Update: Anna K heats it up.

An update on the previous post. Anna Kournikova threw a perfect strike with last night's first pitch in San Diego. Again, there is no justice. And there will be no peace.

A cup of coffee over the morning paper

Just been me and the dogs all morning. Nice walk through the neighborhood. Earlier, they sat quietly with me as I poured over the morning paper with a cup o' joe. Found a few interesting tidbits.

According to this, people in Pinal County are camping out overnight to have at just-released new-home lots. That's just crazy.

And according to this, freeway shootings are back in vogue in So Cal. Much the way they were 18 years ago. I remember that...I spent part of that summer working at KLOS-FM in LA. To get there I had to travel three of the LA metro's most fun freeways: the 101, 405 and a quick trip on I-10. Good times!

But this is what really caught my eye...some folks in Tucson are paying a mere $1.83-a-gallon for E85, an environment-friendly and cheaper blend of gasoline:

Alex Contreras grins as he pumps a mixture of corn alcohol and gasoline into his pickup truck.He is paying just $1.83 a gallon for the alternative fuel, called E85, while regular gasoline at the adjacent pump costs $2.27. The E85 makes his truck run better and with more power than gasoline, he says, as well as producing less air pollution. "It's pretty good stuff," the 51-year-old west Tucson resident says. "I also use it in my wife's vehicle."

As a conservative, it's assumed that I hate babies, puppies, old-people and of course anyone who isn't white. Tops of that list of course is trees. We conservative-types really got in for the environment you know! I read on:

People in the Valley could be using E85, too, because thousands of late-model vehicles are built to use it. But the Tucson station is the only place in Arizona where drivers can buy the cheaper, cleaner fuel.

E85 has been selling briskly at the Tucson station, an Arizona Petroleum commercial fueling site, mainly to private motorists seeking to save 40 cents or more a gallon. The price gap between the fuel and regular gasoline has become accentuated in the past month since gas prices began to climb.

Hhhhmmm...makes me start to wonder. I'm a price-shopper when it comes to gasoline. I drive a mid-level sedan. Biggest thing I've ever owned, but hardly one of those targets of environmentalist-hate, like a Hummer or Suburban.

In the past, the price of E85 was comparable with gasoline, which reduced the interest from consumers, except those worried about air pollution or U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Recent federal regulations that added tax incentives for producers of ethanol have helped keep the retail prices low this year while gas prices climb."Basically, that brings it down to a pricing level that's attractive for the consumer to buy it," says Clark Thomas, president of Denver-based American Petroleum.

Those sounds you hear are the gears in my head turning. Did someone say, "Cheaper gas!?" I press on: E85 sales have been steadily climbing at the Tucson station since December, when American Petroleum added the alternative fuel to its offerings, which include biodiesel fuel and environmentally friendly automotive lubricants and fluids. "With the recent (gasoline) price increases, there's been a lot more interest," Hittle says. "This is just one station and not in the best location, but sales have definitely been building."

Thousands of late-model Ford, General Motors and Chrysler vehicles, including the popular Ford Explorer and Chevrolet Silverado, could be using E85 if it was available. Called flexible-fuel vehicles, or FFVs, they are mostly trucks and SUVs, and come equipped from the factory to use the fuel. "Most people don't even know they own flex-fuel vehicles," says Colleen Crowninshield, Clean Cities coordinator for Pima County.

As I get to the end of the article, I find my curiosity piqued. So much so that I seek out page B3 where the fine folks at the Republic have published a list of FFV vehicles. There I discover my make, model and year is potentially included in the limited pool of vehicles: "Selected vehicles. See owners manual."

I'm ready to go, but then of course I remember this: "For some reason, E85 has no presence here," says Bill Scheafer, spokesman for the Valley of the Sun Clean Cities Coalition. "We have not found any entity interested in marketing it here."

The Valley would do well to diversify its fuel sources, Scheafer says, noting how the gasoline pipeline break last year caused disruption of supplies and panic-buying. "The whole thing about energy independence is especially acute here since we're fed gasoline through a thin straw," he says.

My good friends at ESPN routinely like to bellow about how markets don't move fast enough to produce the environmental paradise we'd all be living in if we'd just listen to them. Well, allow me to say that the market, in this particular instance, would move me to the step of seeking out alternative fuel if it were available here. I'd like to think that's not bad for an old tree-hater!

Who says markets don't work!

My Dogs are Smarter (Or things my dogs hear often)

Managing two dogs is difficult at times, especially when they start getting even a little rambunctious. As a result, I hear myself saying some awfully strange things at times:

-"Let go. Sister's head is not a chew-toy!"
-"Do you want to live to be 2!?"
-"Not on the pants please!"
-"Get off of mommy's head!"
-"How did you get that in your mouth?!"
-"You alright? Good thing your head's made of steel!"

Friday Night's REAL Winner

OK, I'm really not supposed to be on here until my return next week, but something caught my eye and it needed to be brought to the world's attention. There was a great game played in Petco on Friday night. San Diego ended the Snakes six game winning streak 5-4 in 15 innings. The Pads pounded out a season-high 20 hits and received another sterling performance from Jake Peavy. Akinori Otsuka, Scott Linebrink and Chris Hammond retired the final 16 D'Backs and Phil Nevin's RBI single was the game-winner. The win was a big lift for the Padres, who have played absolutely listless baseball for the past couple of weeks and endured a heated tirade from typically unflappable manager Bruce Bochy, following Wednesday's 10-3 mauling at the hands of the Giants. So, yea for the good guys!

Despite all of this good news, the real winner on Friday night was Padres right fielder Brian Giles. No justice, no peace.

Mastery of the obvious

Astounding! Who knew!?

Coors Field, the baseball-only heir to multipurpose Mile High, turns 10 years old on Tuesday. Its legacy is of beaten-up, exhausted pitchers, beginning with David Nied, the Rockies' first-round pick in the expansion draft, and extending through the likes of the late Darryl Kile, Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle – as well as the inflated statistics produced by the hitters lucky enough to be based there.

Or, "Why the Rockies will never win anything. Ever."

The Infantile American Principal

"We are smart; you are dumb." That's the Infantile American Principle in a nutshell.

Professor David Galerntner of Yale University makes this observation at the end of this piece in the LA Times. The trip from opening to close is a long-list of examples and explanation that prove the overall point, though admittedly some of it is over-the-top.

On the issue of Photo-ID to reduce voter fraud in Georgia: For legislators to announce that getting a photo ID is too tricky for their constituents is downright amazing. Wouldn't you expect those constituents to say, "Drop dead! Stop treating us like morons!"?

After all, any 15-year-old half-wit can get a photo ID-- and the governor is promising to hand them out gratis to voters who don't already have one. All you need to do is show up in the right place at the right time-- which is just what you have to do in order to vote. (Unless you vote absentee, which will still be allowed under the new law.) In short: If you can vote, you can get a photo ID. So there's no reason why a single legitimate voter should be excluded.

In otherwords, common sense should tell you that...oh, never mind!

About Social Security, Galerntner writes: How could anyone be opposed in principle to private investment accounts within Social Security? I could understand Democrats arguing that "private accounts are a wonderful idea but the country can't afford the transition costs right now." But mostly I hear Democrats saying they're a lousy idea, and that President Bush wants to wreck Social Security-- because, after all, he wants to let you keep a great big whopping 4% of your payroll taxes in a private account instead of handing over every cent to the government. How on Earth could anyone be opposed in principle to letting taxpayers manage a minuscule fraction of their own money (their own money, dammit!) if they want to? Because private accounts violate the Infantile American Principle, so dear to Democratic hearts. Little kids should turn over their cash to the Big Smart Government for safekeeping.

More bluntly, in the very next paragraph he calls a spade a spade: But of course they can't say that, so instead they say, "Bush wants to privatize Social Security"--as if government were going to wash its hands of the whole mess. The technical term that logicians use for this rhetorical gambit-- applying a correct word for one part of a proposal to the proposal as a whole-- is "lying."

The observations are acute, and in my view, accurate. They are yet more anecdotal evidence that suggests that Democratic politicians, whatever the reason, are married to the idea that they must do things for people rather than find ways to help people do for themselves.

Why do they do it? Maybe they're not content in just being politicians: Democrats are professors in disguise. Scratch a Democrat, find a professor.

And you already know how it ends...

Discussing the Mickey-Mouse Bill

Arizona House Bill 2365 has just passed 44-8 in the State House and Governor Napolitano has 5 days to sign or veto it. And what exactly is H.B. 2365? That depends on who you ask.

In an effort to win tourism dollars in Arizona, the State is proposing the creation of a special State Theme-park district devoted to developing two theme-parks, one in Williams near the Grand Canyon and one in Southwest Phoenix. The legislation calls for creation of a 1,000-acre park near rural Williams in an effort to win back tourism dollars that the State feels have been lost to Nevada in a battle over Grand Canyon tourism:

Trying to wrestle Grand Canyon tourism away from Nevada, state lawmakers Thursday gave a thumbs up to a $3 billion venture that would put theme parks and roller-coaster rides in the northern Arizona city of Williams.

In addition to the larger park in the rural north, the district would also include a 60-acre park in Southwest Phoenix. The Phoenix venture would include an indoor water park and would be situated near Cricket Pavilion.

State legislators and others are bullish on the prospect of raising new tax revenues estimated at between $75 & $150-Million dollars annually. Other folks in the state aren't as entranced by the proposal.

For me, assuming the financing (which I'll discuss in a moment) works as actually proposed, this appears to be a win-win. One of the things I noticed early on when we came here was the absence of any sort of large-scale amusement or theme-parks. Which didn't make a lot of sense to me given that the area lives in large part on tourism.

Tourism here is better described as golf-courses and day-spas. If you're not a golfer or an outdoor enthusiast, your tourist attractions are limited to fancy hotels, museums and civic attractions. Aside from the tiny few-acre facility at Castles-n-Coasters at I-17 and Dunlap and Westworld in Scottsdale, there's nowhere to go for a fan of roller coasters and/or the traditional amusement-park fare.

This plan would change that. The question is, at what price to Arizona taxpayers. As originally envisioned and proposed it seems very little, if at all:

"This (the legislation) gives us the ability to go out and get investment dollars and give them confidence that this is a real project," said former Page Mayor Gary Scaramazzo, who is part of the project team. "The taxpayers are not on the hook for a dime. This will be so much more than a theme park."

Financing would be a mix of private investment dollars and bonds. The yet-to-be-named developer of the project is required to show $500-million in private funds before any bonds are issued to pay for construction of the park(s), in tandem with those private funds:

The district is a legal mechanism that private investors could use to issue about $1 billion worth of bonds in the private market. That additional 9 percent levy would finance the bonds, which would be paid off in 30 years. The bonds would pay for the infrastructure for the two sites.

Yet not all are enthusiastic about the project, as noted earlier. Some see it as a hand-out to the vague-and-shadowy corporate-development interests: Some legislative critics called it "the Mickey Mouse bill," saying it sets a bad precedent by creating a new layer of government to assist private developers.

Frankly I don't see it that way. There is a clear-cut financing mechanism built-in here. And a fair one at that; you don't use the park(s), you don't pay. The only way Mr. or Mrs. Taxpayer-at-large gets dragged into this against their will- seems to me anyway- is if one or both of the facilities were to go under, leaving part or all of the debt-obligation on the books with no revenue to pay it off. A risk, but one that I believe acceptable. Assuming that the project isn't handed out to Fly by Night Development, Inc.

Brief moment of lucidity in the Senate

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.

Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.

"After listening to Senator Reid's political spin about judicial nominees for the last several weeks, it is good to hear him come back to reality -- if even for a brief moment," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Senator Reid can do the math: A Democratic Party, plus no ideas, plus obstruction, plus over-the-top partisan rhetoric equals continued minority."

OR

D + (-I) + O + R = M

Where D = Democrat Party, I = Idea(s), O = Obstruction, R = Rhetoric and M = Minority.


Interesting hypothesis, we'll see in a year-and-a-half if it can be proved.

Why do we call medicine 'science?'

Cassie had another bout of stomach problems last night. Always a treat to come home to. Hoped it would pass, but she continued to have trouble this morning so it was off to the vet...

Who could tell me nothing definitive. Best advice? Some medication to calm her GI-tract and change her diet and see if that fixes it. And for this I paid $62.50.

[sigh]

Of plane trips and memorials

Dropped my wife at the airport this evening. She is on her way back to California for a memorial service on Sunday afternoon.

First Southern Baptist Church of Lompoc, CA was founded on Sept. 7th, 1958. One of the founding couples were Max and Billie Alexander.

Max was a chaplain in the US Air Force, and a father it seems to most of First Southern over the course of his 43 years there. Max was most well loved and known for his birthday calls. Every year members of the church would receive their annual call from Max. My wife and her folks recall it all, very fondly.

Max died of cancer in 2001. Billie, his wife of many many years and mother to their 3 girls, lived on for another 3 1/2 years in their home. Still a joy to family and friends alike. Grandmother to my own wife in name if not relation and always to be counted on for encouraging words and a spunky attitude, Billie was just as much the church's mother as Max was it's daddy.

Billie died last month and went chasing after her husband Max and her Lord, Jesus. She will be remembered by her church family on Sunday afternoon, May 1st, 2005.

My Dogs are Smarter (Or Tales of the four-footed fly-swatter)

As I made brief note in another post, I had a little bit more of a leisurely day yesterday than normal. In fact, I stayed home from work for several reasons. On such a day, the dogs are let loose, free to run around the house as well as spend as much time as they desire outside in the back yard. Yesterday was a gorgeous desert spring-day, so they were outside often.

We encourage both to use the doggie-door though at times we'll also open the patio door and leave it open. As a result, occasionally we get a fly or two that finds it's way into the house as happened yesterday.

In the past I've noticed that as said fly tries desperately to find a way out of the house by repeatedly banging itself against one of the windows in the dining room that face the back, Lacy our lab takes notice. In fact, she has tried on more than one occasion to catch the pesky insect as if it were a larger form of doggie-prey. With naught for success, I might add.

Yesterday was Cassie's turn. At one point in the late afternoon she spent nearly an hour hopping onto the window sill and pressing snout-to-glass tried to catch the poor helpless insect. When it flew away, she would immediately start hunting for it again--sniffing around the floor, looking up towards the ceiling, sniff, sniff, sniffing for it.

Invariably the fly would return to the window and the whole process would resume from the top. As we got closer to dinner time, I found myself in the dining room/kitchen area with Lacy laying docilely on the floor. One down, one to go. Where was Cassie?

I had noticed quite some time earlier that the ballet she was performing with this insect at the window had ended. But what of her, where had she gone? So off I go looking for the smaller, calmer dog.

And there she is, lying on the couch intently studying...something. Note: any time a dog is sitting on the furniture or even on the carpet and it's mouth is involved in any way, the sirens sound and the need for action is immediate!

"What are you doing? What have you got there...?"

The fly of course. When I got close enough to see clearly, she was sitting there with the dead fly on the couch between her forearms looking as though at any minute she's going to devour it as an evening snack.

"No! We don't need to do that, Cassie leave it alone!"

And she did; she hopped off the couch, leaving the dead insect as if it were some sort of offering delivered to appease mommy & daddy: "See what I have caught, what I have done for the good of the house-hold!?"

Yes my littlest-one, what a wonderful gift you have brought us! Now let me get a paper-towel and clean off the couch...

Proof that anyone can write for the NY Times (or why I love Paul Krugman)

Paul Krugman's latest piece ran yesterday in the Arizona Republic (linked here in it's original form at the NY Times). Since I had the opportunity to spend some time pouring over the paper yesterday, I decided against my better judgment to give it a once-over.

Krugman is an interesting read. Not so much for any insight or brilliance but more as a curiosity; his mental-gymnastics in trying to score political points are brain-benders. Good morning-brain-exercises.

Well, this one was straight to-form: Conservative pundits close to the administration talk, without irony, about a "Bush boom."

Yet two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup say that the economy is "only fair" or "poor." And only 33 percent of those polled believe the economy is improving, while 59 percent think it's getting worse.

What does that stat really mean? The economic-understanding of the American public-at-large is ridiculously poor. I'll wager Mr. Krugman that a similarly low 33% of people out there can correctly explain the actual economic definition of terms such as GDP and recession. So then, what is achieved by parroting such a stat when the public is speaking about things of which it doesn't understand at all well? Garbage in, garbage out as they say.

By the way, I'd win the bet. According to this, fully two-thirds of young people and half of adults flunked their "basic test for economic literacy." But hey, 59-percent of America thinks the economy is getting worse...so it must be, eh Paul?

And so it goes: Is the administration's obliviousness to the public's economic anxiety just partisanship? I don't think so: President Bush and other Republican leaders honestly think that we're living in the best of times. After all, everyone they talk to says so.

