Happiness is

...a photo of the Sad Family realizing, all in one moment, that Halloween is still two weeks away and that the Chargers own Oakland.

The Best

It was another ho-hum day at the office for San Diego Chargers' running back, LaDainian Tomlinson. In San Diego's 27-14 thrashing of the hated Oakland Raiders, LT carried 31 times for 140 yards and caught two passes for 39. 35 of those receiving yards came on a scoring pass in the first quarter which extended Tomlinson's streak of consecutive games with a touchdown to 18, tying Hall of Famer Lenny Moore. Later in the half, Tomlinson scored a rushing touchdown which established him as the first player in NFL history with at least ten rushing touchdowns in each of his first five seasons. And then, just to prove he could, LT threw his second touchdown pass of the season to tight end Justin Peele, marking just the seventh time in NFL history for a player to run, catch and pass for a touchdown in the same game.

And then came the halftime intermission.

During preseason and the early part of the season, we've begun to hear a lot of talk that Tomlinson is the best back in the NFL. I'll go you one further. He is the best player in the league. Yes, better than Peyton Manning. Better than Randy Moss or Terrell Owens. Tom Brady. He's better than all of them. During the broadcast of yesterday's game, they compared Tomlinson's stats over his first five years with Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson, Jim Brown and other all-time greats. I wish I could remember the breakdowns, but I think Payton slightly outpaced LT in yardage. And only Brown topped him in TDs. But no one player approached him in combining the two categories.

There is no single player in the game today that I would rather have on my team. Especially not Michael Vick. LT is not only a fast runner, but a powerful one. His lightning quickness to the hole might only be surpassed by his ability to keep his balance while contorting and changing directions to bounce outside for big gains. He is a skilled pass receiver who already has a 100 catch season to his credit. He's a committed blocker. And oh yeah, he has three career touchdown passes and a 158.3 quarterback rating. And as good a player as he is, he might even be a better person and teammate. He has a tremendous work ethic and a burning desire to win. He is deeply humble and always places the team above himself. He hates the Raiders only slightly less than Marty Schottenheimer. Which is only slightly less than I do. Nothing to dislike about this guy.

LaDainian Tomlinson is the best player in professional football today. And he wears lightning bolts.

Not Getting It

Not really sure how to interpret the election outcome in Iraq. Early results seem to indicate a ratification of the nation's constitution. That's cause for optimisim, right? Well, yes. However, when I read this, I wondered whether the Iraqis really understand what democracy is all about:

While a strong Sunni turnout in Saturday's referendum suggested a desire among many to participate in Iraq's new political system, there were fears that anger at being ruled under a constitution they oppose could push some into supporting the Sunni-led insurgency.
"If the constitution was passed, the attacks will definitely rise against the occupation forces, and the security situation is going to be worse," said Sheik Abdul-Salam al-Kubaisi, a prominent cleric with the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, which government officials accuse of links to the insurgency.

A fundamental tenet of the democratic process is that mere participation does not guarantee desired outcomes. The true measure of a successful democracy is that when a free and fair election is held, those who do not get their desired outcome nonetheless accept it. Everyone respects the process and the result.

Regardless of Sunday's outcome, I doubt anyone has illusions that the violence will suddenly stop in Iraq. But if those who participated in the election come to feel disenfranchised because of the result and join the insurgency, even though they participated in the electoral process, it will raise real questions about the solidity of Iraq's nascent democracy.

I'm impressed

I was highly critical of the performance of Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor. In that role, she did not seem well-suited to arbitrate and effectively funnel information and opinions from the various national security organs to the president. She often seemed over-matched in a divided national security team consisting of heavyweights like Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Wolfowitz.

However, I have been pleasantly surprised by her efforts in her new role as Secretary of State. She has left strong positive impressions in Europe and the Middle East following extensive visits to those regions. On those and other trips, she has done a credible job of demonstrating the administration's commitment to enhancing relationships. She was instrumental in fundamentally altering the US negotiating position with North Korea to bring a landmark deal regarding their nuclear program closer to reality. And now I read of an impressive new initiative to enhance ties with foreign partners through an exercise of American "soft power," in the words of Joseph Nye:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Saturday that Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, had accepted her invitation to spend Friday, Saturday and Sunday in her home state, Alabama, for "an important diplomatic weekend," as an aide described it. They will perform the pregame coin flip when the University of Alabama football team faces Tennessee in Tuscaloosa, and then stay to watch the game, said Jim Wilkinson, her senior adviser. Their other activities will include a visit to Brunetta C. Hill Elementary School in Birmingham, which Ms. Rice attended. Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw are friends, but she explained that the unusual trip signaled a new policy to invite foreign ministers to see parts of America besides Washington and New York. Secretaries of state seldom take official trips within the United States, but Ms. Rice said guiding foreign officials on such visits would help give them a greater appreciation and understanding of the nation.

While such actions cannot surmount all of the challenges this nation faces diplomatically, they can be very helpful mechanisms to enhance our public diplomacy efforts. Following 9/11 many questions have been raised about how to credibly restore the luster to America's image around the world. Pete Peterson championed the cause by setting up a Working Group at the Council on Foreign Relations and writing an article on the subject in Foreign Affairs. The Bush Administration placed great emphasis on the effort by hiring a former advertising heavyweight, Charlotte Beers, to serve as the first Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at the Department of State. She was later replaced by former Bush 41 State Department mouthpiece, Margaret Tutweiler. But to-date most of the administration initiatives have been rather simplistic approaches like advertising campaigns targeting the Middle East showing how Muslims are accepted in America. These efforts were naturally greeted with a good deal of skepticism.

But now Bush has wisely moved Karen Hughes into the role under Rice. And Rice's small efforts to expose our friends and allies to a deeper and broader slice of the country is not only a personal gesture to foreign leaders, but one which which will give foreign observers a better chance to understand what makes America tick. Moreover, such visits will also give Americans around the country a better opportunity to interact with foreigners and understand their concerns and issues. Worth keeping an eye on.

A Safe European Home?

It might behoove the European Union to quicken the pace of the negotiations it is leading with Iran regarding it's nuclear program. And at what point does anyone hold Russia accountable for irresponsible behavior?

Something I didn't miss

Seems that some things haven't changed in the nearly 4 years since last I called California home:

Authorities declared a Stage 1 power emergency for Southern California on Friday because of a potential shortfall in electrical supplies as temperatures rose into the 90s.

The California Independent System Operator, which operates the state's electrical grid said, the alert was issued because of the number of generators that were off-line for maintenance as a fall heat wave baked the region.

The alert was issued around 1:40 p.m. and was to remain in effect until 9 p.m., the CAISO said.

Customers had already been asked earlier in the day to begin conserving energy because more than 8,500 megawatts of power was unavailable due to planned and unplanned equipment outages.

"This seasonal maintenance comes on a day that Southern California is experiencing unseasonably hot weather," the CAISO said in a statement.

Still doing a bang-up job of managing it's power supplies I see. Wouldn't want to do anything about increasing the availability of supply in the state though. That, after all, would make sense!

I saw it happen

I was watching it and I still, hours later, don't believe what I saw. It rivals any subsequent Tommy Hutton moment since the Eagles place-holder single-handedly destroyed the chance for his teams first victory in Dallas in years back in the late 90s.

It was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. I do feel sorry for the kid, but he did absolutely everything wrong on this play:

With the Golden Gophers leading 34-31, Justin Kucek lined up to punt at the Minnesota 5. Kucek dropped the snap, picked up the ball and tried to get the punt off, but Casillas raced through for the block. Strickland then recovered it for the winning score.

From 3 points up with 35 seconds to go, to a 4-pt loss with 30 seconds remaining. Amazing.

Aside from the indcredulity of it all, the first thought I had was pity for Minnesota coach Glen Mason; what do you say to this kid after a play like this!?

I know I saw it happen but I still can't believe it!

Can't tell the players without a program...

Can't know the story without knowing the players. Can't tell the players without a program...and Stephen Hayes piece at the Weekly Standard gives you all the background you could want on the Wilson/Plame affair.

