A Bird Flu deterrent

The FDA has approved the first Bird Flue vaccine, calling it a "deterrent." From the Washington Times report late yesterday:

The Food and Drug Administration yesterday announced approval of the first vaccine to protect against the avian flu virus, commonly known as bird flu.

The vaccine, which has yet to be named, is manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis SA and is being viewed by public health officials as a deterrent to the virus rather than a panacea.

"The vaccine may provide early limited protection in the months before a vaccine tailored to the pandemic strain of the virus could be developed and produced," the FDA said.

That is certainly better news than what we saw back here.

Doing your Civic Duty

Some are a bit more excited about paying taxes than you'd think they ought to be. Matt Stoller at MyDD relishes the opportunity:

I just paid my taxes, and I have to say, I always take pride when I do so. I don't like having less money to spend, of course, and the complexity of the process is really upsetting. But I am proud to pay for democracy, and I feel when I do send money to the DC Treasurer and the US Treasury that that is what I am doing. The right-wing likes to pretend as if taxes are a burden instead of the price of democracy. And I suppose, if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does, then taxes are the price for paying for something you really don't want. Personally, I find banking fees, high cable and internet charges, health care costs, and credit card hidden charges much more abrasive than taxes, because with those I'm just being ripped off to pay for someone's summer home.

Patriotism is about recognizing that we are all connected in a fundamental moral and physical sense, that the war in Iraq is our war, that poverty in New Orleans is our poverty, that public funding to cure cancer comes from each of us and not just the scientists who have made it theirs. The tax burden we face is a very small price to pay for the privilege of taking responsibility for our own freedom and our own society. And the hatred of taxes on the right comes from a hatred for this responsibility. It's childish and immoral and unAmerican.

Now, what is a problem is the complexity of our tax system. Complexity is a tool that powerful elites can and do use to intimidate and control people without access to capital and connections. With modern technology, there is just no reason for this complexity anymore except the business coalitions that push for specific tax breaks and the politicians who love them. This complexity not only upsets and disempowers people like us, it empowers the powerful to skip out on their tax burden.

It's not a coincidence that Grover Norquist, the architect of the right-wing ascension to power, runs an organization called Americans for Tax Reform. People like Norquist, who are charlatans at heart and deeply unpatriotic and immoral, use the complexity in the tax code that they help to create to persuade Americans that taxes are bad. This is also true in states all over the country, where it is the unpredictability of property tax burdens and not the amount that causes schools to go wanting for funding.

Our tax code is the DNA of our nation's moral compass. I am proud to pay taxes because I take pride in America, and paying some tiny burden to keep our society running is an extremely small price to pay for being able to call myself an American citizen. The old expression 'you get what you pay for' is apt for all sorts of situations. People tend to express what they value in how much they are willing to pay for it. I am willing and feel privileged for the right to pay for my country. The right-wing is embittered to do so, if they do so at all. And that, more than anything, says something about how much they value this experiment called America.

The comments are full of kind words for all of us who think Washington could curb it's income without threatening civilization as we know it. And that's fine.

They are entitled to grin madly while Uncle Sam screws 'em. Myself, I'll be laughing my right-wingnut, America-hating self all the way to the bank with sizable Federal and State refunds.

I guess that makes me a cheat!

What a difference a year makes

Last year I stopped caring about Fantasy Baseball by the end of May. This year, I don't even think I'm going to make it to the end of April...

He looks average enough

Cho Seung-Hui, the lone gunman who murdered 32 at Virginia Tech yesterday. There's nothing remarkable about him it appears.

Though it seems that some had questions, concerns and had even raised a quiet alarm:

The gunman who shot 32 people to death before killing himself at a Virginia university was described Tuesday as a depressed and deeply disturbed young man whose “grotesque” creative writing projects led a professor to refer him for psychological counseling.

Hillary has a big problem

Men don't like her:

"Obama has climbed to within 2 points of Hillary in the latest Rasmussen robo-poll. Hillary has a big problem with men--Obama leads her by 11% among men."

Go figure.

Slime-O-Rama

This time it's Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank. The WSJ has taken the time to go through official paperwork about the scandal and has amazing things to report. Now if only people will listen:

The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract. The bank's general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz's lawyers:

"First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member." (Our emphasis here and elsewhere.)

That would have settled the matter at any rational institution, given that his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, worked four reporting layers below the president in the bank hierarchy. But the bank board--composed of representatives from donor nations--decided to set up an ethics committee to investigate. And it was the ethics committee that concluded that Ms. Riza's job entailed a "de facto conflict of interest" that could only be resolved by her leaving the bank.

