February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

January 31, 2007

Steyn on WHO?

Last year I wrote about my late realization that the U.S. taxpayer was indirectly footing the bill for many of our Euro-pals' socialism (Bunch of B.S. - Baltic States). In his new book, America Alone, Mark Steyn points out that the U.S. is subsidizing a lot more than just defense:

Euro-Canadian socialized health care is, in essence, subsidized by American taxpayers: since the end of World War Two, Washington has assumed the defense costs of its allies, thereby freeing up those countries to spend their tax revenues on lavish social programs. But if America follows the [author Will] Hutton plan and "joins the world," it will reduce its defense expenditures to Euro-Canadian levels. So the next time a tsunami hits Sri Lanka or Indonesia there will be no carrier groups to divert and save lives. So more people will die, waiting the weeks and weeks it took for the sleepytime gals at the United Nations to arrive. Were America to "join the world," it would have to reduce its funding of the UN and other world bodies to European levels. And it might have to scale back in domestic agencies so that they're no longer able to serve in effect as international ones. Which will be tough when some kid in some village on the other side of the world comes down with some weird illness no one's seen before and they want to FedEx the test tube to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to figure out what's going on. Indeed, even relatively advanced societies admired by the likes of Will Hutton take it as routine that the CDC is a kind of Health Ministry of last resort. When SARS leapt from China to infect Toronto's hospitals in 2003, the principal contribution of the WHO (World Health Organization) was to issue a travel advisory warning visitors to steer clear of Ontario, leaving it to the CDC to provide advanced and practical analysis of the problem. Toronto's mayor, Mel Lastman, had a hard time keeping track of all the acronyms, and in one press conference launched into a bitter attack on the damaging effects of the travel advisory issues by the CDC.
  The doctor next to him tried to correct him: "Who," she said.
  "The CDC," he repeated.
  "Who," she said.
  "The CDC," he repeated, wondering why she hadn't heard his answer to the question the first time. This diseased version of the Abbott and Costello routine went on a while longer, before the doc realized she had to spell it out: W-H-O, the World Health Organization..
  "Oh yeah. Them, too," said [Lastman].
  Yet under the who's-on-first shtick lay an important truth: if an infection shows up in an Atlanta hospital, no American doctor looks for guidance from a Canadian government agency. But if it shows up in a Toronto hospital, the Ontario health system takes it for granted that the best minds of the CDC in Atlanta will be staying late at the office trying to work out what's going on.
  The answer to that Canadian doctor's vaudeville feed—"Who's on first?"—is America. When something goes awry, in a Sri Lankan beach resort or a Toronto hospital, it's the hyperpower who shows up. America doesn't need to "join the world": it already provides a lot of the world's infrastructure.

Which raises the question: Who's going to subsidize American health care when our government implements universal coverage?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 30, 2007

On Benchmarks and Timetables

NPR Supervising Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving on Iraq:

This strategic timeframe, consistent back to the administration's earliest statements after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does not necessarily require an open-ended military mission in Iraq. In fact, the full picture of administration statements on Iraq this month hints at something quite different: a prelude to disengagement.

Conjecture: President Bush, despite his mistakes, does in fact mean exactly what he says. The Surge is really, seriously, actually supposed to help suppress the insurgency in a vital time and place (now; Baghdad) while the Iraqi government further establishes itself… wait for it… wait for it… after which the US troops will withdraw and go home. They’re starting a withdrawal soon either way, as the Iraqi forces continue to take the lead in security operations and continue to take responsibility for security in the provinces. The exact time and date of the flights home would not be published on line for the same reason that exact troop placements are not posted on line – flexibility and security. That is, they would not be published even if they were inflexible, which would be immensely stupid. But the withdrawal is coming, pending a reasonably stable and capable government in Baghdad.

Call me crazy. Maybe referring to “benchmarks” instead of “timetables” might - just might - be because we are trying to tie our withdrawal to specific security goals (call them “benchmarks”) instead of a specific date.

Why are there people who don’t get this?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Constitutional Representation

At the blog On Tap, Marshall Manson wrote last week that the Democrats had turned their back on the Constitution:

Democratic House Leader Steny Hoyer introduced a proposed change to House rules that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote on the floor of the House.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent U.S. territories and other possessions in the House. There are five: one delegate each from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
Needless to say, four of the five are Democrats.
Under House rules, delegates and the Resident Commissioner are currently allowed to cast votes in House Committees. (A practice that I believe is also contrary to the Constitution.) At present, they are not allowed to cast votes on the floor.
If the Democrats get their way, that will soon change.