Never mind that by actual economic-standards, something that a professor in Economics at Princeton ought to be holding to in every public utterance on the subject, the economy overall is still healthy (Recently released 1st qtr GDP figures not withstanding; Krugman's column was published on the 25th). The overall growth-rate in '04 was around 4.4 percent. That's good by most standards. Even Krugman's: "By any standard, 1997 was a very good year for the U.S. economy. GDP grew by almost 4 percent, well above the 2.4 percent average over the past 20 years."

In fairness, he points out the very, very low unemployment rate of 4.6% that year as another component of his overall assessment. Currently, we have an unemployment rate of 5.2%. While the boom-years of the late 90's look better in comparison, in historic terms 5.2% is a decent figure. Not great, but good. The current number is in fact comparable to the unemployment rate in 1996 when Clinton won re-election, also known as when-all-was-right-with-the-world-if-you're-a-writer-for-the-New-York-Times.

So why is GDP growth around 4% and an unemployment rate hovering around 5% good in the 90's but not now? One can only conclude based on the general tone and tenor of Krugman's writings that George W. Bush is the sole difference and reason.

And this is the real point. Even when Krugman is correct in his economic assessments, his blatant anti-everything-Bush demands that he work to spin any and everything negatively. Something that his role as economist and teacher ought to work against, yet somehow never does.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Krugman uses an alias and spends at least a few hours a day at ESPN. He writes 1,000 words at a time to continually re-state the same idea over and over again. An idea that could be more concisely stated in one sentence as, "I hate George W. Bush."

Another reason I hate Fantasy baseball

Several actually, and in no specific order.

1. Things like this happen to the guy already in first place.
2. Your #1 closer goes on the DL. And this is the staff, that despite the presence of names like Hudson, Johnson and Schmidt as primary starters manages but 6 wins in a month. Pathetic.
3. Your team, built around pitching, is last in Wins and sports an-out-of-character ERA of 3.31 (see above).

All discombobulated

That's what I am. I wasn't around yesterday and turns out Sim is having to lay low for the week.

As usual, even when I'm sitting still, the world is not. I'll do my best to get caught up on life and see just what kind of posting results!

Gone Fishing

Well, not really. I should have posted earlier that I would be taking a bit of a break from contributing to the blog. Non-blogoshphere responsibilities will continue to demand my full attention through the end of the week. However, I'll be back in full swing next week. In the meantime, I leave you in eminently capable hands.

How bout them Dogs errrr D'Backs???

U-G-L-Y, aint got no alibi, you UGLY!

"From a distance they look like half-inflated inner tubes, 10 rubbery black animals scattered across the grass outside the Dolores Olmedo Patiño Art Museum." Thus begins this piece on the Mexican version of Mr. Bigglesworth.

And from what I can tell, they're right.

"Robots, Teenagers and College. Oh my!"

This post was intended as a stand-alone piece discussing the Arizona Republic's coverage this weekend of the four undocumented students who won last year's national robotic's competition. As I wrote, I concluded that one post of around 500-600 words just wouldn't cover it. There are a lot of issues and questions raised within the context of the broader discussion. This will be post one of a series devoted to the discussion of those larger issues.

The Republic weighs in with a feature on the four West Phoenix teenagers that stunned the engineering world, winning the national robotics competition last summer. I wrote about the original feature in Wired magazine earlier this month.

It was an inspiring story, interesting in many ways. My biggest take-away from the piece was the question of immigration, schooling and how do you find a way to move human capital into the 'system.' The Republic picks up there and runs with it.

After recounting the status of the four winners, the article addresses the issue of undocumented students and college finances: Undocumented students who have lived in Arizona for at least a year qualify for in-state tuition at state colleges, which is currently about $4,000. House Bill 2030 initially called for banning undocumented students from public colleges and universities. It has been revised to allow them to attend at the higher out-of-state tuition, which costs about $13,000 a year.

Undocumented students do not qualify for state, federal or institutional aid, such as grants, loans, scholarships and work-study programs, regardless of how long they've lived in the state. Money is a huge barrier for such students.

When we left the two graduated team members, Luis Aranda and Oscar Vasquez, we saw them running into this wall; lots of brain power but no opportunity to take advantage because they could not finance a college-education. Nothing changed until some locals and other interested parties took notice of the situation:

The other two students, Aranda, 19, and Vasquez, 18, graduated from Carl Hayden last May. It was their stories that struck a chord around the world. After beating MIT, Aranda took a job as a file clerk and Vasquez worked in drywall. Vasquez juggles a 30-hour workweek with part-time coursework at Phoenix College. But life is easier since the head of a local insurance company learned of his struggles and offered him a desk job. Thanks to the scholarship fund, Vasquez plans to enroll full-time next semester to pursue a mechanical engineering degree.

Aranda is still an office file clerk. He plans to enroll in business courses this fall to fulfill his dreams of opening a restaurant and buying his parents a home.

Personal initiative has 'rescued' these two and provided an opportunity for their brain-power to be absorbed into the system. In a number of years these two bright boys will be contributing to society in the normal, healthy way; earning a living, paying taxes and engaging in all sorts of daily transactions that keep an economy healthy. The question is, is there a way to make this happen on a larger scale, a way to 'institutionalize' the assimilation of talented immigrants into the mainstream?

Is it speculating to blame speculation?

Steve Forbes joins his voice with others to say that current oil-prices represent a speculative bubble:

Forbes said recent oil prices of more than $50 per barrel are the result of speculators."

About $15 to $20 of the oil price is speculation," he said.

Simple, straight-forward. And as best as my non-economist MBA-brain can tell, correct. I'll gladly entertain other ideas but when oil stocks and gasoline stocks are high yet gas prices stay at record highs and the price of crude floats above $50-barrel me thinks the problem is purely speculative in nature.

Common sense wins out

Governor Napolitano has vetoed the so-called Guns-in-bars bill. I've posted on this twice and so I won't rehash any of the arguments but to say I think the whole thing was a bad idea to begin with.

The Republic has framed it as a brave stand against the NRA: The governor risks angering the National Rifle Association, which claims 100,000 members in Arizona and has lobbied for two years so gun owners could dine in restaurants that served alcohol without leaving their guns behind.

Napolitano said she is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but she chose to side with Arizona's tourism and hospitality industry, the powerful lifeblood of the state's economy, and with major law enforcement organizations. They all opposed the bill, saying it would invite deadly altercations.

Maybe I'm trying to cocoon myself away from the reality of politics in Arizona, but I'd like to think she just gave deference to simple common sense.

Big Mo has changed jerseys

No, Mo Vaughn hasn't come out of retirement. Different Mo...

Javier Vazquez pitched eight strong innings and Troy Glaus, another newcomer, put the Diamondbacks ahead for good by hitting a two-run double off Derek Lowe in the first. Green's single made it 3-0 and gave Arizona enough runs for the victory thanks to Vazquez and two relievers.

"He looked like the guy I played with four years ago in Montreal, who goes out and dominates a game, gets ahead of batters and throws his good off-speed stuff whenever he wants," Dodgers outfielder Milton Bradley said of Vazquez.

Vazquez (2-2) allowed five hits, including solo homers by J.D. Drew and Jeff Kent, walked two and struck out nine. It was his second consecutive effective outing after he gave up 17 earned runs in 12 innings in his first three starts for the Diamondbacks.

The Snakes have won 4 straight while the Dodgers have lost 3 out of 4. Big Mo, as I said, seems to have shifted. She is the most fickle of all things and as she is wont to do, she sneaks away at the most inopportune times.

Bradley was right in his assessment. To say Vazquez was "on" last night would be understating things. He was ahead of the Dodger hitters all night long. Through 7 1/3 innings, he'd thrown first-pitch strikes to 19 of 22 batters and by the time he left, he hit first-pitch strikes on 23 of 29 guys he faced.

On the plus side, Jose Valentin put in a good night defensively at third-base making a couple of stellar plays. And my nominee for most-pathetic baseball accomplishment of the night goes to Derek Lowe who bunted into an inning-ending DP in the bottom of the 3rd. I'm still wondering how he managed that...

My Dogs are Smarter (Or how I set my alarm on 'bark')

My wife wanted to eat breakfast at home this morning in the interest of eating healthier (an unspoken agreement we've recently made with each other) and saving a few dollars here-and-there. All good and well but in order for that to work we were going to have to get up a bit earlier than usual. Easier said then done though when you realize how much of a morning person she is not.

So the alarm went off at six A.M. this morning. Jarring really, since we've been getting up about thirty-minutes later each morning of late. My wife got up, went to the bathroom then came back in the room. Obviously still half-asleep and appearing dismayed, she complained about how badly she slept. Tired as I was I could only open one eye to look at her standing forlornly at the foot of the bed.

"Do you want to reset the alarm and lay back down for another 15 minutes?," I asked.

With a meek "Yes," as reply, she crawled back in bed and reset the alarm for 6:15. Grateful for the little things in life, I closed my head and went back to sleep. When the alarm went off again, she grabbed it and reset it.

"I'll just drink a Frusion on the way to work." "Okay," I said, grateful again for another fifteen minutes of sleep.

Did I say 'fifteen' minutes? I meant five.

One bark. Two barks, then three come from downstairs. Wha? What the heck? Quick mental check: doors are shut and locked, windows are shut, blinds pulled. What is there to get the attention of one or both of the dogs? The only people in the house are lying here in bed. If anybody else was in the house, they've found a new and ingenious way around the loud cracking, thumping and crashing that usually accompanies breaking into a house.

Another bark. Well, nothing for it but to go downstairs and check it out. I found them both in the dining room standing, as if at attention, gaze directed out the patio door. A quick scan of the dining area and the kitchen reveals, as I suspected while still nestled quietly under the blankets, there is nothing to rouse the dogs from restful slumber. I notice though that they are staring intently out the patio door.

Our curtains consist of three tab-top panels. The outside panels are an opaque cloth and the center panel is a more sheer, lighter material through which you can see out to the patio. So I looked. And there it was! The interloper, the sneaky intruder intent on disrupting my blissful sleep...

A neighborhood cat was sitting atop the fence separating us from our neighbor to the south. When it spied me through the window it took off, briefly startling the dogs again. So I laugh; mystery solved. As I stood there it occurred to me that I'm supposed to be getting up for-good pretty quickly here.

I stare down at the dogs, and as they gaze up with their best 'Love-me-daddy-love-me!' look on their little doggie faces, I begin to think that maybe I ought to just stay downstairs and put in some quality daddy-puppy time. Then reason wins-out; "If I run, I can still get another 5 minutes of sleep!"

Fraying at the edges

Prominent WaPo columnist David Broder calls on Senate Democrats to "end the filibuster fracas."

Why should the Democrats be the first to step back from the abyss of the "nuclear option," the possible rules change that would eliminate all judicial nomination filibusters and thereby make confirmation possible with 51 -- not 60 -- votes? The principled answer is that elections matter. Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death.

But there are also practical reasons for the Democrats to take this path. Their tactical position is weak. The Judiciary Committee cleared two more nominees last week. The Republicans -- with Vice President Cheney in the chair -- could well muster the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and abolish judicial filibusters. If that were to happen, Democrats have said they would use every rule and procedure available to them to bring the work of the Senate to a halt.

Building such a roadblock to consideration of such important legislation as energy, Social Security, welfare reform and the routine financing of government would bring down deserved public condemnation, and the mighty megaphone of the White House would ensure that Democrats took the brunt of the blame.

Breathe deep, sweet reason! Suffice it to say though, I'm surprised to read such. Only question is, are the Democrats sane enough to heed the advice?

First impressions

The analysis, the scrutinizing and the debate about the NFL draft is starting. Locally, the Cardinals at first blush appeared to have a very, very solid draft. Much like last year.

The quip-of-the-day, and granted it's early, goes to co-host Mike Jarecki at XTRA-Sports 910 who tossed this one out while discussing Dennis Green's drafts in comparison to the previous four:

"I don't want to sound all cynical, but it almost seems like they know what they're doing."

Freedom fighters?

I'm pretty sure the Minutemen didn't gun down civilian's in cold blood. At least if they did, it never made it into my HS history texts.

However, it appears such is par for the course for Michael Moore's "Minutemen": In a video showing the killing of the purported sole survivor of a downed helicopter in Iraq, a gunman orders, "Carry out God's verdict," and his colleagues open fire, riddling the man with bullets as they shout "Allahu akbar!" - or "God is great!"

The video was posted on an Internet forum used by Islamic militants and was accompanied by a written statement from a group identifying itself as the Islamic Army in Iraq. The statement claimed responsibility for Thursday's downing of the civilian helicopter carrying security contractors in which 11 people - six Americans, three Bulgarians and two Fijians- were killed.

The chartered flight was believed to be the first civilian aircraft shot down in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion two years ago.

Lovely. The only people I feel more contempt for than insurgent thugs who go out of their way to kill civilians are the ones who justify their deeds.

Reality Intrudes on FantasyLand, Deux.

The chants of "1955! 1955!" can finally stop.

Ryan Klesko and the San Diego Padres kept the Los Angeles Dodgers from keeping pace with their Brooklyn predecessors. Klesko broke out of a slump with three hits and two RBIs, and the Padres ended Los Angeles' eight-game winning streak with a 6-1 victory Thursday night. The Dodgers had matched the 1940 and '55 teams for the best start in franchise history with a 12-2 mark through 14 games. The '55 World Series championship club is the only Dodgers team to start 13-2. The Brooklyn Dodgers began that year 22-2.

The Pads are finally off the schnide vs. the Dogs. Of course I missed all of this because I was in a parallel universe sitting in a bar having a bizarre conversation with an ex.

No justice, no peace.

All the silliness, none of the shrieking

Senator Kerry's speech yesterday was amazing. As I've thought about it, it struck me as sort of a spiritual equivalent to Al Gore's "Digital Brownshirts" silliness.

It's been well documented that Al is only barely in touch with the stately-seeming Vice President of the 1990's these days and is given to fits of shrieking in public. Senator Kerry of course retains a greater sense of decorum but is wont to say some equally silly things, as he did here.

Forces outside the mainstream now seem to effortlessly push Republican leaders toward conduct that the American people really don't want in their elected leaders... injecting religion into debates about public policy where it doesn't apply.

Perhaps I'm jumping ahead, but I can't help thinking that we're one short, quick step away from hearing the "T"-word again; theocracy! Which is of course beyond ridiculous. Just as a quick look around at the vigorous nature of political debate in the US exposes the silly notion of Digital Brownshirts, so a quick look around at the strict separation between things religious and things governmental, as must be pointed out, by forces most closely represented by the Senator's own party exposes the absurdity of Kerry's claim(s).

As I noted the other day, repeatedly insulting people of faith is political folly. Every time a Senator Kerry or Reid or any other of these people-of-faith-who-don't-live-like-it impugn the good-faith efforts of fellow citizens, they sully the process. It is more easily dismissed as silliness when it comes in the form of a bearded, screaming wild-man, but it is no less silly when delivered in the most gentlemanly way. It's still all the same kind of silliness just with none of the shrieking.

Reality Intrudes on FantasyLand

Let's say you're in a fantasy baseball league. Let's say someone offers you a trade before the season which consists of 3B Troy Glaus, 1B Jason Giambi and SS Nomar Garciaparra in exchange for C Javy Lopez, OF Hideki Matsui and P Odalis Perez. You jump on it, right?

And then this happens.

I won't even get into a stats comparison for the rest of the deal. It will be too painful for Paul. However, in the spirit of transparency his Nattering Nabobs are ahead of my _Fresh+Jive_ squad in the standings.

But for how long?

Why do they do this?

It started with the Broncos re-design and it continues today with the Arizona Cardinals. Blick! Ick! Ack!

Click the "Enlarge this Image" button at your own risk.

"My eyes! My eyes!"

Open letter to Republican Senators

This is the text of an open letter that has been sent to a certain seven Republican Senators:

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Senator John McCain, Arizona
Senator Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Senator Susan Collins, Maine
Senator Olympia Snowe, Maine
Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Senator John Sununu, New Hampshire
Senator John Warner, Virginia

RE: Judicial filibusters

Esteemed Senators,

This is an open letter that will be published at my blog, My Dogs are Smarter. As indicated above, I am writing to share my feelings on the issue of judicial nominations and the obstruction of numerous nominees that the President has sent to the Senate that are currently blocked via the Democrats use of the filibuster.

There is no single domestic issue that drove your party’s base to the polls last November more than judicial nominees. The National Republican Senate Committee told us that with an increased Senate majority, the Republicans would address the issue of judicial filibusters via a rules-change. Well, we did our part and the time has come for you, as a body, to do yours.

It is perceived that many of you--and at least one of you is on the record as saying you will not support such--are contemplating voting against a change in the rules that would bring cloture with 51 votes rather than 60 and allow these nominees to come up for a vote on the floor. I cannot urge you any more strongly to vote ‘Yes’ when the time comes to change this rule.

It is my view that this is a party vote. Once more, it is a defining moment for the Republican party in 2005; your party at-large wants this and a vote against it is something that will not go down well.