Hayes walks us through the maze from the start to the present day, ultimately concluding (though stated early on) that the press version isn't necessarily the accurate version of events:

The narrative constructed to date by the mainstream media is uncomplicated: The White House exaggerated claims of Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Niger despite objections from the CIA and the broader U.S. intelligence community. In the late spring of 2003, Joseph Wilson laid bare this White House deception with firsthand accounts of his involvement in the intelligence-gathering. Bush administration officials quickly became obsessed with Wilson, and their anger drove them to retaliate, exposing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, by leaking her identity to reporters.

...

Simple. Clean. And very misleading. The real story is considerably more complicated.

From there begins the blow-by-blow account of Joe Wilson's involvement in the whole affair and the United State's effort to weed out the truth of allegations that Saddam was buying yellowcake. The trail ultimately leads to one final and curious point:

...July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

This is not a minor detail. The Senate report, which served as the source for much of the chronology in this article, is the definitive study of the events leading up to the compromising of Valerie Plame. The committee staff, both Democrats and Republicans, read all of the intelligence. They saw all of the documents. They interviewed all of the characters. And every member of the committee from both parties signed the report.

It is certainly the case that the media narrative is much more sensational than the Senate report. A story about malfeasance is perhaps more interesting than a story about incompetence. A story about deliberate White House deception is perhaps more interesting than a story about bureaucratic miscommunication. A story about retaliation is perhaps more interesting than a story about clarification.

But sometimes the boring stories have an additional virtue. They're true.

Playing it straight

What I've seen of "Big" media's coverage of the Iraqi vote so far is encouraging. The news itself is very encouraging and the fact that folks are playing it straight, even moreso! Here's the basics:

Iraq's deeply divided Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds voted on a new constitution at heavily guarded polling stations Saturday in a referendum largely free of insurgent violence and aimed at establishing democracy after decades of Saddam Hussein's repressive rule.

In the south, Shiite women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the poll stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with violet ink, apparently responding in mass to the call by their top cleric to support the charter.

But in Sunni regions — both in Baghdad and several key heavily Sunni provinces — the surprisingly high turnout seemed to consist largely of Iraqis voting "no" because of fears the charter would set in stone the Shiite domination they fear.

"The constitution is a sign of civilization," Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari after casting one of the first ballots in Baghdad after Iraq's polls opened at 7 a.m. "We consider this a day of great achievement. This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."

A day that U.S. and Iraqi leaders feared could turn bloody turned out to be the most peaceful in months.

Voter turnout appears high and most especially, the Sunni's who sat out January's election have showed up in good numbers this time around. Even should they have turned out to vote 'no' en masse, the fact that they showed up at all to take ownership of the process is good news!

Yesterday's headline-grabbing blackout appears to have had zero effect on, well, anything. Yet again Iraqi citizens have sent a signal to those who would keep them under the thumb of tyrannical Islamic fundamentalism that they want nothing of it.

On CNN this morning, Christiane Amanpour filed a report in which she directly stated that Iraqi citizens told her they were voting because they were tired of the violence. Tired of the violence and wanting to become part of the political process.

Following that report in the studio, the military analyst told the CNN Live Saturday host in no uncertain terms that the vote appears to be a defeat for the insurgents. One vote will not destroy them, but it shows yet again that the citizenry isn't wanting what they're selling.

Such reporting was a welcome change for these eyes when it comes to CNN's coverage of anything having to do with Iraq.

Other perspectives: Mil-blogger Chester files this live-blog entry compiled over who-knows-how-many pots of coffee and hours of CNN video. Tons of links to stories new and old for additional viewpoints.

BareKnucklePolitics also posts a plethora of links and information compiled overnight: Official: More than 61% of registered Iraqis have cast ballots.

So it begins...

A few people were seen walking Saturday morning down empty streets of Baghdad — heavily guarded by Iraqi soldiers and police — to schools where polling stations were fortified with concrete barriers against attacks by Sunni-led insurgents determined to wreck the vote.

By morning, we'll have an idea of the turnout and some sense, hopefully, of the fate of the Iraqi Constitution.

Defending against incompetence

Or rather, the charge of incompetence. Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics takes on critics of the Administration who (seemingly every day) love to call Bush and interchangeable members of the brain-trust "incompetent."

The money-quote and best point in the entire piece, and it doesn't even directly address the idea of competence. Rather, it makes a keen point about those bringing the charge:

If Democrats want to say the war in Iraq was a mistake because it simply wasn't winnable in the first place, that's one thing. History may eventually bear out the merit of such an argument. The problem, however, is that Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion forfeited the right to make that argument, because no one in their right mind would vote in favor of doing something they believed was impossible.

Unable to articulate a policy difference and trapped between the pull of a fervent antiwar base and a mainstream public that remains solidly against cutting and running, Democrats abandoned debating the merits of Iraq long ago. Instead they've been focused on building the myth of Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq by touting whatever chaos and carnage is reported in the press and downplaying consequential events like tomorrow's vote.

Risque moxie

And they have the gall
to criticize the President for 'staging' an event with US troops, when the very punditry lining up to take yet another whack at the Bush-doll hanging in the hallway makes their living on Sunday mornings asking each other pre-screened questions...

Clowns. Utter and absolute clowns.

No Target

If this holds up, the howling will be deafening. After all, Rove is the devil.

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said in a statement.

"The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation," the statement said.

As I noted here and here, something is rotten in Rove-is-evil-incarnate world. As the Special Prosecutor ought to be closing in ever more surely on indicting Rove for his masterminding of the conspiracy to unmask Valerie Plame (though frankly, it seems she needs no help in that department) to punish her husband Joe Wilson, we see anything but. When we ought to be seeing the noose tightening around Rove's neck, instead we get a broadening of the investigation and more interviews with Miller and Rove as well as details about previously unkown conversations with Scooter Libby. But nothing that is pointing at the devil as the ultimate target.

If it in turn is announced that Rove is not indicted, the baying of the wolves will be so loud, so long and so mournful that it may surpass all that has come before it. And I will laugh at the ones who have been so sure for so long that the culprit was so obvious. How dumb of me not to see it…

Rain, rain, go away...No, really...

It started raining last Friday afternoon here in New York. It is still raining. Eight straight days. I guess that leaves us with only thirty-two to go. Hopefully someone, somewhere is building an ark in response to this global-warming induced weather anomaly.

But when I say raining, I don't mean drizzle. I don't mean light rain. I don't mean showers. I mean dumping. Downpours. The kind which might even rival some Arizona monsoons. For example, we received over four inches of rain on Wednesday alone. The crackling sound of rain splattering the street and sidewalks beneath my window has replaced the sound of the local denizens yelling big ups to their pals across the street at the grocery store as the most common sound wafting through my windows. I suppose in that respect, the rain is welcome. And it's also welcome due to the fact that it is coming on the heels of a two month drought. We needed the rain.

But I must demand that it stop. It's killing me psychically. Sunshine please. Just a day. That's all I'm asking.

One guy who has had enough

Richard Cohen of the Post tells Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald he ought to pack up and head back to Chicago, to do some real work no less.

The best thing Patrick Fitzgerald could do for his country is get out of Washington, return to Chicago and prosecute some real criminals. As it is, all he has done so far is send Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail and repeatedly haul this or that high administration official before a grand jury, investigating a crime that probably wasn't one in the first place but which now, as is often the case, might have metastasized into some sort of cover up -- but, again, of nothing much. Go home, Pat.

Curioser and curioser gets this whole Plame investigation. Additionally, the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday that the focus of the investigation appears to have widened. That's working in reverse; investigations narrow as they progress and move toward implicating a suspect or suspects.

Fitzgerald appears to be fishing for something or there has been a truly noteworthy revelation that has changed the course of things. Either way, this isn't going according to plan it would seem.

