong to? It would be nice to pick a person that I like for representing the nation, as well as someone from my hometown that will keep them in check and not kiss their butt all day.
Australia tried to go the republican route a while back, but it flunked. I doubt Canada will ever try it. Canada is too used to nuzzling the hand-out teat. For many Canadians, "tyranny of the majority" is not something to be questioned, but enjoyed. When Canadians elect a majority government, they like the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from passing laws with impunity.
Open debate? Vetoes? Legislators not completely in the hip pocket of their leader? What are these in a land where ABBA's "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme," could be a national anthem? Plus, let's face it: the Republican party in the US has so tainted the word "republican" for Canadians that most boneheads blanche when you say "republican system."
Last week the dialogue looked like this: "It's going into the toilet. It's the end of the word. We're finished. The kids can't go to college."
Today's dialogue: "I can get Morgan Stanley for how much?"
We'll see what tomorrow brings. Look for the Dow to dip in the next day or two as investors take profits. Also look for the news channels to keep the Dow index in the corner of the screen and scream bloody murder if it drops more than 100 points.
I hope you've caught on by now that for the media, a bad day for you is a great day for them. They want you frightened. Don't allow it.
The Chancellor will move to take control of the Royal Bank of Scotland today by injecting £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.
The Government is also expected to take over HBOS in the most dramatic extension of state ownership in the British economy since the war. The bank’s rescue takeover by Lloyds TSB appeared to be on the brink of collapse last night.
Sounds like a good idea to Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer: "Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said an administration proposal to inject federal money directly into certain banks, in effect partially nationalizing the banking system, "is gaining steam."
Does anyone remember the Republican and Democratic national conventions in the US? It was a little over five weeks ago. If you go back and look at all the transcripts of those long-winded speeches, you won't find much about the economy. There weren't any bullhorns blaring the words "Fannie Mae" or "Freddie Mac." Sure, you heard the usual political tripe about creating jobs and lowering taxes, but no one said, "It's clear that within 30 days, the entire global economy will be on the brink of collapse."
30 days ago, British PM Gordon Brown wrote a newspaper article talking about American politics. He didn't see fit to write an article warning you that his country's economy was going into the toilet. Must have slipped his mind.
Fast forward 30 days, and here we are. The US is purchasing financial institutions, the British government is buying banks, and taxpayers from all over the world are ponying up dough to keep the financial system alive.
Don't take my word for it. Here's more from the Times: As governments around the world scramble to prevent the collapse of the global financial system, Alistair Darling will unveil plans for a £40 billion “recapitalisation” of the banking sector.
"Recapitalization" is a technical term the government uses instead of saying, "Gimme."
I'd like to believe that no one saw this coming and that once the levee broke, whole countries were caught up in the flood. But isn't this starting to sound a little too pat? First the States, then the UK, then Japan, then the world. Suddenly the G7 (or is it 8 today?) has to have a meeting to save the planet. World leaders are burning up the phone lines in an attempt to make the global market whole again, and all of them agree that the only way to do it is to spend their people's cash and nationalize their financial systems.
I smell a rat.
First, let's say that it's all true. The world economy is going to collapse unless the governments do something about it. Your first question should be, "How do I fire all of these people as quickly as possible?"
None of them saw it coming? Are they for real? With leaders like these, we might as well just call ourselves lemmings and walk off a cliff. If they didn't see this disaster until the moment before it happened, they should all be out of a job. Certainly none of them should be in charge of fixing it.
When a small fishing store goes bankrupt, you can believe that the old guy behind the counter didn't watch the books. When a big company like Enron takes a bath, you discover that someone cooked the numbers and ripped people off. Are we now to believe that whole governments just tiptoed through the tulips and one day went, "Oh my. We're going to collapse in five minutes unless we spend trillions of dollars and take over the entire system."
Something doesn't smell right about the speed of it all. The news in the past three weeks has been full of the words "imminent" and "brink." I am reminded of The Godfather II, where Michael Corleone is cooly planning a hit on Hyman Roth. When told that Roth's dying anyway so what's the point, Michael replies, "The old man's been dying from the same heart attack for the last 20 years."
We're being told that the only way to save the global economy is to have governments immediately do whatever they wish. We simply have to take their word for it, and allow them to seize enormous amounts of power by spending tremendous sums of our money. They want this power now, and they want to spend the cash fast.