When the time comes you all must vote how you feel you must vote but know that a ‘No’ vote here will come with a potential price for some or all of you. As a resident of Arizona, I will no longer be able to support my Senator. While I voted for him in 2004, I will not support him in his next primary run or in the general election next time around. To the extent that it is feasible, I will also support opponents of the other six senators here named. That is how strongly I feel on the subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Hogue
Phoenix, Arizona

Makin' me proud but not really

Senate Republicans are wimps. Plain and simple. They've teetered on the verge of folding on the issue of judicial nominees and filibusters and yesterday Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich blindsided Committee chairman Richard Lugar when he thought he was bringing the committee together for a vote on President Bush's UN-Ambassador designate John Bolton.

NRO's editors lay it out quite nicely: That some Republicans are willing to take at face value the Democrats' personal attacks on Bolton is shameful. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Furrowed Brow) pronounces himself troubled by the allegations. But he supported John McCain for president in 2000-- since when is a docile temperament his test of whether someone can be an important public servant? Hagel is a fairly reliable conservative vote on routine matters. It's just when the chips are down that you can't count on him.

In the key allegation against Bolton, he is said to have intimidated a State Department intelligence analyst who objected to Bolton's supposedly too-dire assessment of Cuba's bioweapons program. But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn't straight with Bolton or his staff-- giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset. At issue was language in a speech Bolton was to deliver about Cuba. It was Westerman's responsibility to run the proposed language by the CIA, but when he did so he attached his own prejudicial language dissenting from Bolton's views. When Fleitz learned this, Westerman falsely denied having done it, leading to the infamous confrontation in Bolton's office. Two of Westerman's supervisors subsequently apologized for how he handled the matter. That Bolton is now the one being pilloried for this spat--Sen. Chris Dodd said his conduct should be "indictable"--is absurd. In any case, as Lugar pointed out in a statement earlier this week, in an environment characterized by contentious policy disputes--as Bush's foreign policy team was in the first term--you can expect some personal contention.

Those policy disputes are at the bottom of the charges against Bolton. This is the revenge of the State department bureaucracy and its former servants Colin Powell and Dick Armitage. Contrary to former State department bureaucrat Carl Ford's smear of Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down" kind of guy, Bolton repeatedly clashed with Powell and Armitage over substance. Now they are hitting back. It is difficult to believe that Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson would viciously attack Bolton on the record in the New York Times without Powell's assent. Although perhaps we should be grateful for an on-the-record Times quote by a Powell loyalist for a change. If the Bolton nomination is beaten, it will be a lesson to conservatives that they dare clash with a recalcitrant Washington bureaucracy only at great potential personal cost. Which is one of just many reasons why President Bush should use every bit of leverage at his disposal to win Bolton's confirmation.

As for Voinovich, had he bothered to attend last week's hearing he'd know what he needs to know. Sadly, Mr. Bolton may pay the price for his laziness and his political naivete (we're watching the hardly-unexpected sequel to the blockbuster Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill saga; anyone who thinks this line-of-attack is 'principled' rather than purely political isn't paying attention).

Republican leadership needs to grow a pair, stand up and push back. The debate on John Bolton's qualifications for ambassador to the UN was last week. Ample opportunity was provided to Democrat and Republican alike to express their legitimate concerns about him. It was agreed that the committee vote would occur this week. Stop the shenanigans and do your damn jobs!

UPDATE: Lileks goes off on the Senate: I’m starting to suspect that the entire Senate should be abolished. Purge the lot of ‘em. Their drivel may be no less meretricious than their House counterparts, but it’s usually slathered with sanctimony about the Noble Nature of their particular chamber, how they’re the saucer into which passions are poured to cool. (By “cool,” they often mean “frozen to the consistency of a glacier layer laid down when the Bourbons were still a going concern.”) Such airs! They’re the only branch of government that regularly advertises its special nature and higher purpose – it’s like having a special branch of the Kiwanis made up entirely of bankers who announce, before each meeting, that they’re better than the realtors and insurance salesmen. And why? Because there are fewer of them. Well, there are fewer experts in quantum physics than there are Special Forces soldiers, but I know who I’d want to drop at night into a warzone.

Meaning, uh, what? Oh, nothing. And yes, I know that the genius and virtue of the Senate is the way in which it makes Rhode Island equal to California, so the Big and Strong cannot roll over the Small, at least not until they’ve promised the Small they’ll vote for Maple Syrup price supports in the next session. But the Senate, as currently composed, seems to attract people who have that potent & fatal combination of dimness and self-regard, and when you elevate those sorts to the Great National Saucer, you get idiocies like the Bolton hearing. On one side, a charmless babbler like Joe Biden, whose instinct upon finding a bad metaphor is to attenuate it until it is three microns wide; on the other side, George Voinovich, who finally showed up for a hearing and pronounced himself Disturbed by the allegations. This is like a guy skipping class on the origins WW2 for a month then raising his hand to ask why they haven’t covered how this Hitler fellow came to power.

You can find more on the Troubling Allegations here, at the Corner, which took the trouble to make some phone calls. (Scroll down; look for Rich Lowry’s remarks.)

I am not impressed by those who want to shiv Bolton to collect a scalp, but that’s their job; I do not understand the useful idiots on the Republican side who want to hand them the knife. (“It’s all sharp the way you like it! Can I come to your party now? I’ll help with the dip and everything.”) I don’t have to like Bolton, and I certainly don’t approve of his moustache, but I want someone who will stand up to the UN. And by “stand up” I don’t mean the cut-rate back-alley hooker method of leaning against a brick wall and hiking up the skirts. I mean, someone who doesn’t give the Syrian ambassador the old collegial nod in the break room or say “How’s it goin’” to the Zimbabwe attaché when you’re standing at adjoining urinals, and consider it a promising diplomatic overture.

There are good & decent people of either party, but they would be more impressive if they took big hard whacks at their colleagues, in public, without fear of seeming “unsenatorial.” If this goes on, “Senatorial” is the last thing they’ll want to be, because the word will by a synonym for blind preening egotism matched only by mulish cluelessness.

If only I could write so well, I'd be...well, a writer. Frankly, they deserve every word.

More silliness from the Arizona legislature

First the guns-in-bars bill. And when you think they can't get any sillier, we get a proposed 10-cents a gallon rebate during the summer.

Silliest line in the whole piece? Easy: Supporters call it not only relief from the state's 18-cent per-gallon gas tax, but a boost for in-state tourism.

Are you kidding me? If you want to spare me from the vagaries of the State's gas-tax, repeal it. Don't make me jump through hoops to get barely half of it back weeks after the fact. Better yet, do something constructive and get crackin' with the EPA and the oil companies and get an oil refinery or two built in the state. Take a step that will actually accomplish something, don't offer us political gimmicks.

The Cavalry Arrives May 1st!!!!

Yesterday, Sandy Alderson was officially introduced as the new CEO of the San Diego Padres. One of the most respected names in the game, Mr. Alderson leaves the league office to return to a role in which he excelled while with the Oakland A's: building and managing successful baseball organizations. This is great news for the franchise as Alderson is the first "baseball man" to occupy the CEO suite since the departure of Larry Lucchino in 2002. Upon his introduction, Alderson immediately started making sense:

"For me," he said, "the job description is to make the San Diego Padres the best franchise in baseball, or otherwise, across the country."

Here, here! But to understand the true import of the Alderson hiring, one needs to look at the team’s recent history.

Friars fans were on the verge of losing their beloved team when John Moores bought the club in 1994. By immediately installing Lucchino as CEO and letting him call the shots, Moores quickly became the best owner in franchise history. Under Lucchino's stewardship, the Padres won the NL West in 1996 (please note the last three games) and made the 1998 World Series. Lucchino possessed the baseball mind that brought Kevin Towers, Bruce Bochy, Theo Epstein, Kevin Brown, Ken Caminiti and Steve Finley to San Diego. Along with personnel moves, Lucchino also had ideas for community outreach that would more firmly root the franchise in San Diego. As he was in Baltimore with Camden Yards, Lucchino was the visionary and driving force behind planning for Petco Park. The club also embarked on real marketing and community outreach for the first time in their history. MLB's first loyalty marketing scheme, efforts to reach out to the local military presence and cross-border initiatives to increase Mexican interest in the club are examples.

Lucchino ultimately left after a rocky period marked by health problems and a series of acrimonious and debilitating lawsuits which delayed the completion of Petco for three years. In my mind, the void left by Lucchino was never adequately filled by Bob Vizas, Charles Black or Dick Freeman. That's right, the Padres have had three CEOs since 2002. The lack of vision and stability lead to poor decisions relating to personnel (the Brian Giles trade and failure to re-sign David Wells), the opening of Petco (too many compromises following Lucchino's ouster prevented it from being all it could be) and player development (overseas operations and scouting).

One need only look at the farcical process surrounding the selection of San Diego schoolboy SS Matt Bush with the #1 overall pick in the amateur draft last summer. Holding all the cards with the top selection, Padres management decided on the eve of the draft that it would not award top-dollar contracts to prospects like Stephen Drew and Jered Weaver, who were not deemed "can't miss." OK, fine so far. But without an adequate back-up plan and insufficient scouting homework done on lower-dollar talent, GM Kevin Towers and head of scouting Bill Gayton scrambled to come up with alternatives, before finally settling on Bush.

Noted for his athleticism, defensive wizardry and strong arm (but not his bat), the 18-year old Bush was touted in the draft day spin campaign as "local boy makes good." Within weeks he was being dragged out of one of my favorite bars in Peoria, AZ for being underage and intoxicated while fighting with a bouncer. He was suspended by the team for a month without pay. At Single-A Fort Wayne, Bush is hitting a tepid .204 with five errors in eleven games. Last night, he went 1-5 and committed three errors. There were better “cheap” players than Matt Bush. Some experts have suggested that although it is far too early to label Bush a bust, he could very well end up being the worst #1 overall selection in the draft's history.

With Sandy Alderson in the fold, Padres fans can look forward to a return to the more visionary and responsible management style which characterized the Lucchino era. Alderson’s track record is impressive. Given successes in Oakland and the league office, he may be the most respected management figure in the game. During his tenure with the A’s, he helped turn a moribund franchise into a consistently competitive team which appeared in three consecutive World Series’. And he did it without breaking the bank on high-dollar free agents. His recipe for success was to build through the farm system.

Alderson's philosophy closely mirrors that of Moores. He now re-joins former employees Grady Fuson and Gayton in a management team also featuring Towers and ex-GM Randy Smith. It would be hard to argue that there is a better assemblage of talent evaluators anywhere in baseball. However, it will be interesting to see how Alderson gets four personnel evaluators and three men with GM experience to co-exist. But there can be no doubting the brain power and experience that currently resides in the Padres front-office. Meanwhile, there have been hints that Alderson was brought in to shake things up and I think that Kevin Towers will have to produce results to keep his gig. He has a generally solid track record in San Diego, but there have been enough Shane Victorinos, Bubba Trammells, Ray Lankfords and Jay Witasicks to raise doubts. If this year’s club doesn’t get it done, it’s clear that Alderson already has solid in-house alternatives in the form of Fuson and Smith. Bruce Bochy is also a lame-duck in the sense that he lacks a contract for ’06. While I think his position is also potentially in jeopardy with a lackluster 2005, he may have more rope than Towers. Regardless of how it plays out, the arrival of Alderson bodes well for the future of the team.

You’ve Got to be Kidding File: Phoenix Group Rises from DNC Ashes

Fair-and-Balanced market maker George Soros is at it again. Hot on the heels of astonishing flim-flammery on campaign finance reform and then exploiting its loopholes to the tune of $23M for 527 groups like MoveOn.org in the last election cycle, the über-billionaire is now orchestrating a build-out of “progressive infrastructure,” which includes a series of think tanks. According to thehill.com:

George Soros told a carefully vetted gathering of 70 likeminded millionaires and billionaires last weekend that they must be patient if they want to realize long-term political and ideological yields from an expected massive investment in “startup” progressive think tanks. The Scottsdale, Ariz., meeting, called to start the process of building an ideas production line for liberal politicians, began what organizers hope will be a long dialogue with the “partners,” many from the high-tech industry. Participants have begun to refer to themselves as the Phoenix Group.

Soros’ assembly of the Phoenix Group appears to be a reaction to the existence of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the notorious neoconservative Project For the New American Century. These organizations have been given so much credit for their roles in the elections of George W. Bush and their influence on his agenda that liberals are claiming that they need to build a competitive infrastructure in order to gain greater share of voice.

I give these liberals credit for acknowledging the virtual bankruptcy of ideas propagated by the Democratic Party to no avail in the last three national election cycles. It’s clear that their strategy of “Anything But Bush” without a corresponding agenda of their own, precluded the Democratic mantra from resonating with vast swaths of the voting population.

However, while their apparent need to create an “ideas production line” makes me snicker while thinking “No sh*t, it also strikes me as wildly naive and disingenuous. To begin with, such a strategy presumes that such “production lines” don’t already exist. And that’s utter poppycock. Liberal think tanks are just as common and influential as conservative research houses.

In fact, some of the world’s best known think tanks are liberal in orientation. The Brookings Institution was liberal enough to be considered a potential firebombing target by Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council seemed to be very successful in articulating its messages throughout the course of his campaigns and presidency. The Aspen Institute is headed by the liberal former Time Magazine editor, Walter Issacson. The Carter Center, founded by former President Carter and currently chaired by Padres owner John Moores *tear*, is a globally recognized liberal institute. The International Crisis Group lists George Soros himself, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Wesley Clarke and former Clinton UN Deputy Ambassador Nancy Soderberg among its ranks. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has been brutal in its analyses of Bush's approaches to addressing WMD worldwide. And these are just a few off the top of my head. This list doesn’t include the myriad social- and union-oriented organizations which influence liberal policy promotion on the domestic side. The problem isn’t the lack of infrastructure. The problem is the lack of resonant ideation coming out of the infrastructure.

So if it’s not the infrastructure, stupid, what is Soros really up to?

Clues to his intentions come later in the article cited above:

The Democracy Alliance will act as a clearinghouse and is expected to channel much of its money to new organizations and existing ones such as John Podesta’s Center for American Progress and David Brock’s Media Matters for America…One source at the DNC with direct knowledge of the agenda said that the Phoenix Group had three specific goals at the outset. It wants to create liberal think tanks, training camps for young progressives and media centers.

Aha! So while there is a “content” angle, there seems to be a significant focus on two areas where Soros has already proven to be very influential: money and media. In fact, it sounds to me like Mr. Soros is preparing to institutionalize his loophole-exploitation of so-called 527 groups by creating more of them. After all, when David Brock is one of the first names mentioned (in connection with a think tank, no less!), you know that something is rotten in Denmark. The title of Rob Stein’s presentation to The Phoenix Group (“The Conservative Message Machine’s Money Matrix”) makes little mention of the Group’s ideological aspirations but makes sure to commit itself to the Ideology of Bling. It seems clear that Soros’ efforts are not about developing new political ideas, but rather, a new form of money-laundering. This, coming from someone who was very influential in the campaign finance reform legislation which spawned 527’s in the first place!

Think tanks and research houses are fully legitimate organizations that serve a vital role in our democracy. But not when they are created for the primary purpose of circumventing the spirit of existing campaign finance legislation. One is even forced to ask if this wasn’t Soros’ intent from the outset.

Interestingly, it has been the Democrats who have loudly questioned the “shady” influence of PNAC and other groups on the Bush agenda. Now they are leveraging their existence for justification to erect an entirely new layer of competitive policy houses. Kind of reminds me of those who used the existence of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to justify the launch of Air America. The voices of Fox and Rush were but drops amidst an ocean of liberal messaging; extending from network news to Hollywood and NPR and from the majority of metropolitan daily newspapers to college classrooms. Nonetheless, Air America was launched to “counteract” the relatively niche-y (in terms of reach and influence) Foxes, Limbaughs, Hannitys and Coulters. The Phoenix Group’s agenda seems to be similarly disingenuous and Soros’ negotiation of the intricacies of legislation he once championed, sounds increasingly like something that someone somewhere should be investigating.

Taking faith seriously

I saw this at Real Clear Politics and was immediately sucked in. It's something I've seen all over the place at ESPN and a subject that intrigues me as a politically-inquisitive and "active" Christian. (Note: that's not the best word to describe the concept, but as good as I could come up with. The idea that I try to get across is that my faith is "alive" and it informs my actions and decisions. I sometimes hate the way English works; too many ideas and not enough words!)

The entire piece begs to be gone over and discussed nearly line-by-line, so thoughtful and insightful is it. But I'll cut to the chase. This is the key passage far as I'm concerned:

On the most basic level, the contempt of the progressive elite for ordinary people--for their faiths, their speech patterns, their clothes, their hobbies, their hopes, and their aspirations--has driven scores of millions of Americans out of the Democratic Party and into either the Republican Party or a no man's land between the two. The willingness of many Republicans to simply show respect for the habits and interests of these mixed and moderate Americans has paid growing political dividends. The Republicans have understood that communicating respect is more important than offering programs or incentives. The Democrats have failed to realize that multiplying programs or policies designed to meet people's needs is doomed to fail unless and until those people sense a fundamental level of recognition of who they are, not just what they need. The medium may not be the message. But a medium of respect and recognition is what makes the reception of the message possible.