And as you may have guessed, they did get their way on a party-line vote.

Mary Katherine Ham (at Townhall Blog) notes:

Perhaps after "six years of George Bush" the media thinks the "conversation has become a little one-sided," and this is now warranted. After all, the NYT story is headlined, "House restores voting rights to Congressional delegates.
The return of the privileges, first allowed by Democrats in 1993 and rescinded by Republicans in 1995, resulted in Republicans’ pouring out their frustration about their treatment by Democrats in the first weeks of Congress. The sour mood threatened efforts at forging a more cooperative relationship between the parties.

Two years on, twelve years off… the best description for that is a “restoration”, isn’t it? As Manson noted in his post last week, the media wasn’t so thrilled about it back in 1993. So fickle.

But earlier this week I heard something on this issue that really spun me up. Here is NPR’s Farai Chideya interviewing D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty:

The biggest glaring problem is that we don’t have a vote in the national legislature, we don’t have two senators and a congressperson like we should.

Two senators and a congressperson.

Two senators.

[shudder]

The pertinent part of the interview is from 5:24 to 8:57. Don’t feel compelled to listen to the whole interview on my account, but that bit is unbelievable. Chideya repeatedly tries to goad the mayor into saying more, asking him twice whether he is “hamstrung” by the situation and asking whether he will be a “champion” on the issue. I guess I should just be happy that she wears her sympathies so openly, when so many in the media pretend at objectivity.

Two senators. Look, the District of Columbia has 550,000 people. If it were a state, it would be 50th in the nation – barely ahead of Wyoming by less than the seating capacity of Nationals Ballpark. During away games, it might be 51st. It is only the 27th most populous city in the United States, and dropping. It is not a state. It should not be a state. Why does it deserve two senators?

I hope this is the last I ever hear of that proposal. Takers?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2007

'Anti-Soviet' and 'Intellectuals' Appear in Same Sentence in Washington Post; Devil Buys Snow Shovel

I'm a few days late getting to this Washington Post story (registration required) published on January 27th:

The Plot Thickens
A New Book Promises an Intriguing Twist to the Epic Tale of 'Doctor Zhivago'

Into one of the most sordid episodes in Russian literary history, the Soviets' persecution of Boris Pasternak, author of "Doctor Zhivago," a Russian historian has injected a belated piece of intrigue: the CIA as covert financier of a Russian-language edition of the epic novel.

The piece that caught my eye and elicited an immediate burst of laughter was this snippet:

[...] A CIA role in printing a Russian-language edition [of Doctor Zhivago] has been rumored for years. [Ivan] Tolstoy offers the first detailed account of what would rank as perhaps the crowning episode of a long cultural Cold War, in which the [CIA] secretly financed literary magazines and seminars in Europe in an effort to cultivate anti-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals.

Ha! Thank goodness for the CIA and their secretly financed literary magazines! Lord knows that the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of Stalin's Communist regime are insufficient to rouse the 'anti-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals.' One has to wonder if this isn't the Washington Post's worldview: irrational hate mongering by the U.S. government against a Soviet Union that went through some 'ups and downs' but was overall just swell.

A question answerable only by an intellectual.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cool / Not Cool

I can't decide.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

January 27, 2007

Bush's Presidential Library

Do you know where will the George W. Bush presidential library be built?

[Pause for obligatory but frankly unwelcome literacy jokes.]

Okay, seriously, where will the George W. Bush presidential library be built? Southern Methodist University is reportedly the front-runner for what will be the thirteenth presidential library in the nation. This would make it the sixth presidential library to be located on a university campus. But universities being what they are, it comes as no surprise that the proposal has sparked debate and controversy at SMU.

Negotiations to build George W. Bush's presidential library at Southern Methodist University have divided the campus, pitting the administration and some alumni against members of the liberal-leaning faculty who say the project would be an embarrassment to the school.

Some professors have complained that the combined library, museum and think tank would celebrate a presidency that unnecessarily took the country into a war.

The fear is that the library "will continue to espouse the philosophy and practice of the Bush administration, which has seriously divided our nation and has brought the ire of other countries," said William McElvaney, a retired professor…

Of course, it is nothing new to have a little controversy associated with a presidential library. Recall ten years ago, when then-president Bill Clinton chose a riverfront location in Little Rock, Arkansas as the location for his presidential library.