First, it was an American problem. Then it was a European problem. Then it was an Asian problem. Now it's the entire world's problem. Something tells me there were a few socialists in several of these countries that walked into their leader's office and said, "You'll never believe what the Yanks are doing. Sounds pretty good, huh?"
I think it should frighten you greatly that many governments can do this without a vote. Even if you're an American, it should give you great pause that a vast majority of US citizens told their representatives that they did not want any bailout bill to be passed, but their representatives passed it anyway. The American bailout bill in its final form went from 4 pages to 450 in a matter of days, which should scare you even more: just how many of these representatives even read the bill before passing it? I'm willing to bet that they only read the fine print: "Crisis equals opportunity."
Maybe I'm feeling a little suspicious because I've been on a few used car lots in my time. Taxpayers are now being treated like the schmoe sitting in the salesman's office, as he convinces you that if you don't take his offer straight away, all will be lost. He keeps the pressure up because he doesn't want you to leave his office and seek a better offer. He knows that if he lets you off the hook, you might cool down and see things differently. They're a con artist's moves, and they work.
These governments are practicing the same hard-sell tactics. Funny thing is, you don't even have to buy what they're selling. They'll do that for you. And once they've bought it, you'll never get it back.
I wonder upon what basis the BC Human Right Tribunal assesses that Maclean's Magazine and the Mark Steyn article is not based upon fact, since the magazine nor Steyn never offered any defence of its facts. I see that it's the acceptance of the "expert witnesses" produced by the complainants:
"We have accepted the expert evidence of Drs. Rippin and Ayoub that the Article contains historical, religious and factual inaccuracies...."
That's something I considered while reading the panel's "findings." Was this panel interested in prosecuting discrimination, or were they writing a book report for ninth grade English Lit?
You can read their findings in this 51-page document. It takes you on a meanering walk through the mind of a bureaucrat. Lots of subsection-this, italics-case that, putting a lawyer's capital A on Article to sound cool throughout, so forth. Like most bureaucrats, they try to come off as experts on everything. I love the language in this bit:
The Article expresses strong, polemical, and, at times, glib opinions about Muslims, as well as world demographics and democracies.
And I, like to use, at times, many commas, when I write about important, really important, topics, like whether, or not, it's even possible, to be glib, about world demographics.
What cracks me up about the human rights thugs is this desire to play Expert. Yet in their appendix, the only thing they quote is Steyn's book. So much for looking into those historical and factual inaccuracies. The least they could have done was Google it.
How do they know that Steyn's article is "glib?" Because they say it is: "It contains few scholarly trappings..."
Ha! Take that, Steyn. Not only are you a smear merchant, you're also a dope.
Fact is, the human rights thugs are D-U-M-M dumb when it comes to "scholarly trappings." Take a look at this hilarious analysis: " Read objectively, the tone and content of the Article was not nearly as offensive as some of the Internet blogs which post-dated it. While such blogs do provide some evidence that the Article exposed the complainants to hatred and contempt..."
Somewhere in Steyn's article there must have been a message in invisible ink: "After reading my Article (capitalized to sound legal and cool) you must go and blog about Muslims. Use plenty of hatred or contempt."
How is it possible that a blog written by some dude in Jersey shows that Steyn's article exposed the complainants to hatred? If anything, the article - excuse me, Article - exposed the blogger to hatred because he was the one who blogged about it.
The best part of the book report comes in section 158. This one's a beauty: "The Article may attempt to rally public opinion by exaggeration and causing the reader to fear Muslims, but fear is not synonymous with hatred and contempt."
I'm still slapping my knee over that one. Honestly, it's the laugher of the year. Let me get this straight: I'm not allowed to write a blog telling people to hate Muslims or Jews, but I am allowed to write a blog telling people that they should run and hide if they meet a Muslim or a Jew? Please explain how that wouldn't be contemptuous of either of them.
The tribunal can't explain that, of course. After reading this latest of verdicts, you come to see they they can't explain anything at all. In fact, they've painted themselves into one hell of a corner:
"Why did you burn a cross on that man's lawn? Do you hate him?"
"No. He freaks me out. Gives me the heebie-jeebies."