Ms. Riza was on a promotion list at the time, and so the bank's ethicists also proposed that she be compensated for this blow to her career. In a July 22, 2005, ethics committee discussion memo, Mr. Danino noted that "there would be two avenues here for promotion--an 'in situ' promotion to Grade GH for the staff member" and promotion through competitive selection to another position." Or, as an alternative, "The Bank can also decide, as part of settlement of claims, to offer an ad hoc salary increase."

Five days later, on July 27, ethics committee chairman Ad Melkert formally advised Mr. Wolfowitz in a memo that "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record . . ." In the same memo, Mr. Melkert recommends "that the President, with the General Counsel, communicates this advice" to the vice president for human resources "so as to implement" it immediately.

And in an August 8 letter, Mr. Melkert advised that the president get this done pronto: "The EC [ethics committee] cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier [Coll, the human resources vice president] should act upon your instruction." Only then did Mr. Wolfowitz instruct Mr. Coll on the details of Ms. Riza's new job and pay raise.

Needless to say, none of this context has appeared in the media smears suggesting that Mr. Wolfowitz pulled a fast one to pad the pay of Ms. Riza. Yet the record clearly shows he acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn't allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a "conflict of interest" that was no fault of her own.

What to Say

There really is not much to say about such a thing as the events of early today in Blacksburg, other than to note the horrific nature of the entire incident. Regardless of motive or cause.

If I do have anything to say, it would be about the already unfolding analysis of different elements of the story as the day went by. First, it seems to me that any discussion of this needs to understand why it is only for would-be killers or criminals to carry weapons on campus at Virginia Tech.

Not a nice sentiment at this point and it borders on inappropriate only 12 hours later but why on earth would an administration advocate such a policy that leaves thousands of staff, faculty and students vulnerable to just this sort of event?

Moving on, MKH notes the first bits of the political fallout in this: ...to look at their websites, you wouldn't know a thing about what Mitt, McCain, and Rudy think about this national tragedy. It's doesn't mean they're terrible, selfish men, as I'm sure the Left will infer. On the contrary, I'm sure all of their thoughts and prayers are with the kids of Blacksburg, just as all of ours are. But the fact is that the Big Six in the presidential race are huge, public figures who are required, for better or worse, to have a public position on every issue, ever. Today is certainly no exception.

Political web operatives on the Left understand that websites move with the news, and are sometimes the fastest way to move those messages. Today, the Dem candidates' sites reflect that and the Republicans' do not.

I think that Mary Katherine Ham has a valid point here and it is in fact true; the left feels...more and better...it's a key part of the essence of what liberalism is. At the risk of sounding too much like a dittohead, it is what they do.

It's nice as far as it goes and in the immediate aftermath of such a horrid event it is not without meaning or comfort. Sadly however, it doesn't do anything about the problem.

This kind of feel-good rhetoric is what made my hair stand up on end upon first hearing a presidential candidate tell me he felt my pain in 1992. I don't need the government or the people that form it to "feel my pain."

I need them to govern. I need them to create and implement sound policy and to protect me from reasonable threats at the federal, state and local levels.

It is wonderfully compassionate to read of Senators Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's undoubtedly real concern for the lives touched by the tragedy at Virginia Tech but it accomplishes nothing but to tell me what I already knew: they are human beings just like me.

They've been Dawdling

Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan on FNS this week:

LEVIN: Well, no, I'm going to respond first to Senator Graham.

You know, he talks about pouring the pressure on. The pressure which is being poured on is military pressure. There is no military solution there. There is only a political solution.

We've got to pour the pressure on the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement. They made commitments that they would reach political settlements on oil revenues, on power sharing and on other things by last December.

The president, over and over and over again — our president — has said, "We are going to hold them to their political commitments." Is the president serious about holding them to their political commitments? Did he mean what he said?

They've been dawdling over there in Iraq politically for four years. This insurgency, which has now taken place in spades in Baghdad, is something which is fairly recent.

They had plenty of time to reach a political settlement. They committed to do it. The Iraq study group said they must do it. If they don't, there should be consequences.

All we've gotten from this administration is hollow rhetoric about the Iraqi leaders need to meet their commitments. But there's no teeth behind the hollow rhetoric of this administration.

I normally like Chris Wallace's interviews but this week was left dumbfounded when he couldn't be bothered to ask Senator Levin the obvious follow-up question to this diminution of Iraqi political efforts.

Namely, why and how then is it that things routinely bottleneck in the US Senate...for years.