Putting the 'Bad' in Bad News

Reuters reports today that Avian, or "Bird flu" has reached the fringes of Europe:

A strain of bird flu that can be deadly for humans has spread from Asia to the fringes of Europe, the European Commission said on Thursday, warning countries to prepare for a potential pandemic.

EU Health and Consumer Protection chief Markos Kyprianou said a strain of bird flu found in Turkey had been identified as the same H5N1 virus that killed more than 60 people in Asia since 2003 and forced the slaughter of millions of birds.

Wierder Ball

Do I get any bonus points for my prescience? Last night as I watched the Angel-White Sox game unfolding, I observed that there were some strange goings-on. I called it wierd ball. Had I only known...

A well-pitched, hard fought game ended in bizarre fashion with all eyes on the home-plate umpire: A.J. Pierzynski and the White Sox had other ideas -- and so did the home plate umpire.

So while third-string catcher Josh Paul and his Los Angeles teammates ran off the field Wednesday night, Pierzynski took off for first base, triggering what is sure to go down as one of the most disputed endings in postseason history.

Confused? Just wait...

In a sequence as bizarre as any imaginable on a baseball field, Pierzynski swung at and missed a low pitch from Angels reliever Kelvim Escobar, appearing to end the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied at 1.

The ball was gloved by Paul -- replays appeared to show he caught it cleanly just before it would have hit the dirt. And behind him, Eddings clearly raised his right arm and closed his fist, signaling strike three.

As Mike Scioscia says, such would seem clearly to say that the batter is out: "When he rings him up with a fist, he's out," Los Angeles manager Mike Scioscia said. That is what every Angel player on the field thought, and certainly seeing it on TV and in the 40 or so replays afterward, would lead you to believe.

Eddings stands by the call: "I did not say, 'No catch,"' said Eddings, a major league umpire since 1999 who is working his third postseason assignment. "I'm watching Josh Paul, seeing what he's going to do."

After the game, Eddings watched several replays and stood by his call.

"We saw it on a couple different angles, the ball changes directions," Eddings said. "I had questions. I didn't have him catching the ball."

Well Doug, you're wrong. It was a caught third strike and Pierzynski was out. I'm with Jim Caple and his panel of experts on this. The ump blew it.

Mr. Eddings, the People's Court finds you guilty. The first rule of umpiring is to make your calls clear to everyone and the video plainly shows that you did not. You raised your fist as if you were calling him out, but you said nothing. Had you given the Angels any indication at all that the pitch had not been caught, they would have had plenty of time to throw out the runner. No game, particularly one with such importance, should ever end on such a play.

Before I am accused of sour grapes lets be clear on one final point: The Angels may very well have lost the game in extra innings had Eddings made the correct call. I am most certainly not arguing that the call kept them from winning the game, because that is just not the case. But it did ultimately lead to a bizarre and mystifying loss. One that shouldn't have happened that way.

In the playoffs--in every sport--the players need to decide games. Not officials.

Even more testimony

After watching Karl Rove return to the grand jury for further testimony, speculation grew that things had finally begun to turn in the Plame investigation...turn and head straight for the President's chief adviser. While that is still a distinct possibility, I wonder what people are making of this return trip:

In her second grand jury appearance, New York Times reporter Judith Miller on Wednesday recounted a previously undisclosed conversation she had with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff about a critic of the Bush administration.

Miller's testimony in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer's name came the day after she surrendered notes on her contact with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby about former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Makes me wonder who said what about who over the last week that has Fitzgerald recalling these two important figures in the investigation.

Rethinking that comment policy

After reading this, you don't have to think too hard about why some don't put up with anything at all...

Wierd ball

Long-ball, small-ball, money-ball...what we've got so far in Chicago tonight is...wierd ball. By no means am I attempting to live-blog the game, but what I've seen is just strange.

Through 5 the Angels look like you would have expected them to last night--sluggish, not at all crisp (2 errors in 5 innings) and the White Sox look relaxed, refreshed and into the game.

And yet we're tied at 1. Wierd-ball at it's finest...

The "Other" Quagmire.

You rarely hear much about Afghanistan these days unless it is under some iteration of the tired rubric of "...al Qaeda reconstituting, Taliban reforming, bumper crops of opium, Karzai the President of Kabul, warlords yadda, yadda, yadda..." But if you listen to people who really spend time on the ground over there, the picture is somewhat different.

In no sense can Afghanistan be considered an unqualified success. The problems mentioned above are in some respects extant. But there are also positives that are too rarely reported (or more accurately, emphasized) in our mainstream media. To some degree, there seems to be a desire on the part of the media to suggest that Afghanistan is just another Bush Botch, another Iraq-driven "We told you so. By going to Iraq, Bush has created a retrograde Afghanistan." But this is simply untrue. In their zeal to superficially link Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush Administration critics and the media have failed to provide meaninful perspective on the situation in Afghanistan. They've also failed to to address the many metrics which should give us reason for cautious optimism.

With regard to perspective, why is it that expectations are so unreasonably high in the first place? Are we not talking about a country that has been historically poor and war-torn? Upon the outser of the Taliban, the international community didn't inherit a nation in any real sense. No central functions. No institutions. No infrastructure. Nothing. In my mind, that three years on there is a central authority and functioning institutions (admittedly weak ones), and that there have been two free and fair elections is a statement of real progress. You have to look at where the nation is coming from to accurately assess where it is.

As for positive metrics, fortunately, the fellas over at OxBlog have been vigilant in bringing attention to the other side of the coin. I'll address more of the positive metrics and the European forces' unwillingness to provide security in the hinterlands in an upcoming post, but today, they raise some important questions about the essential differences between Iraq and Afghanistan and call attention to Peter Baker's column in The Washington Post:

The last time I saw Hakim Taniwal, I thought he was a dead man walking.A slight, aging sociology professor with gentle manners, Taniwal returned to his homeland from exile in Australia after the fall of the Taliban to help build a new Afghanistan. When I ran across him in the spring of 2002, he had been dispatched by Hamid Karzai, the new Afghan president, to the untamed frontier to take over as governor and dislodge a brutal local warlord who ruled over these parts. Taniwal had no guns, no army and seemingly no chance. It seemed like a suicide mission.When I saw him again here two weeks ago, he was sitting in the provincial governor's office and the warlord was somewhere in the countryside, out of power, his militia largely disbanded. I reminded Taniwal of our first meeting, when he could not even get into the governor's house because it was occupied by the warlord's family and dozens of his thuggish guerrillas, bristling with Kalashnikovs and grenade launchers.Taniwal looked at me and smiled. "Things have changed," he said with satisfaction.

Baker's column, which I encourage you to read in its entirety, goes on to describe some of the the signs of progress since his last visit to the country in 2002. One of the more striking examples is this one from Kabul:

Most stunning, perhaps, is the handful of gleaming new glass buildings. Putting up a structure made of glass amounts to a mind-boggling act of optimism in a city where not long ago nearly every windowpane was shattered by years of rocket attacks.

He concludes with what I found to be a very apt and fair metaphor for the progress in Afghanistan.

Still, what I saw of Afghanistan during my visit struck me like the Restoration Room at the museum, where workers sifted through thousands of pieces of destroyed statues in hopes of reassembling as many as possible. They had no photographs, no models for how the pieces fit together or what the image would look like when they were done. They just kept trying different combinations in a trial-and-error fashion until they found two pieces that went together. Then they picked up some more fragments of their shattered country and tried to piece them together again, too.

We're a long way from success in Afghanistan, to be sure. And all of the worrying developments are worthy of our attention. But let's not forget from whence the Afghans came, nor overlook the courage, efforts and successes of the Afghans and their international partners in getting them much closer to where they want to go.

Deer Xing

We live in a little community just north of town. We're separated by about a mile of Hwy 1 where it resumes it's course through the rolling hills of the Central Coast.

About halfway between the Village and town, where you crest one of these hills before sliding to the bottom of a ravine only to do it all over again, there is a sign posted. The infamous "jumping deer."