I just got back to Canada and heard that the latest installment of Steyn Wars has wrapped up. In case you don't remember what the Steyn Wars are all about, you can read one of my re-caps here.
I wrote that piece back on June 2nd. Four months later the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has turned in their verdict on Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine (the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission already punted). The question put to the tribunal was this: "Did Steyn's article, and Maclean's printing of it, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt?"
Their answer:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.
There's two ways you can take that. 1) the tribunal punted, wanting the whole Steyn affair to go away so they could carry on with life. 2) the tribunal weighed the "evidence" and made a good, fair decision.
Either way, you're screwed. Here's why:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified. If you're a believer in free speech, then that statement tells you everything you need to know. The "panel" believes it is in their power to hear complaints about written words, and weigh them as to their political correctness. This time, apparently, the complaints weren't justified. Next time they could be. You have no way of knowing when or if you've written something that will land you in front of the tribunal until you land in front of the tribunal. So it's still a case of "write at your own risk."
...the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. There's that magic word again. Likely. How do you possibly prove or disprove that something is likely to expose you to anything? It's completely subjective. The fact that the tribunal is still using the Likely Rule shows they have learned nothing from this fiasco. Nothing, that is, except that they enjoy having absolute power over whomever they accuse, try and convict in the court of public opinion and in the tribunal's shadowy realm of righteous political thought. Likely covers all the bases. Likely keeps them in business. Note too that the panel does not say Steyn isn't a bigot worth shutting up. They're just saying the complainants didn't establish it well enough.
This time hatred or contempt was unlikely. Next time, it could be likely. And notice that two-letter word "or." What if hatred will be unlikely, but contempt likely? Or vice versa? In any case, every time you put pen to paper you have remind yourself that you can be seen as being contemptuous of someone, somewhere.
That's their goal, of course. Fear. I don't think it matters a whit to the tribunal if they ever hear another case. Their point is to put that germ of an idea in your head: think twice before you speak your mind. Be worried. Be afraid. What does fear get them? Control. Once in a while the tribunal may have to throw someone under the bus to get their point across, but it will never be someone famous ever again. Bet on that.
I've seen some gloating in the blogosphere, as some writers poke their thumb in the eye of the tribunal. Steyn has a list of them on his site. Many of these writers believe that the tribunal's showing its true colors. They're laughing at the tribunal's cynicism. I'm not sure why, since it's obvious that the tribunal has scored another win.
For the human rights bureaucrats, their Steyn troubles are over. It was probably the last high profile case they will ever hear. Never again will they allow themselves to be dragged into the mainstream press like this. Far better for them to stick to nobodies like tavern owners, bloggers, and small time politicos.
In short order, the media's interest in these star chambers will die down to nothing. Being good bureaucrats, the tribunal released news of this decision on a Friday at 3pm EST, heading into a weekend and right before a Federal election. This news will be buried by Saturday afternoon, and by Monday morning it will be forgotten completely.
Canada's human rights bureaucrats might be power hungry thugs, but they aren't idiots. Bloggers beware. For you, it's still open season, and probably will be from here on out.
I swung by Drudge for a quick look at the headlines and saw the name "Kirk Douglas."
For some reason, I forgot that Kirk was still around. Shameful, but true. Anyway, here's a line from The Hollywood Reporter that made me smile, and not for political reasons:
THR: Who do you support for president today?
Douglas: I don't say. On my MySpace page, I encourage young people to participate and to study, but I don't want to impose my views on them.
What popped out of my mouth when I read that line was, "Kirk Douglas has a MySpace page?"
Maybe I haven't been giving old folks enough street cred, but when a 91-year-old guy casually refers to his MySpace page, you know that the internet has completely dominated the world of media, information, and identity.
I first signed up for an email address about 11 or 12 years ago. It feels like triple that.
I am taking a week off from blogging about US politics.
Sometimes you can get too close to this stuff. You start to lose your perspective and your sense of humour. That's why I don't trust reporters and TV pundits. They get so deep into the swamp that there's no way they can stay in touch with reality. They eat, sleep and breathe the news, and all of their conversations and phone calls are about politics. Within weeks, they forget that there is life outside of a studio and a laptop, and that regular people like plumbers and bakers even exist (and no, the guy that whips up the cookies at Starbucks is not a baker).