[C]ity leaders offered Clinton the warehouse district acreage. He took it. The city was soon embroiled in lawsuits. Property owners challenged the use of eminent domain to claim the land for a presidential library. Another citizen tried, unsuccessfully, to block the use of taxpayer money (revenue bonds) for the project.

In 2001, an 1899 depot was discovered enshrined in an aluminum building on the site. Preservationists fought for the building, but eventually lost the fight in court and the depot was destroyed.

At another point, protesters picketed city hall when the city decided to name the street in front of the library President Clinton Avenue. It ultimately compromised: Only half the street was named after him.

Controversies, of course, are hardly unique to the Clinton library. Boston's John F. Kennedy Presidential Library didn't open until 1979 because of location and architectural issues. The Jimmy Carter Library in Atlanta faced problems when an access road threatened local historic neighborhoods.

"All presidential libraries face controversy," says Lynn Scott Cochrane, director of libraries at Denison University in Granville, Ohio.

Well obviously they do. Presidents themselves face controversy, and their legacies can be no different. But people some people insist on treating this library, this president, and this controversy as somehow different from the usual. It’s not surprising to find Olbermann and Huffington are upset. Olbermann:

Are we going to need a federal law to cap spending on presidential libraries?...libraries and think tanks that are spending millions to try to prop up the image of their namesakes; trying to rewrite history for men who have long since ceased to be a part of the political picture?

I know – how dare Bush or his supporters try to have a hand in writing history - that's clearly Olbermann's job. Note that when he and Huffington complain about the expense, they are not talking about tax dollars. In light of that, I would wonder what legal justification Olbermann had for such a suggestion... that is, I would if I took him seriously enough to think he could answer that question.

As I said, it’s not surprising to find complaint from that crowd. The surprise may be the opposition from faith-based groups, as highlighted by a recent article in the Houston Business Journal.

Hope for Peace & Justice, a faith-based social justice organization based in Dallas, is concerned about the reputation of Dallas and the safety of local residents if the library and proposed think tank are built at SMU, as the "Bush Library will no doubt be a terrorist target,"said the Rev. Michael Piazza, president of Hope for Peace & Justice.

and

"Dallas has worked for decades to escape the reputation as the 'City that killed Kennedy,'" said Rev. Piazza. "We do not need to return to that right- wing reputation. Playing host to Mr. Bush's well-funded, neo-conservative think-tank will taint our reputation indelibly. Residents need to guard their reputation and say, 'No thank you Mr. President.'"

Now that’s opposition from Bush’s supposed core – Christian conservatives!

Oops, wait – the website for the group says they are “equipping progressive people of faith to be champions for peace and justice.” (emphasis mine) Sounds like the Houston Business Journal was just being misleading about plain old partisanship. Let’s rewrite the way this is all being reported. It should go something like this:

President George W. Bush’s presidential library will be at Southern Methodist University. Bush-haters hate it. The end.

There is no reason to raise the specters of terrorism, assassination, and parking in this conversation. It’s hyperbole, and as such should be ignored.

If you are one of those people who find Stephen Colbert funny, follow this link for his take on the issue. (Okay, I admit I only included that in an attempt to get Rammage riled up.)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 25, 2007

Can He Lead A Normal Life?

Gosh, little Dilbert reminds me of somebody. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it might be somebody here, or possibly here. One thing for sure, it does not remind me of myself when I was young.

A few weeks ago, Brad Warbiany wrote a piece on Engineering at The Unrepentant Individual. It was inspired by - even a response to - another piece on Engineering that was posted by Chris Byrne at The Anarchangel.

Byrne says:

Engineering is the art of HOW. How things work, how things are built, how things interact and react, how problems are solved.

Engineering is the fusion of the theoretical and empirical. Scientist understand WHY things work, technicians know THAT things work if they do certain things... but engineers understand HOW things work (and to do so must understand much of the other two), and this understanding allows them to do and build, and fix new things.

I agree completely. Engineering is a philosophy more than a career. And Science is, too. And it is possible to meld the two to some degree, but most people don't. (Being a technician is not a philosophy so much, but more of a training. Like any training, I believe anybody can learn to be a technician.)