A 2003 study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety notes that nearly 150 people die each year in auto accidents involving one vehicle and an animal on the road-way. Of the total number of animal-related accidents, fully three-quarters involve deer.

That point was driven home the other night when my in-laws struck a deer about 1/2-mile north of us on Hwy 1 as they were on their way home from Santa Maria. Thankfully there were no serious injuries to report, save for the deer of course. Though probably un-wise for the vehicle, they decided to push on and arrived at our door just as the vehicle neared the point of no-return.

It still sits in front of the house-- distinct deer-shaped indentations still in-tact--where they left it, waiting to be towed to the repair shop of choice. A vivid reminder that while we consider the area fairly well-developed, fact is it is still semi-rural and there is a lot of open space between us and town and between us and the neighboring cities.

Bummin' around the House

Since I arrived in town last month my days have consisted of only a few things (job searching, playing with the dogs, interviewing, playing with the dogs). Really all I do is shuffle them around a bit and pretend that creates some sort of "variety."

My biggest concern in making the move was work. My wife can work anywhere. Her skill set and interests are such that she can land pretty much anywhere and be at work in a reasonable amount of time. My job history is a different animal all-together.

I've had long spells between jobs, and many a career change in the years since I left school. Finding work is not always an easy thing with me, so as we prepared for this move there was some definite apprehension on my part about what I might find here.

Long story short, seems my fears were unfounded. My first interview in the area turns out to have been the job I've landed. Walked in applying for one-thing, walked out having interviewed for something different and significantly better! It took a few weeks for them to get their ducks all in a row, but I was offered the job on Friday of last week and officially accepted the position on Monday.

For most of the last few weeks, my days have consisted of interviewing, simple home-improvement projects and bummin' around the house with the dogs. No doubt in a couple of weeks I'll be remembering fondly the days of sitting on the couch and lounging with the puppies, but for now I look forward to assuming this new challenge!

In the meantime, I still have this week to finish a few more things around the house, drink my coffee and play with the pups and I plan on taking full advantage!

I just called to say I love you

You've seen the dribs and drabs coming out in the various media, but this letter from Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri to Iraq Theater Field Marshal Abu Musab Zarqawi is definitely worth reading in its entirety. Know your enemy and all that. Here's a link to the transcription. I will try to blabber on this as well. But quickly, in reading this letter, how can we not see the importance of success in Iraq?

Get yer Constitution! Hot off the Presses! Constitutions!

The Iraqis finally got it together. Here's the text of the document that they finally hammered out. I assume the translation is courtesy of the BBC? The Artists Formerly Known as the CPA? I dunno. But as I get time, I'll take a look and see if I can find anything interesting to blabber about.

Quote of the week

The government gives dollars in exchange for non-cash goods and services. it's kind of like when you go to the store and buy a $10 toaster. You get the toaster. But you don't get to keep the money too. But let me know if you've found a store that will sell you the toaster AND give you the $10 too. I wanna shop there.

Definition of Poseur

Fourteen straight division titles, starting with 1991's second-half explosion that saw them erase a 9 1/2-game lead in the NL West. Five league championships between 1991 and 1999 and with them, five trips to the World Series.

A remarkable stretch when you consider the nature of competition in the world of free-agency and big-dollar mercenaries, but it bears closer scrutiny. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is championships, World championships.

And here is where the Atlanta Braves run off the rails. The parade of big-named talent that has graced the Braves roster over the last 15 seasons is impressive: Pendleton, McGriff, Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Justice, Gant, the Jones'-Andruw and Chipper. But for all of them, the Braves have won the brass ring but once.

One single, solitary and lonely WS Title. In 15 seasons of unparalleled success on the baseball diamond.

Silence of the Lame

The Silence

On Friday, I received sole custody of My Dogs. My mission was simple and clear; post over the weekend until such time that we could return to the double-barreled approach that has made us so successful [cough!]. Well, you may have noticed that things fell eerily quiet here but for a couple of unexpected contributions from my partner-in-crime.

The Lame

Unbeknownst to me until mid-day on Saturday, this was a painting weekend. In the office, that meant several things: half-a-day to primer the walls and wait for them to dry, re-painting the chair-rail and waiting for it to dry and finally coloring the walls. Of course the larger fact here is that painting in the office required the disconnecting of everything electronic.

No computer. No computer, no writing. No writing, no blog.

This hastily-thrown-together pile of jumbled thoughts was the last thing I posted, early on Saturday. Frankly, I think it's one of the worst posts I've published here since this whole thing began.

We must not focus on the failures however; we must persevere and move ahead. To that end, I'll be posting throughout the day as time allows.

A Bad Week

As long-term readers know, I'm a huge San Diego Padres fan. It's questionable why, of course. After all, in their 36 years of existence, the Padres have had only 12 seasons of finishing .500 or above. And they've only made the playoffs four times. The World Series twice. In the Series, they've won one game and lost eight. Good stuff.

This year was their fourth playoff appearance and they played a lot more like Madres than Padres, getting swept in three games by St. Louis. The outcome wasn't exactly unexpected. But what was unexpected was how little fight my team put up. It was stomach-turning. The Pads were outscored 21-11 in the three game series, but that statistic belies how close the series wasn't. For clarity's sake, understand that 19 of the 21 Cardinals runs were scored in the first 5 innings of the three games. Understand also that the Friars scored precisely ZERO runs before the 5th. Do the math. It was a bloodbath. Again, it's not surprising that arguably the best team in baseball won or won convincingly, but what stinks is how horribly Bruce Bochy managed the team and failed to put it in position to be competitive. Admittedly he was outmanned. But his management of the rotation was silly. His lineups were ill-advised. His conservatism was strategically weak. And more critically, his historic lack of commitment to fundamentals manifests itself in an inability to manufacture runs and in flabby defense. When it comes to playing in October, these aspects of the game cannot be overlooked.

So yeah, the Padres rolled over and it was painful to watch. But that's not the primary point of this post. The Padres' meltdown was only part of what was a difficult week for this sports fan. Though the week kicked off with the Chargers' throttling of the Patriots in Foxboro (breaking the Super Bowl champs' 21 game hom win-streak), the Padres' failures were followed in succession by other humiliations. Michigan was beaten by Minnesota for the first time since 1986. Texas finally mustered a challenge to OU in the Red River Classic, stomping on Oklahoma 45-12. San Diego State then dropped its game to UNLV 13-10 on two 52-yard field goals.

Fortunately the Chargers don't play until after a new week begins with a home date in San Diego against the Steelers on Monday Night Football. So here's hoping a powder-blue-clad LaDainian Tomlinson gets the week off to a good start. Go Bolts!

Bush regretting Meiers nomination

Count F.O.G. (Friend of George) Charles Krauthammer among the defectors over the nomination of Harriet Meiers. Check some of these snippets:

...But nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom...

...It is particularly dismaying that this act should have been perpetrated by the conservative party. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty -- that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution. There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous...

...By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness...

That Bush now finds himself befriended by Harry Reid and attacked by William Kristol, Bill Bennett, Charles Krauthammer and others should suggest a few realities:

1. Bush is politically weak. Very weak.

2. His Administration did very little to vet this candidate among conservatives.

3. Gave his opponents greater say in his selection than his supporters.

4. Has short-changed the American public.

5. Has committed the same sort of mistake his father made on taxes.

6. May very well have committed this nation to a very lethargic three years of lame-duckness.

7. Sold out movement conservatives who voted for him largely because of the opportunity to name 2-3 justices.

8. Has convinced me that my vote for John Forbes Kerry was the right one.

George W. Bush can no longer be viewed as bumbling simpleton occupuying the Oval Office. He has to be viewed as dangerous. He's dangerous to himself, his advisors, his party, his nation and the world. His inability to make even the most fundamental political calculations, much less determine a strategy for prisoner interrogation, the war in Iraq, the War on Terror, America's role in the world and a workable Social Security reform demonstrates this. I regret most any support I ever gave this guy. He's blown every opportunity and failed nearly every test.

