The OK Morale

The People Speak: Watch it and thank me later

2009-12-17T11:30:00.005-05:00

I don't often get giddy over anything I watch on television. Typically I only watch news shows and the policy wonk type of stuff you only get on PBS.

That being said, I'm going to throw the full weight of TOKM behind The People Speak on The History Channel.

It's an awesome look at U.S. history through the eyes of those who stood to lose the most and gain the least, no matter the outcome of our country's watershed events.

It's narrated by one of my favorite authors, the infamous Howard Zinn. He's more of a patriot than I'll ever be, but he's hated just the same by the sheepish "my country, right or wrong" crowd.

I'm sure most of you have read "The People's History of the United States," but Zinn has also written several other books on a range of topics that are good reads.

I won't give much away, but my favorites parts are as follows:

1.) The rendition of a speech given by John Brown after his siege on Harper's Ferry. Brown's is a great story and worth reading. He got put to death for what hundreds of thousands ostensibly died for just a few years later: the abolition of slavery. I recently drove to Harper's Ferry (which is now in West Virginia) to be near the setting for the signal event of the Civil War.

A side note: One of my favorite poems is by Herman Melville and about the hanging of Brown. I put this baby to memory years ago, but it's fading.

THE PORTENT

by: Herman Melville (1819-1891)

Hanging from the beam,
Slowing swaying (such the law),
Gaunt the shadow on your green,
Shenandoah!
The cut is on the crown
(Lo, John Brown),
And the stabs shall heal no more.

Hidden in the cap
Is the anguish none can draw;
So your future veils its face,
Shenandoah!
But the streaming beard is shown
(Weird John Brown),
The meteor of the war.

2.) John Legend performs "No More Auction Block."

So, set your DVRs or do whatever you have to do to see this.

Obama's political life hinges upon KSM trial? Pat thinks so

2009-11-18T09:45:00.003-05:00

This, my friends, is how you write a column.

In a recent WorldNet Daily column, Pat Buchanan lays out the political ramifications of the Justice Department's decision to give a civilian trial to 9-11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Buchanan writes:

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

And then there's this:

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.

This is a mistake, in my opinion, with the potential to be a calamity for Obama. Honest to God, I don't know who is advising this man.

The claims 'are ridiculous': How the federal stimulus plan has done nothing for Michigan

2009-11-15T14:01:00.003-05:00

Is it any wonder that an increasing number of Americans don't trust their government to run anything?

Remember the near $800 billion dollar stimulus package that was supposed to be the cure-all for the American economy? Well, it has been an abysmal failure. It has not jump-started the economy or created jobs -- the unemployment rate has only gotten higher.

Why? Because the money didn't go into job creation. It went somewhere else, though no one really knows where.

Look at Michigan and its worst-in-the-nation economy for proof that the stimulus was a total debacle.

Just this morning the Detroit Free Press published a story that said, in essence, that the stimulus practically created ZERO jobs for this state.

From FREEP:

WASHINGTON -- Seven months into the massive federal stimulus program, the vast majority of government grants, contracts and loans in Michigan so far have created or retained virtually no jobs, a Free Press analysis shows.

The analysis also revealed that others who have been promised or have received stimulus money have overstated -- in some cases greatly -- the number of jobs created or protected.

Obama administration and state officials say it's too early to draw conclusions about the overall impact of the $787-billion nationwide program to stimulate the economy and generate jobs. They promise that job growth will follow as more funding arrives.

"It looks to us like the program is unfolding much as we hoped in Michigan," said White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein.

Just as you hoped? That's the single most idiotic statement I've read all year. Come to Michigan Mr. Bernstein and revise your statement.

Are man-made carbon emissions off the hook? One scientist thinks so

2009-11-13T10:52:00.004-05:00

If you're like me, you're probably somewhat tired of all the climate change/global warming misinformation coming out of the talking heads all over the world.

For me, it's not a very difficult issue to comprehend:

Has there been an increase in the temperature of the globe of late: Yes.

Have we seen marked, if still mostly subtle, changes in global climates: Yes.

Who's responsible for most of it: Not us.

Honestly, it's the height of human arrogance to suggest that we, the people of earth, are so significant that we could be responsible, in any substantial way, for global warming (or global coolng, for that matter).

Recently, a geologist in Australia made the case that the "recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other 'extra terrestrial' forces."

Imagine that, forces outside of our charge and (and even our planet) are responsible for a faux phenomenon that we've been trying to take the blame for all this time?

An economist would approach the issue this way: How much are we responsible for (i.e. what we can control)? Once we've established that, do the benefits of alleviating our miniscule role in global climate change outweigh the costs of the alleviation? The answer, most likely, will be a resounding no.

Some have suggested that, at minimum, 1.5 percent of global GDP should be reserved for reversing global warming. That's 1.5 percent of $61,000,000,000,000.00 folks. We'd be better off investing in giant plastic ice cubes.

Is it too late for diplomacy with Iran?

2009-11-12T20:14:00.002-05:00

I spent 90 minutes this afternoon in downtown Detroit at a restaurant that's way too swanky for a guy like me. I was invited to be a part of a luncheon sponsored by the Jewish Community Council of Metro Detroit.

The council invited Hilary Krieger, the Washington Bureau Chief for the Jerusalem Post, to speak about the possibility of a peace deal being brokered in the region with the help of the new U.S. administration.

Afterwards, she opened up the floor for questions and I couldn't help but get in the mix.

Jared: What is the perception of the United Nations on the Israeli street? Does the U.N. have an credibility there with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Hilary: (and I'm paraphrasing) Absolutely not. The Israeli people think that the United Nations has been powerless to do anything of substance to rein in Iran. And she went on.

Of course, I pretty much knew what the answer would be before I asked. I was just struck that during the course of her entire 45-minute talk, she never mentioned the U.N. -- not once.

How impotent is this body? Iran has simply thumbed its nose as each and every U.N. resolution aimed at quelling their nuclear motivations.

Putting aside the U.N. as a somewhat benign variable, is time truly running short for diplomacy with Iran? I get the sense from Krieger that it is, and that the Israeli people are looking for a stronger stance on Iran from the American government.

It's scary to think that a military strike on Iran made be in the offing in mere months if nothing can be done diplomatically to solve the Iranian problem. It's the 500-pound gorilla in the room that most Americans, I believe, aren't paying a whole lot of attention to.

I'm afraid that it may be too late for diplomacy. I believe Israel may well be on the verge of taking military action against Iran. The Iranians cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, and Israel is the only country in the world willing to do what the western powers secretly know has to be done.

'O' No: My media man-crush went too far

2009-11-11T09:45:00.004-05:00

My television viewing habits are pretty predictable. Every weeknight I record two shows: Hardball with Chris Matthews for my politics fix and The O'Reily Factor for news and entertainment -- oh, and few ask hard questions to people in power these days like Bill O.

Last night, Matthews, during a discussion of the recent massacre at Fort Hood, wondered allowed if it's a crime to contact Al Qaeda. If it isn't, it certainly should be. That was about the maturity level of the whole handwringing discussion. The only storyline with respect to the massacre is this: How on earth was Major Hasan still active in the United States military in spite of all the outward signs that he was a threat?

To make matters worse, Bill O'Reilly inexplicably used the massacre as the centerpiece for his goofy News Quiz segment. You know, the one in which he brings in friends from the network to compete against one another to see who is more hip to current event.

In any event, it was in extremely poor taste and I'm surprised no one at the network thought it was over the top.

BILL: It hasn't even been a week since 13 U.S. troops were gunned down on American soil, and you want to make this tragedy the centerpiece of a goofy trivia game?

Go with the 3-wood, save the world

2009-11-10T14:16:00.006-05:00

In a recent study, scientists plumbed the depths of Loch Ness to uncover a near universal truth, unknown to many weekend warriors:

Go with the 3-wood, save the world.

From CNN:

Research teams at the Danish Golf Union have discovered it takes between 100 to 1,000 years for a golf ball to decompose naturally. A startling fact when it is also estimated 300 million balls are lost or discarded in the United States alone, every year. It seems the simple plastic golf ball is increasingly becoming a major litter problem.

This, of course, isn't an attack on my eco-conscience since I, unlike so many, hit the ball straight as an arrow (laugh).

It's no wonder that the degradation of golf balls is having a noxious affect on the environment; I mean, have you seen what they're making golf balls out of these days?

When I was a kid, I can still remember cutting into a golf ball and finding tightly wound rubber bands. I called them Balatas, because that's what Titleist decided to call theirs (though Titleist balls were too expensive for me). I didn't much care for them because they didn't travel very far. The new balls, the ones that got me the distance, were made of all sorts of stuff that I'd only heard about in science class -- stuff like this: surlyn, urethane, titanium and zinc.

And what about that number? 300,0000,000 golf balls are lost in the United States every year. Seriously, since most golfers are not very good (myself included), let's just be good citizens of the world and put away the driver.

Most people that I know can't hit the driver straight for love or money. Do the right thing, folks.

America could learn something about unemployment from Europe? That's rich

2009-11-09T15:04:00.002-05:00

I read this today and, I must say, I agree. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the American economy could stand to learn from the example of Europe with respect to joblessness.

How, after all, did we attack unemployment in America? We employed misguided stimulus packages that were practically toothless, extended unemployment benefits over and over again and passed out checks to old folks that could scarcely get them through a month at Old Country Buffet.

Europe, on the other hand, did something a little more sensible (for once).

From The Economist:

Europe’s policymakers, in contrast, appear to have a more coherent strategy: one which uses government money to subsidise a shortened work week, cuts labour costs and, in a few cases, offers tax subsidies to support new jobs. The OECD says 22 out of 29 of its member countries have extended support for workers on furlough, and 16 have cut payroll taxes and other social contributions. The countries doing these sorts of things are disproportionately in continental Europe.

God help you if you can't get behind a shortened work week.

The one-party system: America's "Green Party"

2009-11-08T09:07:00.003-05:00

Is anyone surprised that, in a recent sweep of the net worths of our elected national representatives, 237 are millionaires?

That's nearly half.

This speaks to the insulation of the powerful and how they are, in large measure, too ignorant and ill-equipped govern the common from the seats of the elite.

In America we have one party, in the strictest sense, full of elitists from the same class, directed by the unifying motivation of money and power.

From Politico:

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

Blame the system, not Obama

2009-11-06T14:17:00.011-05:00

A lot has changed in my life since I last opined in TOKM. I left my job at the Flint Journal to take a new position as a reporter working for the Archdiocese of Detroit.

I live in downtown Detroit and, rather than roaming the streets at night, I thought I should get TOKM rolling again.

Now then:

Recently, I've witnessed a change in my friend Chris Matthews. I've been watching the host of Hardball on MSNBC for many years and I consider him to be the most knowledge political commentator in the game.

That being said, I've seen Matthews go through an unexpected metamorphosis in the last two years. First, he sacked his reputation as somewhat objective when he started shilling for then candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential election.

These days, the thrill is, apparently, gone.

As the American economy continues to trudge along (unemployment now over 10 percent), fans of Obama, like Matthews, appear heartsick. This week, Matthews said that Obama looks more like a Clinton-style Democrat -- a pretty typical politician who plays golf with the bourgeoisie and dances for money at Wall Street fundraisers.

A good friend of mine, Patrick Hayes, commented that Matthews shouldn't be so naive and he's right. Matthews is far too intelligent, and has been around too long, to have been caught up in the Obama hysteria.

Patty, an intelligent man in a field beset by morons, wrote:

The thing is, there were signs all along that Obama was a pretty typical Democrat. I don't expect people who voted for the first time because they were excited about a minority candidate to understand this. I do expect Chris Matthews to understand. Look at his endorsements -- Kerry, Kennedy, etc. Would they have endorsed a guy who wasn't playing ball with them/the party? Would the teachers union have endorsed him if they really believed he was going to be able to implement a merit-based pay system in public education rather than seniority-based? Matthews, as a political journalist, didn't do his job, plain and simple. Intelligent people who pay attention to politics understood all along that Obama was simply just a Democrat candidate who happened to be a brilliant campaigner.

And this from a guy who, like so many, gushed over the possibility that Obama might be different. He was never a true believer, I suppose. He just genuinely believed that a good man, with a common lineage, could break the mold. How many of us felt the same way? I know I did.

But, there's more.

That many on the left, the true believers, are disappointed in President Obama is, I contend, a commentary on American bureaucracy and not on the man himself.

Sure, he set himself up for failure with grandiose political rhetoric, but all aspiring politicians do that -- though few are as articulate.

President Obama simply failed to grasp the power of inertia in the arena of governance in this country. His was a misunderstanding not of a popular desire to change, as so many still want it, but of his ability (or the ability of one man, one administration), to effect it.

It's an indictment of the system.

Just this week, I watched Ed Norton's HBO documentary on the Obama presidential campaign and I'd watch it again were it not so depressing. The film was as much about the Obama himself as it was about the legions of volunteers who gave over many months of their lives to work for the man they knew, beyond doubt, was a transformational candidate. He was something new, different, incorruptible even.

It's distressing to think about the true believers and what they think now. Are they coming to Matthews' realization? I hope not. I hope the lesson they're learning is about the nature of bureaucracy and not the failures (or lack of substantive change) of one man.

It's Max Weber (the Iron Cage) 2009 style. Bureaucracy leads to oligarchy and makes minions out of good men like Barack Obama.

I defy you to watch Norton's raw portrayal of Obama and not come away thinking that this is a good and decent man -- a good husband, father and friend. Opponents are quick to point to his connections to people who have said and done some pretty bad things as evidence that he is none of what I say he is. Here again, we need to come to the realization that the system by which we fashion our leaders is, like our bureaucracy, hopelessly corrupt. We take our best and brightest, make them wallow in the mud, and then are scandalized by the stains.

How many people just knew in their hearts that electing an African-American president was a giant leap for race relations in this country? That the system, itself founded upon inequality, would somehow resolve itself into something entirely different -- a society where race didn't matter that much.

Hope didn't heal the divide, though.

When Matthews voiced his dismay about Obama fitting in, one of his panelists responded as you might expect: "No one likes it, but that's our system."

That's our system, indeed.

Globalized: Are we more vulnerable?

2009-04-27T09:26:00.003-04:00

The answer, of course, is yes.

This is a topic I studied extensively in college and, truth be told, actually frightens me. It's much more rare to hear anyone talk about the potential costs of globalization than the benefits -- those have been clear for decades. Only now are we starting to realize what it all means.

Read this and consider the cost...

The financial crisis began as turmoil in one small segment of the US mortgage market. Within months it had morphed into a global meltdown affecting almost everyone on earth.

"The speed at which these events unfolded was unprecedented," said the World Economic Forum's 2009 report on global risk.

"It has demonstrated just how tightly interconnected globalisation has made the world and its systems."

Jerusalem Post: Why does Obama smile at dictators?

2009-04-22T14:03:00.004-04:00

This is an interesting read...

This is a tough one, in truth.

How, after all, can you be diplomatic with Hugo Chavez without appearing to kowtow to a dictator?

Obama's diplomacy is certainly a change from the Bush Administration's, but is it better?

I love this part:

And if Obama feels that he has to be the one to greet a man like Chavez, must it be with the kind of ear-to-ear grin that one might show girl scouts selling cookies? It must surely be disheartening for those who suffer oppression in countries like Venezuela, Cuba and Saudi Arabia to see the American president backslapping their oppressors when these victims have always looked up to the United States as their champions.

My fascination with Jim Jones knows no bounds

2009-03-31T17:50:00.006-04:00

It happened again last night.

When PBS aired its re-released documentary on the life of Jim Jones, I went into total shutdown mode. His life and the lives of his followers are so totally fascinating to me I had to watch it twice.

Jonestown: The life and death of People Temple can actually be viewed, in its entirety, online.

Initially, I was struck by the fact that I've actually been to Lynn, Indiana, where Jones was born and raised. As a child, I went on numerous vacations to Richmond, Indiana, with my family to visit one of my mother's best friends and her family.

Richmond is actually where Jones went to high school, but I can remember vividly being in Lynn as a little boy in 1986 and seeing the aftermath of a tornado that ravaged the small town.

In any event, it's just one of those weird connections.

The story of Jonestown is troubling on so many levels. It's a case study of the law of diminishing returns. It's scary to think that one deranged and charismatic individual could brainwash so many.

Emotions are scary things, especially when there are so many people in this world who seize upon them.

His story could scarcely be any more different than that of Clarence Jordan, whose integrated Kibbutz-like community preceded Jones by more than a decade. The difference between the two men, of course, is simple: one was a Christian and the other a false prophet.

He was a personalist dictator who seized upon human inadequacy. In his eyes, equality was expedient.

A few flicks to add to your watch list

2009-03-21T10:47:00.005-04:00

I'm no longer the movie buff I was as a child, but I'm not averse to renting DVDs from time to time. Here are a few of my latest picks:

Gran Torino: I actually saw this one at the theater with my girlfriend. She didn't want to go see it (though she didn't tell me that until afterward) but ended up loving it. This film might just be the best ever, at least dollar for dollar. It's easily the best low-budget film I've ever seen, in other words. Clint Eastwood gets credit as writer, actor, producer and director. GT was filmed in Detroit, in one of the scary neighborhoods I once took my AAU basketball team. It's a story about revenge and redemption. Check it out. (Try not to be offended by all the epithets.)

Manda Bala: This is a documentary about corruption and blowback in Brazil. Latin America has been long understand as a region of the world rife with corruption, but often Brazil is seen as the more enlightened and less austere country on the South American block. The film is a mix of corruption, violence and mind-numbing groupthink. Worst of all, it's real. Filmmakers follow a Brazilian plastic surgeon who specializes in the reconstruction of severed ears. The criminal element in Sao Paulo has made a cottage industry of kidnapping. Very often the ear of the captive is cut off and mailed to family members with the demand for money. This is a must-see film for anyone who has ever studied the politics of Latin America.

There will be Blood: I saw this film at the theater a year ago and recently watched it again on DVD. I'm still convinced that this is the film that should have won the Oscar for best picture last year, even though "No Country for Old Men" was a similarly great film. The film is a chronicle of the life of Daniel Plainview, a greedy California oil man at the turn of the 20th century. It's a film about the corrosive affects of money. It's extremely dark and certainly not a feel-good flick. It's based loosely on a book (Oil!) written by Upton Sinclair in the 1920s.

Mr. Smith goes to Washington: Jimmy Stewart stars as Mr. Smith in this 1939 film about inside the beltway Washington. It's the story of what happens to Washington D.C. in the prsence of an honest man and, perhaps more importantly, what happens to that honest man. It's arguably the most controversial film of the era. America needs another Mr. Smith in Washington.

Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains: This is a simple and effective documentary film of the life of Jimmy Carter. For much of the film, Carter is followed as he travels the country promoting his controversial book "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid." It's a very honest look at the man and a disposition that belies his stature in the world.

Remembering Dr. Matt

2009-03-18T21:14:00.006-04:00

For those of you who don't know, the Flint-area lost one of its best and brightest on Monday when Dr. Matthew Hilton-Watson collapsed and died in French Hall on the campus of the University of Michigan in Flint.

Dr. Matt was truly a one-of-a-kind.

I've taken college courses at four different institutions in my life and I can probably remember well no more than a small handful of professors. To truly remember someone, to me, is not simply recalling something they said or how they looked. It's much more than that. To remember, is to have had some knowledge of who they were on a personal level.

Dr. Matt was briliant and didn't know it. He was a cosmopolitan guy who loved nothing more than to talk about his favorite place in the world: Kentucky.

I've never seen a professor who loved being in the classroom more. And it wasn't that he enjoyed the attention, either. He thrived on the comaraderie -- the relationships he built with students.

Dr. Matt taught me a thing or two about French, but a lot more about life. He proved to me that elitism doesn't have to proceed from brilliance.

His love of the classroom was only bested by his love for his family, and never passed on an opportunity to talk about his kids.

Dr. Matt is still teaching, too. To read about what he meant to students, faculty and friends, check out this special page at UM-Flint's website.

The family of Professor Matthew Hilton-Watson has requested that the memorial service be held at the University of Michigan-Flint. The memorial service will take place on Friday, March 27 at 3:00 p.m. in the University Theatre. The entire campus community is invited to the celebration of Dr. Matt’s life and work.

Merry Christmas from the Field family of one

2009-03-03T21:00:00.003-05:00

Here's the thing: I've never sent a Christmas card in my life, but I've received a few. I know that many families send these cute little picture cards featuring each member, alongside the family pets, flanked by stockings in front of the fireplace. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the pictures; that being said, what I enjoy most is the letter that often accompanies the picture. You know, the one that gives you the rundown of everything everyone is doing with their life. With that in mind, I figured that I would write one of my own. After all, it has been a long time since I've written anything in this blog.

Here goes...

* I have been dating a beautiful 25-year-old CCU nurse named Jessi since round about November. I'd be more specific about the actual date, but it's hard to say when the relationship went from friendship to more than that. I liked her from the start; she liked me from about the 3/4 pole--forgive the horse racing reference. Neither of us is all too interested in moving fast, though you wouldn't know it by the way I fawn over her. In any event, I don't know where the relationship will take us, but I've sure been blessed to have her in my life for the past few months. We're actually a lot different, but I think that's what makes it exciting. I've learned a lot about myself since being with her; namely, I don't know what I'm doing in a relationship.

* I'm continuing in my position as a reporter/columnist/writer/blogger/photographer at the Flint Journal. I enjoy the work, but I also know that the prospect of staying there very much longer is pretty bleak. Newspapers are like the auto industry sans the federal bridge loans. I just don't have much confidence in the future of the Journal and morale is at an all-time low in that building. Even so, I've always been treated fairly by the Journal (heck, they've kept me around for like seven years) and I don't regret the time I've put in there.

* I've been writing a lot about politics in the past few months. It's becoming painfully obvious to me that my first love, at least with respect to hobbies, is politics. I always thought it was sports first and politics second, but I was wrong.

* I recently ordered testing materials for the LSAT. For those of you who don't know, it's the test you have to take to be accepted to any law school worth its salt in this country. I've mulled over the decision for quite some time, and I'm convinced that it's worth looking into. All my life people have told me that I should go into politics. One of my good friends, Mike Jones (a doctor in Pittsburgh), is convinced that I could go a long way in the arena, claming that I have "no skeletons in the closet." I guess the score will make the decision for me. If it's high enough, I will be eligible for all kinds of grants and scholarships. If not, I'll vacuum the turf at Toronto's Skydome or something.

* I'm still attending First Presbyterian Church in downtown Flint and I love it. I continue to be involved in the PIPE ministry and I also teach Sunday School to high schoolers every week. I cannot imagine a more relevant and involved church anywhere.

* I'm currently reading a book about Jesus to coincide with my Sunday School curriculum. I recently listened to an audiobook by Pat Buchanan and I am in the middle of another by Chris Matthews. That's knowledge moving right to left, friends. I also just watched one of the greatest films ever made: Mr. Smith goes to Washington (1939). If you haven't seen it, go grab a copy.

* Finally, I have only a little more than three weeks left of basketball season. If Mott Community College wins their regional tournament this weekend, I will be heading back to Danville, Illinois for the national tournament in a couple weeks. It's a unique little town and it would be my third trip in three years on the basketball beat at the Journal.

My weekend with Jessi, Jewel

2009-01-27T18:22:00.005-05:00

It's a fact that even Ripley would find hard to believe: I'd never been to a Jewel concert. I can say that in the past tense now, and it feels really good.

Here's the skinny: Last month Jessi (some of you know her as the girl I've been courting with varying degrees of success for months) instructed me to make sure I had January 23rd and 24th off from work. Why? Well, I wasn't totally sure.

All she told me was that she wanted me to attend the wedding of her friend from work on the afternoon of the 24th -- that was the extent of my information on the subject. I knew the who (though I didn't really know her), the what and the why. I didn't know the where, and that was a little odd.

That was the first mystery of many.

I kept asking why I needed free time on Friday, and she wouldn't sing. Finally Friday rolled around and she picked me up around five in the afternoon. That morning she left me a list of things I might need that included a passport or birth certificate.

Ok, who gets married in Canada (to my homosexual friends, my apologies)?

And so, we hopped in Rhonda (that's what we call her two-door Honda Civic) and headed south on I-75. Still listening to the Heroes soundtrack I got her, we arrived at the entrance to the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, paid the toll and answered the first of many questions from the border patrol.

The first one was the only one I cared about, though:

"What are your plans for the evening?"

Since Jessi was driving, it saved me the embarrassment (and possible incarceration) of shrugging my shoulders. Jessi told him that we were "going gambling", something I know now she doesn't even do -- unless you count dating chumps like me.