Over the past several months, I've blogged off and on about the US presidential election, but mainly stayed away from it until September. I was waiting for September to hit, because that is when things always get going.
I wasn't disappointed. September hit, and so did Palin, instantly sending my interest into the stratosphere. I think Governor Palin has opened up a political discussion that would never have happened if she wasn't in the race. I think that her presence has exposed the transparency of so many people, especially the so-called feminists. That discussion will continue for the next three weeks, or the next 4 years. One way or the other, I think it's a good thing, and it's changed the political landscape at least in the short term.
That said, I need to take a break from the race, because I don't know what I saw tonight. I know it was a debate between Obama and McCain, but what kind of debate? To hear a Republican presidential candidate say he wants to blow $300 billion on buying home mortgages is obscene. To hear a Democratic presidential candidate say he will attack Pakistan with or without provocation if he thinks there's terrorists there, but not really attack them, but yes attack them, but no, not invade them, but yes, attack them, but diplomacy would be nice, but yes, attack them...Iraq bad, Afghanistan good, Iraq bad, Darfur yes, Iraq no...
What the hell is this?
To top it off, they were both boring. Boooooooring. I don't know what it takes to get a presidential candidate passionate about the job, but I figure that domestic and international crises should do the trick. Apparently not. If two wars and an economic meltdown can't put a politician's pants in a twist, I don't know what will.
I found myself wishing Palin were debating Obama, or Hillary debating McCain. Passionate people that give a damn about the gig. Instead we were treated to a snooze-fest by two guys that don't know what the hell to do to lead the United States of America, and proved it with every generic, oh-so-safe answer they threw on the floor.
On points I would have given this debate to McCain, as he had more specifics than Obama. But that $300 billion mortgage trick he pulled out of his hat was just plain weird.
A long time ago, I wrote "Hillary for President." I was only half kidding. Now I'm not. The election needs a do-over. Hillary as Prez and Palin as her veep. Maybe two passionate women can actually shake the establishment out of its slide into a morbid malaise.
So, a week off. Time to re-energize, shake my head, and take another look when people might actually have something to say. I doubt it, but we'll see.
As luck would have it, I'm heading back to Canada just when the election up there is getting down to the wire. I'd love to say I'm interested, but I don't know if I can be bothered with that election either. Watching two political parties act like fools reminds me that the fifty political parties up north must make this election look like a bike ride.
Megyn Kelly, on FOX: "I don't know if you've been watching the news, but it's been getting ugly, folks."
Really, Megyn? Is the election getting ugly? Say it ain't so. Please, Megyn, don't chew your manicured nails down to the nub.
The "getting ugly" talk from the press has increased tenfold in the last two weeks. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, the papers, the mags, the websites, they're all anxious and concerned about how "ugly" the election's become.
Gimme a break.
For the media, every election cycle goes like this: "I hope it doesn't get ugly....Do you think they're getting ugly?...Looks like they're getting ugly...This is really getting ugly...This is the ugliest election ever!"
Hypocrites. The press love it when a campaign gets down in the gutter. If they didn't, they wouldn't report it and "analyze" it fifteen hours a day. It especially floors me when I hear reporters say, "This election is the ugliest ever," as if we've forgotten how ugly it was last time...and the time before that...and the time before that.
You sometimes hear pundits say that they want a return of yesteryear, when politicians were gentlemen and people had boundaries. What BS. Every election gets ugly. They always have and they always will. And, if it makes the faint hearted feel any better, the ugly talk of today is nothing compared to the old days. Half the reason I enjoy reading presidential biographies is not because of the history, but because they give me good material to use for cheapshots at the pub.
Let's take a stroll through the halls of Honor and Decency. Think of the internet headlines these beauties would make today:
1796 to 1800: Jefferson and Adams had a number of free-for-alls in the first contested presidential elections (Washington ran unopposed; it was after he stepped down that the muckraking tradition started). Media friendly to Adams said Jefferson was a coward and an atheist. The papers said Jefferson represented "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin." Jefferson's people retorted by saying that Adams wanted to scrap the Constitution and become king. They also said Adams wanted to import two English mistresses, while the Adams fans responded by saying that Jefferson wanted to legalize prostitution, had an affair with one of his slaves, and favoured incest.