...

The core of this tradition, described by Bloom and many others, is clear. Believers strive for-- and achieve--a personal relationship with God. This intense experience--a spark, a fire--is individual, not collective. The less mediation and interference by denomination or organization or professional clergy, the better. And there is simply no need for much organized communal activity. No church-defined version of "social justice" can compare with the intensity, purity, and clarity of the one-on-one relationship with the divine. Many Americans, in mostly exurban and rural counties, subscribe to this tradition and practice. But it is not exclusively a white, Southern, rural, or middle-class religious culture. Many scores of millions more, in megachurches in Houston, Pentecostal storefronts in lower Manhattan and the South Bronx, and Holiness congregations in Boston, have the same core habits, patterns, and basic beliefs.

I write this with deep respect for those who express their faith in this way. Just watch Pastor Joel Osteen's services--25,000 believers packed into a Houston facility, Bibles on their laps, pens in hand. The preaching is excellent--prepared, thoughtful, positive. But it's the response--from people who have worked hard all week, people who traveled far to come to the service, people who have all the pressures and strains of every other American, sitting and listening and working at their faith--that's really remarkable. The racial and ethnic mix of the congregation is a marvel. I am a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic who has had the good fortune to spend many Sundays in Baptist and Pentecostal churches. The quality of the experience, the depth of feeling, and the impact on believers are often extraordinary. It is a tradition that must not be dismissed, that must be understood, first on its own terms and for its own sake, and then because it is at the heart of the cultural change that has already occurred and that continues to occur in our country.

So that's the 'what' but what of the 'who'...? One who would tell you that "You represent a viral strain of political thought," for starters. Inhabitants of Blue-state bubbles like the San Francisco Bay area will gladly dismiss--outright and with a blithe smile--this entire segment of their fellow Americans.

It's political folly to insult people at the core of where they live their lives. And for us people of faith, this is where we live. My faith in Christ goes with me to church on Sunday most certainly, but it also comes with me to work, it goes with me to the Dodger-Diamondback game, it goes with me to the movies and any other place I go where I encounter the culture at-large.

By insulting it and deriding it, the left serves only to push these people farther away from the left's own beliefs and positions and the political party that represent them. While I hate to see it and will fight it when it comes at me, I will at the same time get out of the way if my political opponents are that intent on ruining themselves.

Bono-fide obsession

That's what the Arizona Republic titled this chronicle of staff-writer Megan Finnerty's obsession to dance with Bono. It's essentially an extended journal entry detailing her efforts to secure tickets on the floor for U2's shows at the Glendale Arena last week. It is whimsical, humorous and illuminating all at once.

Bono has never struck me as a typical rock-icon. While he exhibits all the tell-tale traits of a rock-star, he is in other ways very much enigmatic. A rock-icon, yes, but also a deeply impassioned Christian activist and even considered as a possible candidate for head of the World Bank. He's no empty-headed front man, rather a deep man with many elements to his persona. Seeing Finnerty treat him like just-another-famous-singer-to-obsess-over is a guilty pleasure.

Her "diary" is whimsical in the way she describes the sense of nostalgia that drives her obsession; humorous in the way she details each and every step along the way as if recording all the details of a first-date to share with herself over-and-over again; finally, illuminating in the way it describes the Bono-junkies that follow the band everywhere.

Finnerty's love affair with the band starts about the time they fell off my radar. Achtung Baby and Zooropa moved the band in a direction that no longer interested me, so while I purchased and listened to Achtung for a while, I've not bought a U2 album since. And have lost no sleep over it. To see her describe the way those albums grabbed her attention and have never let go, whisked me back to high-school myself. Except in my version, it's the video for New Year's Day in "Hot" rotation on MTV...Edge's blistering guitar work still rings in my ears over 20 years later.

Her detailed time-line takes us from joining the fan club to standing outside Glendale arena, not once but twice for both Phoenix shows. A taste:

Burned in the presale, my last chance for the pit is now the general sale, when everybody mobs ticket sites on the Internet and at malls all over the Valley. Surprisingly, I don't have a computer at home.

So on Saturday, I'm in the office for my last chance at Bono. Desperate times, desperate measures. Even before the sale begins, I click frantically on the "find tickets" link on indifferent Ticketmaster's site. After 30 minutes, I still have a 15-minute wait. I'm nauseous thinking about some tacky girl getting my pit tickets.

Suddenly, a new screen pops up, a second show added. I click desperately. In seconds, the newly benevolent Ticketmaster offers me two pit tickets and three minutes to fill out the purchase forms.

Three minutes becomes three seconds. My fingers tremble. I can't swallow. Name. Address. Head pounding. Credit card number. Click, click, click, Enter.I make it. Two tickets. I shriek, grab my cell and call Emily.

It's only after hanging up that I face the math.Fan club registration: $40; first-night seat: $112; second-night pit ticket: $63. Half a week's pay for a chance to touch Bono. I think about selling the first night's seats on eBay. I hear they're going for more than $300 each.

...

With U2 tickets tucked safely in my desk, there is much to do. Dressing each morning, I play all my U2 CDs so I can scream along at the shows.

I plan outfits. A fashion writer; it's what I do. But dressing for Bono is paralyzing. I change my mind. Plan again. When Bono reaches out, I need to look delicious.

"When Bono reaches out, I need to look delicious." This is the same guy who moves politicians to act when he speaks about AIDS in Africa, so I struggle to see him as an object of pop-mania. But then again this is Finnerty's obsession and not mine. And as the story of it is told to completion, it is full of even more mirth, especially in it's description of the Bono-groupies.

Ultimately we find ourselves in the pit wondering along with Megan and her obsessive-twin Emily who Bono will dance with before the show ends. In all honesty, by the time I'd wound through this little journey from where it started with signing up for the fan club in January to the pit on Friday night, April 18th 2005, I was truly hoping she gets her wish! But far be it from me to spoil the end, if you want to know who dances with who you can read it for yourself. It's a ride worth taking.

Finding ways to win

Sim and I talked yesterday about the early success of the Dodgers. In the course of my morning perusal of all things fantasy-baseball related, I ran across this blurb:

1. Who deserves credit for the Los Angeles Dodgers having the best record in baseball? I think Jim Tracy deserves a lot of credit. He's one of the more well-respected managers in the game today. He gets a lot out of the talent on the Dodgers roster, and the players play hard for him. He gets the most out of everybody.

If J.D. Drew and Hee Seop Choi begin to hit – and Eric Gagne gets healthy – that'll only make this team better. The Dodgers are on a roll, and winning is something you get used to. I still think they'll have plenty of competition from the San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks and possibly the San Diego Padres, but L.A. seems to have the upper hand on the NL West for now.

I thought it'd be hard for the Dodgers to replace Shawn Green and Adrian Beltre. But they've gotten some surprisingly good pitching, Odalis Perez and Jeff Weaver in particular, and they've gotten run production from Jeff Kent, Milton Bradley, Jose Valentin, Ricky Ledee and Cesar Izturis. Those guys are really picking up the slack. And the Dodgers are finding a way to win ball games.

If you recall, I asserted that perhaps Jim Tracy is right in saying that Milton Bradley right now is the 'X-factor' for this team. Sandberg gives Tracy the credit and in fact Bradley did as well after their win in Game 1 of the Milwaukee series:

"Tracy, he just puts people in position to be successful," said Bradley, who was moved up from his usual fifth spot in the batting order to third. "Tracy knows how we're going to do it. He figures that out."

Regardless of whether it's Tracy, Bradley, Kent or some other combination of roster spots, Sandberg is right; this team is finding ways to win games that in past years they didn't. This is obvious to long-suffering Dodger fans like myself.

I knew the 2000 NBA Champion Lakers were different when I saw them winning games that they shouldn't have won. You know, the 12-point deficits in the 4th quarter on the road. Things like that hadn't happened regularly since a certain guy named Earvin wore number 32.

Just so Sim jumps to no conclusions here, I'm not arguing that the Dodgers season will end similarly--it's simply too early to say any such thing--but I am saying that there just might be something to this team after all!

Jake Peavy Update

Any doubt that this guy has joined the elite of National League pitchers? Today's San Diego Union Tribune points out that:

The Padres have won the last six games started by Jake Peavy and are 22-8 when Peavy starts dating back to the opening of the 2004 season.

Along with being the NL ERA champ in 2004, that's not too bad for a 24 year old and all-around good guy.

Pope Benedict XVI

I'm not Catholic, nor do I generally care much about the appoinment of Popes. But I stumbled across this slideshow documenting reaction in Benedict's hometown of Marktl, Bavaria. It's moving to see the reaction of this small village (pop. 2800) to being thrust upon the international stage with the ascension of one of their own to the Catholic throne. The mixture of pride, excitement and amazement is in some way moving.

God 1, Life 0

I mentioned last week that my wife was let go from her position at the hotel she worked at. Without going into details, it was a situation that from my perspective--hardly unbiased but I hope somewhat objective--had spun out of control.

Things were said about her, pushed at human resources from one source which they pursued without corroborating the claims with other staff, things were said to her by management about her work that when checked with the people who actually worked directly with her turned out to be false, etc.

Needless to say, she was miserable and had planned to leave anyway. God apparently had other ideas though. Day after being let go, she received a call from a department head at church who wondered if she was still interested in part-time work. That very same day, another staff member suggested my wife to this same department head for the same position.

An interview on Wednesday followed by a phone call on Thursday and the job was hers; she started yesterday.

Yet another example of our plans diverging from what God sees and desires for us; and how He will use even the most uncomfortable and painful situations to bring about His chosen end.

God is good, all the time!

My Dogs are Smarter (Or how James Lileks is usually smarter than this)

Normally James Lileks is a pretty smart cookie. But it appears that his dog has gotten one over on him.

Went to the grocery store for some Frosty Paws for Jasper – last night I ran out, and he was furious. DO NOT GIVE YOUR DOG FROSTY PAWS. It’s doggie crack, and once they know they exist they will pester you daily for another. I’m stuck; he knows he gets one every day after his walk, and I will not begrudge him that. But I made a special trip to the store to buy the things tonight. I’m doggy whipped.

This is the first I've heard of Frosty Paws. And if James is to be believed, my dogs will never learn of their existence. Ever.

Of Local Interest

The Guns-in-Bars bill has gotten to the Governor's desk. It's unclear as to whether or not she will sign it, though the Republic seems to think she may veto it. That would be the common-sense thing to do.

My thoughts on the bill are found here, and I've not changed my mind. It's just dumb.

Women in Combat

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity wrote today on this issue. And it's quite an interesting pull-back of the curtain. Is Oz exposed? Perhaps.

It needs to be clarified, right at the start: placing women in combat is against the law. But General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, United States Army, wants to place women in combat, rendering moot the Commander in Chief's orders and the intent of Congress. Not to mention, against the will of the people.

With Elaine Donnelly from the Center for Military Readiness, I recently met with then-Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, Army Secretary Francis Harvey, and Army Vice Chief, General Richard Cody to review military policy on placing women in harm's way. We discussed the challenges of having women under fire and at high risk of capture on the battlefield.

During our meeting, Harvey became agitated, Cody became hostile, and everyone vigorously denied the scenario where women could be, might be, in combat. But women will be in combat. And Schoomaker, Peter J., General, has a plan to make this happen.

I wonder how much, if any, people will talk about this. They ought to. On top of the fact that it is currently against the law, the bigger picture is what ought to be addressed. It's immoral.

A civilized society protects it's vulnerable members. All protestations of angry feminists aside, mothers, wives and daughters--able as they may be--deserve better than being shot at in the middle of nowhere on the side of a nameless hill. Unless of course you want more Lori Piestawa's and Jessica Lynch's.

Is that what Schoomaker, Peter J., General wants?

The impacts of an anti-capital / anti-profit mentality

Last week, I wrote about some odd comments emanating out of Germany from the chairman of the SPD. The comments focused on the adverse effects of the capitalist system's profit-orientation. This week, we learn that the same country which seems so diametrically opposed to a market-driven economy is dealing with this:

According to the research, by a German health insurance firm, cases of depression among Berliners have risen by 70% since 1997. Up to 70% of Germans also say they are prepared to seek professional help for psychological problems.

What is the root cause for this pandemic of the blues among Germans?

Mental health experts blamed the rise on Germany's faltering economy, which has seen unemployment rise to over 5m.

And what impacts do the depression-effect have on the ecopnomy?

Workers in Germany's capital, regarded as one of Europe's most vibrant modern cities, emerged as an unhappy bunch more likely to miss work through depression than for any other reason. Nationally, mental health problems were the fourth most common cause of absence from work, behind back pain, colds and flu and personal injury.

So to summarize: economic policies which don't encourage personal responsibility, discourage entrepreneurship and blithely shun the notion of profit-motive create a situation in which 6% of the total population (not the working population, mind you) is jobless. And the effects of these policies, according to experts, are driving a mass wave of emotional depression. So we are left with a cycle of malaise in which poor policy fuels unemployment, which generates emotional problems, which reduce worker productivity...which further entrenches psyche-sapping unemployment.

So just how exactly are the mentality and policy orientation of the red-green coalition positive for Germany and Germans? And more importantly, what lessons can the United States learn from this economic juggernaut?

Once a hater, always a hater

Sim discusses a post at Dodger Thoughts last night. I'd actually read that in the afternoon as well. Frankly, I didn't think the analogy worked but maybe it's just me.

As for Sim and his visceral hatred of all things Dodger, well I have a couple of questions:

1) How you lovin' 4th place and that sub-.500 record?

2) We know what Jon at Dodger Thoughts attributes the early success to. What do you attribute it to?

Personally, the more I read and re-read this take, the more I think there's something to it: "Milton[Bradley] very definitely has assumed the responsibility of leadership and with that comes complete consistency with his behavior," Tracy said. "He is stepping up big time, and he needs to do nothing further from the standpoint of leadership other than to go out and play as hard as he has played thus far."

Bradley is hitting .362 while slugging .702 with an OBP of .392 and OPS of 1.094. Not shabby, and while Kent wins the stat-fight the fact that Tracy points to Bradley as the straw-that-stirs this club I think is more revealing than any Kent-Gibson analogies, however true or accurate.

If you back up and look big-picture, it comes down to the offense. The Dodgers are the best offensive team in the NL and rank second only to Detroit(!) in the majors. In terms of pitching, they're average; only 13th in the NL in Team ERA for instance. Will that be good enough over the long haul? Don't know, but unless and until the bats quiet down we're not gonna find out. In the meantime, I'll take the 10-2 record, the 3 1/2 game division-lead (largest in the majors at the moment), the 9-2 record against the West, and a 3-game sweep against the Friers.

BTW, did you know that the Dodgers won last year's season series with San Diego? Who knew...

4/19/95 9:03 AM

10 years ago today, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City brought spectacular terrorism to the American heartland. 168 innocent souls lost their lives.

At this time ten years ago, I was working for a market research company in Dallas and wandered into the break room for a soda only to see the carnage 200 miles to the north unfolding on the television before my eyes. My immediate thoughts turned to the safety of the many relatives I have living in Oklahoma City. I rushed back to my desk and frantically dialed my aunt Helen. She explained more fully what had happened and told me that everyone was safe and accounted for, except my uncle Ed. His office was a mere 4 blocks from the site of the blast. Within fifteen minutes we were all relieved to hear that despite all the windows of his law office being blown out, Ed and all of his employees were safe, if not very shaken. Even the windows on Helen's home, five miles from the site, had trembled with ferocity at the time of the explosion.

It is important that we never forget the events of that fateful day in 1995. On that day, terrorism struck an often forgotten and even maligned red-state. In terms of culprits, ideology, scale and global impact, the Oklahoma City bombing stands in stark contrast to what happened on 9/11. However, there are common threads which run from Oklahoma City to New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, and extend through Bali, Madrid, Belfast, Gaza, Tel Aviv and other affected communities around the world.

Foremost among those threads is that innocent men and women of all political and ethnic stripes who are going about their daily business are not safe, so long as twisted ideologies armed with the desire to inflict mass casualties are given even the slightest room for maneuver. A second thread is that in the aftermath of these senseless tragedies, the finest elements of the human spirit emerge under the most trying of circumstances. As we look at Oklahoma City and 9/11 in a rearview mirror in which objects increasingly (and inevitably) look smaller than they appear, it is important that we never forget. For forgetting assures that we will forego our vigilance or minimize the threats that we face.

I encourage any of you who visit Oklahoma City to spend some time at the memorial. It is a truly special place and a deeply moving experience.

Easy, Easy Lemon Squeezy

Forget the contrition for a moment. Let's get back to the fact that there are about 150 games to go, and The Myopians already have visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads. Check this out:

Anyone else getting a Kirk Gibson vibe off of Jeff Kent?