We arrived in Windsor around 7 p.m. and promptly made our way to probably the nicest restaurant I've ever been to. It was called Park Terrace (here's the virtual tour), comeplete with a dining area that overlooks the downtown Detroit Skyline, brighter than normal because of the North American International Auto Show at Cobo.

(Apart from the menu prices, this was my kind of joint. Everything they served was described in French and English. It gave me ample opportunity to show off my far above average French /r/.)

There were only five people in the restaurant at the time, so it was pretty quaint for a Friday night. The food at the Park Terrace was way out of my league, but I managed to eat some of it -- neither of us was as hungry as we should have been.

Somehow we managed to eat dessert (I always have room for cheesecake) and then our waitress, Dana, broke Park Terrace's zero tolerance no pet policy when she let the cat out of the bag.

Neither of us had our cell phones, so Jessi asked Dana for the time. It was later than she thought so she promptly asked how far it was to Caesar's Casino by foot (about four blocks as it turned out).

"You guys going to see Jewel?"

Not my Jewel. Not the Jewel that I've been in love with since I was 17. She wasn't in Windsor that night, was she? I knew she was supposed to be in Mt. Pleasant on Saturday, but I had no idea she was just a frigid quarter-mile swim across the Detroit river on Friday night.

Jessi, who told me earlier in the evening that we had to be at the Casino before 9 p.m. in order to get free five-dollar vouchers (she's an excellent liar), played it cool.

The look on her face was perfect. It was as if she was feigning embarassment that she took me to gamble in Windsor without knowledge of the concert. I took the bait, hook, line and sinker. I was actually trying not to make her feel bad for not knowing about the show, even though there was no knowledge on my side of the table.

After she paid the bill -- Lord only knows how much -- we ran (literally) down Riverside Street to Caesar's. The only problem, of course, was that I wasn't in as big of a hurry as she was. By this time it was past nine, and I just knew they wouldn't give us our five free bucks (and I was sure it was Canadian, any way).

We got to Caesar's and I nearly lost Jessi who, again, was running faster than me. I was, however, fast enough to breeze right by the 19-and-over sign that elicited a "stop young man!" call from a security guard. (Getting stopped for an I.D. check at a 19-and-over joint is a new low for me.)

Jessi made it to the box office, a country mile away from the actual venue, where she had two tickets for Jewel's acoustic set on reserve. She had been planning it for a couple months, and was sick that I would somehow find out. Apparently she had only told two people about it -- her mother and Jim Pope.

It was probably the most thoughtful thing anyone has ever done for me.

For as much money as she spent on the evening (I shudder to think of it), it crossed my mind that she must have paid off a roadie to have a seizure backstage or something. We were 25 minutes late and didn't miss a minute of the 90-minute set. And while she was paying him, she must have paid Jewel to sing my favorite song first (after a warm-up).

Throughout the show, I took stock of the males in the 5,000-seat auditorium at Caesar's and, much to my surprise, none of them looked like they wanted to be there. I wish I could have seen the faces of the people behind me, when Jessi told them that she surprised me with tickets to the concert. Their faces probably looked like the border patrol agent's on our return to Michigan. He asked where we'd been, and Jessi told him.

"Are you a fan?" he inquired. "No," she said. "But he is."

He tilted his head down to see me in the passenger seat and looked somewhat mortified. I was just sure he would tell us to pull over so some Homeland Security agent in his regimentals could check my manhood.

If you care, here was her set list for the evening:

1. Somewhere Over the Rainbow
2. Near You Always
3. Carnivore
4. Everything Breaks Sometime
5. Last Dance Rodeo
6. Life Uncommon
7. Hands
8. Boy Needs a Bike
9. Race Car Driver
10. Standing Sill
11. Perfectly Clear
12. The Shape of You
13. Intuition
14. Foolish Games
15. Little Sister
16. You Were Meant For Me
17. Who Will Save Your Soul
Encore
18. Angel Standing By
19. Chime Bells/Yodeling

Wisdom from my friend, Glitz

2009-01-27T17:01:00.001-05:00

I haven't written much lately (well, at least not here), so I thought I would steal something someone else has written for this post. (By the way, will have a post soon regarding my weekend with Jessi and Jewel.)

This comes by way of my friend Josh Glitz, who likes to opine from time to time about his favorite subject: Christianity.

I agree with most of what he's trying to say.

Here goes:

The modern American church has lost the sight of one of what I view to be a key component of the vision that Christ had for the Church. Rather than focusing on The Church, capital T capital C, we have become focused upon our church. Rather than being a unified body of believers working for the good of the kingdom, we have become a series of disjointed, unconnected groups that pursue our own agendas and goals. We all have a common goal, and ultimately all serve the same purpose. However, in our pursuit to achieve that goal we tear each other asunder. Churches compete in an unspoken competition amongst each other and specialize until we have a proliferation that is not always leading to a proliferation of the number of believers.

While the poor outside our doors suffer the church begins the process of gilding over the cracks and imperfections that exist within its walls. We are a self centered country that wants to be entertained at all costs. Crowds flood to see the brightest and most visually appealing presentation of a beautifully simple message. Lights, sounds, and movies are needed to persuade enough people to join in order to justify the exorbitant cost of purchasing the technology in the first place. We will gladly spend thousands, at times millions, of dollars on buildings and technology to attract people in. We have begun to rely upon the power of megawatts of light rather than the power of the gospel to bring people in the doors. Get them to come see a magnificent display and slip the gospel in there.

Don’t trust me? Let’s take a look around us. Do we really need Easter pageants that rely upon pneumatic machines to raise Christ from the grave? Or a seamless piece of fabric to project a realistic night sky upon? Do we really need to purchase thousands of dollars worth of cameras and lights for a single night of worship? Don’t get me wrong, I believe whole heartedly that all that money is worth spending if it brings even a single person to Christ. My question is when we began to be so prideful that we think it is our actions that bring people to Christ. I am sorry; I refuse to believe that a light display brings someone to salvation. The Bible explicitly tells us that it is Christ that does all the saving work. Has our culture really became so self centered that we demand to be entertained in order to entertain the notion of Christ. We will pool our money together in order to purchase new lighting equipment, but struggle to raise support to raise money for the poor and needy within our own city. Is it just me, or is there something desperately wrong with this picture. The moment that anything else besides Christ becomes the main attraction is the moment we need to begin to evaluate our actions.

We need to begin to embrace our brokenness, as it encourages us to fully value the grace that is afforded to us. Walk into the typical American church on a Sunday morning and you will find a bunch of people masking their fears, hurts, and insecurities. We value our wholesome image. We flaunt our happiness when our insides are groaning out. We refuse to let our real emotions show in order to save our public perception. The church, which is supposed to be a place of unity and comfort, is the place we most have to put on our false images. A place of honesty and acceptance becomes one of the most demeaning places of pubic opinion. Our church becomes a place of disunity with The Church.

By gilding over our faults and insecurities to both the outside and to ourselves, the church falls short of being The Church. This is not the only way we do this however. We also fall in love with dividing ourselves up. I believe in church planting, I would love to take part in a church planting mission one day. However we do not need any more niche churches in America. The Church is a body with many parts. This demands a variety of not only skills, talents, and gifts but also of age and worldview. There should be a distinction between church’s and ministries. Ministries can serve an individual age group, however a church should never focus on one age group. Ministries can serve certain types of people, churches should never focus on one type of person. A church is supposed to a body of believers, not just an arm. If/when a doctrinal issue arises we can begin to discuss the possibility of dividing a church. However starting a church simply to serve a specific demographic of people is not a wise decision under my estimation.

We need to begin to embrace the notion of The Church rather than staying fixated upon our own churches.

New Year's wishes for friends, family

2009-01-01T11:22:00.038-05:00

My New Year's wishes for 2009 are as follows:

For Gavin to get the Texas girl and an OU national championship.

For Jessi to put 2008 behind her and find exactly what she's searching for.

For my grandparents to continue to enjoy central Florida, as far from the ocean (and the gulf) as possible.

For my baby niece to pick-up her first basketball.

For Swartzie to be a good husband.

For a tobacco-free golf season for Dick.

For a real estate bubble for Kathie.

For Mom to keep spoiling her only granddaughter.

For Jim to get the girl, and you know who I'm talking about.

For Coach Schmidt to get his D-1 gig.

For Janelle and Jeff to find work.

For Glitz to introduce me to his Texas girl.

For Angie to continue to make a difference.

For a full-time gig for Jennings.

For a job for Dan and a vacation for Michelle.

For Kristi to finally beat me in Jeopardy.

For Carl to allow me to sing another duet with him.

For Dylan to love music as much as he loves golf, or vice versa.

For Gerry to move to Flint and run for mayor.

For my Sunday School class to not find anything better to do on Sunday mornings.

For continued recovery for Dad.

For the Speedster to stay with you know who.

For Kennedy to not have to go back to Olivet.

For my Lakers to get the college scholarships they've worked so hard for.

For Pardeep and Patrick to take over the Journal's sports department.

For Jordan Grambush to sing a solo.

For the Skaffs to adopt me for a week.

For Megin to keep coming to Sunday School.

For Zaffy to be the next Peggy Noonan.

For Caldwell to marry the next Peggy Noonan.

For Erick to get to states.

For the Pipe to continue to grow.

For Jake to start, and shoot...and shoot.

For AO to lead the Buckeyes to the NCAA tournament.

For some game for Joey.

For Courtney to start playing the keys, too.

For someone to stay off the Chema.

For Jaicy to have a great new life.

For Cheana to enjoy something new, and different.

For Amber to fly high in the Hair Force.

For Hilary to finally convince me to visit South Bend again.

For Kaleb to get a scholly to GVSU.

For Eric to start coming to PIPE.

For Jeff's jerseys to keep getting smaller (or is he getting bigger?)

For Megan to find a new job.

For Nicole to be an All-American in New Orleans.

For Josh Hoover to run into Jewel, and drop my name.

For Madeline to move back to Michigan.

For the James girls in what's next.

For Chris to keep tickling the ivories.

For Chelsea on the Gold Coast.

For an end to Talk of the Town for Fish.

For Trent to beat Hamady and Buctown.

For Matheson to beat GCS.

For another orange smoothy with Jill.

For Meechie to win the city scoring title.

For more hugs from the Moores.

For Marcellus to be named "best dressed" in Flint.

For Matt Popovits to show Rob Bell who's boss.

For more ebonics with B-Kizzle.

For that basketball game I promised to Amanda.

For Dave to be a music pastor again.

For new friends for Allison.

For Katie to be chosen as the Journal's new editor.

For Dr. Mike to find a new football team to root for.

For OV to find her man.

For 20 pounds for D-Weave.

For Taylor to still say "VG's" even after the Spartan takeover.

For the Welch Twins to meet Obama.

For what's left of that poor couch we tragically lost on U.S. 23.

For me to get that expensive Jewel Live double-DVD.

Is selfishness prevailing?

2008-12-26T12:50:00.020-05:00

From the Daily Mail in London:

The Pope has addressed the economic gloom in his Christmas message.

Benedict XVI warned that the world was headed toward ruin if selfishness prevails over solidarity during tough times for both rich and poor nations.

'If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.'

This got me to thinking, is selfishness prevailing in this world?

The easy, however unsettling, answer is yes. Selfishness appears to be a cross-cultural phenomenon that binds us together as human beings with something to horde. Selfishness is a luxury, one that we all partake in.

When I think of communities, at least those in the strict sense, I am reminded of how many people in this world live in squalor without the ability to even think in self-maximizing terms. What would this world look like if we thought more like them? What if we didn't perceive our relationships as simply transactions between unequals? Would selfishness still prevail?

Some harsh realities

Eight out of every 10 people in this world live on less than 10 bucks per day. I recently spent 30 bucks on some DVDs. Is selfishness prevailing?

It is only by necessity that human beings are being forced to depend on one another more, and we know what happens in times of plenty. It was just three years ago that the World Bank released this disturbing news: 80 percent of people on this planet live in countries with widening income disparities. Is selfishness prevailing?

An estimated 800,000 children, just children, die every year as a result of malaria alone. There is a long list of preventable diseases that further cut short the lives of children in underdeveloped nations. What if 800,000 children died in one year as a result of diarrhoea in North America? What if hundreds of thousands of children were dying because they lacked access to immnunzation? How would we react? Is selfishness prevailing?

In the United States we use, on average, 600 liters of water per day. 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within one kilometer consume around 20 liters per day. 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water. Could we survive on less? Do we even think in those terms? Is selfishness prevailing?

The World Bank recently released its 2005 numbers regarding private consumption. Did you know that the richest 20 percent of the world account for 77 percent of private consumption? Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is selfishness prevailing?

Did you know that every time your power goes out you become a kindred spirit to roughly 1.6 billion people who do not have electricity now or ever? Is selfish prevailing?

The next time you feel yourself being flippant about opportunities, consider that one percent of the adults on this planet have had the opportunity to go to a four-year college. Do I really ponder not having enough education? Is selfishness prevailing?

These are the best-laid plans?

At the turn of the 21st century, leaders from nearly 200 countries (the United States chief among them) came together to discuss ways to end to extreme poverty (among other global crises), and even staked themselves to timetables. The sad reality, of course, some eight years later, is that many of the aforementioned countries are failing to meet the UN's development goals. Why? Because extreme poverty in underdeveloped countries is not a priority to the richest countries in the world.

Take China out of the equation, and our world's recent record of reducing poverty isn't much to look at. The west has something to be gained from a Chinese middle class, of course. Progress, in this way, is still marred by selfishness.

Grandiose national and global priorities are merely reflections of the personal. If selfishness truly does prevail, it will do so because we've allowed ourselves--at the most basic level--to believe the lies about a hierarchy of humanity. We will have allowed selfishness to prevail.

All that to say this: 'If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.'

And to my Christian friends out there, this: What you have is not your own.

Obama's bad day may turn into bad month

2008-12-10T17:00:00.005-05:00

Just a quick prediction about Barack Obama's next month: it's not going to be a lot of fun.

Ever since Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, was charged with trying to sell Obama's now-vacant Senate seat, the microscope of scrutiny has been peering into the relationship between Obama and the busted governor.

It's only going to get worse for President-Elect Obama after his chief advisor, David Axelrod, "misspoke" (that's a laugh) when he claimed that Obama had actually met with Blagojevich to discuss the vacancy.

Whoopsy.

The office of the Presidential-Elect quickly sent out a memo claiming the error for Axelrod which, of course, seems dubious at best.

I'm not saying Barack Obama is guilty of anything, but this is going to get worse for him before it gets better.

This, of course, is what we deserve for electing a politician from the single deepest political cess pool in the western world: a scandal before Inauguration Day.

Who is William Walker?

2008-11-18T17:09:00.005-05:00

You've never heard of William Walker.

I apologize if you're a hardcore history buff, but I think it's safe to say his name is generic and altogether unfamiliar to most.

William Walker is, to be blunt, one of the most intriguing men who has ever lived.

This adventurous, albeit sinister, Tennessean actually ruled Nicaragua for a year starting in 1856.

What was a young man from Nashville doing in Latin America at that time you ask? Well, to put it quite simply, Walker was trying to conquer Latin America.

He was like Simon Bolivar, only in reserve and with a hillbilly accent.

Here's his story from The California Native:

The Saga of William Walker

By Don Fuchik

President of Lower California, Emperor of Nicaragua, doctor, lawyer, writer—these were some of the titles claimed by William Walker, the greatest American filibuster.

In the mid-nineteenth century, adventurers known as filibusters participated in military actions aimed at obtaining control of Latin American nations with the intent of annexing them to the United States—an expression of Manifest Destiny, the idea that the United States was destined to control the continent. Only 5'2" and weighing 120 pounds, Walker was a forceful and convincing speaker and a fearless fighter who commanded the respect of his men in battle.

Born in 1824 in Tennessee, Walker graduated from the University of Nashville at the age of 14 and by 19 had earned a medical degree. He practiced medicine in Philadelphia, studied law in New Orleans, and then became co-owner of a newspaper, the Crescent, where the young poet Walt Whitman worked. When the paper was sold, Walker moved on to California, where he worked as a reporter in San Francisco before setting up a law office in Marysville.

When he was 29, his freebooting nature led him to become the leader of a group plotting to detach parts of northern Mexico. Recruiting a small army, he sailed to Baja California and conquered La Paz, declaring himself president of Lower California. He then decided to extend his little empire to include Sonora, and renamed it “The Republic of Sonora.”

Marching on to the Colorado River, Walker found himself faced with harsh conditions and a high desertion rate, forcing him to retreat to California, where he surrendered to U.S. authorities on charges of violating U.S. neutrality laws.

One result of this incursion was that Mexico sold a part of Sonora to the United States—the transaction we call the Gadsden Purchase. Acquitted of criminal charges, Walker next turned his attention to Central America. Throughout this region, chaos reigned, as forces known as Democrats and Legitimists fought each other. The leader of the Democratic faction in Nicaragua invited Walker to bring an army and join the struggle against the Legitimists. In 1855, with his army of 58 Americans, later called by stateside romantics,

“The Immortals,” he landed in Nicaragua. Within a year, leading “The Immortals” and a native rebel force, he routed the Legitimists and captured Granada, their capital. His success roused concern in the other Central American countries, especially Costa Rica, which sent in a well-armed force to invade Nicaragua. Walker's army repelled the invasion, but a poorly executed counter attack into Costa Rica failed, and a war of attrition continued, in which disease killed more soldiers on both sides than enemy bullets.

Other enemies plagued Walker. Cornelius Vanderbilt, the shipping magnate, seeking control of the San Juan River-Lake Nicaragua route from the Caribbean to the Pacific, armed Walker's enemies, while the British navy, attempting to thwart American influences in the region, regularly harassed efforts to supply him. In spite of these factors, Walker had himself elected president of Nicaragua. The United States briefly recognized his government but never sent him aid. Soon the other countries of Central America formed an alliance against him, and in mid 1857 he surrendered once again to a U.S. naval officer and returned to the U.S.

Landing first in New Orleans, he was greeted as a hero. He visited President Buchanan, then went on to New York, all the time seeking support for a return to Nicaragua. But support waned as returning soldiers reported military blunders and poor management.

Nevertheless he succeeded in raising another army, and returned to Nicaragua in late 1857. Again thwarted by the British navy, he abandoned his third Latin American invasion.

Still undaunted and seeking support for yet another venture, Walker wrote a book, The War in Nicaragua. Knowing that his best prospects lay in the South, he assumed a strong pro-slavery stance. This strategy proved successful, and in 1860 he once again sailed south. Unable to land in Nicaragua due to the ever-present British, he landed in Honduras, planning to march overland, but the British soon captured him and turned him over to the Hondurans. Six days later, at the age of 36, he was executed by a firing squad. The Walker saga had ended. This enigmatic man had come close to altering the history of the continent. Had he been successful, he might have brought several Central American countries into the United States as pro-southern states, altering the balance in Congress and postponing The Civil War.

Today Walker is far better known in Central America than in the United States. Costa Ricans honor Juan Santamaria, a young drummer boy who became a national hero by torching a fort in which Walker's army was encamped, and a national park, Santa Rosa, commemorates the battle where Walker's soldiers were expelled from Costa Rica.

Rest in Peace, Michael Crichton.

2008-11-05T14:29:00.002-05:00

Michael Crichton was one of my favorite authors as a child. He was a brilliant writer who wrote in a genre I call "non-nerdy" science fiction.

My favorite Crichton books: Sphere, Jurassic Park, Rising Sun and Disclosure.

From AP:

Michael Crichton, the million-selling author of such historic and prehistoric science thrillers as "Jurassic Park," "Timeline" and "The Andromeda Strain," has died of cancer, his family said.
He died Tuesday in Los Angeles at age 66 after a long battle with the illness.

Chrichton was a brand-name author, known for his stories of disaster and systematic breakdown, such as the rampant microbe of "The Andromeda Strain" or dinosaurs running amok in "Jurassic Park," one of his many books that became major Hollywood movies.

"Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand," his family said in a statement.

The 6-foot-9-inch author was also a screenwriter and filmmaker, earning producing and writing credits for the film versions of many of his titles. He also created the TV hospital series "ER" in 1994.

In recent years, he was the rare writer to get on well with President Bush, perhaps because of his skepticism about global warming, which Crichton addressed in the 2004 novel, "State of Favor." Crichton's views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

A new novel by Crichton had been tentatively scheduled to come next month, but publisher HarperCollins said the book was postponed indefinitely because of his illness.

"While the world knew him as a great storyteller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us—and entertained us all while doing so—his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes," his family said.

Election 2008: It takes all kinds

2008-10-29T17:06:00.004-04:00

I met the most peculiar woman today at a grocery store. I was talking to her about the upcoming presidential election and, as crazy as this sounds, she left me speechless.

When I asked her who she thought was going to win, she didn't give me a straight answer. Instead, she proceeded to tell me that Barack Obama is, in fact, a Muslim and an unpatriotic one at that. She said that one time he was on videotape during the national anthem and (pause for dramatic effect) he didn't even mouth the words!

Before I had the opportunity to pencil her name into the Republican column, she told me that if McCain becomes president our country will be in Iraq forever — and that our boys will return home in every manner of maimed.

I was troubled about this woman and her mental health. How can she deal with the prospect of voting for either an anti-American Muslim or a warmonger?

(In her defense, she did call me an "all-American lookin' guy.")

My favorite reporter moment of the day came when I asked a gentleman named George about the election.

Here was his response:

“I don't think either of them should be president. I couldn't give a crap less one way or the other.”

I love printing stuff like that.

Colin Powell endorses Obama

2008-10-22T22:45:00.004-04:00

This endorsement is worth listening to. Colin Powell is a great American and, as much as I discount most endorsements, this one is actually meaningful to me.

Pay close attention to his words regarding the direction of the Republican Party. I share his concern with some of the bigotry on the right with respect to Barack Obama.

He recognizes how the game (read politics) is played, but he is disgusted at what his party has become. I don't have a party, per se, but I agree.

Here goes:

I love a good roast

2008-10-17T10:49:00.002-04:00

If you missed this last night, this is your chance to hear what may go down as one of the best political roasts of all-time. Where have you been all election, John?

If you haven't already, see this film: Dead Man Walking

2008-10-09T15:49:00.007-04:00

I'm not a movie buff, per se, but I know a great one when I see it.

I recently watched, once again, one of my all-time favorite films, "Dead Man Walking," starring Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon.

The film, released in 1995, is adapted from the book of the same name, written by Sister Helen Prejean.

As if you couldn't guess, the film revolves around the hot-button issue of capital punishment.

The film closes with the confession of murderer and rapist, Matthew Poncelet, whom Prejean counseled in the last days and weeks of his life.

Throughout the film, Prejean struggles with her role as comforter to a man so many believed was sub-human:

Clyde Percy: How can you stand next to him?

Sister Helen Prejean: Mr. Percy, I'm just trying to follow the example of Jesus, who said that a person is not as bad as his worst deed.

Clyde Percy: This is not a person. This is an animal.

In the end, it becomes clear that revenge simply wasn' good enough for the families of the killer's victims. Poncelet, just before he was put to death, said he hoped that his death would bring relief to the families. It did not.

This is the case, in my opinion, because killing as punishment for killing makes us less human, appealing to baser instincts. Revenge doesn't right wrongs as much as it creates new ones.

Here is my favorite scene:

Prison guard: Tell me something sister, what is nun doing in a place like this. Shouldn't you be teaching children? Didn't you know what this man has done? How he killed them kids?

Sister Helen Prejean: What he was involved with was evil. I don't condone it. I just don't see the sense of killing people to say that killing people's wrong.

Prison guard: You know what the Bible say, 'An eye for an eye'.

Sister Helen Prejean: You know what else the Bible asks for death as a punishment? For adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, trespass upon sacred grounds, profane in a sabbath and contempt to parents.

Prison guard: I ain't gonna get no Bible quote from no nun cause I'm gonna lose.

The Fight of the Featherweights: Obama and McCain bore me to tears

2008-09-30T17:07:00.005-04:00

The headline in Tuesday's New York Post said it all: Tired out.

What had been billed as the biggest thing to happen in Mississippi since the siege of Vicksburg went off with a resounding thud.

The first presidential debate between Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) last Friday night was one yawn short of a zero-hour study hall.

Want proof?

This debate drew nearly 8 million fewer viewers than the first debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

As you might imagine, I have a few theories to explain this lack of interest.

First, our candidates are predictable at best and predictably boring at worst.