In my life, I have been employed as a technician, and a scientist, and an engineer. I have not yet been able to determine which of the three I really am at heart. I believe I used to be more of a scientist, but developed an engineering attitude when I was in the Navy. That was done in order to get out of being a technician, by the way. I don't know that I agree with Byrne's idea that a true engineer is an engineer about all things, and I am not alone in that. There are some systems and topics I just don't find very compelling. I don't much like the inside of my computer case. I am a technician about the machine - about both the software and the hardware. How many items/systems would I have to feel this way about to be a technician at heart?

Unlike young Dilbert, I was not an engineering child prodigy. I was good enough at taking things apart, but I wasn't always so good at putting them back together. With the limited financial resoures I had at my disposal, every toy or gadget that I rendered useless was a lesson to leave well enough alone. Combine this with the manner in which my curiosity was dulled by a series of unscientific elementary school teachers, and by high school I was much more a scientist than an engineer. I wanted to know, but not do.

But perhaps I misunderstood all of those years ago. After all, my refusal to take my car apart was not because I didn't want to know how it worked. In fact, there are only two questions that make sense about a car - how does it work (Engineering) and what do I have to do in order to operate it? There is no Why? Being too poor and lazy to investigate it myself does not mean I wasn't an engineer. It means I wasn't a good engineer.

Brad Warbiany describes himself as having been "born an engineer" (and he may soon find what it is like to raise an engineer). Brad notes the Engineering philosophy drives him in his study of politics.

...every day, I look around me and try to figure out how the system works, because I can only give myself the best chance to benefit from it by understanding its workings.

Part of my writings about politics are a desire to figure out and improve the system. I don’t say government doesn’t work because we have the wrong people running it, I say government can’t work because the system has flawed incentives that cause it to fail. It doesn’t matter all that much who we elect unless the system itself changes. My recent dissatisfaction with the Republicans is largely because they promised to change the system, but instead simply said “plug me in”. Of course, understanding the “How” of a political system doesn’t necessarily allow it to be changed, because often the “How” is highly linked to ballot choices of people who refuse to even question or investigate that same “How”.

I have had thoughts along these lines before, so I loved reading Brad's article. I expect I will be making reference to it more than once. Keep an eye out.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2007

Liveblogging!

No, not the State of the Union. I expect that'll be the same old crap as usual. But I'm a die-hard hockey fan, and I'm watching the NHL All-Star skills competition. I'll update the blog as time permits - because I know you care. And I think it's funny.

The real excitement for tonight's competition and tomorrow night's All-Star Game is supposed to be the young players - particularly Sidney Crosby (the first teen to start in the All-Star Game since Gretzky) and Alexander Ovechkin.

21:09 I didn't realize Brian Campbell would be fast enough to even compete in the Fastest Skater category, but apparently he is. Buffalo Sabres, represent!

21:15 Andy McDonald is the fastest skater, completing a lap of the rink in 14.03. That's crazy fast. Next up is the shootout, which is a team event, West vs. East. The goalie for the West will be Marty Turco, of Dallas. He's on home ice tonight, by the way. The East has Montreal's Cristobal Huet in net.

21:22 Some acrobatic stuff, but nothing compared to the crazy things we've seen in the past. The West wins it, 2-1. Next up, a fan favorite - the hardest shot.

21:26 The commentators are clearly some sort of physics consortium, as they note the puck tends to lose speed if you shoot it higher into the net. "Keep it low to the ice" is their free advice. Cripes, that frozen rubber is flying nearly 100 mph. Zdeno Chara just hit 100.4 as I typed. Ironic that it's in mph, when most players are Canadian and many European. They don't know what hell a mile per hour is.

21:29 Sheldon Souray managed 100 mph as well. But the 6'9" Chara (that's 2.06 metres, mon frere) wins the highest speed and the East has the highest average. Up next, shootout part 2. West Goaltender: Miikka Kiprusoff, Calgary. East Goaltender: Martin Brodeur, New Jersey.

21:38 Brodeur is a beast. The East wins that round. Sheesh, and some people are watching the freaking State of the Union. Unbelievable. I'm sure that's really exciting, Dale.

21:40 Shooting accuracy! My kids and I play that in the cul-de-sac. The three-year-old can't shoot worth a damn, but the six-year-old is getting good.

21:43 Yanic Perreault hit the camera in the back of the net, but they don't give you points for that. Just the painted targets.

21:47 I have to stand for the "In the Zone" goalie event. No liveblogging of it. Sorry.