Selling your soul

After more than 400 days, the NHL returned to the ice on Wednesday night. No small feat considering they had lost an entire season and nearly all of their great reservoir of goodwill over their labor dispute with the players.

Straight and to the point, the league has made a number of changes--all aimed at one thing it would seem--designed to invigorate the game. Rule changes created to increase scoring have been implemented in the hope of attracting fans back to the action.

I can't help but think they've sold their soul in some desperate attempt to regain what they threw away last year. But I've always been a traditionalist; I winced and winced hard when MLB added the Wild Card.

Maybe it'll work. Attendance on opening night was high, and might have reflected the desire of the die-hards to get back to the game, making me wonder, rule-changes or not, if people would have been in the seats regardless.

Time will tell as with any experiment.

BOB (Or, "Big Oil...Bad!")

Oil is bad. It kills birds and seals and soils the beaches where it washes up after an oil spill. Big oil companies are worse. They're greedy, they cheat and manipulate and lie. All in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar. I mean, after all, who is it that brought us The War in Iraq?

A local SB county energy firm has come under investigation by the US Attorney's office in Los Angeles:

The U.S. Attorney's office is investigating possible criminal acts committed by Greka Energy in Santa Barbara County, according to court documents filed this week.

Attorneys for the federal law enforcement agency revealed their probe in a motion filed Wednesday in Superior Court in Santa Maria.

The document states that the federal government would not honor ”use-immunity“ granted to six potential witnesses in a civil suit filed by the county District Attorney's Office against the company.

If granted, use-immunity assures that testimony from a witness cannot be used against the person in a criminal case.

”The USAO hereby notifies the court and any interested parties to the state action that the USAO is currently investigating criminal charges against Greka Energy, the Santa Maria Refining Company and various individuals, and therefore does not intend to be bound by any grant of immunity offered by plaintiffs in the state action,“ Assistant U.S. Attorney Dorothy Kim wrote.

The Santa Maria Refining Company is a subsidiary of Greka.

The U.S. Attorney's Office, which has an office in Los Angeles, has jurisdiction to enforce any alleged violations of federal law, including environmental measures such as the Federal Clean Air Act.

In anticipation of possible criminal charges, Greka officials have hired Los Angeles attorney Steve Cochran - best known locally for his work on the Michael Jackson criminal case - to represent the company.

”I have been retained by Greka in the federal matter,“ was all Cochran would say about the case when contacted Thursday.

Calls to several Greka officials were not returned.

Sounds pretty bad, don't it! What do we got here, price-gouging, fraud, market-manipulation?

No, not exactly. We're not talking Enron here. Seems that Greka is in violation of safety standards and other regulatory requirements: In a lawsuit filed last year, county prosecutors alleged that Greka has operated many of its onshore oil and gas facilities without permits and failed to repair and maintain deteriorating infrastructure likely to cause explosions and fires and the release of poisonous gas.

The suit also claimed that the company did not train or equip employees adequately, and failed to respond to an alert system designed to prevent an underground pipeline rupture.

Greka argues it is now in full compliance with safety regulations and denies ever posing a threat to public safety.

Sadly, such will likely find it's way into somebody's anti-Big-Oil talking points somewhere, no doubt. It will be yet another black-eye for the industry, something akin to the Kinder-Morgan pipeline rupture in Arizona two years ago. Something that the industry doesn't need.

To be sure, such infractions are serious and are rightfully treated as such. If true, the US is right to impose penalties on the firm and to gain assurances that the problems are resolved, never to occur again.

In today's environment, when gas is $3-a-gallon, when people are considering new development and enlargement of refining capacity in the US for the first time in decades, such a development is the last thing anybody needs.

Quote of the day

If your objective isn't ridiculous, it ought to be.

A woman's perspective

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity makes an interesting and decidedly female point about the Miers nomination. I've been remiss in my reading of Charmaine's stuff over the last few months with all going on in my own life and have forgotten what a durn good blogger she is! Anyway, from The Crony Argument:

Conservatives are most specifically angry that the President didn't pick someone more demonstrably a jurist who subscribes to originalism. The real argument about her nomination centers on her credentials.

No one -- and I mean no one -- is talking about her being a woman.

And the feminist women's groups have all come out opposing her.

Of course one of the reasons the President selected her is that she has the right chromosomal makeup. But notice how quickly that became a moot point.

No one really cares. Instead they are focused on the President elevating to the High Court a good 'ole boy. Except that she happens to be a woman.

That's good news for gender politics.

Infighting reviewed

Hugh writes a great post this morning about the bickering amongst conservatives that has bubbled-over in the discussion of the Miers nomination. He includes this great little bit from Kaus files:

Conservatives, a D.C. Republican friend tells me, wanted a fight over the O'Connor seat for its own sake--and not just for tacky fundraising and self-promotional reasons. They think they represent the majority position on judging; they needed a confrontation to draw the line and prove it. Plus a confirmation battle would be "consciousness-raising," as we used to say on the left, serving (in theory) to actually increase their ranks.

One reason the Miers nomination is in trouble on the right, then, is that it denies conservatives this instructive battle. It follows that a perverse-yet-promising strategy for Bush might be to give the 'wingers what they want. Have Miers make some unnecessarily provocative right-wing noises during her testimony that gratuitously outrage liberals. A noisy confrontation would ensue. Then the liberals would be happy (they'd have something to say) and conservatives would be happy (they'd achieve their educational purposes).

The money-quote: Let's be more specific. Conservatives, me included, want Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and the radical Democrats in the Senate humbled. They want the Democratic Party split over its remaining center-left Democrats and its left-fringe Democrats. Some of us want the courts to return to their proper role and remove themselves from the social engineering best displayed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration of imposition on the subject of same sex marriage, and SCOTUS' pronouncement that all the state legislatures in all of the states could never find a 17 year, 364 day old cop and child killer suitable for the death penalty.

In short, we have to win this battle, or all of the other battles --including the GWOT-- become imperiled if not lost.

Is he right? I don't know, but I think this and the rest of his comments bear some thinking on.

UPDATE: Major Mike at My Sandmen gives us the MOOSEMUSS summary on the Miers nomination. Again, don't know if he's got it all and got it right, but it bears examination.

Coming to a town near you

A report in one of the local papers yesterday stated that an as-yet-unnamed auto manufacturer is searching for a home for it's newest manufacturing facility somewhere in California. I'm surprised on several different fronts.

From the report: An automobile manufacturer is hunting for a California location for an assembly plant that would employ some 1,400 people, and Santa Maria is on a tentative short list of cities that can meet the company's needs.

The Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce's economic development committee has answered a preliminary request for information from California Business Investment Services about local interest in placing the assembly plant in the city, according to chamber officials.

"(CalBIS) identified some communities that might be interested and able to fill their needs," said Bob Hatch, the chamber's president and chief executive officer.

The details, including the name of the manufacturer, are confidential, according to Hatch and a CalBIS official.

"We answered the request for information," Hatch said. "It is a little bit premature. There's no way to know at this time (where the city stands). The next round will happen around Oct. 15."

CalBIS, a state agency, sent the request for information early in September and it was completed and returned before the late-September deadline, said John Everett, chairman of the chamber's board of directors.

"They need 150 acres of level terrain with rail access and interstate highway access," Everett said. "Area 9 (the recent Betteravia area annexation to the city) is perfect."

Two questions immediately come up: 1. SM's workforce is sophisticated enough to supply this company with workers skilled and knowledgeable enough for high-tech manufacturing? and 2. Anyone is looking to build manufacturing facilities in California?

On the first point, historically SM has been a small-town built around agriculture like many of it's neighbors in the region. My wife's extended family lived there for a time in the 60's and 70's; in their words: cow-town.

Perhaps things have changed. I do know that Lockheed-Martin operates at least one facility in the area and as new programs have been developed at nearby Vandenberg AFB, alot of new talent has moved into town.

In reviewing data from the 2000 census however, I don't get the impression that SM necessarily offers a high-tech workforce. Apparently though some people in better position to know than I do in fact believe so.