Did you hear any new information come out of either candidate? Perhaps something of substance for those of us who aren't inclined to throw support behind either without knowing a little more?

Of course you didn't.

What you heard, if indeed you tuned in, was more empty rhetoric about the economy, and how what happens on Wall Street affects Main Street – a trite catchphrase adopted by members of both parties during the recent credit crisis.

We weren't even eight minutes into the proceedings and both candidates had already borrowed the line from each other.

And from there, they bored us with talk of taxation.

Ok, we get it.

Obama wants to "Robin Hood" (that's a verb now) the rich while McCain prefers to "Ronald Reagan" the poor.

Honestly, how many more times do we have to hear about taxes? We get it already.
I'd rather go back a year and listen to Obama and Sen. Clinton argue about their virtually identical healthcare plans.

Second, could this debate have been any more sterile? I realize that the event organizers didn't want the debate to look like a pep rally for either candidate, but did the auditorium at Ole Miss have to be as quiet as a mime's funeral?

In so doing, they created a situation in which our two candidates looked like fish out of water. Without the instant affirmation of partisan cheers and pity snickers, these two were walking over their already well-worn jokes.

When McCain returned to the well and pulled up his standby line about earmarks (you know, the one about paternity tests for bears in Montana), no one laughed.

No one laughed when he called "earmarking" a "gateway drug", either.

But in the interest of full disclosure, McCain did get a couple guffaws after he said that it would be hard for Obama to "reach across the aisle from that far to the left." The only problem, of course, was that the only people who actually thought it amusing were McCain and Obama.

We're not laughing, Senator, because we're either crying or, in the case of those who were actually in Oxford Friday night, sleeping.

And Obama didn't fair any better, mind you.

Like, for instance, when moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS suggested that neither candidate seemed interested in putting forth any major changes to their presidential agendas in the aftermath of the forthcoming bailout bill in Congress.

Obama commenced spinning his wheels, claiming that some things would have to be delayed.

By some things, Senator, I think you mean most things.

Decreases in revenue accompanied by increases in spending tend to have a noxious affect on the economy. New government entitlement programs during a recession is bad business, and both candidates know that.

Things are different now, gentlemen.

To take the stage in front of millions of Americans fearful of an even more acute economic downturn and sing the same old song would be sad if it weren't so typical.

Americans like me are tired of the fight of the featherweights.

Be real. Tell the truth.

This is not a game to us.

The Day the Dow Died: Pelosi speech credited with bombed bailout bill

2008-09-29T19:50:00.003-04:00

Today was the day the Dow died.

The single most influential economic index in world, the New York Stock Exchange, lost nearly 800 points on a near black Monday on Wall Street.

News of the failed $700 billion bailout earned for the Big Board the singlest greatest one-day loss, as measured in points, in American history.

Now, we know who is responsible for our faltering credit markets (lenders, consumers, and bureaucrats), but who gets the blame for taking the bill out at the knees on Monday?

Answer: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, responding to the drama of the moment, opted to rub the Republicans' noses in the economic downturn that they are only partially responsible.

Many Republicans simply returned the favor, and thumbed their noses at Pelosi by against the bailout plan.

I won't poison the water on this issue any further than I already have. Watch the video for yourself.

It Is Well With My Soul

2008-09-23T13:53:00.005-04:00

I cannot hear this old hymn of the church enough, especially in light of the life of Horatio Spafford.

The words to this hymn were written in the aftermath of a pair of major traumas in Spafford's life. He lived through the Great Chicago Fire in 1871, which took a tremendous toll on him, financially . Shortly after, while crossing the Atlantic Ocean, Spafford's four daughters died in a collision with another ship. Only his wife survived. Several weeks later, his own ship passed near the spot where his daughters drowned and he wrote these words:

- Words by Horatio G. Spafford, 1873
- Music by Philip P. Bliss, 1876

It Is Well With My Soul

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blessed assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Wisdom from the New Republic...

2008-09-22T00:53:00.004-04:00

This is excerpted from the latest edition of New Republic. It's great stuff. It makes me wonder if this country's economy is now more Japanese than American in its approach to failure.

Visible Hands
by Irwin Stelzer
The surrender of free-market capitalism.

'Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin," notes Allan Meltzer, one of the nation's most astute economists. Perhaps that was once true. But the New Capitalism has little room for the pain of failure. A host of measures have been introduced to make it easier for families delinquent in their mortgage payments to stay in their homes, an act of compassion (as some would put it), or encouragement of profligate sinners to sin again (as the Old Capitalists would say). The Old Capitalists mourn the lost era of individual responsibility even as they acquiesce to it, for there is no support for a return to the harsher regime they favored, in which government did little to mitigate the pain of poor management, bad judgment, or just plain bad luck.

Far more significant than its new attitude toward individual failure is the New Capitalism's fear of recession. At the very first hint of an economic slowdown, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--and ostensibly a conservative--eased monetary policy. He did not wait to determine whether a major downturn was brewing or for growth to turn negative. He was not willing to risk the sort of mild recession that has peppered the post-World War II period. Rather, a risk appeared, and the Fed felt it necessary to lower interest rates--never mind that such a move would drive down the dollar, and therefore drive up oil prices.

Under the Old Capitalism, the authorities in charge of monetary and fiscal policy correctly assumed that the public understood the ups and downs of the business cycle and was willing to endure the moderately bad times that often followed the very good ones. But the tolerable level of pain and risk has shrunk, so the central bankers who are supposed to ensure that our currency holds its value subordinated that goal to avoiding the pain of a bursting bubble. We may not be a nation of whiners, as Phil Gramm believes, but neither are we as tolerant of recession as we were only recently.

My own tropical depression

2008-09-19T10:09:00.002-04:00

I had a great time writing this column.

The coverage of disasters on cable news has been particularly disturbing to me lately.

Most disturbing, of course, is the fact that I still watch it.

Here's the column...

Lip'schtick': Pig-headed response to Obama gaffe a cheap political ploy

2008-09-10T19:48:00.004-04:00

This is a column I wrote for the Flint Journal Community Newspapers...

The McCain campaign dove headfirst into the controversy surrounding presidential hopeful Barack Obama's gaffe on the campaign trail on Tuesday, in which he invoked the "lipstick on a pig" adage when speaking about John McCain's claims about being an agent of change.

The problem for Obama, of course, has been the suggestion that the use of the adage was in reference to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's oft-replayed quip during her speech at the Republican National Convention earlier this month.

In it, Palin explained that the only difference between a "hockey mom" and a pitbull was, of course, lipstick.

The McCain campaign has seized upon the opportunity to score political points with undecided voters who have a roundly positive view of his vice presidential candidate.

And while the raucous crowd in Virginia appeared to believe that Obama was alluding to Palin's comment, I'm not convinced.

I cannot envision a scenario in which a major party presidential candidate like Obama, at this point a coin-flip away from the presidency, would make such a bone-jarringly indiotic statement.

It appeared, at least to my eyes, that Obama knew his statement would be misconstrued immediately after making it. And so, he followed it up with another, perhaps more apt, adage: "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, but it's still going to stink after eight years."

Did Obama just call John McCain old and scaley? How dare he?

Don't laugh, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, a McCain surrogate from Oklahoma suggested as much in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC Wednesday night.

From here on out, Obama should side with fish-related analogies on the stump.
But seriously, this is what passes for a controversy nowadays?

Obama is not so stupid as to make such a statement with intent to smear Governor Palin. Clearly the McCain campaign is employing this cheap political ploy to demonize Obama, and one need only watch their latest political ad playing up the gaffe to recognize this.

If you believe Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig, it's because you want to believe it -- and that doesn't make it true.

Cutting through the Palin hysteria

2008-09-05T16:08:00.007-04:00

Here are a few observations regarding Senator McCain's choice for Vice President, Sarah Palin:

--Politically, the choice of Palin for the ticket was brilliant in function. No one saw it coming, which only adds to the theater of it all.

--Does she have the requisite amount of experience to be second-in-command of the executive branch? Normally I would answer in the negative, but this year is different. The decision by Democratic voters put Barack Obama up as their choice for president is, to borrow a phrase from Obama, a "game changer." Experience, at least in the way we've understood it (in this context) for a couple hundred years, is secondary; Democrats made that much clear when they passed over more qualified candidates. And so, what's good for the goose is good for the gander--though probably not good for the United States.

--Palin's speech at the Republican Convention was tremendous, but Republicans have to be careful not to become their own parody. Palin, at least up to this point, is every bit as much a media creation as Obama.

--Speaking of the media, am I at all offended by the way Palin has been covered? In the strict sense, certainly not. That being said, I do not think it is fair in light of the kid-glove treatment Obama has received from the mainstream media. In other words, many journalists are only doing their job half of the time.

--Is Palin more qualified to be president than Obama? Perhaps, but this is a moot point as she is not running for president. And Palin and her meager experience are an election victory and a heartbeat away from the presidency; Obama and his equally meager experience are only an election day away. Which seems more imminent?

--Have media been sexist in their coverage of Palin? Of course. One has to consider, however, that we live in a country that struggles with sexism every bit as much as all the other noxious "'isms." I don't have to be a woman to recognize that.

Presidential politics in America: is experience 'overrated'?

2008-09-04T11:20:00.005-04:00

This is a column I wrote for the Flint Community Newspapers on Tuesday...

Elections, especially presidential ones, have a way of marking subtle changes in the attitudes of Americans with respect to politics.
Take, for instance, the issue that appears to be manifesting itself as the 500-pound gorilla in the polling station: experience.

(The relevance of experience in presidential politics was even explored in a cover story in Time Magazine this year.)

It's as if we've turned back the clock to 1960, when Richard Nixon, vice president and Republican nominee for president, made it a habit of accusing his opponent, John F. Kennedy, of being too inexperienced for the job.

The only difference, of course, is that Kennedy's relative lack of experience according to his rival would have compared him favorably to Franklin Roosevelt by today's standards.

Kennedy, who was only 43 years old when he narrowly defeated Nixon in the general election, had been a decorated sailor in the Navy during World War II before serving for nearly 14 years in the United States Congress--eight of those years in the United States Senate.

In the past, when American voters were charged with the responsibility of choosing the most qualified person to hold this highest office, experience trumped nearly all considerations.

These days, a presidential candidate boasting but a poor reflection of Kennedy's resume would be overqualified.

Andrew Cohen, a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, wrote a fascinating op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen about the experience issue in the upcoming presidential election.

Cohen wrote:

In the past, when Americans expected presidents to have a record of political service, Mr. Obama would have been called a poseur or imposter and sent home. Not anymore. This is the day of the dilettante.

Experience is overrated. It is unnecessary. As someone recently put it, anyone can grow up to be president in America, but now you don't even have to grow up anymore.

This is a somewhat worrisome critique of the political climate in this country, and one that should not be dismissed because of its northern origin.

So, is experience truly "overrated"?

With only the present election cycle to guide me, the answer is surely in the affirmative.

Consider that since the aforementioned election of John F. Kennedy, American voters have not elected a sitting senator as president. (Nixon, for his part, was also a senator but gained experience as a vice president before being elected president in 1968.)

A coincidence? I doubt it.

This year, the two major political parties give voters no choice.

More troubling is the fact that the person dubbed by many in the mainstream media as least qualified to be on a presidential ticket, John McCain's recently-named running mate, Sarah Palin, is the only candidate on either ticket with executive experience--Palin has been governor of Alaska for less than two years.

Compare that to McCain and Joe Biden, Obama's pick for vice president, who have spent a combined 60 years in Washington as legislators and not in a corner office.

These men seek to lead the executive branch without any notable executive experience.

With respect to McCain's counterpart, Obama, experience, at least as an overarching qualification for president, has ostensibly been replaced by less tangible traits like "hope" and "vision."

Experience, for Obama, clearly isn't a winning issue.

The junior senator from Illinois served nearly eight years in the state senate before a sex scandal forced his Republican opponent in the 2004 race for U.S. senate, Jack Ryan, to withdrawal just months before the election. Obama then defeated Alan Keyes, a throw-in candidate with absolutely zero chance of winning, in a landslide.

And after less than one term's worth of experience in the U.S. senate, Obama won the nomination of the Democratic Party for president by the smallest of margins over the more experienced candidate, New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

All that being said, perhaps we will all come to find that these who aspire to lead this nation are as rich in other facets of their character as they are lean on experience.

"As I say, experience isn't enough," wrote Cohen, responding to an e-mail regarding his sentiments on experience. "Experience without judgment does not get you very far. I would say you have to have both, in equal measure, to be a good leader."

And so, in the final analysis, perhaps this election must boil down to judgment--who has it, and where did it come from?

The Washington game: A cynic's take on politics

2008-08-31T12:46:00.007-04:00

Among my friends, I'm known as a bit of a contrarian with respect to politics. I guess I stop just short of being a cynic, if only in my mind.

Last night, I was at BW3 with some friends to watch the Alabama-Clemson game (it wasn't on Comcast around here) and at halftime the talk turned to the presidential race.

As is my custom, I have a somewhat negative view of both major party tickets this year.

And while I realize that one seemingly has to be preferable to the other, I've never been convinced that this country changes in any earth-shattering way as a result of a change in leadership at the top.

With Obama as president, would my life change in any significant way? Probably not. And the same goes for McCain.

Putting aside the empty suits currently being vetted by the American people, I'm not going to be all too inclined to get excited about any candidate in either party. Any politician (and we always elect politicians) that can rise to a presidential level of acclaim is CERTAIN to have long sold off principles, in favor of the feeble attempt to be all things to all people.

Politicians like Obama and McCain are rewarded for deceit and pandering with votes every four years. And this election cycle we can add to that hero worship.

This is not to say that both men are unworthy of being president, of course; what I am saying is that we should demand more of our public servants. "Well, that's just politics" or "that's how the game is played" are shameful justifications for behavior that would not have been tolerated in grade school.

There is a reason why the Democratic National Convention (and the upcoming Republican one, too) better reflect ComicCon than a legitimate exercise in democracy.

Most politicians think the American people are stupid, and why shouldn't they?

You've heard Obama say the following words ad nauseum during this election, but have you really thought about what he is saying?:

"The stakes are too high and the challenges are too great to play the same old Washington game with the same old Washington players and expect a different result."

I'm not stupid; I know that if someone is pitching a ball with a glove on the opposite hand and someone else is swinging a bat with helmet and cleats, they're probably playing baseball.

Obama wants you to believe it's not baseball, but something new and totally different.

How can a politician use the bats, balls and gloves of the "Washington game" and claim to be engaged in something else?

It's simple really: we WANT to be believe in change, even though we lack even the smallest shred of evidence that one person is capable of making good on such an unlikely proposition.

Both McCain and Obama are members of an impotent legislature that moonlights as a millionaire's club.

They are members of an oligarchy taking pains to convince us that they're our equals by diminshing their inflated sense of self every four years.

Just ask Senator Biden who, in his speech in which he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for VP, said this:

“My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you.”

Do you believe him?

Or, perhaps a better question: Do you believe that he believes it?

At least Britain has a common house alongside a House of Lords.

My standard

To be completely honest, however, I have what could rightly be considered an unreachably high standard for public servants.

It goes something like this, from Romans 12:

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited...do not repay anyone evil for evil...if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath.

How do you find your elected officials these days?

In harmony with one another?
Humble?
Willing to associate with commoners in any substantial way?
Full of grace?
Affecting peace in the world?

What happened to our expectations? These days, politicians stop at nothing to feign equality with all people. But why? In a perfect world, our elected representatives would reflect the best of us, morally, socially and intellectually.

Robert Novak, the recently retired political columnist from the Chicago Sun-Times, said it best:

"It is hard to write about politicians, see them at such close range, and still think of any of them as heroes."

The tale of the tape: Election 2008 style

2008-08-25T22:02:00.005-04:00

Now that things appear to be dead even in the race for the White House, the time has come to breakdown the matchup between Barack Obama and John McCain.

(Keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.)

The Tale of the Tape: Obama v. McCain

Experience: Advantage McCain -- McCain, by any measure, has more of what we look for in a prospective president when it comes to experience.

Abortion: Advantage: McCain -- I don't see this as a political issue, though I know most do. McCain is ardently pro-life.

Cuba: Advantage Obama -- Begin to ease restrictions.

Death penalty: Advantage Obama -- Capital punishment should not be expanded nor should appeals be increasingly limited.

Education: Advantage McCain -- Favors competition in education and, specifically, vouchers.

Gay marriage: Advantage Push -- Both oppose constitutional ban on gay marriage. Both support legal rights for homosexuals in civil unions.

Global warming: Advantage McCain -- Both are caught up in the hysteria, but McCain takes a more reasonable stance with respect to public policy.

Gun control: Advantage Obama -- Doesn't believe the spirit of the second amendment allows for common citizens the right to bear machine guns.

Healthcare: Advantage McCain -- Favors tax credits to mitigate healthcare costs and opposes a universal healthcare system.

Immigration: Advantage Push -- Both want to achieve legal status for illegal immigrants.

Iran: Advantage Obama -- Supports direct diplomacy with Iran.

Iraq: Advantage Obama -- Supports expeditious withdrawl.

Social Security: Advantage Push -- Neither has anything of substance to speak on the issue.

Stem Cell Research: Advantage Push -- Both support relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Taxes: Advantage McCain -- Supports lower taxes across the board.

Trade: Advantage Obama -- Prefers to enforce trade agreements rather than amending them. Wants to strengthen enforcement of labor standards.

The final tally

Obama: 6
McCain: 6
Push: 5

The final analysis

Write in Ron Paul.

'How fast can the human being go?'

2008-08-20T22:50:00.006-04:00

I read this in this International Herald Tribune tonight after Usain Bolt bested Michael Johnson's 200-meter world record that many thought would never be broken.

These are the words of a fellow competitor:

"It's ridiculous," said Kim Collins of St. Kitts and Nevis, who finished seventh in the race. "How fast can you go before the world record can't be broke? How fast can the human being go before there's no more going fast?"

As I've watched Bolt in the Beijing games, I have often wondered the same thing. Had Bolt ran through the finish line in the 100-meter final, as he did in the 200, he could have run somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.5 seconds and at over 30 MPH.

That is just unthinkable.

Bolt is not just the fastest man in the world, he is the fastest man EVER in the world.

Just think for a moment that Bolt ran nearly half of a second faster in Beijing than Carl Lewis's best 200-meter performance, and Bolt had the wind at his face!

100 years ago a Canadian named Bobby Kerr won gold in the 200 meters with a time of 22.6 seconds.

Today, that time wouldn't have gotten Kerr a lane in the women's 200 meter final.

Slow ride: Thousands hit the bricks in Flint

2008-08-15T23:54:00.013-04:00

The fourth annual "Back to the Bricks" car cruise was, at least as far as I could tell, a huge hit on opening night. There were more cars and more people than last year and it wasn't even close.

I love seeing so many people in downtown Flint. There is so much going on down there these days, and these sorts of events should go along way toward changing Flint's reputation with the suburbanites.

BTB is on its way to becoming the biggest and best cruise in Michigan, save for the Woodward Dream Cruise, of course.

I hit the bricks with Jim Pope, Jon Swartz and Erick Skaff this year.

Here are a few pictures...

I have always been in love the 1960s-era Ford Mustang, but this new one is even sweeter.

I don't know if the new Viper is as cool as the old one, but it's still a Viper.

I could not get enough of this 1979 Chevette. You just do not see these cars anymore, and this one was in near mint condition.

My favorite car at the cruise was this 1950s-era Corvette.

If you look really close, you can see a couple props on this amphibious vehicle.

Where is that infernal Partridge Family music coming from?

This was my first experience with an Elvis impersonator.

TOKM's Top 10 Theatrical Performances

2008-08-12T21:54:00.025-04:00

1.) John Goodman as Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski: Goodman should have won an Oscar for this performance, but, not surprisingly, he was not even nominated. Memorable line: "The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."

2.) Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York: While not as critically acclaimed as some of his earlier performances, I believe this to be DDL's best. Memorable line: "He was the only man I ever killed worth remembering."

3.) Robert Duval as Sonny in The Apostle: This is one of the best films ever made, in my humble opinion. Duval is a genius and paints a realistic, if not disturbing, picture of evangelical Christianity. Memorable line: "I may be on the devil's hit-list, but I'm on God's mailing list."

4.) Heath Ledger as the Joker in Dark Knight: I held out on seeing this movie for weeks, but it was worth the wait. Ledger made Jack Nicholson look like a clown. Memorable line: "I took Gotham's white knight, and brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Y'see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little...push."

5.) Paul Giamatti as Miles Raymond in Sideways: Before he was John Adams, Giamatti was wine fanatic Miles Raymond. Memorable line: "Quaffable, but uh... far from transcendent."

6.) Bill Murray as Herman Blume in Rushmore: Murray has come a long way since Caddyshack. Memorable line: "Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you."

7.) Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood: This was not a very popular film; it's long and, at times, tedious. That being said, Plainview, the old-time California oilman, is one of the most dynamic characters I've ever seen on screen. Memorable line: "We offer you the bond of family that very few oilmen can understand...and this is why I can guarantee to start drilling and put up the cash to back my word. I assure you, whatever the others promise to do, when it comes to the showdown, they won't be there."

8.) Jack Nicholson as Frank Costello in The Departed: Since clowning Nicholson earlier, it seems appropriate to give him a spot in the top 10. In truth, though, any one of five characters from this movie could have made it. Memorable line: "One of us had to die. With me, it tends to be the other guy."

9.) Matt Damon as Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting: This movie never gets old. Memorable line: "Do you like apples? Well, I got her number, how do you like them apples?"

10.) Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in Tombstone: There was a time in my life when I could quote more than half of this movie, including all of Kilmer's lines. Memorable line: "Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."

Honorable mention: Frances McDormand as Marge Gunderson in Fargo; Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum in The Royal Tenenbaums; Michael Rispoli as Spinner Dunn in Death to Smoochy; Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessop in A Few Good Men; Jack Nicholson as Melvin Udall in As Good As It Gets; Susan Sarandon as Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking; Tommy Lee Jones as Marshal Samuel Gerard in The Fugitive; Kevin Spacey as John Doe in Seven; Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men; Billy Bob Thornton as Karl Childers in Sling Blade; John Malkovich as Teddy KGB in Rounders; Ben Affleck as Jim Young in Boiler Room; R. Lee Ermey as Gny. Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket; Kevin Kline as George Monroe in Life as a House; Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote in Capote; Robin Williams as John Keating in Dead Poets Society; Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption; Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man; Chevy Chase as Clark W. Griswold in Christmas Vacation; Robert De Niro as Leonard Lowe in Awakenings; Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump in Forrest Gump; Geoffrey Rush as David Helfgott in Shine; Ed Norton as Derek Vinyard in American History X; Sean Penn as Emmett Ray in Sweet and Lowdown; Adrien Brody as Wladyslaw Szpilman in The Pianist; Hilary Swank as Maggie Fitzgerald in Million Dollar Baby; Owen Wilson as Dignan in Bottle Rocket; Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line; Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in Requiem for a Dream.

Obama's emergency economic plan: anti-American or just utterly absurd?

2008-08-01T14:53:00.003-04:00

First, read Obama's emergency economic plan that was just released today.

Now that you've read it, I ask this: is this plan anti-American or just utterly absurd?

Many on the Right would argue that it's both, and maybe they're right.

Obama's plan is a political ploy aimed at uneducated voters who, much like those on the Right who believed Bush's stimulus package would stimulate something, are prepared to believe most anything about the economy.

It is laughable, to say the least, to penalize oil companies for bringing in record profits. Obama's ploy would tax what he calls "windfall" profits and redistribute those funds back to consumers. It's a redistribution of wealth and, when packaged with those words, many Americans will recoil at the notion.

Now, as many of you know, I'm a harsh critic of big business by nature; but, something is wrong with this picture.

Oil companies provide for us a product that we want and at a price that we will pay. And for that right, they pay taxes to the government like any other business. Now Obama wants to redistribute their profit because, at least in his mind, they are makin too much money.

And sure, they are turning an historic profit; but, we're making great demands on their commodity.

This plan is laughable.

How about this: give taxpayers back a percentage of the money that is taken from them to subsidize an increasingly bloated federal government.

After all, the federal government has been at "windfall" status since the 1940s.

Bush's stimulus package hasn't had its intended affect, but at least the principle of giving back money that was taken in the first place is sound.

Achtung, Barack: what's wrong with this picture?