1828: A Whig publication said that Andrew Jackson was a slave trader, and the husband of a "really fat wife." Jackson was used to insults on his wife. In 1806, he shot Charles Dickinson dead for 1) insulting his wife, and 2) a horse racing debt. The story goes that Jackson's political opponents convinced Dickinson to insult Jackson's wife, thereby drawing him into the duel. Bad move. Jackson's people weren't adverse to insulting others, though. When he ran against John Quincy Adams, they labelled Adams "The Pimp," and accused him of putting gambling furniture in the White House. It was pool table. Adams' people replied that Jackson's mother was a prostitute brought to the US by British soldiers, and that he was the son of a mulatto man that his prostitute mother had secretly married.
1844: Polk v. Clay: Polk's supporters declared that Clay had broken every one of the Ten Commandments, that he spent his days at the card table, and his nights in a cathouse.
1860: Even Honest Abe didn't escape the tossed mud salad. Opponents called him, "Honest Ape" and a newspaper declared that he was the "most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame."
1876: Hayes v. Tilden. Enemies of Rutherford B. Hayes spread a rumour that he once flew off the handle and tried to shoot his own mother. Hayes' supporters said that Tilden was an alcoholic who suffered from syphilis.
1884: Opponents of Grover Cleveland said he was born a bastard and heckled him with the chant, "Ma, Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?"
I wrote a couple of days ago that I believed Barack Obama when he said that he found Bill Ayers' acts "detestable."
After I published that post, the line stuck in my craw and I've been thinking about it since. I turned it over and over in my head, and tonight I turned it over some more. I finally asked myself a hypothetical:
Self, let's say you're looking to get into Canadian politics. You're looking for people to hook up with, people that can help your career. You meet a man named Joe Smith, and you work with him on community projects. Before or during this time, you find out that he once founded a terrorist group.
His targets included the Canadian parliament and the Ottawa police headquarters. Nobody was killed in the attacks, but men and women ran screaming for their lives. They were terrorized, and targeted for death. You find out that Joe fully admits the terrorist activity, and does not regret it. So, self, would you still use this man to help you with your political career? Would you accept a job offer from the man, and hand out money for him to various political causes? Further, would you use his house as a place for a political meeting? And after that, would you take the stage with the man at a university in order to discuss education policy? Would you describe your relationship as "friendly?" Would you, in short, support this man?
Then I changed the framing:
What if a friend of mine was looking to get into politics, and he told me about his political supporter, Joe Smith. If I found out Joe Smith's history, what would I say to my friend?
I know exactly what I'd tell him: "Are you out of your bloody mind? Get away from that guy. Don't walk. Run."
These thoughts occurred to me as I watched CNN. Tonight's coverage really got to me. David Gergen, a former presidential adviser, called Bill Ayers a "former" terrorist, and said the public wouldn't care about the man's history with Obama because the economy was more important. Anderson Cooper asked one of his correspondents if it really mattered, because Ayers and Obama had raised money for education. Another correspondent said that McCain was just mudslinging about ancient history, and that it would backfire and end his chances for the White House. Over on Fox, Alan Colmes' first question in defense of Obama was a sarcastic and leading, "Did anyone die in the attacks? Was anyone killed?"
Good grief. Defend Obama if you wish, but don't turn it into a defense of the terrorist guy just because he didn't pile up a body count.
And it hit me: is this what we've become? So damn partisan that a man who targeted his fellow citizens can be called a "former" terrorist, and if he later raises money for a school curriculum of his choosing (The Peace School) it lets him off the hook? I'm afraid we've reached the point where a politician can chuck a kid off a skyscraper and his supporters will defend him for teaching the kid to fly.
For me, there is no grey area on this. If any politician, of any party, worked or otherwise hung out with a man who tried to blow up his fellow citizens, I would tell that politician that he's an ass.
In the end, I suppose I believe Obama when he says that he found Ayers' acts "detestable." The point for me now is that he didn't find them detestable enough to walk away from the man as soon as he realized what the man had done. That bothers me.
The news is all bad, all the time. We're told another Great Depression is around the corner. People are scared. The answer appears to be a guy named Obama, because he has a (D) beside his name. Throw in a drought or another few hurricanes and maybe we'll all be serfs again.