California has had a reputation as an unfriendly place to do business since the early 1990's. As I've watched the state government (primarily the legislature as it filled up with more and more anti-big-business types on the left) over the years, that reputation cemented in my mind. Is it still accurate?

This report dated 6/1/2003 says yes: One of the largest business sectors sapped by the sagging economy is manufacturing. According to the Employment Development Department's May report, California's manufacturing payrolls fell for the 27th time in 28 months, shedding another 5200 positions. Since January 2001, the state has lost 283,200 manufacturing jobs.

"A 16-percent loss in our industrial workforce over the last two years is unacceptable," states Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturing and Technology Association (CMTA). "We know what the problems are - high workers' compensation costs, high energy costs and an excessive tax burden."

Stewart's CMTA in this press release dated March 1st of this year makes an even stronger statement indicating the nature of the problem: California manufacturers could save up to one million jobs if both they and the state government take concerted action, according to a report released today by the Bay Area Economic Forum, a public-private partnership of business, government, university, labor and community leaders.

“One million jobs are up for grabs unless we act now,” said Sean Randolph, president and CEO of the Bay Area Economic Forum. “How California addresses the challenges to its manufacturing base is critical to the state’s economic future.”

So far, an estimated 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in California due to economic conditions and improved productivity, while 90,000 have been lost due to falling exports and 20,000 due to jobs moving to other states. And California is at risk of losing many more as manufacturers seeking lower taxes, cheaper energy and less restrictive labor laws consider moving jobs overseas and to other states. But many companies tend to overrate the benefits of offshoring and would be much more likely to remain in California if regulatory burdens were reduced, according to the report, conducted by McKinsey & Company and co-sponsored by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and Semiconductor Industry Association.

They go on to highlight specific actions for both the state and firms working in the state to address the issue. The full report is available here.

Despite my cynicism about Santa Maria's capabilities and California's baffling tendency to be difficult on business, I'm encouraged by this announcement. It appears, regardless of which city this project ends up in, that it will land here in California. That is good for the state. Locally, the area would benefit should it end up in SM.

This is an issue which the Governator campaigned on in 2003's recall election. Without more analysis of specifically how this project came about and more generally what is happening in Sacramento, it's hard to know with certainty if this represents a step in a new direction for the state and it's economic revitalization. I do hope that it is.

According to Everett, the assembly plant would employ 1,400 people, consist of 650,000 to 750,000 square feet of structure, and involve a capital investment of $75 million to $90 million.

Bush, Iraq, Miers, Torture and Trust

The Bush White House has been asking us to take a good deal of its agenda on faith. Especially recently. Daniel Drezner cobbles together an interesting post on the subject.

And while Bush asks for trust, trust and more trust...his performance has not merited our continued trust. This parrot really needs to learn a new song.

Grave Danger? Is there any other kind...

American Democracy is in grave danger! What...is Al going to run again?

Question for all who once thought that Al Gore had the makings of a leader: What were you thinking!?

Don't look now...

Here's an interesting tidbit worth chewing on. With a HT to the Corner, Prometheus points out this discovery about Katrina as it hit New Orleans:

An alert reader (thanks JA) passes along this very interesting news story from today's Florida Sun-Sentinel,

"Hurricane Katrina might have battered New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as a considerably weaker system than the Category 4 tempest initially reported. New, preliminary information compiled by hurricane researchers suggests the system struck southeast Louisiana on Aug. 29 with peak-sustained winds of 115 mph. That would have made it a Category 3 storm, still a major hurricane, but a step down from the enormous destructive force of a Category 4. Katrina might have further downgraded to a strong Category 1 system with 95 mph winds when it punched water through New Orleans' levees, severely flooding most of the city and killing hundreds.["]

Add that to the mix of Katrina-related screaming, wailing, hand-wringing and knashing of teeth, and boy...I hate to think what will be going through some people's minds!

Third time a charm?

Ronnie Earle seems to hope so:

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay.

When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Not to be foiled, Earle then presented to the newly-sworn in Grand Jury on Monday:

Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.

When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.

About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.

This seems to have gotten DeLay's lawyers more than just a bit angry with the conduct of Mr. Earle:

DeLay's legal team, led by Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin, has been taking to the airwaves to portray Earle as an incompetent prosecutor who is pursuing DeLay only as a political vendetta.

"It just gets worse and worse," DeGuerin said. "He's gone to three grand juries over four days. Where does it stop?"

DeGuerin said he assumes Earle persuaded the third grand jury to act by telling them about the telephone poll of the grand jurors who had spent six months on the case.

"That's outrageous," DeGuerin said. "That's criminal."

Say what you will about DeLay, like or hate his modus operandi but this is rotten. So much so I can smell it from here.

Talkin playoff baseball...but for how long?

Unfortunately, my lengthy absence and spotty contributions have put me way behind on my posting. So let me summarize posts I "would" have made regarding the San Diego Padres:

"Yea! My guys won the NL West. As I predicted!"

"Just because they got in with an 82-80 record doesn't mean they don't deserve to be in the playoffs."

"St. Louis is what I call a 'professional team,' not only do they have all the right components, they execute. Therefore it's going to be very hard for a team like San Diego which a) doesn't have all the right components, and b) rarely executes, to beat St. Louis. But perhaps they can get sterling performances out of Jake Peavy and get a circa 1998 Sterling Hitchcock-like performance out of Pedro Astascio or Adam Eaton and catch lightning in a bottle."

Well, that last post would have been feeling pretty good through about 2 1/2 innings in yesterday's Game 1 in St. Louis. Cardinals ace Chris Carpenter was laboring. Couldn't consistently get his overhand curve into the strike zone. The pesky Pads were getting on-base. Just doing their usual routine of blowing opportunities. Peavy was cruising. Except for an amazing Jim Edmonds opposite-field homer off of a good pitch, the Pads looked like they had a chance to get Carpenter out of the game which would have been a key to victory.

But then in the third, the Cards started dinking and dunking and things (possibly including the Padres' season) started unraveling. With the bases loaded after a soft single, a double and an intentional walk, Peavy faced Larry Walker. Peavy suddenly uncorked an awkward looking wild pitch. In delivering the ball, the young hurler appeared to lose his balance or stumble and the ball bounced wildly in front of home plate and then bounded over catcher Ramon Hernandez's glove. David Eckstein scored from third. To the casual observer, it looked like the young Peavy was suffering from a case of the yips. Walker was intentionally walked and then Reggie Sanders delivered a hard shot to first which should have been smothered by Mark Sweeney. Instead, the ball ricocheted off the base into shallow right field and two more runs were plated. The Cards lead 4-0 and most Padres fans could already sense that the nails were being hammered into the coffin, since this is rarely a team that can overcome two run deficits, much less against a professional team like St. Louis.

Yet with Peavy on the mound...maybe the Pads could hold the Cardinals in check. But after the wild pitch, Peavy looked rattled. He was a different pitcher. This was not the laser-like Jake Peavy I know. I attributed his decreased velocity and bad location to a young guy feeling playoff pressure. He had made an embarrassing and costly wild pitch in his first career playoff performance. Perhaps it was too much to place on the kid's shoulders, after all, every commentator had said that the Friars' only chance against the heavily-favored Cards was if the 23 year-old won two games. *Gulp* In the fifth, Cardinal-powered dinking and dunking started with an Edmonds single off of Peavy's knee and an Albert Pujols soft single to right. Another intentional walk loaded the bases for former Padre Reggie Sanders, who promptly hit a grand slam. Peavy was done. And so was San Diego.

After putting a couple of single runs on the board in the 7th and 8th innings, San Diego showed some signs of life, by rallying for three runs against St. Louis closer Jason Isringhausen. In fact, the Padres actually brought the tying run to the plate when Ramon Hernandez waved at three consecutive balls to end the game with the Friars on the short end of a stinging 8-5 defeat. Of course, that could have been 8-6 were it not for third base coach Rob Picciolo's bone-headed decision to hold Mark Loretta at third when Larry Walker was willing to concede the run. But Picciolo's Head on a Stick (which I've been calling for since July) is for another post. A loss is a loss.