21:58 Okay, I'm sitting back down for the last round of the shootout. Vancouver's Roberto Luongo in net for the West and my boy Ryan Miller minding for the East. I believe both were perfect "in the Zone".

22:00 Intensity! Miller gave up the points and let the West tie it up. It's down to the final event, a one-on-one shootout.

22:01 Sidney Crosby and Teemu Selanne each score and it goes to another round. And a third round. Luongo finally makes a save and Selanne can finish it - and he does!

Ah... I'm done. Who has ever been excited about the State of the Union going over time? I'm sure I'll read all about the politics-as-usual tomorrow, and hear about it on the radio. But for tonight, I got my hockey fix. Good night.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2007

Second-hand Smoke and You

This AB article is dedicated to Jib Halyard.

Fellow AB author Rick asked me: "Who would have to present evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, for you to believe it?

My response:

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that second-hand smoke can't be harmful. Clearly and ad absurdum, if you and I sat in a closed 10x10x10 cube for thirty years with me blowing cigarette smoke in your face then you're going to be just as likely to get lung cancer as I. What I am saying is that the science is being blown out of proportion - and often times outright fraudulent - in order to justify and form policy that is eroding personal freedoms. It's going to be the trend of the 21st century, I'm starting to think.

I tell you what. I'll let a Harvard Medical School graduate talk for me first, and I'll throw in a few comments at the end:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it "impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science..there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings.a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

Okay. Let's take a step back from the studies and the degrees and the arguing from authority and so forth, and let's take a Sanity Check. For shoots and grins, Google the term "Second-Hand Smoke."

Here are some of the words used on the first Google'd page:

Secondhand smoke causes about 3000 deaths each year from lung cancer...
Secondhand smoke kills...
Secondhand smoke affects everyone, but children are especially vulnerable...
Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma episodes...
Second-hand smoke is actually more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke...
It is not easy to avoid secondhand smoke...

Let me ask you, does this sound like science or politics to you?

Incidentally, here is the EPA's report refuting their critics' critique of their report. Bottom line: There may be a slightly increased chance of lung cancer for second-hand smoke, for a person living with a chain smoker for twenty-years. But even then, it's rare.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 21, 2007

Regulating Payday Loans

Doug Mataconis tackles an issue at the Liberty Papers that I've been meaning to write about all week. The Virginia General Assembly is considering a repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which legalized the short-term, high-interest loans commonly known as Payday Loans.

Last November, the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a panel on the topic (sponsored by Family Resource Clinic, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, and the Federalist Society). An article in the newspaper UVA Today explains the loans as well as any other source:

Payday loans are generally governed by the states, explained moderator Prof. Daniel Nagin, director of the Law School’s Family Resource Clinic. But the federal government recently got involved when Congress passed legislation placing a 36-percent cap on the annual interest rate of loans taken out by active-duty military personnel.

Obtaining a payday loan in Virginia is as simple as writing a check, Nagin said. Anyone who has a checking account is qualified to take out a loan. The payday lender will charge the borrower $15 for every $100 that is loaned. At the end of the loan period, which can be as short as seven or up to 30 days, the borrower must return to the store to repay the loan, or the company can cash the check that was written at the beginning of the transaction. The maximum a borrower can take out under Virginia law is $500...

The payday loan industry in Virginia has grown from a $165 million business in 2002 to more than $1 billion worth of transactions in 2005, Nagin explained. There are approximately 750 authorized payday loan outlets throughout the state.

750? That sounds like there is quite a demand for these places. But Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond, has a different take on that number:

There are over two payday lending stores for every McDonalds in Virginia and three for every Starbucks. This is ridiculous.

I am horrified to learn that this is the standard my lawmakers will use to judge the situation. [shudder] And that's clearly become a talking point. I have no idea where it started, but it's constantly repeated on the Richmond radio and in most news articles. My question: why have we allowed this disparity between the number of McDonalds and the number of Starbucks in the first place? What ever happened to equality in this country? And what is the ratio of payday lenders to Taco Bells? I demand an answer!

As Mataconis points out in the post at The Liberty Papers, we can question the wisdom of borrowers to enter into a payday loan, but what right does the state have to prevent it? Not that legislators give a damn about what they have the right to do, of course.