Jimmy Carter's Bad Year

You'd think that given the state of Iraq and the trajectory of that fight over the last three years, folks like me who were strong supporters of the rationale and the plan from the get-go might have an overwhelming sense of contrition in discussions about the war. And you'd be right.

It's difficult at this point to offer much in defense of the way the war has been fought since the insurgency began in earnest and most especially after the dismal year of 2006. Generally speaking, I've been much more low-key in my expectations and my arguments in favor of continuing the fight (at least to my mind) are tempered with the understanding of all the previous misunderstanding and misreadings of whats gone on before.

On the other side you will occasionally find critics who can't contain their glee at events having proved their arguments correct about how we've screwed the pooch in Iraq. Mostly however, you need to look for it and you'll find the most offensive offerings in very little-well known outposts scattered across the Ethernet.

Occasionally though it seems we find those in the ranks of the professional nay-sayers who seem a bit too eager to pat their own backs. That was my sense of this from professional critic and former National Security Adviser to the 20th Century's worst President, Jimmy Carter...the one and only Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In a piece dated just Friday at the Christian Science Monitor, Brzezinski offers a "plan" for getting out and a critique of the last 20 years worth of Presidential administrations:

Brzezinski lays out a two-point plan for the US: First, he says, go to the Iraqi leaders and say: Let's sit down and discuss a jointly defined date for departure.

"And when I say Iraqi leaders, I don't mean just the guys in the Green Zone. I mean a lot of the guys outside of the Green Zone," the guys with militias, Brzezinski says. "A lot of the guys in the Green Zone – not all, but a lot of them – will pack their bags and leave when we leave."

Next, he says, he would suggest a US departure in about a year, and see which Iraqi leaders are prepared to go along with that. "My guess is it will be the guys who are not in the Green Zone, but who have the militias," he says.

Brzezinski would, at the same time "and more overtly," set in motion a process of "really consulting" all of Iraq's neighbors, plus possibly Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt, about arrangements for security in Iraq after the US leaves.

"All of these countries have a stake in Iraq not blowing up," he says. "And the fact of the matter is, if you go around Iraq and look at each country systematically, whether it's Iran or Turkey or Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, each one is seriously threatened if Iraq blows up."

Some of that is already being done by those countries on their own in an effort to promote regional stability, he notes. But he sees a US-led effort to engage these countries in a collective effort as helping a great deal to absorb the "shock effects" of a US departure.

There is truth to the statements about a shared-interest in seeing Iraq stabilize. My problem here is the same problem I had with the Iraq Study Group's near-naive notion that the major players in the region will work to predominantly US interests in stabilizing Iraq rather than their own. Brzezinski's generalizations do little to assuage that nagging at the back of my mind that such an approach will only lead to something we don't want and don't need---Iranian hegemony in the ME.

In a moment of John Kerry-ish naivete, Mr. Brzezinski then writes-off the potential for even greater bloodshed than what the country currently endures: "My final point is, yes, there will be some escalation in the violence when we leave," he says. But "I don't subscribe to the view that it's automatically doomed to become an explosion."

I too easily hear echoes of John Kerry's declaration to Congress that it would be but a few thousand dead in Vietnam after a US withdrawal. John Burns, long-time NY Times foreign correspondent is one of many who disagree strongly. He makes an eloquent case as to why here; you can make up your own mind about it's correctness.

Brzezinski's assumptions for me represent the worst of the realist's approach. As long as it isn't Americans being blown up, not to worry.

As is usually the case in such pieces though, the best comes last. In discussing Mr. Brzezinski's newly published "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower," author Linda Feldmann notes that the former Carter Administration official issues grades for the three post-Cold-War Presidents:

He gives the first President Bush a "B," President Clinton a "C," and the current President Bush an "F."

And how about the president he served from 1977 to 1981? In the foreign-policy arena, Brzezinski said, Mr. Carter had three good years and one bad one, marked by the Iran hostage crisis. But he did not assign a letter grade.

At which point I can no longer show contrition to one of many who were in fact correct on Iraq. The self-congratulatory pats on the back for being right give way to utter absurdity and I can't and won't look past it.

Jimmy Carter and his administration were abject foreign policy failures. Perhaps Mr. Brzezinski has forgotten over time how his boss' position vis-a-vis Iran in the late 70's helped create the very state that now presents the greatest danger to the ME and to American interests--perhaps not just in the region but at-large as well.

I can let slide the snide sub-texts of self-congratulatory discussions of Iraq. But never should any let slide something so blatantly ridiculous as Jimmy Carter's Bad Year.