But the bigger story out of Game 1 is the loss of Peavy for the season due to a couple of fractured ribs. While the details are still a bit sketchy, it appears that Peavy initially injured his ribs in the post-clinch celebration melee last week at Petco Park. He apparently kept his injury on the QT and no x-rays were ordered. Peavy then apparently aggravated the injury on the wild pitch in the third. Most commentators believe this spells the end for San Diego. I'll admit I didn't think my guys had much chance against St. Louis anyway. In my opinion, the Cards are the best team in baseball, and my team's inability to execute, coupled with Bruce Bochy's lineups have made this club downright maddening. Peavy was a potential equalizer. But he's gone. So the odds of a turnaround now appear even more remote.

Nonetheless, I'm not willing to completely write the Pads off. They won the season series against the Redbirds. They have some never-say-die veterans like Brian Giles, Eric Young, Mark Sweeney, Robert Fick, Trevor Hoffman, Woddy Williams and others. They could string something together. It could be a sweep. Likely will be. Or maybe the Padres will bear down, play for pride and surprise a few people. As someone who has been very critical of this team dating back (well, years. But in its current incarnation) to December, I would very much like to see the Padres gut out a couple of wins.

Hey, cut me some slack. It's been seven years since our last playoff appearance. Indulge the fantasy for a couple more days, ok?

Enforcing quarantines

President Bush wants authorization to enforce medical quarantines with military force should a Bird flu epidemic hit the US, so says this report:

President George W. Bush asked Congress on Tuesday to consider giving him powers to use the military to enforce quarantines in case of an avian influenza epidemic.

He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.

"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.

"It's one thing to shut down airplanes. It's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?" Bush added.

Back up a minute...I can hear just about everyone younger than 50 asking exactly what is a quarantine and why would you need such a thing? And that is the bigger problem.

Not many people younger than my parents age and living in America have any practical experience with the concept of a quarantine. For most of America's history however, quarantining was a common and effective procedure for limiting exposure to serious infectious diseases (smallpox, chickenpox, measles, mumps).

The development of vaccines for most if not all of these bugs has over the last several generations eliminated the need for quarantining the infected or in any way limiting contact between the rest of the population in an affected area to lessen the risk of exposure. While that has greatly affected us for good, it has erased the concept from our collective mind and memory. Is that a good thing though, should we face a serious medical emergency on par with the Spanish Flu of 1918?

When I ponder the need for going back to a quarantine (even one-time), I fear for several things. First and foremost, I don't see an America willing to limit it's 'freedoms' even in the face of an obviously dangerous medical emergency. We don't comprehend the nature of a quarantine anymore nor understand the necessity of it--I firmly do not believe that people will voluntarily isolate themselves in the manner required for making such a move work. In that environment, I fear that military force might be necessary.

"One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

Miers Nomination

Like many, I'm none too pleased with Bush's less-than-inspired nomination of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. While she surely has an impressive background, it seems to me she doesn't come anywhere close to approximating the standard set by John Roberts, and this is very discouraging.

My overarching problem with this nomination is that Bush's relatively weak political standing apparently locked him into nominating a woman or minority. So Bush gave priority to quotas over qualifications. Great. And as George Will suggested yesterday, it's likely that Miers wasn't even the most qualified female / minority conservative candidate:

If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

He then goes on to argue that the placement of "representativeness" over qualifications would seem to undercut a central tenet of conservatism.

Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group. The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''

Moreover, it also appears that Bush's relatively weak position locked him into nominating a candidate that the Democrats wouldn't reject out of hand, as a more identifiable conservative with a paper-trail could have. And based upon what I have read, a number of Roberts-type individuals were out there--they just happened to be men or happened to raise the dander of Democratic Senators.

So Bush's commitment to quotas and submission to the Democrat smell test has now left him with a candidate that will be attacked by the right for not being an inspired choice or an ideological conservative. Miers will also be attacked by the left for not having a background as a judge and for being a Bush flunky (a charge, that to me, seems quite reasonable). Meanwhile, she'll be attacked by both parties for not being anything like John Roberts.

I'm not sure I agree with Will about the fact that she should be rejected. I'm willing to hear how she does in the confirmation hearings, but politically, Bush has done it again. He's mangled a key decision. Not only do we appear to be getting a less-than-magnificent Justice, Bush has also played the politics all wrong. In fact, he's committed precisely the same type of blunder that his father made when he agreed with Democrats to raise taxes. In an effort to pander to his critics (who won't respect him in the morning), he's turned-off his base with a poor decision. Ironically, the avoidance of such a double-whammy has supposedly been one of the driving mantras of this administration. And yet, here we are. As Bill Kristol lamented, this is yet another example of how we are left to wonder just how awful the next three years are going to be. And beyond the politics, shouldn't we expect our best and brightest to be on the leading court in the land?

Stupifying.

Turn out the lights

It's been done now for several hours. I'm not convinced that it was really as close as this might sound. That aside though, the real story is Jake Peavy and his broken rib:

An MRI showed one broken rib on his right side and the possibility of a second break. A Padres spokesman said the injury would take four to six weeks to heal.
"He felt something on his right side," manager Bruce Bochy said. "He said he felt it during the course of the game."

Peavy thinks he might have bruised his ribs during a celebratory scrum on the field after the Padres clinched the NL West on Wednesday. He said the injury was probably worsened when he caught a spike on the rubber on a wild pitch in the third that didn't even make it to the dirt.
"I thought I had bruised ribs, I never imagined it would be this," Peavy said. "It's weird. It's been a little bothersome but it was nothing we thought would get in my way.
"I knew it was pretty bad when I came out of the game."

Most analysts agreed that for the Padres to have any shot at stealing this from St. Louis, Peavy needed to come up big. He didn't today and his season is now done.

Schumer's Plumbers

Not my title, I just liked it enough to stick with it. It is the title of a piece in Investor's Business Daily discussing the role of Senator Schumer's office in illegally obtaining and using personal information about Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. They come out swinging:

While the media focus on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's alleged skirting of campaign laws to get Republicans elected, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett's alleged racially insensitive hypothetical regarding blacks, crime and abortion, and Sen. Bill Frist's recent sale of stock, a real crime against a black politician has been committed in virtual silence.

Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and it's his job to get Democrats elected in hopes of wresting Senate control from the GOP. Michael Steele is lieutenant governor of Maryland, and the DSCC, and along with most everyone else, expects Steele to run for the open seat of retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

Steele, an African American, is a rising star in a Republican party regularly accused of racial insensitivity if not outright racism, a party that thought so highly of him and his political future that it chose him to be the deputy permanent chairman of the 2004 Republican Convention.
Steele, a Catholic who once trained for the priesthood, was inspired to join the Republican Party by Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential bid. He demonstrated in his appearance at the 2004 convention that he has charisma, warmth and a keen grasp of public policy. He has already won statewide in Maryland.

Apparently nothing frightens the DSCC more than an articulate and charismatic black American who also happens to be a Reagan conservative. How else to explain the behavior of two of Schumer's campaign committee members — research director Katie Barge and junior staffer Lauren Weiner — who dug for dirt using Steele's Social Security number, reportedly culled from court records, to fraudulently and illegally obtain his credit report?

Yes, once again we're forced to play the 'What if?,' game simply because, well, we must. The silence of big media in this and similar circumstances where the player lists a (D) after his name is deafening.

Yet again, we're left to intuit the press's take on this because they son't address it. What of it?

Well, IBD says this: One would think a potential felony by staffers for a top Democrat — a case being investigated by the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. as well as the FBI — would at least get a paragraph of coverage somewhere between the grocery coupons and the obituaries.

And yet again, we're left to wonder why. One conclusion is that they wish to lay cover for a politician they generally, if not specifically, support; a member of the party for which a vast majority of them vote.