Kent's off to a good start, but Mr. Porn Stache has never been a dynamic team leader, well, anywhere. He's typically just one motorcycle accident away from lying to teammates.

Easy Myopians. In the early part of the year, it's best to limit conversations to Duke Snider, The Penguin and Maury Wills. Or heck, sing us a rendition of Bruce Spingsteen's "Glory Days." But spare us the Week Three comparisons between Jeff Kent and Kirk Gibson.

More proof that you're good

Comes in the form of a MLB-best record of 9-2.

Who's yer daddy!?

I noticed that Sim was properly contrite this morning in discussing the Dodger-Padre series this weekend. I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion, but I'll resist the overwhelming temptation to gloat; it's only three games and the season is far too young to get crazy.

My wife and I were out of town part of the weekend so I, unlike Sim, missed the entirety of the series but what I caught on ESPN recaps and the morning box-scores. Two things stood out: First, two complete game--shutout!--victories from "suspect" pitchers, Derek Lowe and Jeff Weaver. Second, the Dodgers outscored the Friers 18-3 in this three-game sweep. Ouch.

There's still plenty of time for pitching arms to tire and bats to go quiet, but I must say this is the most heartening and exciting start to a Dodger season in 20+ years! I for one, am loving it!

Monday Morning Wimp-Out

I'll be a little light in terms of blogging for the next few days. Quite a bit of work to do, but I'll try to chime in when I get some downtime.

P Stands for Punished, Pummelled, Putrid

Fortunately, I missed the first two games of the Dodgers-Padres series this weekend. Both losses. But unfortunately, I did catch yesterday's 6-0 Jeff Weaver shutout. A sweep in Chavez and the loss of Khalil Greene to a second broken finger suffered in LA in under 20 games dating to last season don't bode well for this season's San Diego ballclub.

While it's early, we've come to learn a few things:

1. The '05 Padres look disturbingly like the '04 Padres. Not a big shock given the lack of offseason movement, but this club remains absolutely miserable in RISP situations. X. Nady's good start aside, the Padres' run-producers just aren't getting it done. Brian Giles continues to look like he's on the downside of a fine career (Oh to still have Jason Bay and Ollie Perez *sigh*), a healthy Ryan Klesko has not recovered a power stroke a year into being off the juice, and Phil Nevin's penchant for attempting to pull down and away pitches yield far too many missed opportunities. The loss of Greene for 3-4 weeks further exacerbates the situation. The big hope would seem to lie with the impending return of Dave Roberts and a renewed focus on small ball. *Gulp* Meanwhile, Woody Williams has not looked like David Wells and Adam Eaton and Tim Redding just didn't get it done. Yesterday's performance by Redding had me yearning for the return of Ismael Valdes. Yeah.

2. Dogs pitching has surprised. Lowe's performance on Friday night appeared (from the boxscore, at least) to be dominant. While I am not a big believer in Lowe due to his lack of velocity, his heavy sinker could prove to be more effective in a pitcher's park like Dodger Stadium than in Boston. Weaver allowed only two hits after early trouble in a complete game victory yesterday. There's never been any doubting Weaver's stuff. It's always been his head that's been in question. If these two can pitch like they did over the weekend and join a healthy Brad Penny and Odalis Perez, the Dogs might be able to overcome some of their positional weaknesses. Then again, how much can you really read into their outings when they were going up against an offense as putrid as San Diego's? Jeff Kent's quick start isn't a surprise. The question will come when he hits his wall. I'm still not sold on Jose Valentin as a replacement for Beltre and we're certainly going to see some heavy defensive butchery out of 2B and 3B. Time will tell. One place you won't see butchery is at SS where Caesar Izturis is perhaps the best on defense in the NL. His play on Klesko's richochet liner yesterday was simply as good as it gets.

So where that leaves us is that it's still early, but the Pads look a little worse than expected and the Dodgers look a little better. Round 2 comes later this week in San Diego, I believe, so we'll have a good opportunity to guage how the teams respond.

Early results

Sim's Dogged pursuit of truth is leading me to the conclusion that the Friers are mediocre and the Dogs are, well if not 'best', definitely 'better'. A look at last night's line pretty much says it all:

Dodgers 4 runs, 8 hits, 0 errors. Padres 0 runs, 4 hits, 0 errors.

Derek Lowe pitches a complete game shutout, giving up only 3 hits and striking out 5.

Hhhmm....

Myopic Dodger fans 1, Haters 0

Weird day

Another bizarre Friday. Work as always conspires against blogging. Wives' minor medical emergencies also don't help.

This weekend won't likely see any blogging either. Simian is out of town and my wife and I will, her health obliging, be in Tucson for most of the weekend taking advantage of her last work-freebie courtesy of the Crowne Plaza North Phoenix (nice place to stay, not so great to work for; but I digress).

If I can, I'll be weighing in tomorrow morning about the Frier-Dodger matchup but that will likely be the extent of any weekend offerings. Even bloggers need vacations now and then.

You think you're funny...

But you're not!

Last night's episode of Joey contained two--not one but two!--jokes about the alma-mater. Now, I'm all for free publicity, but within reason!

To start, neighbor Alex represents Michael in a mediation effort with his friend Seth over intellectual property rights. Seth is upset that Michael has dragged a lawyer into the middle of this dispute.

"Well, is she a real lawyer? Where did you go to law-school?"

"Pepperdine."

"Pffft. See!? She's not even a real lawyer!"

Later, Joey is brought in as a witness to a hearing with Seth and his lawyer and Alex and Michael. The nature of his testimony is unclear to start with but soon becomes evident to Seth and his lawyer that he is bluffing about what he knows of this dispute. In the course of the discussion Seth again takes an easy shot when wondering aloud if Joey is so smart that he went to Pepperdine.

I just don't see the humor...

That's my Senator!

Couldn't be prouder, or could I?

Text of an email to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) courtesy of the Blogfather:

April 14, 2005

Senator John McCain
407 W. Congress Street Suite 103
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Via Fax 670-6637 and email

Re: The Filibustering of Judicial Nominations

Senator McCain,

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

A little about myself: I am 37, my wife is 31 and we have two children here in Tucson. I attended the University of Arizona and currently own and operate (among other things) an Assisted Living Center with 20 employees which houses 45 elderly residents of Arizona who need assistance in their daily lives.

I am writing this letter because I quite frankly don't trust myself to make a civil phone call. I am a fairly large contributor to the Republican Party, not because I think they are always right, but because they more often champion the causes and freedoms I believe in. Â Lower taxes, less government (at least that used to be a Republican cause), more personal freedom, etc.

I read the Constitution of the United States again recently and made note of the 7 specific instances spelled out as requiring a supermajority. I'm certain you know them. I also specifically noted that Judicial Nominations were not listed as 'filibuster-able', yet just today I heard a clip of you specifically saying that you would (once again) vote AGAINST both your Party and Leader and WITH the Democrats. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after the magnificently successful "Campaign Finance Reform" you pushed (I also read in the Constitution (Bill of Rights #1) something about "Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech", but that's another story).

This, to me, is the final straw. I worked hard to help get President Bush re-elected. After the War on Terror (which I believe also includes Defending our Border (Article III, Section 4 "protect against invasion"), there is no more important issue than the totally out of control Judiciary. Legislating from the bench is not listed as a Constitutional Power bestowed upon these un-checked, lifetime appointees, yet that is exactly what they are doing.

Your snubbing of your Leader of the Senate (Senator Bill Frist), your Leader of your Party (President Bush) and the Constitution of the United States (again), while embracing the obstructionist Democrats (again) has caused me to lose all remaining respect I had for you as my Senator.

From this day forward, I will begin to actively campaign against you. In any capacity I possibly can. I will first work to defeat you in your primary and I will subsequently work (if necessary) to defeat you in the general by supporting whatever Democrat runs against you. I have never in my life supported a Democrat, but at least I know my enemy with a Democrat. You still have time to change your mind, but then if you did, Tim Russert might not like you.

It's getting ugly, and it might get a lot worse before it gets better on this issue of judges.

[sigh]

Dogged Pursuit of Truth

A nice compare-contrast of the Trolleywreck's '04 division winning squad and the '05 version. Summarizes my point quite nicely. Names like Choi, Ledee, Erickson and Valentin have to give Dodger fans peace of mind.

The Pads (5-4) and Dogs (6-2) hook up in LA this weekend for their first head-to-head series of the season. So someone here will have bragging rights come Monday. Look for Friday's game to feature the offenses as two junkballers (Woody Williams and Derek Lowe) are on the hill. I expect Adam Eaton to turn in another sterling performance in Chavez vs. Scott Erickson on Saturday. He always seems to pitch extremely well in LA.

In my opinion, the key matchup will be Sunday's finale. Tim Redding will be dealing against Jeff Weaver. Redding was acquired at the end of spring training after having fallen out of favor in Houston. He looked fairly solid in his first start against Pittsburgh despite less-than-spectacular defensive support. He was throwing 92-mph gas, but looked a little wild in the strike zone. For a #5, that's a tolerable combination. But I also expect Friars pitching coach Darren Balsley to work the same magic with him that he has worked with Eaton, Jake Peavy and Scott Linebrink. A solidified tail-end of the rotation in the form of Redding would do wonders for a team that continues to look like it might struggle on offense.

Anyway, here's to hoping for a great series, no injuries and a victory by the good guys.

I'm off to CT. See you Monday.

PS- Happy Tax Day.

Six Years?

Tomorrow I make my second pilgrimage to the great state of Connecticut. I'm headed out there for the weekend with some friends. Interestingly, April 15 marks not only tax day, but it also marks my six year anniversary in New York since moving here from Germany.

Strange, that after six years in the area this will be only my second Connecticut visit. It's also my second in about four months. Needless to say, I'm dangerously clueless about the surrounding area. Even though I technically live on Long Island, I've only made one major foray out onto Long Island. I know northern Jersey pretty well as I drove out there daily for two years. I've made the occasional trips to central Jersey and the Jersey shore. But I don't know them that well and couldn't speak intelligently about them even if pressed.

I made several journeys on the train down to Philly when I was dating the Fortune Cookie. I know downtown Philly fairly well. Love the MacCormack and Schminks off the square. I could tell you where to grab a solid Newcastle, where to buy some last minute peel and eat shrimp and roasted peppers, or even a nice Pinot Grigio. I could direct you to a place to buy your basic Franziskaner, its corresponding glassware and a nice little park in which to to drink it. I know a great place to see live acts like Francis Dunnery. I could also tell you how Philly Cheese Steak sandwiches are, like, not at all good and easily the most overrated local delicacy I've ever experienced. (Well maybe not. The Japanese "traditional sweet" isn't too stellar, either.) That said, I could also tell you which of the massive Cheese Steak Emporiums NOT to visit. Don't remember the name, but go to the one across the street. It's bad. But not as bad as Geno's. So yeah, I know Philly.

But that's not the NY metropolitan area. And that brings us back on topic: I don't know this area. Even after six years.

Of course, during the period I've lived in NYC I have been to Greece, Germany several times, Britain three times, Turkey, South Africa and Japan among other countries. Quite a world we live in. You don't know your immediate surroundings worth a damn, and yet you could give explicit directions to someone about where to go to get the best Sundowners in Cape Town.

Six years? Damn. When I moved here I was't at all enthused about New York. I thought, "a couple years and I'm done." Am I officially a New Yorker now? I'm not from Holland, but that's Veird.

Calling all Dodger-haters

Something here for you.

What We Are Dealing With, Part 2

Yes, folks, it's that time again. And so soon! David's Medienkritik comes through again. (Although in fairness, David's got it easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Or rather, capturing fish in a barrel and then harmlessly releasing them into their natural habitats. But I progress.)

This time we gain some insight on the current German government and its views on the international economic order. It seems that the chairman of The Social Democratic Party (SPD), Franz Muentefering, is vehemently against globalization and the trade liberalization regimes which have characterized the post-war Bretton-Woods international system. Regimes which have been central to the raising of millions of people worldwide out of the throes of deep poverty. Moreover, Herr Muentefering believes the notion of "profit" is inherently undemocratic. In a speech on April 13, he argued:

"The internationally accelerated profit maximization strategies endanger our democracy long-term. (...) Our critique is aimed at the internationally growing power of capital and the total economization of short-winded trade for profit. Because, through that, individual people and the future sustainability of entire firms and regions are lost from sight."

So in other words, profits and economic growth don't enhance democracies by providing opportunities, increasing options and building platforms for the exercise of fundamental freedoms. Capital and trade are not transformative in their power to raise people and communities up from dead-end, cyclical poverty to a state where they can educate, feed, immunize and produce. Rather, capital flows and cross-border trade in the name of profit simply harms individuals and communities by homogenizing and marginalizing them.

Huh. Boy did I have it all wrong.

Of course, when Herr Muentefering talks about the "growing power of capital" and "short-winded trade for profit," he's playing upon anti-American sentiments by making not-so-veiled reference to the "evils" of American-style economics. One often hears such references in Germany. A very common example is "hire and fire mentality," which is code for "American capitalism."

He's also trying to explain away the German government's inability to do anything about close to three decades of an economic malaise so intractable that no one sneezes when unemployment runs at 10% or more. Of course, Germany's economic doldrums are largely rooted in an unwieldly social safety net, inflexible labor markets and...yes...inadequate capital to spawn a true entrepreneurial class. I lived in Germany during the Internet boom and I couldn't begin to quantify the number of young Germans I encountered who wanted to ride the wave. However, they were discouraged from pursuing the dream of starting their own businesses because of a lack of access to start-up cash and a a taxation regime that would heavily penalize them for actually becoming profitable. I dunno, Herr Muentefering, but that sounds fairly un-democratic to me.

And of course, the third pillar of response is neatly summed up in David's article. The hypocrisy of such statements in the face of German arms sales to China and the Middle East is staggering to say the least. We need to protect people and communities from the evils of short-term profits and international capital, right up until the moment that our political offices are at stake and we have to fund the social welfare morass we refuse to reform. Got it.

Of course, this kind of hypocrisy is not shocking when it comes to our friends in Europe. It's deeply embedded in their marrow. But you'd expect to be hearing such outright Marxist ideology spewed by a member of a fringe party rather than the chairman of the lead party in the red-green coalition. Surrealistic isn't even the word. And that's why we call this...

...What We're Dealing With.

Judges, now!

Email a senator or two.

Republicans elected 4 new senators last fall. In part, because they bought the pitch that told them when the Senate was in firmer GOP control the issue of filibustering appellate court nominees would come to a head.

Well, we did our part. How 'bout you guys do yours!

Just the facts, man, just the facts!

The most obvious of which is who is in first place and who is not.

Now onto the response. Simian's post wants to make hay about the Dodgers poor performance in post-season play since the 1988 season. That is a valid point, and in case he wasn't paying attention, one that I addressed in my initial comment on the subject (Something to the effect that the Padres have performed better in the last decade in this regard).

As to the comparison of the two franchises, I was trying to be fair; just citing the number of titles/divisions/playoff appearances is unfair and doesn't take the San Diego franchise's relatively young age into account. I figured picking a 35 year time frame was fair; if not, we can go back to the day of the Frier's birth, that's fine with me. Regardless, the numbers don't favor them. And that was the point. Crow all you like about 'owning' the Dodgers but it really don't mean much when you've got so little hardware to point to!

100K Words Abut Dodger Myopia

...begins today with a little snippet from the North County Times. It seems that my adopted hometown of Brooklyn is exultant in orgasmic delight over the return of a long lost relic: The 1955 World Series pennant of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Only a half-century old, it certainly doesn't have the provenance of a medieval tapestry. But it is a one-of-a-kind, and to millions of baseball fanatics it's probably more valuable.The 1955 World Series championship banner captured by the Brooklyn Dodgers ---- the only one the team ever won ---- was unveiled Wednesday following a $16,000 restoration by experts at the Textile Conservation Laboratory at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine.

While the storied traditions of this once-proud franchise are well-known to all, I would suggest that citations of glories "since 1970" that fail to mention only one playoff win (One. Last season.) since the first Bush administration would have a relevance on par with that of a decaying 1955 World Series pennant or an uneaten piece of King Edward and Wallis Simpson’s wedding cake.

Obligatory Sports Post

The Dodger Daddy's go down...again. They split with the Cubs today and are sitting at 5-4. How do you spell 'Mediocrity'...?

Interesting notes from the pair at Wrigley: Mark Prior in his first start of the season goes 6 Innings, striking out 6, doesn't allow a run and gets the win. He may just turn out to help in Fantasy-land after all!

Recently added Frier OF Xavier Nady goes nuts today; in two games he finishes 5-for-8 at the plate with an RBI. Just added him in another league and will take that, thank you very much!

Slamming Sy

Sy Hersh has a somewhat mixed legacy. It is fair to say that he created what we today call 'investigative reporting,' when he broke the story of My Lai in 1969. It would also be fair, at least in my estimation, to say that he has in later years allowed himself to get carried away as evidenced by some of his Abu Ghraib reporting and more especially in his Kennedy-bashing tome, The Dark Side of Camelot . See here for an example of what I'm talking about.