2008-07-25T00:34:00.003-04:00

Why, pray tell, is a junior senator from Illinois currently the toast of Europe?
(Meanwhile, back in the states, Barack Obama's running mate is just toast.)
This is the world we live in, where platitudes win hearts, minds and votes.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think John McCain is any more substantive than Barack Obama. That being said, the mainstream media's infatuation with Obama's oratory is nothing short of sickening.
To watch these love-struck adults gushing like pubescent teenagers over Obama is embarrassing and unprofessional.
By the way, does the fact that 200,000 Germans showed up to hear Obama speak today make you more or less inclined to vote for him?
Just a thought.
I don't know why I bother, of course. I'm writing in Ron Paul no matter what.

Swapping Samir: Lebanese terrorist back in Beirut

2008-07-16T21:13:00.009-04:00

Some news passes without much notice and, as far as I can tell, this will probably be another example.
Samir Kuntar, the lowest form of life, was pardoned by Israeli President Shimon Peres and released into Lebanon today in exchange for the bodies of two kidnapped IDF soldiers.
And he wasn't alone.
Four other Lebanese militants were also released back across the border--holdovers from the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon.
The fact that this deal was approved by a huge majority of the Israeli cabinet (including prime minister Ehud Olmert) is absolutely unforgivable.
The Israeli government knew their two missing soldiers were dead, but it didn't matter.
Israel has a well-worn tradition of asymmetrical swaps such as this one, in order that no soldier, dead or alive, is left behind.
The tradition is honorable in theory and wrong-headed in practice.
Samir Kuntar was imprisoned in Israel after a gruesome double-homicide during a cross-border raid into northern Israel in 1979.
Kuntar, during a shootout with police, shot and killed a 31-year-old Israeli at close range and in front of his 4-year-old daughter. He then turned his gun on the child, though he did not pull the trigger.
No, he crushed her skull will the stock of his rifle.
This man is free today, and Arab leaders, including the shameless Mahmoud Abbas (PLO), are celebrating his return.
What's most disturbing is the fact that Hezbollah planned all along to retrieve Kantar in this manner.
Time Magazine reported Hezbollah's intentions two years ago:

It is this man, Samir Kuntar, the sole surviving member of the cell, that Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah promised to liberate this year from an Israeli prison by kidnapping Israeli soldiers to hold as a bargaining chip, an act Hizballah pulled off two weeks ago, precipitating the current fighting across the Israel-Lebanon border.

Had the Israelis made the swap sooner, they could have received the prisoners alive--now that's a tragedy.
Instead, they get this in the Arab press straight from Beirut:

"I promise my people and dear ones in Palestine that I and my dear comrades in the valiant Islamic resistance are returning." --Samir Kuntar quoted in Al-Jazeera

In a column in the Jerusalem Post today, Herb Keinon tried to explain the lop-sided deal to baffled non-Israelis like me:

No other country in the world would have made such a deal, critics of the exchange have said. And they are right. But no other country in the world bears the scars that Israel does, nor the almost absolute knowledge that there will be other wars to fight in this generation, other sacrifices to be made, and that people we all know will be called upon to make them.

And while I appreciate his flowery prose, he's effectively put a soft justification for bad geopolitical business.
This policy, and others like it, virtually ensures the prospect of a violent future for Israel.
He went on to say that no matter how inconceivable the deal was, Israel must adhere to the policy of leaving no one behind.
"This is what they tell their soldiers," he writes. "And it is essential for future confrontations that their soldiers believe them."
I believe what is essential for future confrontations is to do everything in your power to avoid them.
Hizbollah is stronger today than they were yesterday, and they have Ehud Olmert and his lost boys to thank.
David Ben-Gurion just rolled over in his grave.

What this means

--The price for kidnapped Israeli soldiers just spiked. Expect Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their ilk to respond in kind.

--If two dead soldiers are worth a cause celebre like Kuntar, four militant and 190 bodies, what might a living soldier fetch for Israel's enemies? More to the point, why even be greedy when a dead soldier is worth so much?

--Here's a guess: In 1985 the return of three living soldiers cost Israel 1,100 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Kid Rock: A lyricist on training wheels

2008-07-13T22:34:00.007-04:00

Normally I steer clear of FM radio in favor of news and sports talk, but on those rare occasions when there is nothing of any substance on the AM band, I flip over.
Lately, it seems that every time I go the way of FM I hear one song and one song only: Kid Rock's All Summer Long.
Even though we share Michigan roots, I've never been much of a Kid Rock fan. In my younger days, I totally dismissed lyrics as a factor in determining my like or dislike for a given song. These days, however, I actually listen to words like these:

Splashing through the sand bar
Talking by the campfire
It's the simple things in life, like when and where
We didn't have no internet
But man I never will forget
The way the moonlight shined upon her hair

Ok, I know what you are thinking: "He's such a little smart aleck to critique the use of the word "shined" instead of the preferred "shone".
Well, you're wrong.
I'm not even going to mention the multiple negation.
I am just wondering what the internet has to do with being able to remember the way the moonlight shone upon this girl's hair.
Do most people need the internet to remember something like that?
And as if the lyrics weren't ridiculous enough, the song is a tribute (read knock-off) of Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama.
Hearing the old riff isn't a bad thing, I guess; it just takes a little of the shine off when Kid rhymes the word "things" with the word "things".

Kid: I know you are trying to reinvent yourself these days, trading in your tarnished wannabe hip-hop image for something down home, but give us a break.

At least give us something like this: Bawitdaba da bang a dang diggy diggy diggy said the boogy said up jump the boogy.

Economist: Scenes from la frontera

2008-07-04T20:47:00.004-04:00

I'm not an expert on the border cultures of the southern United States, but I do have more than a passing interest in the region.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our porous southern border with Mexico has become one of the most widely debated issues in this country.
At its core, the issue is one of costs and benefits. There are many benefits, some cultural and most economic, to having an open (though not unfettered) border.
But there is, we generally agree, a major cost: our national security.
An open border guarantees, at least under present conditions, a fairly deep reserve pool of cheap labor; but, it also guarantees a continued, unchecked, mass immigration into this country--a daunting diaspora in these times.
With that in mind, we're building a wall--really, really, long one.
And, just like the construction of interstate highways in 1950s and 1960s adversely affected how communities interacted with one another, this wall changes things.

Take 15 minutes and read this report recently published in my favorite magazine, The Economist. This will give you a better idea of why this issue isn't as cut and dried as so many believe it to be:

Economist: Scenes from la frontera

Recession brewing: FIVEbucks to close 600 stores

2008-07-02T13:44:00.008-04:00

The best indicators of an economic recession aren't always found on Wall Street.
(For the record there are three Starbucks locations on Wall street.)
I'm not saying the Big Board isn't an indicator, of course; it's just somewhat more complex.
Me, I prefer to look at consumer spending on elastic goods.
Coffee, for most of us, is an elastic good unlike water or gasoline. Demand for those goods stays relatively static in spite of flucuations in price.
Demand for coffee, 5-dollar coffee specifically, does change.
Disposable income, for many of us, is a contradiction in terms and businesses that prey on what's left over of our incomes are feeling the crunch.
The closing of nearly 600 Starbucks locations may not be entirely indicative of the harsh economic landscape in this country and elsewhere. One could argue that the corporation stretched its beans far too thin. But I digress...

Here is the report from MarketWatch:

Starbucks to close 600 U.S. stores, cut 12,000 jobs

By Matt Andrejczak, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO -- Starbucks Corp., dragged down by a slowing U.S. economy, is pulling the plug on 600 of its underperforming U.S. coffee shops and trimming the number of stores it had planned to open over the coming year.
The shutdowns, starting now and running through March 2009, are far more than the coffee-shop chain had originally planned. In January, Starbucks said it planned to close 100 U.S. stores as part of the transformation plan set in motion by Howard Schultz shortly after he returned as CEO.
The move will eliminate 8% of the roughly 7,250 stores operated by Starbucks and cut 7% of its global workforce, or as many as 12,000 employees. The stores, the majority of which are located near another Starbucks, were opened from 2006 through 2008.
Combined, the stores aren't profitable and are spread across major U.S. markets.
"We believe we've improved the profit potential of the U.S. store portfolio," Starbucks Chief Financial Officer Pete Bocian said in a conference call.
Starbucks has admitted it was stung by the subprime mortgage mess in California and Florida, states that make up almost a third of the company's U.S. retail revenue. This hurt profits and foot traffic at its U.S. stores. Starbucks reported operating profit in its U.S. business fell 27.5% for the quarter ended March 30 from last year.
Under Schultz's leadership, the Seattle company grew at a frenzied pace following its IPO in June 1992. But last year, rapid expansion looked to be catching up to Starbucks and Schultz returned to spearhead a plan to improve the company's slowing U.S. business.

Local NAACP Prez 'not interested in looking at anyone's underwear'

2008-07-01T16:21:00.005-04:00

Recently, Flint's new police chief decided to follow several other jurisdictions all across the country by enacting an ordinance against sagging pants.

Here is the AP report that ran in the Chicago Tribune:

Flint cracks down on sagging pants

Associated Press
June 27, 2008
FLINT, Mich. - Flint's new police chief wants to crack down on sagging pants that expose too much skin.

"This immoral `self expression' goes beyond freedom of expression; it rises to the crime of indecent exposure/disorderly persons," interim Chief David Dicks said in a memo Friday.

Under the order, anyone with exposed buttocks could be arrested on a misdemeanor charge of being a disorderly person, punishable by up to a $500 fine and three months in jail.

Dicks, who was appointed to his position June 2, said in the memo the measure was prompted by "a significant number of complaints from citizens."

But some are concerned that stepped-up enforcement could violate the Constitution or disproportionately target African-American men.

The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed clothing restrictions in other cities.

Greg Gibbs, an ACLU attorney, told The Flint Journal he plans to research the issue to see whether the crackdown violates the right to free expression.

Frances Gilcreast, president of the Flint chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she is "not interested in looking at anyone's underwear."

But, she said, she is worried police are focusing on a loose-fitting style favored by some young black men.

"My concern is how (the policy) will be applied equitably," she said.

Flint Police Officers Association President Keith Speer said that in the past, officers have given out warnings for exposed skin and arrested those with their entire rear exposed. He said he doesn't anticipate any significant changes in how police will enforce the law.

My take: Ok, so this seems really stupid on the surface. One could argue, and persuasively I think, that the Flint Police Department has bigger fish to fry. That being said, my sensibilities aren't offended, nor do I think the Constitution is taking a hit. Freedom of expression in this country is, and always has been, limited by community standards of decency. And while these standards are often hard to gauge, I think calling this ordinance unconstitutional is a stretch.

It's not immoral: Sagging your pants probably falls short of being immoral, but it's a bit ridiculous. Calling it immoral does not serve the Police Chief's purposes, which I believe are actually positive. And yes, it does disproportionately affect Black males. (I'm certain the ban on Ephedra disproportionately affected White females--big deal.) I am quite sure that if you went into the mostly White city schools of Burton, you would see a whole lot of sagging going on.

The sooner the better: Our kids are never too young to gain a broader understanding of the real world. I'm about as anti-establishment as they come, but I also recognize that the noxious elements found in the hip-hop culture are crippling our youth regardless of color. I certainly don't like the government telling people what they can and cannot wear, but I also hate the stigma placed upon so many kids who only dress the part. Call me a square, but the real world comes calling much sooner for some and we need our kids to be prepared for it.

This is nothing new: When I was in high school, sagging pants were similarly not allowed. And Flint is not the only city trying to crackdown on sagging (did I just write "crackdown" on sagging?) Locales in Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee have similar ordinances.

Real men don't lift weights

2008-06-30T12:56:00.006-04:00

I lift weights on a fairly regular basis.
I'm not proud of it, but it was introduced to me many years ago and it has become a part of my life.
I like the challenge of it, first and foremost, as well as the time spent with the fellows.
Granted, I don't enjoy looking like a weakling--that certainly plays a role.
All that being said, I strongly believe that real men don't lift weights.
Real men are strong, physically, because they actually function in jobs that require physical labor.
Call it functional fitness.
(An aside: I remember some years back playing flag football in the YMCA League with a bunch of my friends and going up against men in their forties and fifties--yeah, they still play at that age.Those guys, many of them, have what we call "old man strength" from years of working with their hands. Thankfully, my position was cornerback; I did not have to go into the trenches with the grizzled ones.)
Guys who lay bricks are building walls that will eventually come together to form someone's home; the men who toiled in the outdoors to build the railroads opened up the west so Americans could manifest their destinies.
Me, I drop a bar on my chest and try to push it back up.
That will come in really handy if and when I get overcome by a vending machine.
I remember a couple years ago when I first started working at the Journal as a writer, Bill Khan told me about his attitude toward other writers who like to complain about their jobs.
"It's not like we're out in the hot summer sun laying bricks all day," he said.
He's right.
And the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe that lifting weights is one way of playing pretend.
Maybe I can fool someone into thinking that I'm a real man!
And if you ask Bill, you'll find out that real men are runners, any way.

12 months to prepare for worst: Israel, US ponder military action against Iran

2008-06-29T23:12:00.000-04:00

Now we have a timeline, of sorts.
I read in the London Telegraph today an account from the former head of Mossad that Israel has no more than 12 months to destory Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons.
One year.

There are a few troubling aspects of the Telegraph report you are about to read:

1.) Israel has done this before...as has Iran. In 1981 Israel did, indeed, strike at an Iraqi nuclear facility. But Iran had already bombed it once.

2.) A strong enough retaliation by Iran in the aftermath of a series of preemptive strikes by the IDF could escalate quickly into the worst-case scenario: the use of nuclear weapons.

3.) Americans, and rightly so, are almost strictly averse any kind of military action against Iran. This was true years ago, and the sentiment has grown with the rising price of gasoline. Any military action would have the affect of spinning up a spike in oil prices like we have never experienced before. We don't get oil from Iran, but a lot of oil that is not Iranian passes through Hormuz.

4.) The presidential election in America really matters, geopolitically speaking. And I don't think I need to tell you why that is a scary prospect, either way.

5.) One year doesn't leave much time for either diplomacy or censure.

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.

A satellite image of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

"The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said in an interview.

Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action."

The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year".

As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it."

More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute.

Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.

"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said.

And Howie: The 10 things I hate about Deal or No Deal

2008-06-24T14:42:00.008-04:00

I've always been a fan of game shows. Ever since I was a little boy, I've found time to take in a few game shows a week--Jeopardy, The Price is Right, Classic Concentration and, of course, Press Your Luck.
I love them all.
And then a strong, foul-smelling, wind out of the west brought Deal or No Deal into my life.
I hate this show, and here's why;

1.) The show's producers lured Howie Mandel out of hiding. For this I will be eternally hateful. Hey Howie, I loved you in The Amazing Live Sea Monkeys.

2.) Oh the melodrama. Why must we wait 15-20 seconds before seeing cases opened? Early in the game, the models don't seem so ham-handed. They just throw those cases wide open.

3.) How much longer must we live with the "and we'll find out if it was a good deal...after the break!" Don't act surprised, contestants.

4.) Back to the aforesaid models. I heard through the grapevine that those models make six-figure incomes. Are you kidding me? I guess on a lawyer's resume you might read something about cases closed.

5.) And one more thing: Please don't engage in idle dialogue with the contestants. You have no more control over what is in your case than the man on the moon.

6.) Enough with the clairvoyance already. In truth, you have no idea what is in your case, Mr. or Mrs. Contestant. Rather than, "I know the million is in this case, Howie," why not try this on for size: "I don't know what's in my case, Howie. The case is opaque, as are all the others, and so all I have is the dumb luck that accompanies a blind draw."

7.) Since the game revolves around simple luck, why must contestants bring on their family and friends to help them with their decisions? They might as well solicit the aid of trained monkeys that can make yes and no hand gestures.

8.) Must we pretend that the so-called "banker" is actually making decisions in his little booth? Why is it that he has to call down with his offer after every round? And then, when the game is over, offers come like rapid fire. It's just simple math, really. It's like an equilibrium price, minus a few dollars.

9.) A word to the wise: When someone passes on a $250,000 offer, settles for $125,000 later in the game, Howie says that constestant sold his or her case for $125,000. Let's say your case only had $25,000. Howie says you made a "terrific deal." How do you figure? You were one button push away from $100,000 more.

10.) I can't stop watching it.

My cars, right or wrong

2008-06-19T15:20:00.007-04:00

I was running errands with a friend the other day when we started talking about cars. During my pre-teen years, cars were my passion. I collected them (the Matchbox variety, of course), pasted pictures of them all over my bedroom walls and even attempted to understand how they worked.
During our brief conversation, I came to the realization that I've had a lot of cars in my life--though quantity certainly trumps quality.
I don't know, eight cars seemed like a high number when I first thought about it.
My very first car came by way of a very generous man.
Dan Rigan was a deacon at my church and a very strong influence in my life at the time. He always found things for me to do around his house to earn money, and he really helped groom my interest in history and politics.
I was 16 years old when Dan sold me a 1985 2-door Plymouth Reliant for one dollar. It wasn't a pretty car (ugly metallic blue-gray) and it didn't run, but once we towed that thing home not a day would pass that wouldn't go out to the back garage where it was parked and sit behind the wheel.
Eventually, we towed that car over to my grandfather's house where we (more he than me) pulled the engine that, as it turned out, had a busted piston. We found another engine at a junkyard that had only 60,000 or so miles on it and, after overhauling that engine, finally got it housed in my new old car.
(I can still remember seeing piston rods in my grandmother's freezer. I couldn't figure out why that was necessary, but I guess that's just how it's done.)
The engine ran great and, after putting some speakers and a new stereo in it, I was set to go.
I put many miles on that little 4-cylinder Plymouth, and even though the horn didn't work and everything rattled, I sure do miss my first car.

Full circle with four-cylinders

In late September of 2005, I moved back to Flint after a short stint in the MPP program at Pepperdine University in California--ironically it's a long story and not worth telling.
Before I left, I sold my car--a 2000 Chrysler Sebring LXI--because it just would not have been economical to take it with me.
Upon returning to Michigan, I needed a car--and fast. And so, like always, I turned to the internet.
By that time, I had already purchased two cars on Ebay and so the idea of purchasing a car in this manner didn't intimidate me. While I was in California a friend introduced me to a new online classified community, of sorts, that turned out to be the now famous (or infamous) Craig's List.
And so, I turned to Craig and his list and what looked like a deal in Rochester Hills, Michigan--a rich suburb of Detroit.
To make a needlessly long story short, I purchased a 1998 Dodge Neon with 61,000 miles for $1,600. The guy was moving to New York the next day and was desperate to get rid of it.
I didn't need Howie Mandel to clue me in: I knew I had made a terrific deal.
Since then, I have put more than 60,000 miles on that Neon, and it is still going strong.
And at between 35-40 miles per gallon on the highway, how could I part with it?
Well, maybe I could at some point--but only for another Neon.
All that to say this: When I was a kid all I cared about were the Porsches and the Aston Martins of the world. You know, cars I could never (or would never) own. Now I'm 28, gas is four bucks a gallon, and I've never been more proud to be a Neon man.

Jared's Vehicle City Harem

1985 Plymouth Reliant (2-door): You first car should not run correctly when you first get it.

1990 GMC Jimmy 4X4 (2-door): My Jimmy only burned about one quart of oil per half-week. This was the most troublesome car I have ever owned.

1990 Chevrolet Lumina (2-door): The 3100 (3.1 V-6) engine is one of GM's best.

1992 Chevrolet Lumina (2-door): Ditto.

1994 Pontiac Grand AM GT (4-door): I bought this car from a friend who was, to say the least, certifiably anal about the way his car looked. This thing was a beauty until I brought it home from South Bend, Indiana (where I was living at the time) for the weekend and my sister backed into it.

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo LS (2-door): I got this car from some guy in Mishawaka, Indiana. I always liked the way it looked.

2000 Chrysler Sebring LXI (2-door): It was an ugly color (gold), but it was worth flying to Providence, Rhode Island...taking a bus to the train station...spending the night in Boston...and taking Greyhound to Nashua, New Hampshire, where I met a guy in minivan who prompty drove me to the small town of Kingston to buy it. When I asked him if he needed to see a copy of my insurance papers, he grinned. "Live free or die," he said in that classic Baystater brogue.

1998 Plymouth Neon (4-door): My pride and joy. My Neon got me to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on one tank of gas. I was pulled over by the cops 26 times before I got my Neon, and not once since. Flat-out B-E-A-S-T.

Tim Russert, titan of the fourth estate, dead at 58

2008-06-13T23:21:00.009-04:00

I was sitting in an empty Mediterranean restaurant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today when I heard the news: "NBC Washington Bureau chief and host of NBC's "Meet the Press" collapsed and died in his Washington office this afternoon."
The words were delivered in that sort of humdrum style that I've come to expect from National Public Radio, and they shocked me to my core.
Political junkies like me grew up with Tim Russert as the alpha and omega of Washington journalism, and his passing feels almost surreal.
Russert was simply the best interviewer I'd ever heard, and the most respected journalist of his era. He maintained a reputation for objectivity that no one before or since has rivaled.
He was a man of integrity and honesty.
I remember back in 2000, staying up late awaiting the final election night tally and watching Russert hashing out raw numbers on a dry erase board. And after it was clear that the closest presidential election in American history was to be decided by one state, Russert went back to the board and summed it all up with three words:

Florida
Florida
Florida

Nearly eight years later, I was once again up past my bedtime watching Russert and his MSNBC colleagues pouring over the returns from Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana.
Clinton failed to win convincingly in Indiana after her opponent won going away in another southern primary.
That night Russert did what no one else would, or perhaps could, when he effectively brought an end to Hillary Clinton's historic campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination:
"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be," he said. "Sometimes the candidate is the last to recognize the best timing. It's very much like being on life support. Once they start removing the systems, you really have no choice."
In just a few sentences, Russert had ended a race that had captivated a country for more than a year.
And it wasn't profound, really; nor was it staked to information no one else had.
It commanded the headlines the next morning simply because he said it, and people trusted him.
Several weeks ago I editorialized about TV Week's list of the top ten most powerful people in News. I wasn't all too fond of their list, but it is now, and was when I first read it, quite striking to think that Russert was the first actual journalist on the list. His name was parked just below three media moguls--Capus, Ailes and Westin.
Russert was a media institution, not unlike Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite before him.
I remember being surprised and saddened by the death of longtime ABC World News Tonight anchor, Peter Jennings, some years back but Russert's passing seems less distant.
Maybe, just maybe, I've spent a little too much time with Russert and his ilk over the years; or, perhaps the feeling that you know someone, even when you don't, is borne out of a phenomenon of shared interests--his passion was my passion.
Simpler still is the almost unquestionable assertion that Russert was a decent man at his core, a hero on a stage increasingly reserved for villians.
Russert was passionate about a truth-seeking vocation that chose him every bit as much as he chose it.
If only we could all be so lucky.

IHT: Is hate speech free speech? It is in America.

2008-06-12T13:11:00.004-04:00

Take a few minutes to read this piece from the International Herald Tribune. This is one of those debates that simply will not go away, though it appears the "American way" is losing ground to what can now be called the "Western way."

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
By Adam Liptak

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

"It's hate speech!" yelled one man.

"It's free speech!" yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.

The Maclean's article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called "America Alone." The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

"In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment," Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called "The Exceptional First Amendment."

"But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected."

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined 15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps "basically a Puerto Rican program." The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase "the general level of prejudice."

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

Waldron was reviewing "Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections "in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism." In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.

Lewis wrote that there is "genuinely dangerous" speech that does not meet the imminence requirement. "I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging," Lewis wrote. "That is imminence enough."

Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Boston, disagreed.

"When times are tough," he said, "there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom."

"Free speech matters because it works," Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.

"The world didn't suffer because too many people read 'Mein Kampf,"' Silverglate said. "Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea."

Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.

"The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market," Holmes wrote. "I think that we should be eternally vigilant," he added, "against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by race hate. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.

But merely saying hateful things about minority groups, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.

In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to "send the Jews back to Israel," to "bury" blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider "revengeance" against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.

Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Brandenburg's words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.

In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, a lawyer representing the Muslim plaintiffs aggrieved by the Maclean's article pleaded with a three-member panel of the tribunal to declare that the article subjected his clients to "hatred and ridicule" and to force the magazine to publish a response.

"You are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism," the lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told the tribunal, "and law-abiding Canadian citizens."

In response, a lawyer for Maclean's all but called the proceeding a sham.

"Innocent intent is not a defense," the lawyer, Roger McConchie, said, in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia hate speech law. "Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense."

Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which has intervened in the case, was measured in his criticism of the law forbidding hate speech.

"Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech," Gratl said in a telephone interview. "We don't subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat."

Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the U.S. approach - and then rejected it.

A 1990 decision from the Canadian Supreme Court, for instance, upheld the criminal conviction of James Keegstra for "unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements." Keegstra, a teacher, had told his students that Jews are "money loving," "power hungry" and "treacherous."

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Dickson said there was an issue "crucial to the disposition of this appeal: the relationship between Canadian and American approaches to the constitutional protection of free expression, most notably in the realm of hate propaganda."

Dickson said, "There is much to be learned from First Amendment jurisprudence." But he concluded that "the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression."

The distinctive U.S. approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.

"It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories," for laws banning hate speech, said Schauer, the professor at Harvard, in an interview.

In Canada, however, the laws seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. Three time zones east of British Columbia, the Ontario Human Rights Commission - while declining to hear a separate case against Maclean's - nonetheless condemned the article.

"In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be," the commission's statement said. "By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to 'the West,' this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others."

British Columbia human rights law, unlike that in Ontario, does appear to allow claims based on statements published in magazines.

Steyn, the author of the Maclean's article, said the court proceeding illustrated some important distinctions. "The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they're not about facts," he said in a telephone interview. "They're about feelings."

"What we're learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins," Steyn added. "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

C & B report on oil and my requiem for the SUV

2008-06-11T09:59:00.014-04:00

The changing prices of commodities are accompanied by costs and benefits--that's macroeconomics 101. Since the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in the past year, these costs and benefits by now should be glaringly obvious.

Some Costs

--Historically high gas prices are capable of sending the American economy (and by extension the world economy) into relative stagnation. Just think of transportation costs alone. The consumables that we import from overseas are brought to port and delivered to us on trucks powered primarily by Diesel fuel at more than five dollars per gallon. And what happens when transportation costs increase? You guessed it. Consumer goods get more expensive.

--People are traveling less, and will continue to travel less as the price moves up. Several years back when a gallon of regular unleaded cost less than two dollars, I took a spur of the moment two-day sojourn to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. That is the kind of impulsive jaunt that I will not make with gas at $4.25 per gallon. Many months ago I opined that in spite of the high price of gas, Americans simply had not modified their consumption patterns. That was at $3 per gallon. I think $4 is the magic number--at least it is for me.

--The balance of power is changing. Since political power, globally, is at its core an economic measurement, oil-rich nations in the Middle East as well as countries like Venezuela and Russia now wield disproportionate influence because of one commodity. Think of it like this: how powerful would Brazil be if the rest of the world were as hooked on sugar as Americans are?

Some Benefits

--We all know the adage, "necessity is the mother of invention," and it applies here. The price of gas now MAY BE high enough to force the luke warm hands of our elected leaders. The United States has not had a forward-looking energy policy in my lifetime, so this would certainly be a benefit. Despite forseeable increases in demand from the newly industrializing economies (NIEs) of the world, especially in Asia, our elected officials just assumed that global oil supplies could meet the increasing need--and without new investments on the part of the greatest single consumer of oil. Ideally, electric-only vehicles, Hybrids, and Hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles will become standard in the years to come as a result of the oil crunch. But this will not happen until we get serious about investing in alternative forms of energy.

--Americans still produce and refine oil, so the price spike is a dream come true for some. But the need to produce more, at least until we can find viable alternatives, could have the affect of loosening the bureaucratic grip on tapping new supplies. This morning I heard a caller on C-Span's "Washington Journal" say that the American government should prevent American oil from being sold abroad. That will never happen, my friend. Not in a free (though not unfettered) market system. Obviously the idea is to increase domestic supply without uncorking new supplies to lower prices, but we are way beyond that point now. And Barack Obama's plan to tax the windfall profits of oil companies is packaged as a solution but reads more like a political ploy. Consumers always pay for tax increases on business.

--The bell is tolling for the SUV.

My Requiem for the SUV

When I was 18 and 19 years old I had an SUV.
There, I said it--rescind my progressive credentials if you must.
It was a 1990 2-door GMC Jimmy 4x4 with white letter tires and a running board.
My best friend had a 1989 2-door Chevy Blazer 4x4, so we helped each other out with the litany of issues that accompanied SUVs at that time. The price for a gallon back then was between $1.00-$1.25 in Michigan, a state where gas prices are relatively high. And even though my Jimmy burned nearly as much oil as gas, I really loved that truck--the only one I ever owned. But that was in 1998, just before the SUV craze took hold of this country.
My SUV was the size of a shortbox S-10 pick-up, and with the exception of the Chevy Suburban, most SUVS were more or less that size.
Then the floodgates opened with the Lincoln Navigator, the Ford Expedition and Excursion, GM's Yukon and Denali, the Dodge Durango, the Hummer H2 and even Toyota got into the mix with their Land Cruiser.
SUVs increasingly became synonymous with conspicuous consumption. I mean, Ford's Excursion weighed four and one quarter tons!
Back in the fall of 2001, I was taking an American Literature class at Holy Cross in Indiana when my professor approached the class with this: "It's obvious that we don't need to drive SUVs, so my concern is why we want to drive SUVs."
The need was never apparent and now the want appears to be a thing of the past.
I walked around a car lot recently and made sure to check the sticker prices on SUVs and I was stunned by the markdowns. I saw one SUV in particular, a Chevy Suburban, that was marked down $10,000!
Here's hoping it doesn't sell.

Comparisons aren't equations

2008-06-06T12:24:00.007-04:00

Just inching its way into my top 20 pet peeves is the inability of the mainstream media (and many in the greater public) to understand that mere comparisons aren't equations.
Granted, on the surface this probably seems like petty semantics--and maybe it is--but I think far too many legitimate arguments are squashed with one sentence: "You can't compared _________ to ________!"
Yes you can.
Recently Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' bombastic cash cow in primetime, compared David Brock's Media Matters organization to Fidel Castro's communist regime in Cuba--which, of course, has a news coloring/suppressing propensity.
MM is not the mass media watchdog it claims to be because it is staked to a leftist agenda.
Point taken.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using comparisions to make a point.
For instance, comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler is not intellectually dishonest; they, of course, were both tyrants in their own way. Equating the two, however, belies and understanding of history. Equating the two would be intellectually dishonest, to be sure, especially if the equation serves a malevolent end as it did in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Obama in 2008: Yes he did

2008-06-03T22:46:00.007-04:00

The junior senator from Illinois officially made history Tuesday night. Barack Obama, an African-American, will be the Democratic nominee for presidency of the most powerful nation on earth.

Here's a little TOKM free association:

--Even if he had lost to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama's candidacy would have been one of the most unique in history. Few had ever even heard of Obama before his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention in Boston. His victory over the prohibitive favorite, Clinton, is evidence of his one-in-a-generation political savvy. He did what Rick Lazio couldn't...do you know who that is?

--Oh yeah, and he's an African-American. Does this matter, you say? Of course it does. It restores, for me at least, a greater sense of pride in the American people. The "Old Boy Network" is still operating in American Politics, to be sure, but Obama has an opportunity to smash an even larger mold. We've had Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel in the West; but we've never had a Barack Obama. Obama is a one-man wrecking crew, with the capacity to undue noxious popular perceptions that have plagued this country for generations. This is a step in the right direction.

--In retrospect, the prolonged primary season was chock-full of costs and benefits for the Democrats. One benefit, of course, was the increased media attention for their two show ponies. Both Clinton and Obama are professional politicians and rarely are worse off for the wear of the media spotlight--unlike McCain. That being said, Obama will have to mend more fences than any nominee in recent history. The only thing worse than a divisive campaign where bridges are burned is a REALLY LONG divisive campaign in which LOTS of bridges are burned.

--The talking heads on MSNBC are totally enamored with Obama. Chris Matthews, of "thrill going up my leg" fame, is totally in the tank for Obama--and he is not alone. I really like Matthews, to be honest, and I'm not a believer in some conspiracy in media to affect political outcomes. That being said, Obama, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, is hard not to like. Journalists are people, too. Matthews and his deskmate, Keith Olbermann, have the outward appearance of giddy schoolgirls when talking about Obama.

--There were three speeches tonight in succession from McCain, Clinton and Obama and one thing is clear: John McCain couldn't compel a librarian to clean her glasses. Oh, and "Go John McCain" just doesn't flow like "yes we can."

--Who are these people? That is the question I ask myself, sometimes audibly, when I watch a campaign speech on television. I'm convinced that the people in that room--in every single one of the rooms--share one brain. Iterations of largely the same form cheer age-old campaign promises each and every cycle. Who are these people who buy colored cardboard, markers, paste and glitter to make their own unique signs with slogans like "count every vote?" and "Indiana is Obama Country"? What planet do they come from? I guess that's just the audacity of hope rearing its ugly head.

--I do, however, remember when John McCain was the darling of the mainstream media back in 2000. I didn't really like him back then, either. But, would we be better off now had he won? Probably.

--McCain did a hatchet-job on Mitt Romney--a guy I could take or leave--during the primary process and it left a bitter taste in my mouth. He beat this drum about Romney calling for a timetable for withdrawl in Iraq. Romney never said anything of the sort. Luckily for McCain, most people didn't care enough to look into it.

--I don't hate John McCain any more or less than the average Washington politician; but, I think there is a large kernel of truth in amongst the rhetoric from Obama regarding McCain. All comedy aside, McCain would be Bush Light. In terms of foreign policy, what changes if Johnny Mac becomes president?

--All in all, I am pretty happy with the McCain vs. Obama matchup. Hillary Clinton is a bottom dweller in a cess pool and if she had been the nominee I would have had to shower with Simple Green to get the stench off after voting for McCain.

--My gut feeling is that Hillary Clinton does not want to be Vice President, but would love nothing more than to be able to turn it down.

--Obama may very well win in November based solely on an historic voter turnout; but, it will not happen without Obama running the gauntlet for the next five months. His "pastor problems" are not going away. To win, Obama will have to become what he professes to hate: a "race to the bottom" politician.

John Lee Hooker actually badder than Jesse James

2008-06-02T23:03:00.009-04:00

I was 19 years old when I first heard John Lee Hooker's "I'm bad like Jesse James" and nearly ten years later it's still one of the coolest songs ever.
I was listening to it in my car this afternoon and I'm convinced that it fathered one of my all-time favorite Jimi Hendrix tunes, "Hey Joe."
Hooker, like the paragons of the Blues (Johnson, James, Waters, Lockwood, etc.), grew up in the Mississippi Delta--the birthplace of the Blues.
Originally, Delta Blues was marked by a simple acoustic guitar accompanied (at times) with a harmonica. Since the 1920's, however, the northward expansion of the Delta Blues has changed it significantly. These days, the staple instrument of the Blues is the electric guitar.
Now back to JLH...

This is pure genius, especially when you consider that he was illiterate:

I'm Bad Like Jesse James

I'm bad
I'm bad
Like Jesse James, uh-huh

I had a friend one time
Least I thought I did
He come to me
Said, 'Johnny?'
Said, 'What man?'
'I'm outdoor'
I say, 'Yeah?'

I taken the cat in
Get him a place to stay
And I found out
He goin' 'round town
Tellin' ev'rybody that he
He got my wife

Then I gets mad
I goes to the cat
Like a good guy should
I said, 'Look man
'I'm gonna warn, you just one time'
Next time I warn you'
'I'm gonna use my gun'

'Cause I'm mad, I'm bad, like Jesse James

I'm so mad, I'm so mad.
I'm gonna ruin you this mornin'.
I've got three boys
Do my dirty work
Now, you don't see me
I'm the big boss
I do the payin' off
After they take care of you

In their on way
They may shoot you
They may cut you.
They may drown you
I just don't know
I don't care
Long as they take care of you
In their on way

I'm so mad, I'm bad this mornin', like Jesse James.

They gon' take you right down
By the riverside
Now four is goin' down
Ain't but three comin' back
You read between the line
We're gonna have a deal

'Cause I'm mad, I'm bad, like Jesse James.

They gonna tie yo' hands
They gonna tie yo' feet
They gonna gag your throat
Where you can't holler none

An cryin' won't help you none
Set you in the water
Yeah, the bubbles comin' up.
Whoa
Rrrrrrr
Rrrrrrr

Oh yeah, I'm so mad!

JLH is my favorite Blues man for a number of reasons, not the least of which being his connection to my home state.
Hooker became the single greatest Blues man in Motown after heading north, much like my grandparents did, to work in the auto industry.
He is more of a talker than a singer, but he has that gruff Blind Willie-like voice that I just love.

My top 10 Blues Men (and one woman)

*Favorite tune in parentheses

1.) John Lee Hooker (Bad like Jesse James)
2.) Skip James (Devil Got My Woman)
3.) B.B. King (Paying the Cost to be the Boss)
4.) Blind Willie Johnson (Trouble Soon Be Over)
5.) Leadbelly (Bourgeoise Blues)
6.) Buddy Guy (Midnight Train)
7.) Robert Cray (Times Makes Two)
8.) Robert Johnson (Sweet Home Chicago)
9.) Muddy Waters (Mojo Workin')
10.) Susan Tedeschi (Looking for answers)

'We have to make other arrangements': Kuntsler in Wash Post

2008-05-27T14:41:00.006-04:00

James Howard Kunstler has written one of the most prescient accounts of what the global energy crisis actually means: an historic reversal of commodity chains and consumption patterns.
This is the stark reality of runaway energy prices coupled with the popular aversion toward modifying the so-called "American way."
Don't think for a moment that a few tweaks here and there to our way of life is going to change a crisis on a global scale.
This is not a crisis we can isolate.
Read this editorial and maybe even check out the book:

Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster.

By James Howard Kunstler
Sunday, May 25, 2008; B03

Everywhere I go these days, talking about the global energy predicament on the college lecture circuit or at environmental conferences, I hear an increasingly shrill cry for "solutions." This is just another symptom of the delusional thinking that now grips the nation, especially among the educated and well-intentioned.

I say this because I detect in this strident plea the desperate wish to keep our "Happy Motoring" utopia running by means other than oil and its byproducts. But the truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

The public, and especially the mainstream media, misunderstands the "peak oil" story. It's not about running out of oil. It's about the instabilities that will shake the complex systems of daily life as soon as the global demand for oil exceeds the global supply. These systems can be listed concisely:

The way we produce food

The way we conduct commerce and trade

The way we travel

The way we occupy the land

The way we acquire and spend capital

And there are others: governance, health care, education and more.

As the world passes the all-time oil production high and watches as the price of a barrel of oil busts another record, as it did last week, these systems will run into trouble. Instability in one sector will bleed into another. Shocks to the oil markets will hurt trucking, which will slow commerce and food distribution, manufacturing and the tourist industry in a chain of cascading effects. Problems in finance will squeeze any enterprise that requires capital, including oil exploration and production, as well as government spending. These systems are all interrelated. They all face a crisis. What's more, the stress induced by the failure of these systems will only increase the wishful thinking across our nation.

And that's the worst part of our quandary: the American public's narrow focus on keeping all our cars running at any cost. Even the environmental community is hung up on this. The Rocky Mountain Institute has been pushing for the development of a "Hypercar" for years -- inadvertently promoting the idea that we really don't need to change.

Years ago, U.S. negotiators at a U.N. environmental conference told their interlocutors that the American lifestyle is "not up for negotiation." This stance is, unfortunately, related to two pernicious beliefs that have become common in the United States in recent decades. The first is the idea that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. (Oprah Winfrey advanced this notion last year with her promotion of a pop book called "The Secret," which said, in effect, that if you wish hard enough for something, it will come to you.) One of the basic differences between a child and an adult is the ability to know the difference between wishing for things and actually making them happen through earnest effort.

The companion belief to "wishing upon a star" is the idea that one can get something for nothing. This derives from America's new favorite religion: not evangelical Christianity but the worship of unearned riches. (The holy shrine to this tragic belief is Las Vegas.) When you combine these two beliefs, the result is the notion that when you wish upon a star, you'll get something for nothing. This is what underlies our current fantasy, as well as our inability to respond intelligently to the energy crisis.

These beliefs also explain why the presidential campaign is devoid of meaningful discussion about our energy predicament and its implications. The idea that we can become "energy independent" and maintain our current lifestyle is absurd. So is the gas-tax holiday. (Which politician wants to tell voters on Labor Day that the holiday is over?) The pie-in-the-sky plan to turn grain into fuel came to grief, too, when we saw its disruptive effect on global grain prices and the food shortages around the world, even in the United States. In recent weeks, the rice and cooking-oil shelves in my upstate New York supermarket have been stripped clean.

So what are intelligent responses to our predicament? First, we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

We'll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

Fixing the U.S. passenger railroad system is probably the one project we could undertake right away that would have the greatest impact on the country's oil consumption. The fact that we're not talking about it -- especially in the presidential campaign -- shows how confused we are. The airline industry is disintegrating under the enormous pressure of fuel costs. Airlines cannot fire any more employees and have already offloaded their pension obligations and outsourced their repairs. At least five small airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past two months. If we don't get the passenger trains running again, Americans will be going nowhere five years from now.

We don't have time to be crybabies about this. The talk on the presidential campaign trail about "hope" has its purpose. We cannot afford to remain befuddled and demoralized. But we must understand that hope is not something applied externally. Real hope resides within us. We generate it -- by proving that we are competent, earnest individuals who can discern between wishing and doing, who don't figure on getting something for nothing and who can be honest about the way the universe really works.

James Howard Kunstler is the author, most recently, of "World Made by Hand," a novel about America's post-oil future.

In Memoriam: Losing sight of the day, remembering the victims

2008-05-26T10:16:00.012-04:00

It's a little more difficult in America these days to get caught up in "glory, glory, Hallelujah" wartime fanfare; there's so little of it left. Many Americans, one might say most, are somewhat weary of war and all that accompanies it.
Call it war fatigue.
This could explain our newfound relative lack of fervor surrounding national holidays like Memorial Day.
But upon further review, I think there is more to it.
To America's younger generations, "foreign" not only describes war's theater but its character as well.
The vast majority of Americans under 40, and I fall into this category, don't really understand wartime sacrifice like my Grandparents' generation.
Over the years I have taken note, on numerous occasions, of a simple little phrase used by older folks to describe World War II: "I lived through World War II," I've heard them say.
What does that mean to someone like me? In 40 years will I talk about "living through" two wars against Iraq?
Of course not.
Our wars against Iraq are foreign wars, to be sure, but so was World War II--a world-historic war that was fought primarily in Western Europe and the Far East.
The difference, of course, is reflected in the level of individual sacrifice commanded of those of us who stay "in the rear with the gear" as the old military saying goes.
The generation dubbed as "greatest" by Tom Brokaw (the WWII generation) deserves just such a moniker because of the sacrfice of its people, fighting men and women alongside citizen soldiers.
My generation is every bit as enlightened as it is insulated; we gather around grills instead of graves on this day.
Memorial Day just isn't what it used to be. Only a few short decades ago this day was one to remember the sacrifices of American military men and women who fought in wars both foreign and domestic.
It was strictly a day for remembrance and celebration.
All that has changed, of course; these days many Americans couldn't tell you the difference either in time or in significance of Labor Day as opposed to Memorial Day.
I'm not much different, of course, as a product of my environment. I've never celebrated Memorial Day in any substantial way.
And I have also never been called upon to sacrifice for my country, nor have I volunteered.
The casualty, then, is the devotion bred from sacrifice.

Remember the victims
We are certainly not alone in our willingness to celebrate victories with blind eyes toward the costs of winning them. And while it might not fit some people's narrow-minded definition of what it means to be patriotic, I think it's imporant to remember the innocent lives lost in what Robert McNamara has taken to calling "the fog of war."
Think for a moment that during World War II 100,000 people were burned to death in one night during the firebombing of Japan's major cities. This is in addition to the more than 210,000 people who were vaporized in the first and only two nuclear strikes (Hiroshima and Nagaski, Japan) in world history. Common Japanese citizens made the ultimate sacrifice and had no choice in the matter.
Remember them.
Curtis Lemay, the Air Force General who commanded troops in the Pacific Theater during World War II, admitted after the war that if the United States had lost he (among others) would have been tried as war criminals.
Remember that.
I recently watched a moving documentary that told the stories of numerous survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan entitled, "White Light, Black Rain."
I listened to firsthand accounts of living through a nuclear strike alongside admissions of young people living in Hiroshima that they didn't even know what happened on August 6, 1945, in their city.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana

War by the numbers

Take some time to read through these listings of 20th century wartime death tolls sorted by conflict:

Farm bill ensures lots of green

2008-05-21T11:06:00.009-04:00

America takes care of its farmers.
Just in my lifetime American farmers have been paid to produce more and, at times, to produce nothing at all.
It is a truism that supercedes reality.
Two summers ago there was a report in the Washington Post about farm subsidies being doled out to non-farmers--people who live on land formerly used for farming.
It went on to explain that even landowners who did farm did not have to grow the crop the subsidy was intended for, or any crop at all.
It seems that farm subsidies are quite a windfall for some.

The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.
--Washington Post (July 2, 2006)

And now we have the controverial $307 billion farm bill which, at least on the surface, subsidizes farmers on both ends of the wealth spectrum.
And to answer the question, "who counts as rich?", I offer this: pretty much no one.
Here's an excerpt from the report in today's Christian Science Monitor:

Washington - At the heart of the standoff between the White House and Congress over a $307 billion farm bill is the question: Should taxpayers subsidize rich farmers – and who counts as rich?

What income levels qualify – or disqualify – Americans from federal aid programs has figured in several clashes between the Bush administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The farm bill on the way to the president's desk this week limits eligibility for farm subsidies to individuals with an adjusted gross farm income of less than $750,000; $1.5 million for couples. That's down from the $2.5 million for couples under current law, but President Bush wants the eligibility cap for farm subsidies to be much lower: $200,000.

"At a time of record farm income, Congress chose to .... require the American taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers already earning up to $1.5 million per year and expand government control over farm programs," said the White House in a statement Thursday.

The farm bill passed both the House and Senate last week with veto-proof majorities, 81 to 15 in the Senate and 318 to 106 in the House. The bill cuts traditional crop insurance programs by $3.8 billion and authorizes a $10.3 billion increase in nutrition programs.

This bill was vetoed by President Bush today, but you can rest assured that it will be overturned.

First TOKM, now Barack...

2008-05-19T14:22:00.006-04:00

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama address a mob scene in Portland, Oregon this weekend with these words quoted in the New York Daily News:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

His words dovetail the spirit of my last entry. Americans no longer have the luxury of living in a superglobal bubble, where actions aren't accompanied by reactions. Obama will get hammered from the Right for this statement, which smacks of guardian class elitism. Even so, Obama is right on the money.
This is a different world; we are directly connected as human beings in almost every conceivable way. Things no long happen in a vacuum.

America: Take a look at yourself

2008-05-14T17:33:00.005-04:00

It was with a great deal of glee that I read an article that made known the disdain many Indians have for being blamed for rising food prices.
In the International Herald Tribune, Heather Timmons writes about the popular chagrin that exists in India after the Bush Administration hoisted blame for the rise in the price of food in the United States.
It is the same old story, of course. The United States blames China and India for the precipitious rise in oil prices while saying nothing about our level of consumption--which, of course, dwarfs the consumption of any other country.
Now these newly industrialized economies are at fault for the higher cost of bread at Meijer.

Here is the gist of the article:

NEW DELHI: Instead of blaming India and other developing nations for the rise in food prices, Americans should rethink their energy policy and go on a diet, say a growing number of politicians, economists and academics here.
Criticism of the United States has ballooned in India recently, particularly after the Bush administration seemed to blame India's increasing middle class and prosperity for rising food prices. Critics from India seem to be asking one underlying question: "Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?"
The food problem has "clearly" been created by Americans, who are eating 50 percent more calories than the average person in India, said Pradeep Mehta, the secretary general of CUTS Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment, a private economic research organization based in India with offices in Kenya, Zambia, Vietnam and Britain.
If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, "many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates," Mehta said. The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added.

We Americans eat more, drink more, drive more, spend more, pollute more and blame more.
Now India is poking back at the United States with what amounts to a great line from an Eric Clapton song: before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

Dennys' reputation for funky fare largely deserved

2008-05-10T18:05:00.008-04:00

***This is the first in a bi-weekly series of restaurant reviews exclusive to TOKM***

For my first salvo into the rarefied air of restaurant reviews, I set my sights square on Saginaw Highway and Interstate 69 in Lansing--destination: Denny's.
This always-open full-service family diner chain has a reputation for somewhat less than fine dining and, as it turns out, it's a reputation that is largely deserved.
But, at the end of the day, where else can you go to soak up some Saturday night sobriety? (The preceding sentence neither promotes weekend drunkness nor Denny's as an antidote to it.)