Wrong? Off-base? Well, until you can tell conclusively one way or the other, jumpin to conclusions is one of only a few options.

So come on guys, even an attempt at some even-handed and fair coverage would be nice.

Baseball Playoffs start today

The MLB Division Series' begin today with the first game between NL Central champion St. Louis and the winner of the NL Worst, San Diego Padres. Were I forced to wager, I'd say that Sim is currently sitting in front of his TV, tuned to ESPN taking in all the sights and sounds.

As of this writing though he can't be too encouraged; St. Louis is up 4-0 early. But then that is why they play 9 innings.

I had no comment about how the season finished, until now. It's been well documented here about exactly where each of our loyalties lie; both of us are fans of the NL West, have been for years. Intellectual honesty compels me to congratulate the Padres on their division title.

Getting into the playoffs is an accomplishment, regardless of it's relative ease or difficulty (They won the division while just 2-games over .500...exactly how hard was that?!). So again, congrats on the 2005 NL West championship.

Somebody had to win it...

Annoyed beyond belief (More insights from Tales of the Great Unpacking)

'P' for "people who ^&%$ the living daylights out of me,": Those who design and/or do the technical writing for do-it-yourself home furnishings who obviously have never had to put any of their offerings together!!

A question for the moron who designed the towel rod I can't secure to my wall: How exactly do you expect me to generate the apparently-required 80,000 lbs. of torque required to tighten your set-screws when I have to use a 2.44-mm precision screwdriver to access the screw-head?

Just wondering...

Imagine my surprise...

at reading a piece in the LA Times discussing oil refineries, refining capacity and gas prices that wasn't anything but hostile. So noteworthy that I figured it deserved comment.

High gasoline prices, hurricane-triggered shortages and big refining profits are fueling a push to build the nation's first new oil refinery in 30 years.

Yes, I've been saying it for quite a while...refining capacity needs to increase over the long-term if oil and gas prices are ever going to be forced down to more reasonable levels. Glad to see the Times apparently getting on board. More from the piece's author, Elizabeth Douglass:

What's driving these efforts is that fuel production from U.S. refineries has not kept pace with the demand from a rebounding economy. The result has been painful price surges for consumers, truckers and airlines.

It's a problem that's been building for 25 years, starting in the early 1980s, when overproduction and heavy losses forced smaller operators out of business. The trend accelerated in the 1990s, as federal and state regulators began mandating cleaner fuels and costly environmental upgrades. Then a wave of mega-mergers among oil companies led to more closures, as those firms saw consolidation as the shortest path to profits.

When hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast, they laid bare just how fragile the U.S. refining system had become. The storms knocked out fuel production and vital pipelines along the coast from Alabama to Texas and sent pump prices to record highs.

Current circumstances are bringing people back to the energy market and prompting examinations of it's profitability for the first time in nearly 20 years. For the first time in nearly that long, you've got people thinking it's time again for re-entering the business.

In June, long before that and other measures were proposed in Congress, British tycoon Branson declared his interest in building a refinery to blunt the effects of soaring jet fuel prices on Virgin Atlantic Airways, his flagship airline. The entrepreneur, whose holdings also include mobile phones, soft drinks and insurance, said recently that he was considering Europe and Africa — and sounding out officials in parts of the United States — for the refinery project.

Last month Kuwaiti officials renewed an earlier offer to build a U.S. refinery. They sketched out a proposal for state-owed Kuwait Petroleum Corp. to form a joint venture for the project, and the country's oil minister hinted that a preliminary agreement could be reached as soon as this month.

It was unclear whether the discussions would be invigorated by new congressional action. "We're waiting to see where they go," said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn., a trade group. "Whenever people say they want to build a refinery, we say, 'Please go ahead.' "

I commented some months ago on the effort of Arizona Clean Fuels, who is working to build the nation's first refinery in 29 years near Yuma. They are a case-study of what Douglass is talking about:

The Phoenix company has spent 12 years looking for funds and nurturing a vision of building this country's first refinery since 1976. This year the proposed plant, to be built near Yuma, Ariz., cleared what's considered the single biggest environmental hurdle for such projects: It got an air permit.

Glenn McGinnis, chief executive of Arizona Clean Fuels, says recent events have spurred serious talks with potential investors that could soon yield the $75 million he needs to fund engineering work. A tax break in the recently enacted energy bill speeds up returns for his possible investors, and the actions being considered by Congress would improve the outlook even more, McGinnis said.

Where is the US government on this issue? Does it think it important enough that incentivizing these and similar efforts will become reality?

Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), has a bill working it's way through the House that would effect these types of operations in the following ways: [bill] "would limit government review of plant modifications, put the federal government in charge of shepherding refinery projects on strict timelines, and establish a "standby refinery support account" allowing the government to compensate applicants for certain kinds of delays in refinery construction and refurbishment projects. "

To my mind, all things that ought to be encouraged over the short- and medium-term while we negotiate our way through the current difficulties of the world energy market. And before anybody wants to berate me for kow-towing to Big Evil, a.k.a. Big oil, I am not advocating the ostrich-approach to new technologies and/or sources of energy.

Such new developments are the ultimate long-term solutions. What I am advocating is how to get from here to there without more and more pain at the pump. As to why continuing high energy prices are a bad thing, check this analysis.

Discussing Harriet

Michelle Malkin has a rundown of conservative reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination. Lots of durm und strang.

Likewise, she notes something that would be funny if it weren't in fact a bit telling:

As if you needed more unpleasant news: Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are happy.

I've noted often over the last 4-plus years that you can sometimes tell when the President has gotten it right by examining exactly who is pissed off and why. Appears perhaps the same is true here but in reverse.

'M' for "May never catch another break again!"

In USA Today, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman laid out this optimistic appraisal of the country's energy situation following Katrita's assaults on the Gulf of Mexico:

"We're going to go through a very challenging time the next six months, is my guess,"...a rather vague prediction of things to come, but the folks at USA Today didn't mince words as the wrote the following:

The nation's energy chief says it will take six months for U.S. energy production and prices to return to pre-hurricane levels, and he hints at energy shortages in the interim.

That's the most blunt and pessimistic estimate yet of how long the energy disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will affect the United States.

Can't wait, can you!?

Do what you demand

Dan Gainor tackles Katrina coverage in a piece yesterday in the San Diego Union Tribune. He lays it out for the world to see in the big finale:

The media were right about a key aspect of Katrina: The system did break down. Politicians made a bad situation worse and the media's 24-7 news cycle piled rumor after rumor on top of that. The media spend every day demanding accountability from politicians, businesspeople and everyone they encounter. Now that they are having a rockslide in their own glass house, who is there to all them on it? The bigger question is: Could we have another journalistic catastrophe like this again? The unfortunate answer is, probably yes.

Sobbing, Over-Emotional Canadian of the Day

From Drudge:

Choking back tears, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF star Donald Sutherland warned this week: President Bush "will destroy our lives!" The star of the new ABC drama, which follows the first woman President of the United States, lashed out at the real White House during a dramatic sit down interview with the BBC.Sutherland ripped Bush and his administration for the war and Hurricane Katrina fallout."They were inept. The were inadequate to the task, and they lied," Sutherland charged."And they were insulting, and they were vindictive. And they were heartless. They did not care. They do not care. They do not care about Iraqi people. They do not care about the families of dead soldiers. They only care about profit."At one point during the session, Sutherland started crying: "We stolen our children's future... We have children. We have children. How dare we take their legacy from them. How dare we. It's shameful. What we are doing to our world."Sutherland went on rip Karl Rove's "methods and means" against people like Cindy Sheehan."We're back to burning books in Germany," Sutherland said of NBC's editing out of Kanye West's comment on Bush during a hurricane relief telethon.

Compare and Contrast

Again, while I believe that there is plenty of blame to be spread around all parts of the government regarding the response to hurricane Katrina, with Bush and the Feds included, I offer the following photos for your inspection.

Topic: New Orleans and Galveston. Compare and contrast. Discuss amongst yourselves.