It's kind of funny that while the US economy tanks, the US dollar is at its highest point against the Euro in 13 months. The more I read, the more I figure it will be Europe that collapses long before the USA. The European Union looks like a good idea on paper, until you realize that it only exists on paper. Ireland, France, Germany, they can all do whatever they want with their economies. They don't have to follow each other's rules, making it extremly difficult to run a true economic union. How do you have a union when you're not united in anything except the word "Euro?"
This is a global problem, but the USA always makes for better headlines. As long as Bush is in the White House, you won't find blame being assigned anywhere except on Pennsylvania Avenue. The rest of the world is merely incidental.
I took a drive through a quiet California town this afternoon. Small diners, small cafes, small houses. Small. I wondered how many of them are leveraged to the hilt and shaking in their boots about losing it all? I'll bet not many.
I ate at a deli and had a cup of coffee before walking the streets for a bit. Nobody in the deli was talking politics and the only thing beaming in from the outside world was the satellite radio above the counter. Soft rock, no commercials.
You look in the eye of the girl making sandwiches. She has a face like a pin cushion, and there's tattoos all over her arms, but you know she'll be fine. She'll always be fine. She runs the place better than any drill sergeant, and her sandwiches taste like heaven. While the stock brokers cry and the reporters lament the collapse of America, she'll knock the price of pastrami-on-rye down 25 cents and carry on. The more I hear about bankers and other assorted whiners, the more I think a deli girl with face piercings would be able to sort things out in no time.
Think I'm joking? The reality of these economic troubles is that all of the very clever people got very careless and very stupid. They did this to themselves, and they're panicking. They have absolutely no idea what to do, except beg for money and hope for the best. Lord knows how often they avoided eye contact with panhandlers on the way to their swanky offices. Now that they're just another bunch of beggars, I'll bet they still do. A collapsing stock market might take your money, but it doesn't seem to provide a sense of irony.
I didn't see too much fear in people's faces while hanging around the small town. That doesn't mean they aren't freaked out about losing their life savings, it just means it doesn't look like it. People are still living, shopping, eating, driving. They don't strike me as the begging type, nor as the type to put themselves in that position in the first place.
Then I get back to the hotel, turn on the news, and they're telling me to buy a lot of underwear because I'm going to be crapping myself for the next year or two. They tell me that everyone's scared stiff, then flash the dropping Dow, then tell me people are scared, then the Dow, then the fear, then the Dow. Prophesy, meet self fulfillment.
I wonder how the news people know that everyone's scared, because I didn't see anyone from CNN hanging around the small town (Main Street, they call it; as if any reporter's been there since they left home for journalism school). They say there's another Great Depression on the way, people will be broke in no time, there's no way out of this mess, it's the end of life as we know it. So I flip the channel and Paul Konerko smacks a homer over the left field wall of US Cellular field, and the sold-out Chicago crowd goes wild.
I think about the people in the small town, and I wonder if it's all one big joke we're telling ourselves. It's nice to believe that regular, innocent people became victims in this mess, but a lot of responsibility has to lie with the people who lived way beyond their means and wanted to live beyond their means. How much of this disastrous news is for their benefit - misery loving company, so forth - and will it ever sink in that the market must right itself over the coming months to make up for how badly they tried to scam it?
Hard hearted? I guess. Listen, there's a lot of people with a few grand in the bank, a decent two bedroom house, a couple of five-year-old cars, and one credit card in their wallet. They're doing fine, though not so fine as yesterday because their money is now being used to bail out people that wanted a four bedroom house, two SUVs, five credit cards, and a college education for their kid as long as it was at the best school in the country. Or they're bailing out someone exactly like themselves, but with this difference: their doppleganger wasn't happy with the two-bedroom pad, and wanted more than they could ever afford.
Standing over all them all are the charlatans that thought they could get rich by exploiting them, and the social engineers who thought they could manufacture happiness (not to mention votes) by offering something for nothing. Until the bill came due.
So who's the victim? Yesterday's wanna-be that showed off fancy duds and a two-car garage, or the small town deli owner that has to save the wanna-be's ass?