The Moron Museum of National History

Bill Whittle obliterates Rosie O'Donnell's recent nonsense. All in the context of discussing conspiracy theory at-large. And I laugh:

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell said on national television that she believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Well, that’s why we went through the steps above. If you believe that the government lied about the moon landing, you can believe they lied about killing JFK. If they lied about JFK, then they can lie about chemtrails. And if they are willing to poison the entire population with aerial spraying, what are a few thousand people in four airliners and a couple of buildings?

Rosie O’ Donnell making such a claim on a major network is a national disgrace. The fact that much of the audience cheered and applauded is nothing less than a national catastrophe.

To her, and to her audience, it is taken as granted that the government is capable of such things. As if “the government” was operated by cyborgs grown in Haliburton vats, rather than by well-meaning and patriotic people that love this country.

"This is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel," she said. This is a statement of such pristine and perfect idiocy that it surely must be emblazoned in stone across the entrance to the Physics Imbecile wing of the Moron Museum of Natural History. But mastery of physics and engineering requires some intelligence, some perseverance and some discipline: none of which are in evidence in this buffoon. Everything is a conspiracy to a mind this far gone. The 15 British sailors kidnapped at sea? All a plan by our evil (but incompetent!) government to get the next war it so desperately needs. “Gulf of Tonkin! Google It, people!” she said on national TV.

And I will, Rosie. I promise. As soon as I finish googling MAD COW DISEASE.

I will make the point yet again because I believe it is the crux of the issue: what kind of moral universe do you have to inhabit to be able to believe that your own people – airline personnel, demolition experts, police and security forces, faked witnesses and all the rest – are capable of such a thing? How much hate for your own society do you have to carry in order to live in such a desolate and ridiculous mental hell? What psychoses must a mind be riddled with in order to negate what was perfectly obvious and instead believe a theory of such monumental fantasy? How much pure constant hatred does that take?

What, in short, is the miserable black hole of self-loathing that drives a person like Rosie O’Donnell and millions like her?

Mindless in Moronica

Did you know? I didn't know, but Tigerhawk knows:

I haven't seen this widely reported but the Democrats are working to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. If I recall correctly, this was a plank in the platform of the ill fated Kucinich Presidential campaign of 2004. With the Democrats now in control of the legislature, they are moving ahead.

It appears the proposal would establish a cabinet level position with broad new powers and responsibilities, and the details of this proposal describe Utopia through the progressive lens. I began looking for choice bits to post as highlights, but it was so hard to choose I had to reproduce in total.

For those looking for a distillation, imagine a governmental agency responsible for advising on non-confrontational foreign policy options, establishing and enforcing new gun control measures, designing school curriculum, establishing and enforcing new legislation governing "hate crimes" and violence against animals, and my favorite, establishing a "Peace Academy," a four-year institution of higher learning modeled on our service academies.

In any sane world it would be just another laughable bit of posturing from the most idealistic of idealists on the fringe. But these days, I'm not so sure such a thing couldn't actually pass through Congress.

On the face of it of course you've got to think that the current WH resident would veto anything which included this kind of nonsense. But again, just not so sure anymore...

Quite the Deal

Andy McCarthy pretty much nails it on the head. That recent deal with North Korea...worthless.

"Scratch that one off the list"

We've had a serious bout with windy weather here on the coast this week. A colleague in Chicago laughed at me when I told her that on Tuesday but anyone fool enough to live in the Windy City can't be trusted to think straight on matters of weather.

Winds have gusted all week, the kind that move your car from one side of the road to the other. Or tear a roof off a mobile home. Or knock trees down right on top of you:

A San Diego high school girl on a trip to check out college campuses was injured Thursday when winds toppled a tree near UCSB's Campus Point, county fire officials said.

The unidentified student, 17 or 18 years old, according to university officials, was trapped under the 30-to-40-foot cypress tree, said Capt. Eli Iskow of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

She was transported by ambulance to Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital where she was treated and released, a hospital spokesperson said.

Her father and her boyfriend were also hit by the tree but not trapped, and not seriously injured, officials said.

The story leaves us in suspense for it does not give any additional details other than to say she was released. I'm guessing though that UCSB didn't make the cut.

Race Hucksters 2, Common Sense 0

I'm not an Imus fan, now nor ever. I would not defend his or any similar remarks on radio or TV. They were stupid and unnecessary.

The only thing more insidious than Imus' latent racism that seems to pop out now and again is the response from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They've won the fight on this, for the moment anyway.

Jason Whitlock in Kansas City sees it for what it is (HT JustOneMinute):

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

...

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

Question for the Ages

Why do they make you pay to read Paul Krugman?