While I'm given to slamming Uncle Sy, such criticisms could be classified as casual--not in-depth and elaborate. I leave that to the professionals. And according to Chris Suellentrop, Uncle Sy has a really big mouth.

What Chris examines is the difference between Seymour Hersh the writer and Sy the speaker. Seems that Sy says alot of things that Seymour could never get away with writing:

There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.

Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

Are you kidding me? "I can't stretch the truth when I write because I might get sued, but I can say whatever I want when I speak. " Never mind the credentials as a so-called leading investigative journalist. Flat out irresponsible.

Am I jumping to conclusions when I write that statement? Possibly, but I find it hard to believe that there are stronger motives for getting things right in print than the spectre of a libel suit. The difference between the written and spoken standard here is huge, and like I said, irresponsible.

Still, what’s emerged from Hersh’s numerous speaking engagements—dozens of speeches last year, he says, which have drawn as much as $15,000 per university lecture—is a vast, tantalizing trove of what might be termed Hersh apocrypha: unpublished tales of official screwups, ideological intrigue, cover-ups, and government lies that have an influential—and growing—public life of their own.

Irresponsible behavior, complete with examples:

It doesn’t take much prompting for Hersh to supply an example of the sort of story he keeps out of The New Yorker’s pages but will discuss freely elsewhere. He tells me a long tale of the ghastly killing of some Iraqi civilians by U.S. soldiers. He frames his account as a hypothetical set piece: “You’re a soldier on a patrol . . . and you see people running, and you open fire, okay? . . . Maybe they were bad guys, but then they run into a soccer game.” He gradually modulates the story to its climax: “You’re a bunch of young kids. And so maybe you pull the bodies together and you drop RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and you take some photographs about it because you’re afraid you’re gonna be investigated. And maybe somebody there tells me about what happened.”

Moving back into straight, declarative talk, Hersh lays out how this no-longer-quite-so-hypothetical scenario shaped his on-the-job news judgments. Investigating the tip, he discovered that, even though the photographs he obtained of the incident could suggest a terrible lapse of responsibility in the field, there was nothing here to qualify it as a Hersh story. “It was stupid, it was wrong, it was terrible, but it wasn’t murder. Do I write that? No. I don’t write that. Because then six, eight, ten American kids who did nothing but panic, and did what anybody would, would get in trouble. Do I have some photographs that are interesting? Yes. Do I publish those? No.”

But does he talk about it? Sure. Did this event happen? Who knows? Hersh never subjects these sorts of stories to any kind of public truth test, but he bandies them in his lectures, as part of the ongoing effort to bring his speaking audiences closer to that other reality of the Iraq War.

The most egregious example of Uncle-Sy-out-of-control, in my opinion is this one. Suellentrop delivers a direct quote from Uncle Sy about his behavior in information gathering for the My Lai story:

When Hersh was pursuing the My Lai story, he tracked down the lawyer of William Calley Jr., the man later convicted of participating in the 1968 massacre of Vietnamese civilians. Hersh intentionally inflated the number of deaths for which Calley was charged, in order to get the attorney to tell him the correct number, 109. A few years ago, Hersh told a crowd at Duke, “a word for what I did—an actual word, it has three letters—it’s called ‘lie.’”

Inexcusable. The man's defining moment as a professional journalist and it's built around a lie? When I read this for the first time, it stopped me in my tracks. How can you take what he says seriously in light of such an admission? Suellentrop stops short of where I land:

Few would argue that Hersh’s impropriety should diminish the astonishing coup and public service of bringing the My Lai story to light.

But I would be one of them. Slamming Uncle Sy does not diminish the facts of what he found in this or any specific case. However, his irresponsible behavior in terms of his approach and his loose-tounged oral arguments is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned for a journalist with his credentials.

If Sy wants to speak truth to power, by all means go right ahead. But make sure it's truth and not a lie.

Humorous post of the day

James Lileks is the funniest guy going in my assessment. Today's entry is laugh-out-loud funny.

I like the Second Amendment and all

But this seems a bit, well...bizarre. The Arizona legislature is/has been considering a bill to allow firearms inside bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

The state House gave tacit approval Thursday to allowing firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, less than a month after a deadly shooting in the parking lot of a Scottsdale nightclub that claimed the life of former Arizona State University football player Brandon Falkner.

That shooting, which has landed ASU running back Loren Wade behind bars on charges of first-degree murder, heavily colored the debate over Senate Bill 1363. Final approval is likely, although it still faces final House and Senate votes before it can move to the governor's desk. Lawmakers and bar owners opposed to the bill say the shooting underscores their primary concern: Guns and alcohol don't mix.

At the risk of sounding like a liberal ninny, I don't think this ranks as one of the greatest ideas in legislative history. I understand the arguments about the built-in safeguards (firearms are allowed but holders can not drink; bar owners can opt out by posting signs outside declaring that no firearms are allowed inside) but the common-sense alarm is going off in my head. Local bar-owner Daryl Chester describes the nightmare-scenario:

"I've seen bar fights escalate with people jumping in because it didn't seem like a fair fight, grabbing pool cues, and the next thing you know you've got 30 or 40 people involved in a brawl," said Daryl Chester of Scottsdale, who manages the Six Shooters sports bar chain around the Valley. "And it all started because a guy looked at somebody's girlfriend the wrong way. I'm a firm believer in the right to keep and bear arms, I just don't think firearms and alcohol mix."

On principle, like I said above, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but this seems like needless foolishness. Principled foolishness maybe, but foolishness none-the-less. A bad idea...

For those who would write

Ouch. And you know who you are...

Get crackin'!

She gets it

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity addresses the question of suffering. It is the most intractable problem that faces us as human beings, and as such defies a single 'answer.' But I know she gets it when I read this:

We don't know the full answer to the question of suffering. But we do know that our humanity rests in our response to it.

Suffering is never about the pain endured. Believing that it is about the pain means that God is arbitrary and doesn't care--a spiritual version of the boy who burns ants alive with his magnifying glass for fun.

My own experience testifies to the fact that God is not that little boy who acts capriciously. My own experience testifies that God cares more about me--the real me: who I am in relation to who He wants to make me--than that. And who therefore whittles away at the things that do nothing to help make me who He wants. That process hurts, but it is just that; a process, not an end result.

What We Are Dealing With, Part 1

Having spent the majority of my college and grad school years studying Germany and the German language and having lived in Germany for approximately four years, I could rightly be termed a Deutschophile. Some of my best friends are German and I still make many trips over there to visit.

Based upon that experience, I feel like I have a pretty solid handle on the German psyche when it comes to its views on the United States and U.S. foreign policy. As events merit, I'll be addressing the issue of "What We Are Dealing With" when it comes to our allies, the Germans.

In today's first installment, we take a look the president of the Bundestag, Antje Vollmer of the Green Party. Frau Vollmer is the highest ranking woman in German politics. So it is with (not really) great surprise to learn at David's Medienkritik that the most powerful female in the government of one of our allies has made some interesting accusations. It seems she has charged that the United States exposed the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church in an effort to weaken Pope John Paul, II. The rationale for this radical action, according to Frau Vollmer, is that the late Pope was openly hostile to the American invasion of Iraq.

This friends, is....what we are dealing with.

Take this job and shove it

My wife and I use Instant Messenger to converse through out the day. Just found out she's been fired from her job at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in North Phoenix.

In all honesty it's a good thing; she's been miserable there for months and was planning on quitting later this month anyway. But still...there is nothing worse than the feeling that accompanies being fired. It just plain sucks.

My Dogs are Smarter (Or why I'm glad I don't live in California)

I talked in my very first post about how I came to name this blog. The choice was also a slam of people in politics and other walks of life who have risen to positions that presume they are more intelligent than their behavior demonstrates.

People like Barbara Boxer, for instance. In listening to her "questioning" of John Bolton today, I continue to be amazed some 13 years later that she ever was elected Senator.

Building brand loyalty

Never fly here, but I saw this in yesterday's Republic and thought it very interesting:

But in Nogales, Sonora - and most of northern Mexico for that matter - you can just pick up the phone and have your favorite brew delivered right to your door. At no extra charge.For instance, a dozen quart-size bottles of Tecate cost $19.59.

Beer lovers in Mexico have enjoyed home beer delivery for about five years. It's part of the service offered by distributors of the country's major brands, such as Tecate and Corona in northern Mexico.That's hardly a novelty in a country where many products - from water and propane to tamales, tortillas, bread and produce - are still delivered door-to-door.

Of course the thing to remember is that in Mexico Tecate and Corona are near equivalents of Bud and Coors. I wouldn't get too excited about getting home delivery of either from my local Fry's...

In search of a moniker

This budding feud between the resident Dodger and Padre fans needs a name. But what?

Myopic Dodger Fans 3, Haters 0

The Dodgers have won three straight since Simian launched his unwarranted and wholly biased attack on the organization. At the same time, those vaunted Fryers find themselves in 3rd place in the NL West.

In the first week at least, Sim's derision of the teams defense hasn't held up. If there is a problem, it's the bullpen. I know, because I suffered through last-nights Dodger-Diamondback affair. Neither team can pitch at this point. Though I must say, I was not much of an Elmer Dessens fan while he was here in AZ and not best-pleased to see him in the Blue but he pitched a solid game last night and had the bullpen held up their end of the deal, he'd have had a win.

Call it myopic if you must, but be sure to check the scoreboard!


Disclaimer: It's the first week of the season, who the heck knows how this is gonna go, so all predictions, arguments and lame attempts at smack are to be taken with a huge grain of salt!

Don't make me angry. You would't like me when I'm angry.

Blogger made me angry yesterday. A post I was working on about the "GOP talking points" memo that mysteriously showed up on the floor of the senate as they contemplated the bill designed to save Terri Schiavo's life just up and vanished yesterday due to problems with their server(s). In fact, I had to give up on trying to accomplish anything around here after about 3 P.M. yesterday.

"Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."


UPDATE: Apparently I live under a rock. This has been a self-reported item in the blogosphere for a while. Even garned a write-up in Wired magazine. Always thankful for the link, but I do wonder how I ended up here.

A Cup o' Joe and the morning paper

My wife is out for most of the day. Starting with a doctor's appointment, then moving on to a girls-day-out at the Women's Expo downtown. It's me, the dogs, my coffee and the morning paper.

Seems like at least twice-a-month we're getting another one of these stories. The housing market is booming, but jobs aren't keeping up and we're all gonna die! Okay, I'm exaggerating. A little.

New data is showing prices in metro-Phoenix have moved up over 30% year-to-year (March '04-March '05). There continues to be much squawking from many about how prices are setting new records (median price is now $213,000, up from the new record established in February) and being fueled by investors as opposed to residents. I have mixed feelings on this.

The reason I live in Arizona is because the housing market in my Southern California hometown has moved to the beyond-absurd. I've been priced out of that market for years. I understand the concerns of the city, advocate groups and everyday people who fear that owning a home is slipping beyond their reach.

On the other hand, as a home-owner all I can say is, "Bully!" My home was appraised in February for $195,000. Our same model is for sale down the street and around the corner for $285,000 (he's out of his mind if he thinks he'll get all of it, but even so!). This is a good thing for us. We're not chasing the next upgrade so I have no fear of a continued surge in prices keeping me out of a new home; if we move, it will be out of the area altogether.

Having seen this very phenomenon occur in Southern California, I confess that reading stories like this and others amuses me slightly. There's almost a sense of dread that the market is reaching a point of no return, that Phoenix is but days away from becoming another Los Angeles or San Francisco in terms of housing affordability. All I can say to that is, you've all got a long way to go before you get there!

Deep thoughts, military style

New milblog, Howdy's BLOG is full of deep thoughts. These in particular are the result of a quiet night waiting to escort casualties that thankfully don't come:

I tire of radical thought and world-changing rhetoric. Hate and exclusion are lessons taught from a man in quicksand....the sooner his nose disappears under the sand the better. Show me a free man and I’ll show you a world-changer. The more there are, the more the world changes.

Barry watch

-Simian posted the other day about one of the anti-Barrys, Jake Peavy. Made me feel good about baseball players for about 10 minutes. Then I caught this (as reported by the SF Chronicle) on ESPN Sportscenter last night.

The Giants ordinarily are as up-front as any team about injured players, but now, whenever head trainer Stan Conte is asked about the left fielder, he replies, "I have no news to report on Barry Bonds."

The ESPN report quoted Barry as saying, when asked about his knee by a reporter, "I don't do interviews."

What exactly is it that you do, Barry? Besides alienate fans...

Hard to escape Human Nature

Michael at Christian Conservative has a boil-it-down-to-it's-essence type of evaluation of certain folks' behavior. Warning: Members of the Reality-Based Community may find it too simplistic to merit any attention. I on the other hand think it describes to a tee a certain aspect of human nature that is inescapable. Whether you consider yourself reason-based or not...

Worldly people long to be loved. This is why actors and musicians would rather cut the throats of anyone standing in the way of fame and worldly glory. They want to be famous, adored and loved. The Left is troubled that America’s foreign policy has an isolating effect on our relations with other nations, because they want America to be loved. Secularists despise the very sound of the words “moral values,” because it carries with it religious overtones that appear judgmental and unloving. Worldly people long to be loved. We all do really, but to us being loved isn’t as important as doing what’s right. There comes a time when we all need to decide which is more important.

Why can't they all be like this?

23 year old Friars pitcher Jake Peavy gets his first start of the '05 season tonight against the Pirates at Petco Park. Last year, the youngster from Semmes, AL (pop. 1200) distinguished himself by becoming the youngest pitcher to win the NL ERA crown since Dwight Gooden and toured Japan with a group of American All-Stars. But it's not just his 94-MPH fastball and gutsy mound presence which sets this young man apart.

Today's San Diego Union Tribune has a nice profile piece on Peavy which startlingly revealed this gem:

His agent at the time, Scott Boras, is known to wring every last penny out of a franchise for any player, much less one with Peavy's numbers. Peavy decided to change to Barry Axelrod, who had closer ties with the Padres. "I like Mr. Boras and I knew he'd do a great job for me," Peavy said. "But money is not why I'm pitching. I changed because of my values and beliefs. I didn't want the Padres thinking I was upset or . . . you know what I mean."

After reading the entire article, you'll likely find yourself wondering why we continue to fawn over prima donna's like Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant while players like Peavy toil in relative obscurity.

Update: Peavy was dominant in 6+ IP giving up no runs and ringing up 10 punch-outs. He left in the middle of a 0-0 game which was won by SD when X Nady walked with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 12th, handing the Friars a 1-0 victory.

More Diversity Celebration (TM)

We always hear about the Republican Dirty Tricks campaign, but why don't we ever hear about the Unhinged Liberal Stifling of Debate and Lack of Fundamental Respect team?

How juvenile.

Oil-nomics

Larry Kudlow blogged on the Administration's current policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve yesterday. While it wasn't the focus of his argument, he made the point that the oil market is sitting on a huge bubble:

We're already in an oil bubble, despite the fact that inventories keep rising and year-to-date we have the biggest inventory build in the past 25 years, according to Bear Stearns. Rising prices and inventories don't make any real sense. More bubble evidence: from the lows, oil is up 220 percent. Compare that to gold, which is up 64 percent, or spot metals, up 117 percent. Oil is way out of line. It's an Internet-type speculative bubble. Mutual funds, hedge funds, and even insurance companies are buying oil on the momentum trade. This could be dangerous.

I whole-heartedly believe that he is correct! There are no structural forces in the market accounting for oil in the mid-$50-dollar-a-barrel range. Several readers have posted comments that re-iterate the point.

-Folks, the world is going to run out of oil, SOMEDAY! But not THIS DAY! Larry's right. We're in IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE. One more time. An oil refinery in Venezuela goes off-line (thus pushing more crude onto the market;) oil spikes $2.00 in New York. A storm builds in the Persian Gulf (meaning a ship-load of crude gets to market in 43 days instead of 41 days;) oil goes up. Crude inventories are 25 MILLION BARRELS above this time in 04; gasoline 7 MILLION BARRELS above a yr. ago. Oil is up $20.00 something a barrel, gasoline $.30 something a gallon. And, at $2.25/gal., demand is getting ready to fall. Bet on it.

-About 2 weeks ago, Lee Raymond, CEO of Exxon Mobil said that crude oil wouldn't be priced where it is right now were it not for "speculation." Speculation is his word and I believe that that Raymond knows a little more about oil than most folks--including all the institutions chasing it and financing it. This is the very same crowd that gave you $100 per share for your JDS Uniphase stock--if you were smart enough to let them have it. This isn't the first oil bubble either. The last time around you gave it all back in about 12-18 months.

-You do realize that the oil supply is only part of the problem. We simply can't refine it fast enough in the US to meet demand, but the current regulatory environment that the refineries operate in is helping to increase the actual cost of fuel.

The forgotten gem

Michael Ledeen focuses on a point made in the Silbermann-Robb report on intelligence. It's a point that isn't often made but ought to be.