While driving along the slow state highway, an old song kept playing through my head. Warren Zevon wrote it, but Dwight Yoakam did an excellent cover of it a few years back. It's called Carmelita. Exchange "Uncle Sam" for "Carmelita," and "hubris" for "heroin." Maybe you'll get my drift.
The Cubs blew it again, swept by a suddenly hot Dodgers club.
I can't say I'm disappointed. The Dodgers are the only NL team I like, and I hope they make it to the Series.
As for the Cubs, it's another pathetic end to a good season.
Here's a pretty good recap of 100 years of frustration. The lyrics need to be updated, though, because the video was made before last night's flame out.
A while back, I wrote to some politicians to see what they thought of the human rights commissions. In one email, I wrote to Bonnie Brown, a longtime Liberal MP bureaucrat. Here is the response I received after waiting a few weeks:
I'm not familair with the specific case you've quoted.
In general though, I support the fundamental operating principles of the Human Rights Commissions which is to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination and to develop and conduct information and discrimination prevention programs. However, I agree that they should not overstep their bounds.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns about this matter.
Bonnie Brown
That last line of hers is a bureaucrat's way of saying, "Done. Now piss off."
Here was my response:
Well, there goes my vote. "Not familiar with the specific case."
Ever heard of Google?
From now till the election, I will be sure to tell people not to vote for you.
Thank you, Sean
I am getting a little more ticked with politicians with each day that goes by. It's time to write to all of them and put them on the record. I was watching Ted Nugent on CNN the other night. He's an old time rocker, but he's gotten into politics over the years. In his interview, he said that he enjoys taking his tax return down to his representative's office, sitting down, and saying, "All right. Where's my money going?"
We need to do more of this. Career politicians need to be reminded why they have an expense account in the first place.
Note to single guys: if you need to move, here's some cities you might find interesting.
The report was released by Sterling's Best Places, a real estate site that is betting sex drive beats mortgage fears. The number represents the percentage of the population that is "single."
1 San Francisco, CA 44.7 2 Detroit, MI 44 3 New York, NY 39.8 4 Boston, MA 39.2 5 New Orleans, LA 39.1 6 Los Angeles, CA 37.7 7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 37.2 8 Las Vegas, NV 37 9 Miami, FL 36.9 10 Albuquerque, NM 36.8
And here are the cities with the biggest gender gap.
1 McAllen, TX 28% more women 2 El Paso, TX 27% more women 3 Memphis, TN 17% more women 4 Bethesda, MD 17% more women 5 San Jose, CA 17% more men 6 Birmingham, AL 16% more women 7 New York, NY 16% more women 8 Baltimore, MD 16% more women 9 Little Rock, AR 16% more women 10 Columbia, SC 15% more women
"She learned how to shovel her bullshit better." - Alec Baldwin, on HBO.
"Here's a few lines from Sarah Palin [roll edited one second clips meant to make her look dumb]." - David Letterman (immediately following a different clip called "Palin Debate Recap," and immediately preceding the "Top Ten Messages Left on Sarah Palin's Answering Machine," which itself immediately preceded an interview with Brian Williams from NBC News which concentrated on...Sarah Palin).
"Which of these is not the name of one of Sarah Palin's children? Bristol, Track, or Rifle?" - Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
That's just a few bits I can remember from some late night flicking in the past half-hour. So what does all of this tell me, besides that Dave Letterman is sexually frustrated and wants to nail the Governor of Alaska?
It tells me that no matter how much Palin may be despised by the Left, she is sure getting their attention. A lot of their attention.
Interesting. If she was just a regular flake, they would insult her, ignore her, and move on with the show. If she was truly a buffoon cut from Dan Quayle cloth, you'd hear one or two jabs, and that would be it. But whenever Palin opens her mouth, the entire television universe spends days pouring over her every word. She's like some strange alien that has landed in their midst. "Bears children? Shoots guns? Has an accent? Says funny things like 'soccer game' and 'you betcha?' Hmm. Let us be wary of this beast."
David Letterman now spends almost a quarter of his show discussing Sarah Palin. He delights in replaying her saying that she is just another "Joe Six Pack," though it is Joe Six Pack that pays his salary. I wonder if he knows that, or if decades of living in a swanky New York mansion have obliterated his memories of Indiana.