Step up to the plate

After waiting 20 minutes to get so much as a look from the waitstaff, I made my intentions known: it was to be a Grand Slam with scrambled eggs, bacon, two pancakes and hash browns. The Grand Slam is the Burger King equivalent of the Whopper combo

The verdict

The eggs ran; the bacon tasted like peanut brittle minus the peanut taste normally associated with the best-known variety of brittle--in fairness they may have actually been "beggin' strips"; the center portions of my pancakes had the consistency of paper mache; the hash browns weren't bad, though I believe "fried potatoes" is the preferred nomenclature.
In fairness, however, it didn't take my Grand Slam long to round the bases. It was out of the kitchen and on my table in less than 10 minutes.

You have options, exercise them

I must tip my hat to Denny's for only closing its doors when it is mandated by law. It is, however, confounding to me that many are unaware of the fact that there are so many other options. Hitting up Denny's at four o'clock in the morning to take the edge off hunger pains of the early morning is one thing, but why go during regular business hours? You have options; exercise them.

Of course they do have WI-FI

More and more Denny's locations are getting wired for the internet, which does give the chain a bit of a boost. That being said, WI-FI is a little sketchy at their flagship Capital-area location. You cannot just login here; you have to get a network key from your waiter, a wireless code he or she will write down for you on the back of an old receipt. Once you get connected, search Google for the nearest IHOP location and get back behind the wheel.

Connect the dots

Since March of 2006, there have been no fewer than four shootings at Denny's locations in the United States. To borrow a phrase from the great Chris Rock, "I'm not saying it's right...but I understand."

Gas prices from around the world

2008-05-09T20:06:00.006-04:00

Ok, I'll admit it: I was always that annoying guy who stood at the ready to pounce on anyone who moaned about the high price of gas in the United States--even when it was in the $1 to $2 range. It did seem high at the time, especially considering that in 2000 I purchased gas in northwest Indiana for just less than 70 cents.
"Go check the price of gas in Canada," I would say to the chagrined. "And when you're done, go look up Europe."
And now I have the proof in writing.
In America it's bad, but it could be a lot worse.
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at these gas prices across the globe measured in US dollars:

Gas prices from around the world (USA Today)

Gas prices on April 17 or 18. Data for EU countries were provided by the AA Motoring Trust.

United Kingdom $8.37

Netherlands $7.52

Norway $7.33

Belgium $6.95

Denmark $6.95

Germany $6.72

Portugal $6.65

Finland $6.57

France $6.50

Sweden $6.50

Hungary $5.63

Poland $5.63

Slovakia $5.59

Austria $5.40

Ireland $5.40

Slovenia $5.36

Switzerland $5.17

Spain $5.14

Czech Republic $5.10

Greece $4.91

Italy $4.80

Lithuania $4.72

Latvia $4.61

Estonia $4.30

Luxembourg $4.27

Japan $4.16

United States $2.88

Kazakhstan $2.75

Russia $2.68

Mexico $2.38

China $2.19

Nigeria $1.92

Saudi Arabia $0.45

Venezuela $0.19

The variables in play here that affect the disparate prices are as follows: Gas prices in welfare states, such as those in Western Europe (The Netherlands for example), are always going to be high because of runaway taxation on commodities like gasoline.
Countries in Latin America who trade with Venezuela (like Cuba, for instance) tend to pay less for gas. Venezuela sits on what some experts believe are the second largest oil reserves in the world and that is reflected in their unbelievably low price for a gallon of gas--that, coupled with the fact that Hugo Chavez's government nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela and can essentially set the price.
The OPEC countries of the Middle East (Venezuela also in OPEC) tend to pay very little for gas for many reasons, not the least of which being their proximity to the supply.

Yes he did: only an Obama collapse can save Hillary now

2008-05-08T21:26:00.010-04:00

The party's over for Hillary, but she'll still be there in the morning.
After Barack Obama's easy victory in North Carolina Tuesday, Clinton's razor-slim victory in Indiana was effectively rendered inconsequential.
Unless he's seen casing a federal building with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers in the next few weeks, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic presidential candidate this fall against John McCain.
All that being said, Hillary will not get out of the race until the last possible second. She will wait on one big Obama screw-up and, if indeed that unlikely scenario occurs, from there attempt to convince the Democractic superdelegates that she is their best choice against McCain.
And for an even more antagonistic view of Hillary's loitering, think for a minute how exactly she can get back the $11,400,000 she sunk into her campaign?
And so, she is here to stay.

Who will be Obama Veep?

I cannot envision a scenario in which Obama would bring Hillary (and by extension, Bill) into the White House--if, indeed, he wins--as Vice President. It has been an ugly, not to mention prolonged, race for the nomination and I just cannot imagine the two coexisting. Clinton/Obama could have worked; Obama/Clinton is just not in the cards.
Furthermore, Clinton would not have any more claim to power as VP when compared to her high profile junior senator from New York role in Washington. Clinton will just have to hope McCain defeats Obama in November, so she can make a run in 2012. After that, it will probably be too late.
In the end, I think Obama will choose Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas.

Handicapping the final two

John McCain

Strengths: War hero...reputation as straight talker...bipartisan record in the senate...crossover appeal could be reminiscent of Reagan Dems...strong on defense...high favorability ratings...gets kid-glove treatment from mass media...more qualified than any presidential candidate since Robert Dole.

Weaknesses: Not popular with the base of the Republican Party...would be oldest president in American History...represents state (AZ) that is already in the bag for the GOP...unapologetic Bush supporter..."stay the course in Iraq" mindset becoming less popular...wears the "inside the Beltway" tag...will appear practically impotent when compared to Obama.

Barack Obama

Strengths: Young and vibrant...most inspirational presidential candidate since JFK...his message is roundly positive...could be first African-American President of the United States...dos not have to defend a long record in the Senate...thoroughgoing critic of war in Iraq...advocate of sustainable foreign policy...he's not old and white.

Weaknesses: Relationships with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright will haunt him...short list of accomplishments in Senate...many Americans are still covertly predjudiced in their views of blacks and will not vote for him regardless...seems less inclined than most presidential candidates to dive into the mud...a sizeable number of Clinton primary voters appear poised to vote for McCain...his state, Illinois, is a Democratic stronghold.

En Vogue words: Here are two you may need to know

2008-05-07T10:23:00.002-04:00

During this somewhat less than brief primary election cycle, two words have really caught my attention.
I'm a political junkie and a wordsmith, of sorts, so I know the use of "metrics" and "vetted" are something new within the political punditry.
It's fascinating to think that the use of these two words came to be en vogue among the pundits in such short order.
For me, a part-time cynic, the reason for their use is simple: high-minded types enjoy using words that their "common folk" cannot understand.
And so, to undercut their elitism, I offer this:

Metrics: These are merely standards of measurement like, for instance, tracking polls.

Example from Slate.com:"Anyway, it isn't completely true that the Clinton campaign no longer believes in arithmetic benchmarks. It would be more accurate to say that it no longer believes in the ones that matter. Clinton is still more than happy to sling irrelevant metrics."

Vetted: In this context, the term simply means "validated"--i.e. she has been around long enough to have been critiqued from every angle. She's a known quantity, essentially.

Example from newspaper in Durham, NC: "And despite Clinton's arguments that she has already been vetted, Obama suggested that a Republican opponent would be more likely to bring up past Clinton scandals that have been largely absent from the Democratic primary campaign."

If you don't read newspapers, just watch MSNBC, CNN or Fox News political coverage and I guarantee you will hear one of both of these terms more than once.

Update: Death toll may surpass 80,000 in Burma

2008-05-06T22:12:00.000-04:00

According to Peter Lloyd, a correspondent for ABC News, deaths related to Cyclone Nargis may surpass 80,000.
And while the total number of deaths will, without doubt, continue to rise in the days to come, one must concede that Burma's failure to open up fully to foreign aid will inevitably cost more people their lives.
Here is the report from ABC News:

Kyi Minn is health adviser for World Vision in Burma and he says that on top of the 22,000 the military regime has admitted have died, there are another 60,000 missing - presumed dead.
ABC correspondent Peter Lloyd reports there are also indications that the massive aid effort is being hampered by a lack of organisation and infrastructure in Burma to distribute the urgently needed supplies.
The storm happened at the weekend, but the military junta's slowness to let international aid agencies in has meant that many devastated areas have still seen no help.
Agencies are still battling to get all the visas and permits they need to do their work in flooded and cyclone-ravaged towns and villages.
More details are emerging from Burma about the scale of death and destruction caused by cyclone Nargis.

The price of underdevelopment: Provisional death toll in Burma reaches 10,000

2008-05-05T11:19:00.011-04:00

The tragic loss of life and property in Burma this weekend is a microcosm of a world of inequality. With thousands presumed to be dead and even more displaced, it leaves the mind to ponder why human beings, already poor and oppressed, must suffer through such horror. And while we know natural disasters like cyclones do not discriminate, they do have the unique characteristic of shedding light upon the aforementioned global inequality. Here is the latest dispatch from south Asia, where a cyclone recently ravaged what was already one of the poorest countries in the world.

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Myanmar's military government has a provisional death toll of 10,000 from this weekend's devastating cyclone, with another 3,000 missing, a diplomat said on Monday after a briefing from Foreign Minister Nyan Win.

"The basic message was that they believe the provisional death toll was about 10,000 with 3,000 missing," a diplomat present at the meeting told Reuters in Bangkok.

(Reporting by Ed Cropley; Editing by Darren Schuettler)

This is a tragedy of epic proportions. Just think for a moment about natural disasters. No country is immune to natural disasters in one form or another. Because of this, they have the capacity of separating the "haves" from the "have nots" with respect to this geopolitical/economic phenomenon we call development.
I remember being struck by the extent of the disaster wrought by the earthquake in 2003 that killed 15,000 people in southeastern Iran and thinking to myself: that could never happen here.
And again in 2004 when 350,000 people were killed as a result of a tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
That could never happen here.
And, I was basically right. Large-scale tragedies of natural origins have been all but made extinct in the more developed nations of the world--we cannot control the natural impulses of the globe, but we can (and do) prepare for the worst.
This is not to say that every country affected by the tsunami of 2004 was of the less developed variety, of course. But consider that in the hardest hit country, Indonesia (150,000 dead, 500,000 displaced), more than half of the population lives on less than two dollars per day.
Now consider that the costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States, in both lives and property, was Hurricane Katrina in 2005. More than 1,800 people lost their lives when storm surge from the Gulf of Mexico overcame New Orleans' outdated levee system (this is 1,200 fewer than the 3,000 pro-democracy demonstrators who were killed by the Burmese government in 1988).
Before Katrina, the most destructive hurricane was Andrew, which cost 65 people their lives back in 1992.
Andrew made landfall as a Category Five storm, with more powerful winds than the Cyclone that hit Burma.

Do the math
Of the events that are generally considered to be the top ten deadliest natural disasters to hit the United States since 1900 (these include forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, eruptions and blizzards) the combined death toll does not rise to the level of the 2003 Earthquake in Iran. Further, at roughly 14,000, it is only marginally higher than the death toll in Burma, which some experts believe will eventually rise well above 10,000.

Natural disaster uncovers man-made disaster

Burma, known to some as Myanmar, is another in a long line of failed authoritarian states. Controlled by the military, Burma has long been one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on the planet.
Its government has a track record of human rights abuses and, because of this, is shunned by the United States, Britain and many other western governments.
And so, even in the wake of such an immense tragedy, do not expect the Burmese government to accept a great deal of foreign aid (even from nations who do not recognize the authority of the military to rule Burma). The Burmese people will continue to suffer under a military regime that couldn't govern its way out of a wet paper sack.
Militaries, it seems, are best kept back in the barracks and are no substitute for liberal democracy.
Burma's economy is not diverse--its practically a single-commodity economy--and this fact will become all too evident as reports from the devastated "rice belt" region are made known.
Illicit drugs aside, Burma is as dependent upon rice as many of the old Banana Republics were on the potassium sticks.
This is a man-made disaster, in truth. Burma is practically a case study in the failure of military-led governments to care for the basic needs of citizens.
The vast majority of all developed countries are liberal democracies where tragedies are barely comparable.
Say a prayer for Burma.

What's better in sports than the Derby?

2008-05-04T00:35:00.011-04:00

The simple answer is: probably nothing.
The Kentucky Derby is as good as it gets in sports. If you can stomach two hours of mind-numbing pomp coupled with screenshots of the most disgustingly opulent people on earth, you are in for two minutes of high drama.
This year's race was gut-wrenching to say the least.

Here is how ESPN's Pat Forde saw the race:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Thoroughbred racing at its best. Thoroughbred racing at its worst.
In a jarring matter of moments, the Kentucky Derby gave us both. It gave us an overpowering tour de force from Big Brown, stomping the competition despite inexperience and unfavorable post position. And it gave us a fatal injury after the race, when filly Eight Belles followed a sensational effort of her own to finish second by fracturing both ankles, falling to the track and being euthanized on the spot.
Brilliance and brittleness. Triumph and tragedy. A superstar performance and a ghastly postscript. It was an evening of violent mood swings at Churchill Downs.

And while Big Brown's performance in the final quarter mile was impressive, it pales in comparison to the performance of 50-1 underdog Giacomo in the 2005 Derby.
Check it out:

Gaseous expansion

2008-05-03T16:00:00.007-04:00

The biggest single issue in the 2008 presidential election can be summed up in a word: economy. Within that broad subject is the hot-button issue of all economic issues: the price of a gallon of gas.
Between staged photo opportunities with the presidential candidates looking bewildered at the pumping process is the truth behind the high price of gas--in short, it is here to stay.
Historically the price of gas only gets higher during the summer months because of increases in demand. For people like me, in high-tax state like Michigan, this means that $4.00 per gallon gas is probably in our future.

Why the gaseous expansion?
The precipitious rise in the price of gas is, like nearly everything staked to the whim of world markets, directly connected to an uptick in the global demand for petroleum.
As demand in rapidly industrializing economies like India and China increases, the world oil supply has become strapped. And while there are numerous untapped oil reserves in both North and South America, it has become more difficult (and expensive) to tap into these reserves.
The United States, the world's largest consumer of oil, simply does not (and cannot in the long term) produce enough oil to sustain its own economy. As a consequence, Americans are stuck in the throes of a global market driven by consumers and speculators on the other side of the world.

What can we do about it?
Hillary Clinton's stump speech now includes a plan for a moratorium on the federal gas tax which, in the short term, would provide very little relief from the high price of gas. In fact, it could have the affect of creating a small surge in demand. Similarly, taxing the windfall profits of oil companies seems short-sighted as well.
What, then, is left for Americans to do? The simple answer is: not much. Americans must consume less oil but, since markets for oil are global in nature, even that would not make much of an impact.
Apart from tapping our own coastal reserves and those reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Americans must demand more investment in alternative fuels to wean our country off foreign oil.
This is a process that should have begun years ago, and I think we all know why that didn't happen.
And so, consume less or develop more are our only two courses of action.

Ranger dead in Afghanistan on seventh tour

2008-05-01T23:02:00.002-04:00

This tragic story is almost too amazing to believe. Seven tours?

Printed in Editor & Publisher on Thursday:

NEW YORK An Army Ranger from Ramona, Ca., was killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday—on his seventh tour of duty in that country or in Iraq.

Sgt. 1st Class David L. McDowell, 30, died Tuesday in Bastion, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered in a firefight when enemy forces attacked using small arms fires, according to the Pentagon.

His father was also an Army ranger.

McDowell had been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq seven times and was a recipient of two Bronze stars and a Purple Heart. His most recent tour in Afghanistan began on March 29.

He is survived by his wife, his high school sweetheart, Joleen; son, Joshua, 11; daughter, Erin, 3; his parents; and two sisters.

BUSHCHENEYRUMSFELDRICE's failed foreign policy

2008-05-01T00:34:00.006-04:00

This report on the success, or lack thereof, in the fight against global terrorism is startling to say the least.

Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri (pictured) are both still at-large and, it seems, no longer "on the run" as had been stated in the intervening years since September 11th, 2001.

The failure the Iraq policy and, in the larger context, the failed war on global terrorism will constitute President Bush's legacy.

From Matthew Lee, AP writer, dated today:

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11, 2001, capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Attacks in Pakistan more than doubled from 375 to 887 between 2006 and 2007, and the number of fatalities jumped by almost 300 percent from 335 to 1,335, the State Department said in its annual terrorism report.

In Afghanistan, the number of attacks rose 16 percent, to 1,127 incidents last year, killing 1,966 people, 55 percent more than the 1,257 who died in 2006, it said.

The report said attacks in Iraq dipped slightly between 2006 and 2007, but they still accounted for 60 percent of worldwide terrorism fatalities.

More than 22,000 people were killed by terrorists around the world in 2007, 8 percent more than in 2006, but the overall number of attacks fell, the report says.

The report identified Iran as the world's "most active" state sponsor of terrorism for supporting Palestinian extremists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it says elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps continued to give militants weapons, training and money.

"In this way, Iranian government forces have been responsible for attacks on coalition forces," State Department counterterrorism coordinator Dell Dailey told reporters.

About 13,600 noncombatants were killed in 2007 in Iraq, the report says, adding the high number could be attributed to a 50 percent increase in the number of suicide bombings. Iraqi suicide car bombings were up 40 percent, and suicide bombings outside of vehicles climbed 90 percent over 2006, it says.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain "the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners" despite ongoing efforts to combat followers of Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, according to the report. It says Zawahiri has emerged as the terror group's "strategic and operational planner."

"It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri," the report says.

What would "complete victory" look like?

What follows is an excerpt from a speech given by President Bush in September 2006. In it, he laundry lists all the successes of a "nation at war."

As you watch it, ask yourself this question: What would a victory look like, especially in light of six years of fighting to a draw?

A war against terrorism is a war without end.

More modern church music no match for old

2008-04-30T11:00:00.004-04:00

I've never been more convinced that the music of more modern churches is tiddlywinks when compared to the music of my grandparents' era and before. Find me a hymn written since 1950 to match this one:

Farther Along by Anonymous

Tempted and tried, we’re oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long;
While there are others living about us,
Never molested, though in the wrong.

Refrain:

Farther along we’ll know more about it,
Farther along we’ll understand why;
Cheer up, my brother, live in the sunshine,
We’ll understand it all by and by.

Sometimes I wonder why I must suffer,
Go in the rain, the cold, and the snow,
When there are many living in comfort,
Giving no heed to all I can do.

Tempted and tried, how often we question
Why we must suffer year after year,
Being accused by those of our loved ones,
E’en though we’ve walked in God’s holy fear.

Often when death has taken our loved ones,
Leaving our home so lone and so drear,
Then do we wonder why others prosper,
Living so wicked year after year.

“Faithful till death,” saith our loving Master;
Short is our time to labor and wait;
Then will our toiling seem to be nothing,
When we shall pass the heavenly gate.

Soon we will see our dear, loving Savior,
Hear the last trumpet sound through the sky;
Then we will meet those gone on before us,
Then we shall know and understand why.

Context matters: MLK a hero, Wright a fanatic?

2008-04-28T14:48:00.006-04:00

Barack Obama's former minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, appeared with Bill Moyers recently on PBS. It was a long overdue interview that struck at the heart of the biggest issue surrounding Reverend Wright: context matters.

Moyers and his staff, in what was an obvious rebuttal to Fox News and their coverage of the controversy, played longer versions of the excerpts we have all seen from a few of Wright's sermons--statements he made over the course of more than 20 years.

It was a direct challenge to what has become pervasive in our increasingly media-driven culture: ever-quicker perception making.

To be fair, more context does not justify some of Wright's more controversial statements (the one about the HIV virus in particular); but, context does allow for a greater understanding of his sentiments.

The problem, as I see it, is that many white Americans want to be disgusted by Wright in order to stave off even a passing consideration that there may be elements of truth in his vitrolic rants. Merely his presentation, it seems, is enough for many to turn a deaf ear to his polemic.

And why not? Who wants to be labeled an anti-American fanatic as Wright has been? Who wants to take the time to hear someone out once that person's essence, their very being, is ostensibly known? The effect is this: Reverend Wright, based on what I know of him (essentially nothing) is a bigoted fanatic who hates his country and, by connection, Barack Obama is not fit to be the president. Now that's what I call due diligence...

MLK a hero, Wright a fanatic?

We are now 40 years removed from the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and I cannot help but to wonder what would have been made of King's message today--you know, the message that sometimes gets lost in some of the more grandiose events of the civil rights era in this country.

Like, for instance, what is the difference between Reverend Wright talking about America's "...chickens coming home to roost" and this:

When Wright made his now infamous "not God bless America...God damn America" statement, he was talking about justice--just as King was more than 40 years ago. He wasn't lashing out in hatred against his country. He was decrying the injustice of innocent death in Iraq (and elsewhere) just as King did with respect to Vietnam.

Wright is a Christian man, just as King was a Christian man. As a Christian man myself, I know how important it is to be reminded of the message of Christ and how no ideology, no matter how self-serving, can replace it.

America is not, and has never been, this "Messianic force" that King spoke about.

Don't believe the lies.

"Justice is indivisible..."

Five albums you'll meet in Heaven

2008-04-26T13:19:00.015-04:00

I was out with a few friends Thursday night and I posed this question: If you could only listen to five albums the rest of your life, what would they be?

Here are mine:

1.) Give Up by The Postal Service: This list isn't in any particular order, but I will say that this is probably the best album ever made.

Best songs: Such Great Heights; Sleeping In; District Sleeps Alone Tonight; Nothing better.

2.) Cold Rush of Blood to the Head by Coldplay: This is the best album by my favorite band.

Best songs: Politik; Amsterdam; Green Eyes

3.) Unplugged by Nirvana: I had to buy this CD at least three times in my life. I guess I listened to it too much. "About a Girl" is my #1 song of all-time.

Best songs: About a Girl; Man who sold the world; Where did you sleep last night?

4.) Live at the Apollo by B.B. King: This one is better than Live at San Quentin. Why you ask? It has the best B.B. song ever with this line: You gotta be crazy baby. You've gotta be out of your mind. As long as I'm payin' the bills I'm payin' the cost to the boss.

Best songs: All over again; Paying the cost to be the boss.

5.) Hot Fuss by The Killers: Every song on this album kills.

Best songs: Jenny was a friend of mind; Mr. Brightside; Everything will be alright.

These are pretty good, too: Tragic Kingdom by No Doubt; Self-Titled by Jars of Clay; Whatever and Ever Amen by Ben Folds; X & Y by Coldplay; 34th & 8th by OAR; Live at McCabe's by Ralph Stanley; Hello Nasty by the Beastie Boys; Battle of Los Angeles by RATM; The Hits by Garth Brooks; Satellite by P.O.D.; Bone Palace Ballet by Chiodos; Live in Central Park by DMB; White Ladder by David Gray; In Search of...by N.E.R.D; The Action Album by Oh My God; Music for the Morning After by Pete Yorn; Live at the Wetlands by RRFB; Greatest Hits by Jimi Hendrix; Neon Ballroom by Silverchair; Piece of You by Jewel; Precious Memories by Alan Jackson; Phrenology by the Roots; Be not nobody by Vanessa Carlton; Greatest Hits by the Doors; Spirit by Jewel; Morningview by Incubus; All killer no filler by Sum 41; The Joshua Tree by U2; Phenomenon by Thousand Foot Krutch; Ten by Pearl Jam; Core by Stone Temple Pilots; Dizzy up the girl by Goo Goo Dolls; Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield.

Jared Diamond warns: Don't insulate yourself

2008-04-18T13:14:00.009-04:00

Thursday night, my favorite non-fiction author, Jared Diamond, visited Flint for the second time in the last four years.

Both times the Pulitizer Prize winning author drew large crowds of adults and students (most of whom were getting some kind of extra college credit) for about a 45-minute lecture on environmental history.

Diamond is the author of what I consider to be the most influential book on history in the last 50 years. His work, Guns, Germs and Steel created a cottage industry of sorts for environmental history epics.

At its core, the book explains why history took one course over another. Why, for instance, peoples of Eurasian descent settled the New World by force of might rather than the reverse.

Diamond cites numerous factors, mostly involving very mundane environmental factors involved in food production and continental axes.

What he gives is a scientific explanation for inequality, in essence, debunking age-old theories turned stereotypes about human beings and their classifications.