The good things are very good, and the very best thing is that they recognize that intelligence is more an art than a science, and they therefore rightly insist that the success or failure of the intelligence community will ultimately depend on the quality of the people and how they are treated. I can’t remember the last time that was said in a public document, or even in the mounting pile of commentary on the report, and it’s really the most important thing. Silberman/Robb say it, say it often, and try to figure out how best to do it. They recognize that the culture of the community is rotten — the results speak for themselves, after all — and they suggest ways to retain talented people, ranging from attractive side benefits like travel, sabbaticals, and greater opportunities to mix with the outside intellectual world.

A second time, for emphasis: ...and the very best thing is that they recognize that intelligence is more an art than a science, and they therefore rightly insist that the success or failure of the intelligence community will ultimately depend on the quality of the people and how they are treated.

This understanding accounts for much. It explains how analysts can look at the same data sets and reach different conclusions. It explains why the history of Sadaam Hussein's obfuscation and deceit mattered when analyzing the state of his WMD programs.

It is something the absolutists who continue to make the simple-argument that WMD weren't there would do well to remember as they rage on about how President Bush lied.

Why I hate Fantasy Baseball

When guys go crazy and say...hit for the cycle (one of the sports most difficult of all single-game accomplishments) they are guaranteed to be riding the pine.

Obligatory Sports Post

Random thoughts on today's Baseball games:

-Another fine performance from Mariano Rivera at Yankee stadium. 3 H's, 3 W's, 5 R's (to be fair, only 1 ER) in 2/3 of an inning. Impressive work; single-handedly destroying my ERA and WHIP in one league.

-Manny Ramirez woke up his bat. Sort of. Goes 1-for-5 on the day. How is that good you might ask? When you're 0-for-8 to this point, anything is better...

-Finally, this: was trading emails with a guy in one of my leagues. He and I did a lot of that last season and will likely do it again this. He was lamenting the performance of his hoped-for steals leader, Scott Podsednik. At the time of the email exchange, Pods was 0-6 which prompted these replies on my part:

-Kind of hard to steal bases from the bench, eh?



-Hypothetical conversation at 1B:

Ben Broussard: "Um, Scott, you're out."

Pods: "No, I'm not."

Broussard: "No, you are. You struck out."

Pods: "No I didn't."

Broussard: "Yes you did. I saw you. You whiffed. Missed that change-up by a mile!"

Pods: "No I didn't. You need to get your eyes checked."

Broussard: "Get my eyes checked? I'm not the one who was a week early on a 67 mph change up. Get your own eyes checked, and while you're at it haul yourself back to the dugout, yer OUT!"

Some Dogs ain't so smart

ESPN's Buster Olney extends on my analysis of the The Team Soon to be Known As The Chavez Trolleywreck:

Los Angeles was a great defensive team in 2004, with Adrian Beltre and Cesar Izturis dominating the left side of the infield and Alex Cora making plays on the right side. With the Dodgers housed in a pitcher's park, the conventional wisdom was that this defense was the backbone of the team that won the National League West. Then Beltre signed with the Seattle Mariners, after feeling as if he barely got a serious whiff from the Dodgers, and Cora was dumped in December. Their replacements: Jeff Kent and Jose Valentin, two players who are average defensive players on their best days and very capable of sabotaging their teams on their worst defensive days. To add to the confusion, DePodesta made a huge $36 million investment in sinkerballer Derek Lowe, who generates a lot of ground balls and needs help from his infielders; Jeff Weaver, another front man on the Dodgers' staff, is the same way. (Then DePodesta signed outfielder J.D. Drew – a player who had trouble staying in the lineup on a regular basis for most of his career – for $55 million, or only $9 million less than what Beltre got). Downgrade the defense in a significant way. Then build your staff around pitchers who need defensive help. Something's wrong with this picture.

No matter how the Padres finish up, I will enjoy watching this Ship of Fools struggle through the warning waves.

Note: This post is powered by the new Dell desktop. God Bless ye.

How the mighty have fallen!

From the first moments that the words "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." first flashed on the screen , the Star Wars universe sucked you in. In fact, especially as a pre-teen, you couldn't help it. As campy, operatic and un-scientific as it was, you couldn't help but get sucked into this world. And when the rumors began in the early 80's about Lucas' vision for three separate trilogies across a mammoth time-line, well you really cared!

And then Episode I hit the screen 16 years later and suddenly it was a lot harder to care. At all. This kind of sums it all up; it's more important to wait in line for the movie than to actually see the movie:

"The telling thing is -- for me, at least -- if the film is not playing at the Chinese ... I have zero desire to see it at all," a fan who calls himself Obi Geewhyen posted on the message board at Liningup.net. "I'm in it for the lineup only and don't give a darn about the conclusion of this lackluster, so-called 'Star Wars' series."

Political expediency

I found this little nugget by Eric Pfeiffer at NRO's Beltway Buzz. It's almost as if politicians believe all their statements exist in a vacuum somewhere:

Last Saturday, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said his fellow Democrats’ use of the filibuster was “grounded in Senate tradition,” and that the GOP’s goal is to “silence the minority.”

Through the glory of Nexis, I’ve come across a 1994 CNN interview with Mitchell in which he sounded a different tune.

Mitchell, on the GOP’s use of filibusters: “I think that the previous restraint that senators had exercised with respect to the rules had vanished, and as a result, the rules are being abused in a way that obstructs and prevents action. That wasn't intended by the men who started this country and wrote the Constitution.“

When CNN’s Bob Franken asked Mitchell if the filibuster should remain, Mitchell responded:
“I think we should keep them, but we should limit the opportunities for their use much more than is now the case.“

Franken then asked, “But what is the purpose of a filibuster? What constructive purpose does it serve?”Mitchell answered, “It can prevent precipitous action. It's intended to permit a longer time for consideration. Like all things in life that serve a useful purpose, it can be abused, and it was abused in this Congress. I hope the next Congress doesn't act in the same way.”

Finally, in direct contradiction to Mitchell’s defense of the Democrats’ filibuster, Mitchell said this back in ’94:

“Now, I don't want to be defending the filibuster and I don't want to be defending the obstructionist tactics that the Republicans used in this past Congress. But I think the appropriate course is to say that we retain those provisions which make the Senate the unique institution it is, but we reform them in a way that doesn't lend itself to abuse of those procedures.”

I guess it's just not kids that say the darndest things!

Only because he deserves it...and because I can

Eli Manning is a punk.

Livin' La Vida Robot!

Four Phoenix teenagers won the national underwater-bot competition hosted at UC Santa Barbara last year. The story of how and why is, on the personal side, very interesting. The thing I can't get away from, that is touched on briefly at the end of the piece, is the fact that all four are Mexican illegals.

Lorenzo the mechanic, Cristian the resident 'genius', Oscar the leader and tether-man Luis all attend(ed) Carl Hayden Community High School in West Phoenix. It's a 50-50 toss up as to whether Oscar and Lorenzo who have already graduated and Cristian and Luis behind them will ever attend college in the US as a result of their undocumented status:

They hope to see all four kids go to college before they quit teaching, which means they're likely to keep working for a long time. Since the teenagers are undocumented, they don't qualify for federal loans. And though they've lived in Arizona for an average of 11 years, they would still have to pay out-of-state tuition, which can be as much as three times the in-state cost. They can't afford it.

This story brought me back to President Bush's near-forgotten immigration reform plan. My understanding of the President's idea, while admittedly limited, was that he desires a way to incorporate people hiding below the surface into the US economy via something similar to the European worker visa. And what does this have to do with the likes of Lorenzo, Cristian, Oscar and Luis?

Well, these four illegal immigrants won this competition besting the likes of a 12-person MIT team with 6 ocean-engineering students, 4 mechanical engineers, 2 computer science guys and sponsors. That's a lot of human capital packed into four young Mexican teenagers. The question is, and there is no way to quantify this near-adequately, but how much human capital are we not utilizing by locking people out of the system?

There's no easy answer to the question.

Iraq has a President

The process of building a government plods on: Kurdish politician Jalal Talibani will be named President tomorrow at a meeting of Parliament. I await the prattling of the Negative Nabobs and wonder what reasons they'll invent to convince us that Iraq is a(n) puppet/illegitimate government/promising experiment in democracy doomed to civil-war, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

My quick observations:

-A Kurdish President
-Speaker of the Parliament is Sunni
-Shi'a control of the Parliament with a majority of seats


As a practical matter, the Shi'a do and will exercise the majority of political power by virtue of controlling the Parliament, that is true. Early indications are, however, that they are wise to the fact that they need to take pains to avoid political acts of revenge against the Sunni and/or oppression of the Kurds. And that is a good thing!

Natter on Nabobs, natter on!

More Legally Right and Morally Wrong discussions

Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity has weighed in again in the discussion of what comes next following last week's death of Terri Schiavo. In her primary point, she echoes Hugh Hewitt's thoughts from today as well as the point made by John Leo in US News & World Report. From Charmaine's post:

Without an eternal perspective, why bother with pain, difficulty, and troubles, if a quick fix or a way out is available?

But if suffering doesn't make sense to the secular, this brings us right back to Paul's original question: What's a Christian to do?

Because I'm a political scientist, I've spent my entire adult life thinking about this question . . .
The Schiavo case is, of course, intrinsically important. Terri lost her life in the political struggle. However, the battle over her life highlights a portentous political reality: the divide between the religious and the secular is growing, and the ramifications of that in our communal life will become ever more apparent.

This was the elephant in the room throughout the public debate over Terri's ordeal.

She ties it all together in the next paragraph when she states: Still, things really do get dicey when one of the toughest theological questions we've got -- the origin of evil, the purpose of suffering -- is situated right at the heart of a political question. Is there a response that is both adequately Christian and adequately political?

On that question, I'm not entirely certain what the answer is. Many argue, and I've agreed with them, that one of the things that ought to change as a result of this situation is that law needs to become more "moral". In otherwords, the distinction that secular society desires to keep between government and religion, moral teaching and moral action needs to be diminished in the hope of eliminating it eventually. The problem, as I see it, is that that response alone lands us in the old predicament of trying to legislate morality.

My dogs are smart, yet as smart as they may be they are still dogs. It is illogical for me to ever think they will act as anything but dogs. From a Christian perspective, it is equally illogical to think that unsaved men and women should think and act like anything but unsaved people. The Christian response then is, ultimately, the same as it has always been: sharing the Gospel with those living without it. Society changes but one heart at a time!

Baseball talk--Local edition

The Diamondbacks got pounded yesterday in their season opener. There is no nice way to put it.

The loss highlights everything that even the big fans in media have said are the team's Achilles heel--pitching. Or in the case of opening day, the lack of pitching. The ray of hope is that Javier Vazquez, after getting ripped in just 1 1/3 innings, believes he may have been tipping his pitches. If that turns out to be true, it's correctable. But what of the pen that gave up 9 runs in 7 2/3 innings?

Not the kind of start that Bickley and Jarecki were envisioning yesterday morning at XTRA Sports 910 when they were ripping the over/under prediction for D-Back wins at 66.5. Once again, seems there's maybe a reason why Vegas oddsmakers set odds in Vegas and media guys talk on the radio.

I suppose that's unfair after one bad game against a very good offensive team like the Cubs. I've waffled back and forth all spring about the D-Back's chances. On the one hand, they did improve their offensive potential greatly over last year. But what of the pitching? Can Vazquez really replace Randy Johnson (as much as anyone can replace a sure-fire future hall-of-famer), and even if he can what about the 2-5 spots that have been a puzzle for each of the last 3 seasons?

I guess fans will have to wait for answers to that 161-pieces at a time.

Only in France (well, not really)

It was with some degree of surprise that I stumbled across this article yesterday, which revealed that an outcry has been raised in France about the government's decision to lower the tricolore to half-staff in tribute to the passing of Pope John Paul II. My bemused initial reaction of "You've got to be kidding," was quickly tempered when I remembered this was "secular" France, a nation that is around 83+% Roman Catholic. Irony. You've got to love it.

From it's establishment as a Catholic state in the partition of Charlamegne's empire under the Treaty of Verdun, France has struggled mightily with the intermingling of religion and politics throughout its history. Urban II instigated the Crusades from French soil and Cardinal Richilieu's exploits are well documented. So it is with good reason that the French citizenry is skeptical about the role of religion in their political lives. The 1905 passage of The Law of Separation of the Churches and the State guaranteed that there would be no official role for religion in the affairs of the French government.

However, this reaction against the role of religion in government affairs has, in fact, leant steam to the overall secularization of the populace. Supposedly, although close to 90% of the population is baptized as Roman Catholic, only 63% identify themselves as practicing Catholics (I cannot document these numbers, but I read them somewhere and believe that they are at least directionally accurate). While that's perfectly fine, I'm reminded by the famous quote from the Reverend Billy Graham:

"The framers of the Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

And thus when the French government precluded Muslim schoolgirls from wearing headscarves in accordance with the teachings of their faith, I wondered how France could loudly proclaim itself a tolerant democratic entity when it was imposing a state-sponsored ban on the harmless expression of faith. Oddly (and ironically), I now find myself echoing the arguments of those so perturbed about the tribute to the fallen pontiff. If Muslim headscarves cannot be worn in public schools because they blur the line between religion and state, then why should the French government be able to make a grand public tribute to a dead religious leader? I don't believe that headscarves in schools represent a threat to the separation of church and state in France just as I don't believe that honoring a beloved leader like the Pope or Ghandi or the Dalai Lama should represent any form of encroachment either. Why is there no consistency here? Like ascertaining the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

Irony. You've got to love it.

Hey Simian!

Wonder when the firewall at ESPN will come down and people will add some common sense to their repertoire?

I do.

See you in '05

The aforementioned Clint Barmes hits a 2-run walk-off vs. Hoffman to send the Rox to a 12-10 Opening Day victory over San Diego. Gotta admit it, the Rockies youngsters all looked good with Baker and Barmes getting taters and Aaron Miles getting 5 hits.

Time for an NL West re-evaluation?

Padre Power!

Last night witnessed the kick off of the baseball season in the Big Apple amidst the maddeningly annoying hype surrounding the first of many Red Sox-Yankees tilts. With that mess as backdrop, let us turn our attention to a far more interesting corner of the baseball universe (at least for those who spawn this blog): the NL West Derby.

This season’s race promises to be another wide-open affair in which any of three teams have a shot at the title depending on injuries, luck and a well-placed steroid suspension or three. Let’s take a look at the combatants, their pros and cons and finish out with some bold April predictions.

San Francisco would probably enter the season as the division’s prohibitive favorite with the off-season importation of Armando Benitez and Moises Alou. But as the season opens, Barry Bonds’ myriad troubles threaten to render the game's most dangerous hitter a complete or partial non-factor. Not good news for a franchise with an aging lineup and which will roll out a fairly pedestrian pitching staff once you get beyond Jason Schmidt. Youngsters Jerome Williams and Noah Lowery could surprise, however. Additionally, the arrival of Benitez sorts out last year’s biggest problem, which was the pen. Matt Herges will benefit by occupying a set-up role more suited to his skill set. Brian Sabean’s charges always play with a lot of enthusiasm and Felipe Alou manages to squeeze more toothpaste out of the tube than many of his contemporaries. Of course, the key here is the man with the gargantuan melon . But assuming he returns and plays well, the play of Moises Alou, Pedro Feliz and the development of Williams and Lowery will be crucial to the team's hopes.

The Trolley Dogs of Chavez begin the season wholly emasculated from last year’s division winner. Gone are sluggers Adrian Beltre, Steve Finley and Shawn Green. Jeff Kent will replenish some of the lost sock but will also return the middle infield to the time-honored Dog tradition of scissorhands defense and the play-for-pay mentality which has plagued this franchise for a decade (where have you gone Paul Lo Duca?) Jose Valentin will be a .245-hitting strikeout machine at 3rd. Hee Seop Choi won’t remind anyone of Mike Marshall (heh). But what of the pitching? Odalis Perez will be racking up K’s and W’s for my fantasy league team (hat tip: Paul), but Derek Lowe cannot be counted upon to deliver a sub 4.50 ERA. Brad Penny, meanwhile, starts the season on the DL with Eric Gagne and Wilson Alvarez. For LA to make a run, JD Drew, Jeff Weaver and Penny will need to deliver productive, emotionally stable and physically healthy seasons. That’s kind of like counting on the ESPN message boards for insightful and dynamic political repartee. Too many questions.

Colorado is, well Colorado. Williamsport has a way of taking this team out of the race before it even gets started. But there is cause for long-term optimism in Denver. Youngsters like Jeff Baker, Matt Holliday, Cliff Barmes and Jeff Francis (should Coors Shellshock not ruin him) have shown flashes that bode well for the future. Todd Helton will have another monster year and a healthy Preston Wilson should rebound to bring some serious lumber. But as always, pitching is this team’s albatross. Names like Kennedy and Chacon just aren’t going to get it done at altitude for Clint Hurdle’s team. See you in ‘06.