I channel surfed some cable news this afternoon and watched as they flipped back and forth between "economic meldown" and "who won the debate?" Even as the economy continued to tank, Fox, MSNBC, and CNN couldn't help themselves: they had to keep returning to the topic of Sarah Palin. They didn't spend much time on Biden, beyond a standard "he did well." It was all about Palin. Naturally it was mostly negative press, but there was a constant flow of it.
The media's intense interest in Sarah Palin is shared by the public. Last night, close to 70,000,000 people watched the Palin/Biden debate. That is the highest rated VP debate ever, and it beat the Obama/McCain debate by 33%. Only two other presidential debates come close: Clinton-Perot-Bush in 1992, and Reagan/Carter in 1980 (truly mammoth, with over 80 million viewers and back when the population was a lot smaller, too).
The media bigshots virtually all agree that Palin lost the debate with Biden. There's several polls out that say the public thinks so too, by differing margins. Me, I'm not so sure. There's something about this microscopic scrutiny of her that makes me think two things. One, she is seen as a grave threat to those who don't share her beliefs, and it forces them to discuss her and more importantly think about her. Two, not everyone may like her, but they all want to hear what she says next.
In politics, that's always a good thing. Yet there's a strange irony here. If Palin's stardom and interest continues to rise, she may become the de facto top of the ticket in people's guts if not in their heads. One has to ask: if the Republican ticket becomes the Palin ticket, will they still vote for McCain?
The Rays impressed me. It was their first playoff game in franchise history, and they didn't show a trace of nerves. They beat Chicago 6-4, and they made it look pretty easy.
Evan Longoria sat dead red on a fastball and a curve and knocked both of them out of the park. If he stays hot, they'll take the White Sox in a sweep, perhaps losing just one back in Chicago.
That last line is total BS, of course, as baseball is an incredibly unpredictable game. But for the Rays, so far, so good. As always, I am rooting for a team out of the AL East as long as it isn't the hated Red Sox.
As for the Cubs. Well...they're the Cubs. 4 errors at home is not the way to win a baseball game, and they proved it by losing 10-3 to the Dodgers. Now the Cubbies are 1 loss away from being knocked out of the post-season.
The Cubs haven't won a World Series in 100 years. Think about that. 100 years. 90-year-old men have been born, cheered for the Cubs their entire lives, and died without seeing a Series victory. Right now there's got to be a 98-year-old Cubs fan sitting in the old folks home saying, "Please, Lord. Please let this be the year." Bummer.
The only way I would like to see Boston back in the World Series is if the Dodgers beat the Cubs and get to the Series as well. Then we'll see Manny being Manny against his old team, and the storyline will be fantastic. Provided the Dodgers win, of course.
Silly me. What was I thinking when I said a bailout would be a joke? Surely I knew that the government would ride to the rescue of the American people with nary a thought for their own pork barrels and political biases.
Here's the latest. It took one week for this bailout bill to grow from 3 pages to 450. Why all the extra ink? Well, you need more space to pen stuff like this. From Politico:
And tucked away in the tax provisions is a landmark health care provision demanding that insurance companies provide coverage for mental health treatment—such as hospitalization—on parity with physical illnesses.
Really a bill onto itself, the mental health parity measure has been a bipartisan priority for top lawmakers in both chambers but has stalled because of disagreements again over how to pay for its estimated $3.8 billion five-year cost. In the current climate, that seems to be no longer a stumbling block, and if the Treasury plan becomes law, it will also.
Got that? When you whip up a climate of crisis, you can knock so many stumbling blocks out of the way. A little sky-is-falling talk paves the way for passing legislation on any pokers you've got in the fire.
Need a law on Wall Street corruption and bad loans? No problem. But you're going to get a health care law to go with it, at a cost of $3.8 billion. The lesson is clear: if you're having a hard time finding tax money to pay for a pet project, wait for the next "catastrophe" and hide your project on page 257.
The public won't care. Hell, they won't even notice. Once you frighten them into submission and tell them the clock is ticking, they won't bother going through 450 pages to root out the garbage. At least, you'd better hope not.
Ever wonder why politicians love the word "crisis?" It means "opportunity."
I've spent the last two months blogging about the US election. It's a good thing I held off until September, or I'd be totally burned out by now. Still, pondering the ups and down of this election cycle is nothing compared to the worrisome news that I got last night.