Is being Lost still fun?

J-Pod could not disagree more:

Trust me. Lost can't "unjump the shark." It's over, and viewers have figured it out, which is why it's lost 40 percent of its audience over the course of this year. The show's central gimmick has been to lay out a mystery, leave it unresolved, then go on to layer a new one on top of an old one. There are, I think, at least 20 pieces of plot that have been left out there to rot. For you fans, they include: What happened to Michael and Walt? How did Eko's plane from Africa end up on the island? Why did the Smoke Monster kill Eko? And on and on and on. You just can't do this to an audience. It's a giant con game, and eventually the people you're trying to con get wise and turn on you with savage anger.

I must disagree. Yes, we have been floating along that river of discontent since the middle of last year as well. Something has changed though.

What was so exceptional about this episode was a very simple, basic thing: it was fun! And because it was fun, it was entertaining in spite of the Twilight Zone-ish knock-off plot.

Last week was likewise fun. Is it plausible that Hurley could out-con Sawyer? Of course, but it was entertaining watching him do it anyway.

All this consternation was a result of this post earlier in the A.M. that pointed to this discussion of tonight's episode:

What’s good?

* The great Elizabeth Mitchell.
* The great Nestor “Batmanuel” Carbonell.
* The many exciting reveals.
* “Well, we’ll do our best.”
* “I think your research is really gonna have a major impact on us.”
* “Why were you fine with those things?”
* Benjamin Linus, who appears on the dock from nowhere.
* James Ford, finally behaving like a human being.
* Hurley’s sit-down with Juliet generally and “We buried him over there” in particular.
* “She’ll be dead before then.”
* “Because I did it to her.”
* The scene in Ben’s kitchen.
* The return of the 815.
* The return of Mikhail.
* “Do you trust me?”
* “I know why you want me to go there.”
* “Downtown.”
* Much more.

I guess what it's boiling down to for me is that for the first time since Season 1, I'm finding myself wanting to watch again. Even if it's simple, implausible entertainment-television. That's not so bad.

If it can't be ground-breaking, meaningful TV, I'll settle for fun.

Foregone Conclusion

The state of North Carolina is dropping all charges in the Duke rape-case today. 'Bout Damn Time.

An open Invitation

Moqtada Al-Sadr has called on his Mahdi army to oust the US from it's occupation of Iraq:

Calling America "the great evil", the radical Shia cleric has accused the White House of dividing Iraq by stoking violence and ordered his militiamen to redouble their efforts to oust US forces. But he stopped short of calling on his followers to attack US troops, instead ordering them to join mass demonstrations to end the occupation.

Well, he's not quite the fool that I initially took him for when I first caught that headline. That being said, I think if we're smart we use that statement as an open invitation to put the Mahdi army out of business.

If you get my drift...

The Tax Man

Over the last several years continuing to use our tax man has become too expensive. Not in tax preparation but in the mistakes made, things not filed and in [gulp] back-taxes.

So this year we went where none in our clan have gone before, plunking down hard-earned cash for some Tax prep software which instantly transformed me into the Tax man. That, aside from a nicely quiet Easter celebration, was the weekend.

Finished it all last night and if it's to be believed, the software programmers did something the accountant never could; produce a substantial Federal and State return. Of course, being taxed on sales commissions helps. As does seeing your itemized deductions grow substantially over last year courtesy of the Home Mortgage Interest on a ridiculous loan.

We'll see what the IRS has to say about it all a little later.

Cheap Political Stunt

Republicans in both houses of Congress have begun--tentatively to be sure--to call out Nancy Pelosi's leadership:

Republican leaders in both houses of Congress Monday urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call the House back immediately to finalize emergency legislation to fund the war on terrorism." A Pelosi spokesman called the letter "a cheap political stunt."

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio joined other Republicans in signing a letter to Pelosi. The Iraq supplemental spending bill "has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill," it said.

While noting that the Senate "appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its version of the bill," the GOP lawmakers said they were "especially troubled" by the fact that the House never named its own conferees despite passing its bill a week earlier.

In other words, Nancy doesn't seem in too much of a hurry. Her team didn't take kindly to the Republican characterization:

Back in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly was not impressed with the letter.

"Coming from the Republicans, who ran the 'do-nothing' Congress, this letter is a cheap political stunt," Daly said in an e-mail message to Cybercast News Service.

Ouch. At first blush that sounds like it'll leave a mark. However, upon further review it's not so clearly a winning message.

Whatever do I mean, you wonder? Well, since we're on the subject of cheap political stunts...