Which brings us to San Diego. I felt a little baited-and-switched following the successful inaugural season in Petco Park when John Moore$ chose not to invest in the offseason. Rather than pursue a fleet, big bat like Carlos Beltran to patrol Petco’s spacious CF or to slam the door on the division race by taking a moderate dollar calculated risk by retaining Boomer Wells and signing Woodrow Williams, the team tinkered at the margins. Acquisitions like Dave Roberts, Geoff Blum, Mark Sweeney and Eric Young certainly strengthen the bench, but weren’t the bold moves long-suffering Friars fans like myself deserve. In fairness, the team returns last season’s phenomenal bucket brigade bullpen of Linebrink-Otsuka-Hoffman. A 4-year extension for Jake Peavy indicates that the Padre brass believes he is capable of fronting a more-than-solid rotation. Additionally, the dazzling Khalil Greene promises only to improve on last year’s fine rookie season. The key for the Friars will be a return to normal seasons for Ryan Klesko and Brian Giles. Along with Phil Nevin, they seemed a little psyched-out by the new digs last year. Additionally, more offense will need to come from Greene, supersub X Nady and Single Sean Burroughs. At this juncture, only Chop-Chop appears incapable of delivering the goods. But I remain ever vigilant.

In my opinion, the race will come down to an entertaining dogfight between the two Sans, unless Bonds plays a meaningful and productive chunk of the season. But in the end, I believe the Padres will win the division and make their first post-season appearance since 1998.

Bold Predictions

San Diego 90-72
San Francisco 86-76
Los Angeles 78-84
Colorado 68-94

My Dogs are Smarter (Or how dogs watch TV)

We spent nearly the entire first-year of Lacy's life with us unable to watch a TV program, much less a movie, in it's entirety. Lab puppies, nay puppies in general, are far too lively to sit quietly at their master's behest for too long.

She is nearly 2 years old now and has settled down mightily. For instance, we were able to get through a viewing of Pirates of the Caribbean last night in under 3 hours! Sounds bad, yes, but a year ago it would have taken 2 nights. The presence of a second animal helps also to wring out some of that energy. Needless to say, there is quite a difference between the way we were forced to watch TV a year, year and a half ago and the way we can view programs today.

While a puppy, Lacy would only sit still for minutes at a time then run out of the room to investigate who-knows-what in the kitchen or dining room thus necessitating the clicking of the remote's pause button and one of us running frantically after her. These days, she is more content to sit on her throne (i.e., our large over-stuffed chair in the living room next to the couch) or on the floor within ear-scratching distance of mommy.

As she's gotten older not only has she calmed down, she has also begun "responding" to sights and sounds on the TV screen. Take for example the Domino's Pizza commercial with ringing door-bell that prompts a bark and a quick run to the front door in anticipation of some friendly visitor; or the local car commercial with a boxer that runs across the screen that prompts a low-growl and forces an up-close inspection of the picture.

One of our favorite new TV shows of the season is ABC's Lost. One of the characters, a 10 year old boy, was traveling home to L.A. with his father and his pet dog Vincent, a Yellow Lab ( and am I the only one wondering what an 85-lb Yellow Lab eats on an island in the middle of nowhere?) when the plane crashed on this mysterious tropical island. Recently, one of the shows featured a scene where said boy and dog were scampering across the beach. Lacy, lounging along the back of her throne, was drawn from her doggy-reverie with a jolt at the sound of another dog and immediately hopped off the chair and ran to the TV, demanding to know what was making such a noise with nose only inches from the screen!

When such things occur, I have several responses. What is she reacting to? Is it the same simple act of curiosity that prompts her to run to the door and bark when the neighbor takes his trash container down to the curb?

What does she think when she sees these 2-dimensional dogs? Is it the same curiosity that drives introductions between acquaintances at the dog park? Is it the instinct that promotes defensive posturing and barking as she walks by the neighborhood wall, behind which lurks the menacing, unknown canine with the loud bark? Or is she, like me, left to wonder what exactly does an 85-lb Yellow Lab eat on a tropical island in the middle of the South Pacific?

Nothing to be proud of in Iraq

Nope, nothing at all.

While we typically only hear about all of the "hell" the United States has wrought in Iraq, we finally learn of the story of one Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who will posthumously receive the Medal of Honor exactly two years after his heroic actions on the battlefield.

Today, President Bush will present Seargeant Smith's surviving 11-year old son, David, with the Medal for the selfless actions of his father, recounted below:

The Iraqis, perhaps as many as 100, attacked with rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs. Smith threw a grenade over a wall to drive back some of the Iraqis, then fired a rocket. Incoming RPGs battered the Bradley, which retreated. Then a mortar struck the M113, wounding the three soldiers inside and leaving its heavy machine gun unmanned. After directing another soldier to pull the wounded M113 crewmen to safety, Smith climbed into the machine gun position and began firing at the tower and at the Iraqis trying to rush the compound. His upper torso and head were exposed as he manned the gun. "This wasn't a John Wayne move," said Command Sgt. Maj. Gary J. Coker, the top enlisted man in the 11th Battalion, who was near the battle. "He was very methodical. He knew he had the gate and he wasn't going to leave it and nobody was going to make him leave it." Still, Coker said, "it was absolutely amazing to stand up in that volume of fire." During a stretch of 15 minutes or longer, Smith fired more than 300 rounds as Pvt. Michael Seaman, protected inside the M113, passed him ammunition. Then he was struck by enemy fire and mortally wounded. At almost the same time, 1st Sgt. Timothy Campbell ended the threat from the tower with a grenade, and the surviving Iraqis withdrew. Medics tried to save Smith, and he died about 30 minutes later. He and his comrades are credited with killing between 20 and 50 Iraqi soldiers.

Of course the unhinged Left will likely point to today's ceremony as yet another self-congratulatory Mission Accomplished Bush moment. These are the same folks who blame Fox News for the lack of traction their "ideas" have with the American public. But do we even really know what their ideas are? Do they bring anything to the table? Or are they just frustrated table-pounders with a penchant for mud-slinging and irresponsible Michael Moore conspiracy theories?

Perhaps if these cynical contrarians spent more time studying the example of all of the Seargeant Smiths and translated their emotions into tangible ideas and actions, they wouldn't be so disconnected from the pulse of the country. Perhaps the opposition would once again assert its important responsibility in our democracy. Ironically, the Left could learn some important lessons from the missions and actions of those it so easily derides.

God bless the soul of Sergeant Smith, his surviving family, Private Seaman and all of those who are sacrificing on behalf of this nation and the Iraqi people. When this chapter of the history books is finally written, even some members of the unhinged Left will want to jump on the bandwagon. Bet on it.

From the mouths of babes

Opening Day...Hhhhmmmm!

Legal and moral responses #4

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity responded over the weekend to my post, "Legally Right and Morally Wrong." Of the temporal, she writes:

As a political scientist, one thing that troubles me is the apparent elevation of the courts, not only in their own estimation, but in the public consciousness as well. Many people seem to have forgotten that the Founders intended there to be checks and balances among the three co-equal branches. All three of these branches -- the executive, the judges and the Congress -- were meant to be accountable to the people. Therefore, just because the courts have ruled something does not mean that the people cannot demand that the Congress, or the executive, act to change the direction of public policy more in keeping with the values of the people.

It is a false dichotomy to posit law and morality opposite and as separate entities from one another. Morality is expressed through law. They are one and the same.

The more I've thought and pondered the consequences of Terri Schiavo's death, the more I've come to believe that this is where the fight needs to focus. Additionally, Charmaine re-iterates a point made by pastor Craig Williams of tabletalk:

Where I would want to add to and extend what you've written is to say that it is precisely the eternal perspective that puts suffering in the appropriate context. I agree wholeheartedly that "the spiritual reality trumps mortality." However, while we do not fear death, and may even welcome it under some circumstances, we always remember that God's plans and His timing is not ours. The Christian response to suffering is to say: "Not my will, Lord, but Thine."

I agree whole-heartedly. My own life-experiences have taught me this! But what of it? This is a concept as foreign as anything possibly can be to even some in the Church, much less to the world-at-large. How do we communicate such an idea when the natural inclination of unsaved men and women is to run as far away from pain as is possible to get?

Legal and moral responses #3

John Leo writes in next week's US News & World Report about the Schiavo affair. In it he broaches two subjects that bear discussion. One looks forward and one looks back.

About the future of such situations and public opinion, Leo writes:

Public opinion: Polls showed very strong opposition to the Republican intervention, but the likelihood is that those polled weren't primarily concerned with Terri Schiavo or Republican overreaching, if that's what it was. They were thinking about themselves and how to avoid being in Terri Schiavo's predicament. Many, too, have pulled the plug on family members and don't want these wrenching decisions second-guessed by the courts or the public.

If this is correct, it means the country has yet to make up its mind on the issue of personhood and whether it is moral and just to remove tube-supplied food and water from people with grave cognitive disabilities. The following candid exchange occurred on Court TV last month in a conversation between author Wesley Smith and bioethicist Bill Allen. Smith: "Bill, do you think Terri is a person?" Allen: "No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." Fetuses, babies, and Alzheimer's patients are only minimally aware and might not fit this definition of personhood, and so would have no claim on our protections.

What of the vulnerable? Are they to be protected regardless of whether it is fair to believe they can recover some semblance of a "normal" life or are they to be dispatched at the first inkling that they aren't "there" anymore and likely never will be?

His second observation, actually made earlier in the piece, is a simple clear-cut political observation:

My suspicion is that liberal opinion was guided by smoldering resentment toward President Bush and the rising contempt for religion in general and conservative Christians in particular. We seem headed for much more conflict between religious and secular Americans.

I don't have a hard time believing that. Sadly...

I Have a Dream

And my dream is that the world be rid of spyware.

I'm out on a mission a stolen car mission. And that mission is going to be to extract my pound of flesh from the bastards who are responsible for unethically loading unwanted, harmful software onto all of our computers. I want to put a stop to it. In fact, I don't think I have ever felt so strongly about an issue that I've followed through on a true advocacy campaign. But in the coming weeks and months, I will be embarking on just such a campaign here and elsewhere. Spyware is different. This time it's personal.

Why?

Within days of Paul's gracious invitation to post on My Dogs, I came down with a despicable form of Internet syphilis so severe that my laptop had to be taken to a local computer chop-shop for $150 worth of work. In all, I was without my computer for nearly seven days. While that is unfortunate, it wasn't the first time I found myself beset by such pain and woe. Almost precisely one year ago I found myself similarly afflicted; to the point where my machine was practically unusable. That infestation cost me $300 and 4 days. This despite dutiful use of programs such as Ad-Aware, Spybot, McAfee and Norton to prevent such difficulties. And even upon getting my machine back this time, it's still not 100%.

As a result, I have finally given up on my Vaio laptop and have purchased a Dell desktop. Roughly $1000. In all, that is $1450 and 11 days of lost productivity in just under one calendar year. This doesn't even include the outright RAGE I have experienced. In legal parlance, that is what is known as a 'material harm.' And it is all the result of spyware.

But it isn't just me. According to Informationweek the most common spyware, GAIN, is currently resident on 38.4 million PCs. And GAIN, for example, targets ESPN users with roughly 36 different pop-up ads. ESPN is incidentally where I contracted my most recent bout of compu-gunk. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. I will be quantifying the true extent of the problem and investigating GAIN in more detail in future installments, but what's important for now is to understand the ubiquity of spyware. Odds are extremely high that you are infected with it right now. You may not know it. But you better believe it knows you. What is also important is to understand that this is not just the domain of underfunded, shadowy, niche players. This is also a world in which well-known companies such as Yahoo!, 1-800 Flowers, Orbitz, Chase, Verizon, Vonage, and even my new best friend, Dell, are represented and often, even complicit. But I will address that in due time.

So what is spyware you ask? Well that is a vexing question and one which is currently exasperating Congress and legitimate technology concerns. Spyware is software which uses aggressive installation practices that exploit browser vulnerabilities to embed itself on our hard-drives. Often this is done without our explicit knowledge. It preys on the lack of savvy that many of us have when it comes to computer technology.

And the harms are manifold.

They can range from hijacking our browsers to unilaterally altering browser settings to accept any kind of future code they want to drop on a hard-drive. They can slow system performance and track our every move online for sale to advertisers. They can even include the logging of keystrokes. In other words, monitoring every word you write in Word or logging credit card numbers during e-commerce transactions.

Bottom line: unethical.

It is currently legal because Congress has not yet addressed this matter. California Republican Mary Bono has been the most strident advocate for legislation, but as yet no bills have been passed. The major issue is how best to define the gray-ish world of spyware. In future posts, I will expand on this notion while also addressing Congress' efforts regarding this blight on humanity. Moreover, I will provide information on what we can all do to influence efforts to protect our technology investments, our data and our sanity.

In sum, as our computers and data become increasingly central to every aspect of our lives, spyware represents a real threat to each of us. It represents a financial threat, a data integrity threat and a privacy threat. While viruses have tended to be our greatest concerns when it comes to our PCs, I would argue that more public and government attention needs to be focused on the growing and insidious problem of spyware.

Take me out to the ballgame!

Baseball starting tonight!...

Months of whining, nay even cursing as my fantasy squads fail or triumph, my players exceed expectations or miss months with injuries. You just never know what you're gonna get!

It must be a Friday

That's probably why the sum total of posts for the day is so low. That and work and I didn't sleep much last night and work and work and work and work and work and...

The last honest Liberal(Or, has there been a sweeter irony?)

Martin Peretz, editor-in-Chief at The New Republic has written a piece there that--GASP!--praises President Bush up-and-down for his assault on the "pathology" in the Middle East. From the "Holy crap, did I really just read that file,":

None of this happened by spontaneous generation. Yes, there were lucky breaks: Yasir Arafat died, Syria conspired somehow to have former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri assassinated. And yes, the new directions are young, and the autocratic-theocratic political culture of the Middle East is old, and it is once again too early to proclaim that the mission has been accomplished. As the ancient Israelite king observed, let he who girds his harness not boast as he who takes it off. But the mission is nonetheless real, and far along, and it is showing thrilling accomplishments. It is simply stupid, empirically and philosophically, to deny that all or any of this would have happened without the deeply unpopular but historically grand initiative of Bush.

And this in his best "Liberal with perspective" form:

So the situation is certainly complex. But complexity is not a warrant for despair. The significant fact is that Bush's obsession with the democratization of the region is working. Have Democrats begun to wonder how it came to pass that this noble cause became the work of Republicans? They should wonder if they care to regain power. They should recall that Clinton (and the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter even more so) had absolutely no interest in trying to modify the harsh political character of the Arab world. What they aspired to do was to mollify the dictators--to prefer the furthering of the peace process to the furthering of the conditions that make peace possible. The Democrats were the ones who were always elevating Arafat. He was at the very center of their road map. After he stalked out of a meeting room in Paris during cease-fire talks in late 2000, Albright actually ran in breathless pursuit to lure him back. It was the Democrats who perpetuated Arafat's demonic sway over the Palestinians, and it was the Democrats who sustained him among the other Arabs. And so the cause of Arab democracy was left for the Republicans to pursue. After September 11, the cause became a matter also of U.S. national security.

...

Now that there is some real hope among both Israelis and Palestinians about the future, let us examine the reasons for it. The first is that Bush made no gestures to the hyperbolic fantasies of Palestinian politics. He gave them one dose of reality after another. The second is that he gave Israel the confidence that he would not trade its security for anything--which means that Israel is now willing to cede much on its own. (Israeli dovishness for American hawkishness: This was always the only way.) The third is that Bush is holding Sharon to his commitments, and everyone who is at all rational on these issues now sees the Israeli prime minister as a man of his word and a man of history. After all, Sharon has broken with much of his own political party. Not for nothing is he now the designated assassination target of the Israeli hard right. Still, holding Sharon to his word also means holding Mahmoud Abbas to his. So far, the record is mixed. The serious shutting down of the terrorist militias has not yet begun, but the Palestinian Authority did run reasonably free local elections, and they were not accompanied by killing. It is true that Hamas won more of these races than makes either Sharon or Abbas comfortable, and its strength may even increase in the coming parliamentary voting. But this, too, is a part of the gamble of democracy; and, to the extent that the Palestinians are taking this gamble and following the newest fashion among the other Arabs, it is a tribute to the inked purple fingers of Iraq, which is to say, a tribute to Bush and his simplistic but effective trust in the polling place.

But he saves his best for last. Truly, a fine job of nose-tweaking-by-print:

One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Columnist and talk-show host Dennis Prager claims to have read TNR for his entire adult life. In fact, Dennis claims to be a liberal and explains simply that his traditional "liberal" views have become more the provenance of the Republican party. Yet Dennis is not considered liberal by any prominent liberals that I'm aware of. The point is, TNR has a long, distinguished history of liberal thought. I find it incredibly sad that today's left finds it's thoughts better articulated by the likes of The Nation than TNR.

I guess it's all Bushitler's fault...