Diamond, however, didn't spend much time talking about Guns, Germs and Steel on Thursday. He spoke extensively on his latest book entitled Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed

This book is not as earth-shattering as the former, but it's close. In it, are numerous case studies on failed societes (as well as successful ones) like Easter Island, the Western Roman Empire, the Empire of the Mayas, etc.

He gave several reasons for failures and successes, but the one that stands tallest, at least in my mind, is this: societies tend toward failure when leaders (be they kings, presidents, emperors, senators, shoguns, chiefs, etc.) insulate themselves from the problems that plague societies.

Environmental issues like deforestation, pollution, global warming, etc. came as no surprise to me nor did issues of geopolitical concern. But this concept of top-end insulation is brilliant.

The moral of the story is this: Societies collapse from within. The Barbarian hordes weren't responsible for the fall of Rome--Rome was. American society (read Western society) is not on the verge of collapse, but we are facing what amount to world-historic problems which require correct answers. Only time will tell if our leaders are close enough to the problems.

TV Week's weak rankings

2008-04-14T16:46:00.007-04:00

Check these recently released rankings of the most powerful people in television news.

A quick glance is all you need to figure out why these rankings are laughable.

Like him or hate him, there is no way Keith Olbermann is more powerful than Bill O'Reilly. Fox News could run a test pattern in O'Reilly's time slot and still bury Olbermann in the ratings.

O'Reilly has an enormous audience of people, both left and right, who watch him because they love him AND because they hate him.

Oh, and Olbermann is every bit as smug as O'Reilly--just for the record.

I like both of their shows, though.

(Either way, everyone knows that Hardball with Chris Matthews is the best show for hardcore POL junkies like myself.)

Forget the powerful, here are my top ten favorite TV news personalities:

1.) Patrick Buchanan
2.) Tim Russert
3.) Chris Matthews
4.) Bill O'Reilly
5.) Alan Colmes
6.) Dick Morris
7.) John McLaughlin
8.) Keith Olbermann
9.) Anderson Cooper
10.) Glenn Beck

Pope's prayer at Ground Zero

2008-04-10T10:25:00.003-04:00

Here is a transcript of Pope Benedict's prayer from Ground Zero in New York City, the site of the 2001 terror attacks.

Noticeably absent are these sentiments that I've heard from Christians in the intervening years since September 11th: "Kill, kill, kill"..."Let's bomb their country and turn it into a parking lot"..."Let God sort them out."

"We ask you in your goodness to give eternal light and peace to all who died here -- the heroic first-responders: our fire fighters, police officers, emergency service workers, and Port Authority personnel, along with all the innocent men and women who were victims of this tragedy simply because their work or service brought them here on September 11, 2001.

"We ask you, in your compassion to bring healing to those who, because of their presence here that day, suffer from injuries and illness.

"Heal, too, the pain of still-grieving families and all who lost loved ones in this tragedy. Give them strength to continue their lives with courage and hope. We are mindful as well of those who suffered death, injury, and loss on the same day at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

"Our hearts are one with theirs as our prayer embraces their pain and suffering. God of peace, bring your peace to our violent world: peace in the hearts of all men and women and peace among the nations of the earth.

"Turn to your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred. God of understanding, overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy, we seek your light and guidance as we confront such terrible events.

"Grant that those whose lives were spared may live so that the lives lost here may not have been lost in vain. Comfort and console us, strengthen us in hope, and give us the wisdom and courage to work tirelessly for a world where true peace and love reign among nations and in the hearts of all."

The Robin Hood rationale taxing to some NYC residents: cry me the Hudson river.

2008-04-08T21:48:00.008-04:00

This is great stuff...

From CBS News:

ALBANY (CBS) ― Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan may be dead, but Assembly Democrats do have a plan to raise money for mass transit: tax the rich.

It's what Albany calls a "millionaire's tax."

Yes, billionaires like Bloomberg will ante up, too.

Under the plan, people who earn over $1 million in New York state will pay an income tax surcharge of about 3/4 of 1 percent for five years. In all, it would raise over $5 billion for mass transit.

Michael Bloomberg and the NYC Dems are knocking this one out of the park.

How's that for problem solving? The traffic situation in the Big Apple is atrocious, and Bloomberg, a Republican, and the Dems are being proactive.

And for the crybabies who earn more than one million per year who work in NYC and live elswhere I say this: hand it over.

Nation 'America' meets 'State' America

2008-04-07T16:25:00.012-04:00

I'm often confronted by an inner struggle that, I'm certain, many of us face from time to time. It's the futile attempt to reconcile principles that, at varying points, collide.

It is just one struggle, of many, for a globally-minded Christian who loves his country.

My nationalist fervor is dying--there, I said it. It's a slow death, to be sure, because I still do love my country. But this fervor, inasmuch as it still exists, scrapes against every intellectual fiber in my body.

Nationalism, for many, is a religion. It was, for me, for a large part of my life. The Bubble burst for me, however, after high school when I challenged myself to learn as much about the world as I could. The world, I found out, is a much bigger place than I had ever imagined.

The Nation/State binary

"So what?" has lately been my answer to this question: "What do you think about that video of Barack Obama with his hands to his sides during the national anthem?"

Or this: "Do you think Michelle Obama loves her country?"

Answer: "I don't know. Probably."

It's not my job nor it is my desire to gauge someone else's love of their country on the basis of minutiae about lapel pins or quotes without context--though I have set myself up for just such a characterization.

Since many (perhaps even most) Americans have been socialized to respond well to authority, increasing numbers of my fellow citizens do not make a point of departure between love of country and love of state.

There is, of course, a difference.

I love this country and its people. This is a resilient nation and one that has, historically, done a lot of good things for a lot of people in the world.

When I hear people say that America is the greatest country in the world, I'm not offended. It might be, but how am I to know? I've never lived anywhere else; but I don't want to, either.

The people who love America most, at least in my opinion, are those of us who are disgusted by the, for lack of a better term, state of the State.

People who do not support war, whether in Iraq or anywhere else, aren't anti-American across the board. Some might be, but not solely because of an anti-war stance.

Governments lie; states are corrupt.

The state is not America; it represents America, however poorly, in the world.

What Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, et. al, have done to the security of our country with their disastrous foreign policy since 2000 is not an American tragedy. The American people have simply been along for the ride.

To have an opinion about it is not anti-American, though not having one certainly is.

Just as Christians are taught to love sinners and hate sins, I love this nation and hate the state.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12

Smile, you're on Google...

2008-04-07T15:55:00.003-04:00

Check out this story from The Smoking Gun regarding Google's new street mapping technology.

This is some scary stuff...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0407081google1.html

Dems getting Clinton fatigue

2008-03-27T11:01:00.004-04:00

It is becoming clear that the longer Hillary Clinton stays in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination the more harm she stands to cause the Party.

A recent poll in the Boston Globe shows that as many as 28 percent of Clinton voters would go to McCain and 19 percent of Obama voters (if somehow he were to lose out on the nomination.)

What we have is a serious case of fatigue in the Democratic Party coupled with a fair amount of emnity between supporters of Clinton and Obama.

The Democrats, despite churning out new voters by the hundreds of thousands, can't win for losing. This should be their election to lose and, dog gone it, they're going to lose it.

The Clintons aren't loyal Democrats, as many are prone to believe. They are power brokers in the most cutthroat sense of the term. They will stay in this race until the bitter end--and it will be bitter, to be sure.

Hillary cannot win, that much is clear. But what she can do is try and try again.

In much the same way as Mike Tyson in his prime was one punch away from a title, the Clintons are only one smear away from the nomination--or so they think.

If the Jeremiah Wright controversy wasn't enough to sink Obama's ship, what will?

Here is the report from the Boston Globe...

Where does your candidate stand on Iraq?

2008-03-19T11:03:00.002-04:00

On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, our three remaining presidential hopefuls made use of the opportunity to discuss their respective plans?

Here is the story from ABC News...

Pay particular attention to this:

McCain, who once was an ardent critic of the Bush administration's initial handling of the war, now talks about maintaining during his would-be presidency, a continued military presence in Iraq in an effort to bring security and stability to the region and allow the fracturous Iraqi government room to come to a political accommodation.

That is shorthand for this: A war without end.

America in 2017

2008-03-18T21:25:00.004-04:00

This afternoon I read an AP report that referenced a study by two IVY League economists (one of which wrote a book I read in grad school) that painted a fairly bleak picture of the future costs of war.

The latest study put the cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at 2.7 trillion dollars by 2017. Another recent study put out by the Congressional Budget Office, ostensibly non-partisan, pegged our best-case scenario at 1.7 trillion by 2017.

Here's a friendly reminder from yours truly: 1.7 trillion is one thousand and seven hundred billion dollars.

Taken by itself, the Iraq War has been costlier than every war in American history, save for one: World War II.

Today the San Francisco Chronicle published the costs of war, itemized:

Costs of the war

-- $435 million: Cost of Iraq war each day.

-- $526 billion: Cost of combat operations to date.

-- $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion: Estimated Afghanistan and Iraq combat costs through 2017.

-- $590 billion: Future costs of disability benefits and health care for Iraq war veterans.

-- $615 billion: Cost of interest on money borrowed to pay for the war.

-- $280 billion: Cost of replacing equipment and restoring U.S. military to prewar strength.

-- $16,500: Cost of the war to each U.S. family of four from 2003-2008.

-- $36,900: Cost of the war to each family if the war continues for 10 years.

-- $274 billion: Cost of increased oil prices related to the Iraq war, 2003-2008.

The interest due on the trillions the war has and will continue to cost us will be in the hundreds of billions.

All that to say this: It was a mistake to go into Iraq and it is a mistake to stay.

As scary as this sounds, voting for a Democrat for president might be the only thing that can save our economy.

A vote for John McCain is a vote for the status quo, and that is costing us dearly.

The funniest commerical of all-time...

2008-03-03T01:45:00.002-05:00

Skittles will be my candy of choice until the day I die, thanks to this little gem...

Liar: Right-wing talker Cunningham intellectually dishonest about use of Obama middle name

2008-02-28T11:45:00.008-05:00

Bill Cunningham recently invoked the middle name of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama in a pep talk given to a crowd attending a John McCain rally recently.

Not just once, of course. The scarcely-relevant talk show how blirted out "Hussein" at least three times in his tirade about Obama. The use of the term was perhaps the only memorable part of his stark-raving mad presentation, chock-full of innuendoes.

He then went on television Tuesday to defend his juvenile vitriol.

He was just using it as he would the middle name of any President--you know, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, etc.

Cunningham, of course, is lying.

Anyone with half a brain knows exactly what he is doing. He is sending out a signal to ignorant voters who might be turned off by Obama's Middle-Eastern middle name. He is playing to a false rumor that was circulated on the internet about Obama being a Muslim.

Eric Zorn wrote about Cunningham's tirade this way in the Chicago Tribune:

Obama doesn't use his middle name in his public life, and it's not necessary for anyone else to use it to distinguish him from other Barack Obamas.

The only reason to say "Barack Hussein Obama," as radio talk show host Bill Cunningham did repeatedly Tuesday in warming up a John McCain campaign rally in Cincinnati, is to try to excite anti-Muslim, anti-Arab prejudices (though Obama is neither Muslim nor of Arab descent) and not so subtly suggest that Obama's actually a slippery foreigner.

One cannot expect intellectual honesty from a non-intellecutal partisan like Cunningham. That being said, dredging up deep-seated xenophobia in the electorate is totally below board.

McCain repudiated Cunningham's use of the name, which spurred the half-wit talker to throw his support behind Hillary Clinton for president.

Yeah, you know: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

You be the Judge: Cunningham in his own words...

‘Haskell’ humanitarian can fly, but not hide: Tanzanian cheers and jeers microcosm of Bush Legacy

2008-02-18T14:43:00.010-05:00

A strange thing happened on day two of President Bush’s five-nation tour of Africa in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Sunday.

Jeers were replaced by cheers; signs of Bush wearing a toothbrush mustache and jackboots were replaced by bold exclamations about American’s generous democracy.

According to one Reuters report, people were actually wearing t-shirts emblazoned with Bush’s face without that seemingly ubiquitous Alfred E. Neuman “what, me worry?” grin.

He actually looked presidential in the eyes of onlookers; at least, of course, until he attempted to articulate what he called a Swahili equivalent of a west Texas “Howdy y’all.”

Even so, Bush was lauded by Tanzanian President as being a friend to his country and to the continent as a whole.

It is true, of course, that Bush climbed into the coffers to dole out more monetary aid to Africa than any president in American history—even more than the so-called “first Black president,” Bill Clinton.

(Taking away any value judgments upon the sincerity of the transactions, I certainly would rather see my tax dollars being spent on water filtration systems and anti-Malarial bed nets in Africa than on infamous earmarks in Washington.)

Of course none of that matters to most Americans, who have an increasing tendency to greet President Bush with the ripest of raspberries.

Bush, it seems, is far less popular in the United States than in many parts of Africa, where nations have seen incidences of malaria and AIDS drop significantly since he became president in 2000.

Americans, it seems, are growing tired of war and are ticking nervously about an economy that’s been deemed in need of serious stimulation.

In truth, if the American people were sitting in the corner office, Africa’s problem would probably register around number 50 on the list of things to do.

Who can blame the American people for being a bit myopic these days? Bush has already spent this nation into late retirement with funds to fuel a war machine that produces ever-greater risks and ever-lesser rewards.

Bush’s reception in Tanzania is not simply emblematic of a grateful nation, but of one side of what will become a wholly disparate presidential legacy for the soon-to-be lame duck.

On the eve of his arrival in Tanzania, while so many geared up for a lovefest with their favorite humanitarian, a few thousand demonstrators crowed the streets of Dar es Salaam to protest Bush’s hawkish foreign policy.

Calling Bush a terrorist and burning American flags, a burgeoning crowd of mostly Muslim protestors aired their grievances against interventionist policies abroad—primarily Afghanistan and Iraq—as well as meddling in affairs close to home in Tanzania and Somalia.

Tanzanians, Muslim or not, know all to well the danger posed by global terrorism.

You should recall that in 1998 more Tanzanians than Americans lost their lives in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam. Further, Tanzanians also have a better understanding of what it is to live in tough economic times than the average American.

In this way Tanzanians are forced to take sides between what America can do for them and what America can do to them.

The lesson here is that no amount of frequent flyer miles or humanitarian aid can shield President Bush from the global affects of his disastrous foreign policy.

Apologists for the Bush Administration have argued that his generosity with our money is borne out of a genuine concern for the plight of the downtrodden in Africa, and not some ulterior motivation marked by transactions between unequals.

Perhaps, however, the nay-sayers have it right: Bush may just be panning for friends in a region of the world that does not totally despise America for what it has come to symbolize.

Either way, it is clear to me that Bush is nothing more than an Eddie Haskell humanitarian. His hand of friendship to Africa coupled with the thumbing of his nose at the rest of the world makes him of man of two minds, two philosophies and two legacies.

And it will only take you 8,000 miles to get to his good side.

A plead for the Second

2008-02-09T20:35:00.000-05:00

From his hospital bed Todd Smith, the reporter who was injured in the recent city hall shootings in Kirkwood, Missouri, not-so-subtly attempted to throw his hat into the ring of political advocacy.

It was opportunistic advocacy at its finest.

“I feel like I want to become an advocate for gun control—that’s the problem,” said Smith, who will undergo surgery on his the hand that was pierced by the madman’s bullet, in an interview broadcast on MSNBC on Saturday.

This is the kind of knee-jerk stance on a hotly-contested issue that makes fans of the second amendment squirm.

And while I am certainly not here to defend the right of any citizen to bear a shoulder-fired missile, I am a somewhat reluctant defender of the second amendment—though not on the premise of the constitution’s infallibility.

When Charles Lee Thornton entered city hall with guns blazing, he did so with a mind possessed by fury and the intent to kill.

Smith was quoted in the Post-Dispatch in St. Louis, dated today, about the nature of Thornton’s disposition upon entering the hall: "He was completely possessed," Smith said. "He just looked determined. He just shot the police officer without even a thought, and the guy just goes down."

That’s as good of a description of a maniacal killer as I’ve read—determination without forethought.

Inasmuch as Smith was able to aptly describe the demeanor of the killer at the time of the tragedy, he was far too hasty in his assessment of causation.

In truth, it was not Thornton’s access to a gun (or any weapon) that stimulated such mania as much as it was his physical and mental state at the up to the day of the shooting.

No amount of legislative coercion can prevent mentally deranged citizens from wreaking havoc on innocents if that is their desire.

What stopped Thornton in the end from the taking of more lives was not simple hopes and dreams, but a hail of gunfire from nearby law enforcement officers.

The overarching issue is demand, not supply.

The argument in play here, ironically, is similar to the one enlisted by many conservatives with respect to abortion.

For years many on the Right have argued unsuccessfully for a constitutional ban on abortion which is only a symptom of a larger problem: the desire to destroy the opportunity for life before conception.

Overturning settled law (Roe v. Wade in this case) would not magically take away the demand for abortions nor would further rescinding second amendment rights to law-abiding citizens put a stop to senseless violence.

The right to bear arms is not an unlimited good, but it is a right worth defending.

We live in a violent culture full of over-socialized people who, at their most extreme, will stop at nothing to right supposed wrongs and, at times, to use violence for its own sake.

Thornton and his ilk live neither in fear of the law or the gun. The best we can do as a society is to ensure that such people don’t have the choice.

The three trillion dollar man

2008-02-04T10:24:00.001-05:00

The number jumped right off the page: $3,000,000,000,000.

That is the proposed budget which will be submitted by President Bush to Congress for approval this week.

Those were not the only characters jumping off the page, however.

Here's an excerpt from an article written by AP reporter Martin Crutsinger, dated today:

Bush, who was the first president to propose a $2 trillion budget, back in 2002, will leave office as the first president to hit $3 trillion with a spending plan. His blueprint for the budget year that begins next October projects huge deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next, more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. Private economists believe the deficit could easily surpass the previous record in dollar terms of $413 billion set in 2004, especially if the country does go into a recession.

Just breathe that in, conservatives.

Bush, who has disavowed the principle of conservatism that matters most in government, fiscal responsibility, is officially the most reckless commander-in-chief in history with your money.

Take another breath…not FDR…not Lyndon Johnson.

George W. Bush presides over the largest government in American history.

Just six years separated the first EVER two trillion dollar budget and the first EVER three trillion dollar budget.

Six years.

Just in case you missed it the first time, sink it in by sounding it out: three, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.

As G. Gordon Liddy would say, that's three thousand billion.

The budget, which takes as a given deficits amounting to nearly half of a trillion dollars, is fairly typical for a neoconservative: cut worthless government programs and, instead of decreasing the size and scope of government, rolling those resources into the burgeoning national defense budget.

In this way, we can have more money to fight wars we cannot win and to add to a deficit that had been a surplus before Bush took the oath of office.

And while the Federal Reserve Board is doing its best to further devalue the dollar, mounting debt as a result of fiscal irresponsibility will only expedite the process.

The good old days of "war is good for business" are over

In an increasingly global economy, war can be a death blow for an economy. Consider that our Big Board, the NYSE, will nearly tank every time an Iranian dinghy gets within 200 yards of a US naval ship in international waters.

(Heck, the death of a populist in Pakistan set the market into a tailspin.)

And no "stimulus package" is going to make up for the excesses of the Bush administration's failed foreign and fiscal policies.

Tax cuts should not coincide with increases in spending.

The war in Iraq has been disastrous for the US economy, wreaking havoc on consumer confidence and turning over your money to the military-industrial complex that doesn't even give its fair share back.

The Party's over

The candidate Bush (circa 2000) would vehemently disagree with the President Bush, who is the worst kind of tax and spend liberal. He takes your money and invests it in a war machine guided by a foreign policy that hasn't made us safer since the end of the World War II.

At least the do-gooders might do something good with your money. When leftists like Ted Kennedy Barack Obama steal your money, they blow it with the best of intentions.

At least give us that.

Bush's $3,000,000,000,000 budget won't pass Congress without some serious tinkering, but you can rest assured that when it does pass it will not have gotten magically smaller.

Bush, whose conservative credentials are now officially null and void, will make concessions, but only in favor of more--and not less--government.

For those pundits who are quick to call a John McCain presidency the end of the Republican Party I have but one question: where have you been in the past eight years?

There is no party for fiscal conservatives anymore, and I can give you 3,000,000,000,000 reasons why.

Black theology

2008-01-27T12:18:00.000-05:00

**This entry comes by special request from someone with the initials NN.**

The blogosphere has been buzzing about one presidential hopeful's ties to an inner-city Chicago church that espouses what has come to be known as Black theology.

These PC Pundits point to the website of Barack Obama's home church, where he was baptized more than 20 years ago, and cry foul over its decidedly Black overtones.

You be the judge.

What follows is taken verbatim from the official website of Trinity United Church of Christ:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

The movement on this issue in conservative circles is fairly predictable. First, conservative hand-wringers wax and wane about a ridiculous scenario in which "Black" is replaced with "White" and then speculate on the fallout that would ensue.

Second, they have sought to attach one of the church's "ten points" (actually, number ten) to a communist ideology--coloring the issue, and by connection the candidate, red.

It is, however, striking that the life of Christ (were it to be characterized as one or the other) is certainly more socialist than capitialist in character.

(Where is the Protestant Ethic when our conscience needs it?)

This is certainly not the first time this sort of bait and switch tactic has been used in a presidential election, nor will it be the last. But, I would be remissed if I didn't take the opportunity to clear up a few things.

Black theology

Black theology grew out of a much larger doctrine of liberation in the Catholic Church (circa 1963).

Liberation theology, as it is called, was borne out of the New Testament's admonition to bring about justice in the world--and often with a sword.

It is a theology of powerful versus oppressed, weak versus strong.

The story of Jesus in the New Testament is replete with examples of intercession in the lives of the oppressed; and the freedom for which Christ fought was not just freedom of the mind, soul and spirit, but freedom from physical bondage.

Historical underpinnings

The Liberation Theology movement was brought to the fore primarily in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s when the poor were being subjugated by rogue governments, opportunistic capital and, at times, even the U.S. military (undergirding puppet governments to stave off populist movements that, historically, are bad for business).

(Perhaps the most famous [or at least contemporary] liberation theologist was Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide, pictured right. Aristide, a devout Catholic and populist president of Haiti, was deposed twice by military coups. He was an ardent opponent of globalization.)

This movement was almost strictly Latino in character, though such an ideology has currency all over the world.

Black theology, specifically, branched out of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1970s, when millions of Africans were being oppressed by a minority of whites, holdovers from a vast Christianizing mission that eventually colonized the South Africa (and the rest of the continent with it).

That Black theology served as a unifying ideology in South Africa is wholly ironic in that it was missionaries who converted and colonized Africans with the ethos of Christianity.

Christianity, and by connection its liberation theology (though not yet codified), would have been an alien doctrine before the age of colony in Africa.

Why Black Theology?

For those among us who contend that Black theology is divisive, I have only this: history matters.

The experience of Blacks in the West (and by extension Christendom) has not been a good one, historically speaking.

To call Black theology divisive belies and understanding of this fact: Whites are not all guilty for the continuing presence of racism in the world, but we're all responsible.

This is our inheritance.

We created difference every chance we got and we've reaped a whirlwind for it.

When separation wasn't organic, we wanted to make it appear as if it was. That is the legacy of our ancestors; that is our legacy.

Black theology, then, is a forseeable consequence of historic inequality.

It's legitimate in that it is representative of continuing inequality between the races all over the world. It admits into evidence a reality that many Whites (and others) simply do not want to believe: that being created equal has meant little to nothing for Blacks in this country and elsewhere.

Obama's adherence to such an ideology should make him more, not less, electable.

But, I'll bet it doesn't.

Back to the basics

2008-01-23T10:36:00.000-05:00

The Audacity of Hope (Ar.)

2008-01-21T16:27:00.000-05:00

Dubbed the United States’ first black president, it’s rather ironic that Bill Clinton is now taking fire from inside the party he directed out of the doldrums in the 1990s because of his recent dialogue with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

According to a recent article written by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, two prominent members of the Democratic Party have urged Clinton to tone down the harshness of his rhetoric regarding Obama.

One, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), went as far as to intimate that Clinton had some level of culpability, according to Alter, for the interjection of race into what has become a two-horse race between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Race and its antecedents as issues for the Clinton campaign are simply not winnable—that much is clear.

Stopping short of calling him Snow White, Mr. Clinton recently characterized Obama’s stance on the war in Iraq as a “fairy tale,” which ruffled the feathers of many African-Americans including one prominent Congressman in South Carolina, James Clyburn.

The gaffe may prove fatal for Mrs. Clinton in the Palmetto State, where nearly half of the Democratic electorate is African-American.

Mr. Clinton has certainly hurled his share of mud since the status of Hillary’s campaign turned from prohibitive favorite toward coin flip, to be sure, but he is doing it so she doesn’t have to.

But, will the long-term costs outweigh any short-term benefits?

For Democrats like Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel—the other leading Democrat who reportedly chided the former president—Clinton’s shilling on behalf of his wife, at least with regard to the shrill nature of his rhetoric, is destructively symbolic.

The Democratic Party can ill-afford to tarnish its image in the eyes of black Americans; and when the Party’s de facto leader is perceived to be vigorously undercutting Obama, who doesn’t require the honorary title of “black,” it stands to reason that the powers that be in the Party might become a bit skittish.

Again, as long as race is a significant part of the discourse on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton cannot expect to lure African-American voters to her side of the debate.

The overarching lesson here is that the insertion of the “Audacity of Hope”—the title of Barack’s bestselling book”—into the political arena has done more to hurt Hillary than to help Obama.

Some politicians, the Clintons included among them, simply excel at what the Illinois Senator refers to as “the politics of cynicism.”

The Clinton’s political war machine, once orchestrated by renowned bottom-feeders like James Carville and Dick Morris, simply cannot effectively purvey negativity the way it may need to against a popular African-American opponent.

Further, were Obama not staked to protagonist politics, he might find himself similarly drawing the ire of many in the populous for negatively attacking a woman. (Going negative simply would not help his cause, so his principled stance actually reeks of political gamesmanship.)

These are the newest variables in the old (and white) boys club of American presidential politics--get used to them.

If Mr. Clinton chooses to ignore the advice of his influential cohorts, we may see a top-down shift in support amongst Democrats toward Obama.

If that happens, Hillary’s presidential campaign legacy may mirror Al Gore’s—only in reverse.

Al tucked Bill away in 2000, and many pundits argued it cost him the presidency.
Hillary, on the other hand, is sharing the stump with her spouse. Only time will tell if there is room enough for both of them.

What's in a name?

2008-01-16T16:13:00.000-05:00

The Primary season in politics is unique in that it only appeals to a small minority of political junkies (like me) and old folks with nothing better to do.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, won the Republican Primary in my state, Michigan, going away yesterday.

The polls that had the race as a statistical tie between Romney and McCain, who won Michigan in 2000, were dead wrong. Romney won by nine points over McCain and nearly doubled Huckabee's vote total.

Relatively little has changed in Michigan since 2000. The economy is still poor, taxes are still high and the Lions still suck.

Luckily for Mitt, his last name still has currency in this state with the 60-and-over crowd who can remember when his father was governor. Further, Michigan isn't Iowa where Mitt got the Evangelical cold shoulder.

Michiganders, in other words, wouldn't hold Mormonism against him.

Nor will they, apparently, really listen closely to his sunny side up rhetoric.

Romney panders more than either Huckabee or McCain with respect to Michigan's failing economy, that much is obvious. His first order of business as president, or so he says, would be to begin the process of restoring Michigan's economy--whatever that means.

He believes that somehow we can get these lost jobs in the automotive sector back by making Michigan more desirable for that kind of business.

Newsflash: Those jobs aren't coming back.

McCain's stance is that we need to support new high tech industries, automotive and otherwise, to get back on track.

McCain's tact isn't somber or defeatist; it's real.

Michigan will never be what it was. Economic monocultures are bound rise and fall, and no amount of pandering will get us back to that time and place.

Good luck down south, Mitty!

Predictions

By "Super Tuesday" Romney's candidacy will be in its death throes. There is no way Romney's dog and pony show will be able to do down south what it did in Michigan.

Romney will finish behind McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina and, if he is not careful, could actually lose out to Father Time (Fred Thompson) for the bronze.

The state that killed McCain in 2000 may be the one to usher him in to "Super Tuesday" as the Republican frontrunner.

From there, Rudy has to win Florida or he is toast.

Don't believe the lies about Barack

2008-01-13T14:48:00.000-05:00

Before I make with the proceedings, do yourself a big favor and delete any forwarded e-mails that have taken up residence in your e-mail box. In the future, delete them on the spot before opening them.

I'm not suggesting you do this to protect yourself from viruses or spyware, though they are often transmitted in such a way. On the contrary, follow through on my advice for your own sanity.

It's election season, and all manner of parasites are trolling the internet seeking out people who are prepared to believe anything.

Enter the newly-crowned Democratic presidential frontrunner, Barack Obama.

The young-looking Illinois Senator, whose middle name just happens to be Hussein (extremely common in the Middle East), has become a target of an opportunitistic disease--lying for political purposes.

Several manifestations of an e-mail about Obama have been circulating all over the world, preying on people who are either ignorant of facts or simply want to believe the latest conspiracy theory to come down the pike.

Without rehashing the gist of the e-mail, I will just say this:

--Obama is not a Muslim, radical or otherwise.

--He is a self-admitted Christian has attended a Church of Christ congregation in Chicago for more than 20 years.

--Attending a school comprised largely of Muslims students does not a Madrasa make. In English parlance, a Madrasa is a theological (Qur'an-based) school for training Muslims. It is not tantamount to a Catholic school for Christians.

--No evidence supports the claim that Obama's father was a "radical" Muslim or even a practicing Muslim.

--Obama was sworn into the Senate with his right hand on the Bible, not the Qu'ran as has been suggested.

There have been further criticisms about Obama not wearing a flag pin on his lapel or not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance while holding the chair in the senate. To those accusations I say, who cares?

The last time I put my hand on my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance was in elementary school, where I believe most of these hyperpartisans zealots are still living.

The Republican smear machine enlisted these same liars to come up with all manner of accusations against Bill Clinton, up to and including murder, during his run at a second term in 1996 (remember Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster?)

Democrats have used similiar dirty tricks against George W. Bush, tracing his lineage to European facism and, without evidence, accusing Bush of knowingly fabricating intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq.

Don't believe the lies about Barack or anyone else. Do your homework.

Vote for Ron Paul.

Godly fashion tips, brought to you by the Christian Taliban

2008-01-08T10:49:00.000-05:00

What follows is the dress policy, verbatim, from the Olivet Nazarene University student handbook. I am alone responsible for any emphasis or parenthetical comment; I am not, however, responsible for any feelings of dread or embarrassment.

Dress Policy

Olivet Nazarene University promotes simplicity, modesty and propriety
of dress and appearance. Each student is expected to cooperate with the
following specific policies:

Attire and grooming that is not permissible:

--Attire that is frayed, or with holes (Sorry, John the Baptist)
--Bib overalls with straps that are unbuttoned, unsnapped,
or not over the shoulder
--Men’s hair that is longer than the bottom of the ear or the top
of the collar
--Pony tails (banded or braided) worn by men (Pony tails are Fabio)
--Sunbathing on campus in swimwear (Sunbathing in shorts
with shirt is appropriate in Snowbarger Athletic Park)
--Garments with lettering or pictures that are considered
in poor taste
--Personal appearance that draws undue attention to oneself (Especially the shirts fitted with the blinding lights of a marquee)
--Form-fitting apparel (such as tights, leotards, spandex, etc.)
worn as outerwear (Leotard?)
--Clothing that exposes any portion of the midriff area
--Low cut garments, spaghetti straps, tank tops, strapless tops (Not all straps are created equal)
--Clothing giving the appearance of being an undergarment
and worn as outerwear (Huh?)
--Immodest apparel (You probably start with this one.)
--The wearing of hats in chapel
--Athletic attire (such as shorts, uniforms, tank tops, half-shirts,
men’s sleeveless shirts), or hospital scrubs worn in Ludwig,
classrooms, administration buildings, chapel, or library (Men’s
pants that expose the calf muscle are considered athletic attire.) ("Expose" and "calf muscle" finally united in sentence at long last)
--Any obvious undershirt worn during the academic day
Recognizing Sunday to be unique from other days, Olivet encourages
students to dress accordingly, with special emphasis on the Sunday noon
meal. With this in mind, students are encouraged to dress in a manner
that reflects respect for our day of worship.

Special Notes
--Shirts must be worn at all times, even in Snowbarger Athletic
Park. Men are permitted to remove their shirts while in Birchard
Gymnasium. (Where is this Birchard gym you speak of!? And what time!?)
--Students exercising the privilege of wearing athletic attire must
go directly to and from the athletics fields or buildings without
lingering during the academic day. (Do you have to let it linger?)--Shoes or footwear must be worn at all times. The exception includes
residence halls and appropriate athletics activities.
--Shorts may be worn after 4:30 p.m. (Monday–Friday) and all
day Saturday and Sunday. Shorts may not be worn in the dining
room for the Sunday noon meal. ("Hey, you in the shorts...I'm trying to eat over here.")
--Skorts that appear as a dress or skirt while standing still, and
that are of appropriate length, are acceptable for campus wear.
Otherwise, they are considered athletics attire.
--Modest-length skirts and dresses for women are considered
appropriate during the academic day. Short shorts and short
skirts/dresses are never permitted.
--Interpretation of the policies is the responsibility of the Student
Development staff.

The compound word of the day for Tuesday is...EXTRA-BIBILICAL!

Hucksters and half-wits: Paul trumps all

2008-01-04T12:37:00.000-05:00

In every national election there can only be two kinds of candidates--the phony and the real.

Roughly translated these two "types" become winners, as in the case of the phonies, and losers, as in the case of those candidates who reserve some shred of genuineness.

The 2008 presidental election and its primaries are chock-full of the first kind, headlined by the Republican winner of the Iowa Caucaus, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

The self-glossed evangelical has already begun reinventing himself in order to appeal to a much-broader electorate than he encountered in Davenport and Des Moines.

Inasmuch as he wants to be seen as the good ole' boy Baptist preacher by some, he is also taking great pains to fashion himself as a moderate on issues like national security, taxation and immigration.

On the issue of crime, however, he need not remake himself as a moderate, despite his tough talk about killing more criminals than any other candidate. He has also granted clemency to more criminals than any other candidate, including one such pariah in Arkansas who paid back Huck's gesture of good will with the subsequent rape and murder of a woman in Missouri.

Further, Huckabee is not the fiscal conservative he pretends to be. Just ask anyone who lived in Arkansas during his tenure. His record on spending for defunct social programs and his willingness to get behind expensive (if not unconstitutional) new legislation puts him in the company of John Edwards--not Ronald Reagan.

And while a win in Iowa for Huckabee doesn't exactly give him frontrunner status, it does afford for him the blessing and curse of more money in donations and more scrutiny from politicos.

My prediction for this huckster: Huckabee will alienate his tenuous evangelical base by kowtowing to moderate republicans and independents in New Hampshire, a state he will not win. Further, I do not believe he has the intestinal fortitude to defend some of the backward thinking he has subscribed to in the past, and that many Southern Baptists still subscribe to today.

In a nutshell, Huckabee is Mitt Romney without the latter day saints. He's desperate to remake himself into a true conservative while trying to wring his hands with respect to the controversial facets of his faith.

Another huckster third on medal stand

Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite just one month ago, finished third in Iowa behind Senators Obama and Edwards.

Iowa voters, if history is any indication, relish their distinction as the rudder that directs presidential elections every four years; and this year, they really made history.

It is my belief that they went for Obama for no other reason than they believe him when he speaks. His counterparts, Clinton and Edwards, have the combined believability rating of the first girl dismissed from season two of the Flavor of Love.

Obama, for his part, just might spend us into oblivion in the hope of re-creating many elements of LBJ's Great Society. That's the key point--he might just do it. He believes that government that's best governs MOST.

Clinton and Edwards, on the other hand, are phony baloney career guardian class politicians--not true believers. They live in the "do as I say, not as I do" world of pandering politics. For Clinton, such vile rhetoric is in her blood; for Edwards, he just wants, more than anything, to be a hot-air spewing contradiction in terms--a rich boy populist.

Drop dead (i.e. out of the race), Fred

Fred Thompson, the fourth place Republican in Iowa, couldn't inspire a pedestrian to yield the right of way on the Autobahn. This guy is at a metamorphic stage somewhere between the Addams' Family butler and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

How he even garned 13 percent of the vote in Iowa is astounding. He entered the race late and, like anyone playing catch-up would, gangster-walked to the finish line!

Here's a guy who has about as much energy as solar power plant in the Pacific Northwest. But, in his defense, he does have an appealing voice and a face made for television to go along with an attractive and much younger wife.

Is that all it takes to be considered a legitimate candidate?

Apparently.

Give me the man with the face made for radio

Ideally, in every election there is one candidate that I can stand behind on principle. He's is the one candidate who speaks truth to power and, however unelectable he may be, makes demands on the "legitimate" candidates that no one else can.

Men like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes, Ross Perot and their ilk garner little recognition from the popular press while enlisting legions of supporters at the lower rungs of society--people like me who are tired of an oligarchy supported by lies, pandering and political money.

Ron Paul, the libertarian Congressman from Texas, is this political season's iteration of the classic electoral foil. The candidate who inspires grassroots support from disillusioned realists from sea to shining sea.

You see, Paul tells the truth without respect to persons. With forseeable consequences, he shoots from the hip on every issue including the war in Iraq--currently the only Republican candidate in favor of an expedited pull-out.

His stance on America's financial support for Israel earns for him the disfavor of rightist hawks as well as evangelicals who may also be rightist hawks.

His stance on government bureaucracy and spending puts him at odds with the spend-happy, increasingly $green$ party of the Bush43 Republicans.

His stance on the war on drugs puts him in the company of libertarians and a bunch empty-headed ancharist college students--more acid than base.

His immigration policy alienates Republicans and Democrats alike, in that he doesn't politicize the issue in the hopes of selling out for votes to groups of disparate interests.

His position on foreign policy is at odds with most Republicans who, as evidenced by the war in Iraq and, to a much less extent, Afghanistan, are in the midst of an historic transition. Neo-conservatives have shirked the longstanding non-interventionist plank in the party, preferring to meddle in the affairs of equally sovereign nations.

These stances, and others, have compelled me to throw my meager primary vote in the state of Michigan to Ron Paul. And while I don't agree with him on every issue, even certain facets of issues I have just delineated, I do have an appreciation for statesmen with integrity.

Quotable Ron Paul

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."

"I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest."

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads."

Paul speech to the U.S. House of Representative

American Geography 101: My top fives

2007-12-26T12:07:00.000-05:00

MY TOP FIVES

Favorite drives

1.) Road: Interstate 40 East. Cities and towns: Between Asheville, North Carolina and Newport, Tennessee.

As beautiful as Asheville is, your remaining time on I-40 after getting ripped off at the Biltmore Estate is worth the inflated price of gas. This stretch takes you through the great Smoky Mountains in extreme western North Carolina. Depending on how fast you drive, this 65-mile trek should take no more than an hour. The best time to take this trip, without a doubt, is in fall.

2.) Road: US 101 North. Cities and towns: Ventura, Santa Barbara, Montecito.

As if her millions weren't good enough, this is the drive Oprah Winfrey (a Montecito resident) takes into the outskirts of Los Angeles county. This trek up 101 rides along the Pacific shoreline from Ventura to Santa Barbara, a stretch that is home to some of the Golden State's largest waves. To your right you cannot miss the picturesque Santa Ynez mountains, one of the few east-west ranges in the United States. This is a great drive at any time of the year.

3.) Road: Encinal Canyon Road north off PCH to Mulholland Drive. Cities and towns: Malibu and Westlake Village, California.

This half-hour drive is not for the faint of heart. It is chock-full of twists, turns and shear rock formations. Those of us who like to enjoy the view of the Santa Monica Mountains should be weary of expensive sports cars who like to turn this stretch of road into a Rally track. This is a great trip year-round, though it could get dicey during fire season.

4.) Road: Highway 1A off US 1. Cities and towns: York Corner, York, York Harbor and York Beach, Maine. This two lane road takes you several miles along the shore of the Atlantic Ocean through several small vacation settlements in southern Maine. Most any drive in Coastal Maine would suffice, however. If you are in town, stop in to the Lobster Cove restaurant, situated about 50 feet from the Atlantic shoreline. They serve a mean clam chowder and are famous for their bisque. I had a burger, of course. The Cove is more house than restaurant, with two stories of dining and two roaring fireplaces.

5.) Road: SC-46 to SC-170 to US-17. Cities and towns: Bluffton, South Carolina and Savannah, GA.

This 26-mile drive through the lowland pines of South Carolina culminates in the rise of the Talmadage Memorial Bridge in Savannah. The beautiful cable-stayed bridge over the Savannah river dumps you off into the city center, just blocks from the famous historic district.

Honorable mention: I-90 through Hidden Valley, upstate New York; US-31 between Charlevoix and Petsokey, Michigan; The Flint Hills in Southeastern Kansas; Ocean drive, Miami Beach, Florida; West Side Highway, New York City; PJ McArdie Roadway, Mt. Washington (Pittsburgh, PA); North Long Beach Blvd., Seaside Heights, NJ; Lakeshore drive, Chicago, Illinois; The King's Highway (Eastbound 401) between Missasauga and Toronto, Ontario (18 lanes of fun);

Favorite cities

1.) Savannah, Georgia
2.) Charleston, South Carolina
3.) Miami, Florida
4.) New York, New York
5.) Toronto, Ontario

Favorite states

1.) South Carolina
2.) Michigan
3.) California
4.) Maine
5.) Alabama

Favorite climate zones

1.) Mediterranean
2.) Humid Subtropical
3.) Continental Steppe
4.) Humid Continental
5.) Highland

Favorite regions

1.) Old South (Carolinas and Georgia)
2.) Southland (Southern California)
3.) Up North (Michigan)
4.) New England (Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine)
5.) The Bible Belt (deep south portion)

Favorite expressways

1.) US 101 (Southern California)
2.) US 40 (Western North Carolina)
3.) Highway 401 (Toronto, Ontario)
4.) I-35 (Southern Kansas)
5.) I-90 (Upstate New York)

Favorite mass transit systems

1.) New York City (Subway)
2.) Toronto (The Rocket and electric trolleys)
3.) Boston (The Red Line and electric trolleys)
4.) Washington D.C. (The Metro)
5.) Chicago (The EL)

Skylines

1.) Pittsburgh, PA
2.) New York, NY
3.) Chicago, IL
4.) Cincinnati, OH
5.) Toronto, ON

Favorite state capitol buildings

1.) Des Moines, IA
2.) Albany, NY
3.) Boston, MA
4.) Charleston, WV
5.) Columbus, OH

Traffic nightmares

1.) Los Angeles, CA
2.) Chicago, IL
3.) New York, NY
4.) Atlanta, GA
5.) Detroit, MI

Cities on the rise

1.) Nashville, TN
2.) Charlotte, NC
3.) Birmingham, AL
4.) Atlanta, GA
5.) Oklahoma City, OK

Cities on the decline

1.) Detroit, MI
2.) Saint Louis, MO
3.) Memphis, TN
4.) Pittsburgh, PA
5.) New Orleans, LA

Best small cities

1.) Augusta, GA
2.) Mt. Pleasant, SC
3.) Santa Barbara, CA
4.) Petoskey, MI
5.) Portland, ME

Best major airports

1.) Charlotte Douglas (CLT)
2.) Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW)
3.) Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL)
4.) Miami International (MIA)
5.) Sky Harbor (PHX)

Restaurants on the road

1.) Chick-fil-a
2.) Chick-fil-a
3.) Chick-fil-a
4.) Chick-fil-a
5.) Chick-fil-a

My week in the jury box

2007-12-06T23:02:00.001-05:00

For the past week, I've had the good fortune of serving my city, my county, my state, my country and my fellow man.

Or, at least that is what I was told.

I did my civic duty, serving as a juror and ruling on a civil case brought before Judge Thomas Yuille.

I arrived last Tuesday morning at the Genesee County Courthouse, bright and early, and nearly slept through a propaganda video that basically equated jury duty to taking fire in a foxhole at Guadalcanal.

Not long after the sappy video was over, I was taken with about 50 others into the courtroom for voir dire. This process of selecting a jury is interesting, in that both parties have opportunities to dismiss prospective jurors without cause--a veto we call premptory challenge.

The jury box was one sucker short of being full when I heard my name called by the clerk of the court.

I approached the podium knowing that I would be a shoe-in for dismissal. As it turned out, it was the perfect storm that morning.

In this case the plaintiff, one Jamie Prevo, was sueing his former employer, Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation, for unlawful termination.

I alerted counsel to the fact that I had been a debtor of MMCC when I was only two years out of high school, and that my dealings with them were less than perfect.

The plaintiff's counsel, obviously, liked me because it was, undoubtedly, their believe that as a debtor I might be sympathetic to Mr. Prevo. On the other hand, the defense wanted me on that jury because they knew I was educated. As an educated person, I wouldn't be as prone to being duped by a shrewd attorney at $300 per hour.

And so, neither had an objection to my presence and before long I was listening to opening statements with my seven new friends.

The particulars

Mr. Prevo was claiming two things:

1.) That the defendant (MMCC) fired him after learning that he was going to report the company for using illegal software on numerous computers.

2.) That the defendant (MMCC) discriminated against him as a result of his weight.

I did my best to keep an open mind, but the case seemed contrived from the very start.

First, Mr. Prevo was MMCC's top computer technician and loaded the illegal software himself. Mr. Prevo, however, opted to go with the "Nuremberg" defense, claiming that he was forced to do it and that he feared losing his job if he didn't.

It was a ridiculous defense, however, because had Mr. Prevo refused and been fired for it, he would have an open-and-shut case of unlawful termination.

Since the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove his case, I waited for a smoking gun...and waited...and waited.

The claim of weight discrimination was feckless, based only on hearsay. Further, Mr. Prevo was actually 100+ pounds heavier when he was first hired by MMCC.

As for the claim of being unlawfully discharged while under the protection of the Whistleblower's Act, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was dismissed on account of the threat to turn the company in.

It became clear, by virtue of numerous testimonies of co-workers, that Mr. Prevo was actually fired for making a threat to "wipe the computers clean".

After an embarrassing closing argument by the plaintiff's counsel, it was obvious to me what our decision would be.

In spite of the plaintiff's request of $130,000 in damages, my jury awarded him nothing.

It took some work, but I convinced my fellow jurors that Mr. Prevo was, indeed, under the protection of the Whistleblower's Act when he threatened to turn his employer into authorities and that he was subsequently terminated. However, since there was no causal connection between the protected act and the termination, he was not entitled to damages under the act.

As with any jury rendering a verdict against the plaintiff, no one looked in his direction when we entered the courtroom.

After being discharged by Judge Yuille, we went back to the jury room and were allowed to ask questions of the judge. He did not hesitate to tell us that he would have ruled in the same manner. Further, he informed us that Mr. Prevo had previously been arrested for hacking into computers--information that was suppressed during the trial.

He had the wrong jury

It's now all too obvious to me how we get many of the insane decisions in our court systems. To be a juror, you really need only to be an 18-year-old citizen in somewhat good standing.

There are a lot of uneducated people out there, and if you happen to get eight of them together in a room, anything can happen.

It would have been easy to get side-tracked with all the irrelevant hardship testimony about Mr. Prevo's personal life. That being said, I took pains during deliberations to remind my fellow jurors to only consider what the plaintiff proved against what the law says.

Mr. Prevo had preexisting emotional distress that had no direct correlation to his termination from employment at MMCC.

Mr. Prevo just had the wrong jury. It is scary to think that we could have forced MMCC to pay any amount of money we saw fit.

And the real tragedy of frivolous lawsuits like this one is that in this country, unlike many others, the loser does not have to pay the winner's court costs. There should be a stiff penalty for bringing anyone to court on dubious grounds.

A lighter moment

I felt a little guilty, at least at first, for questioning the competence of one of my fellow jurors. Juror #6 was an older women with hearing and vision problems in addition to obvious mental issues.

I didn't know exactly what to say about her to the rest of the jury, but luckily she did the hard work for me.

During our first lunch as a jury, she sat at my table at the Masonic Temple in downtown Flint. Like any avid reader, I had a book with me just in case I had some down time. The book, sitting on the table, drew her interest right away.

"Is that book about the case?" she asked.

After giving her the "you can't be serious" look, I calmly answered, "nope" and went about eating my lunch.

I've been known to churn out information in print fairly quickly, but publishing a book about a court case only two hours old would have been a challenge.

(The book, just for the record, was Rammer Jammer, Yellow Hammer.)

Juror #6 was eventually dismissed, deemed to be incapable of serving due to the amount of meds she is currently taking.