Since we're here, let's take a look at what proposals are on the table. Again from UVA Today,

The Virginia General Assembly is currently reviewing two bills that would affect the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which authorized payday lending companies to set up shop in Virginia and exempted the industry from the prior 36-percent interest rate cap. The first bill repeals the Act; the second bill introduces an amendment calling for a real-time database that would force payday lenders to report the identity of the borrower and the terms of the loan to the state. Lenders would be able to search the database when a prospective borrower wants to take out a loan. The lender would be prohibited from lending money to patrons who had three or more outstanding loans. Finally, lenders could not loan money to anyone who had terminated a loan contract within the previous 48 hours.

(emphasis mine)

I love the comments by Michele Satterlund, an attorney who represented the payday lending industry at the UVA panel:

There are no viable alternatives being presented and there is a market need. We are a product that serves that market.

When I hear [panel member Jay Speer, executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center] talk, it’s as if he’s saying people who find themselves in financial hardship are not very smart, that’s the message I get. They’re not very smart, they can’t control their money, let’s control their money for them.

Opponents of Payday lenders point to a lot of alternative sources, but when it comes down to it, they are trying to legislate away one of my options because they think they know what's best for me, and I don't. Doesn't that sound familiar?

For those who think the high interest rates warrant government action, consider a point illustrated in Wikipedia:

Payday loan makers also argue that the interest on a payday loan is less than the costs associated with bounced checks or late credit card payments. For example, bouncing a $100 check may inccur an NSF fee from the bank of $28 and a returned check fee of $25 from the merchant.

In comparison, when expressed as APRs for two-week terms:

$100 pawn loan with 20% service fee= 240% APR;
$100 payday advance with $15 fee= 391% APR;
$100 bounced check with $48 NSF/merchant fees = 1,251% APR;
$100 credit card balance with $26 late fee = 678% APR;
$100 utility bill with $50 late/reconnect fees = 1,304% APR.

I await the logical conclusion - a bipartisan proposal to outlaw usury. For the children.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2007

Colts - Patriots, Again

I wanted to write something up about the football game tomorrow. I mean, it is Colts-Patriots again. Probably one of the better matchups in football these days. But I realized that it has all been said before seeing that they have met in the playoffs quite a bit lately. I found this gem of an article by ESPN.com’s Patrick Hruby which allows all of us to create a fresh story on this game. It’s a choose your own adventure! You write your own story for yourself without having to type. It’s a thing of genius.

Find out what I’m talking about here.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 17, 2007

That's What I Said!

Zalmay Khalilzad (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), on The Surge:

We can be very patient, and we demonstrated that during the Cold War. But for patience to be sustained domestically, the American people have to believe that we have a strategy for success. I believe the American people know that Iraq is important. They have serious doubts with regard to our strategy.

(From an interview on NPR that aired today.)

Clearly, Khalilzad reads Atlas Blogged, because I think he said what I said.

Update 1/18 at 21:38: While I'll still claim Khalilzad has to be reading Atlas Blogged, I am crushed to learn that lawmakers are not. Of course, that might explain some of the achingly stupid things that roll off of Capitol Hill.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Obamamania

The media - and therefore the blogosphere - are absolutely manic over Barak Obama's announcement that he has created an exploratory committee - the obligatory step in his obvious path to a 2008 run for president. From CBSnews.com (links are in the original):

And every front page (except for the Wall Street Journal's, save a brief mention somewhere in the middle of the newsbox) takes note of the momentous occasion. The Washington Post, for its part, actually squeezes two front-page articles out of the news.

The teaser on this "Investigative Report" from the Chicago ABC affiliate:

In this Intelligence Report: how to protect the man who would be America's first black president.

That kind of reporting certainly suggests a lot of political weight for this political n00b. I imagine that a black presidential candidate who appeared to have even a remote chance of being elected would be the target of an extra part of society's violent fringe. And I don't mean to be dismissive of that when I say that the language of this report absolutely stopped me short. Is Barak Obama close enough to the presidency that murderous racists would attack him? I doubt he is in any more danger than any other senator, frankly. But I don't doubt in the least that he will be protected in many ways during his political career. He's just got that something that makes foreign papers refer to him as a rock star. He is vitally important, for some reason, to the Democratic Party.

And I think that's a weakness.

I spoke with a coworker about Obama this morning who articulated that weakness pretty well. This woman is active in the Democratic Party, and cares very deeply about the party's success. Her take?

He's a gimmick. He's a good enough orator that his dark skin doesn't resign him to "black politician" status, but right now, he's just a gimmick. Maybe he doesn't even deserve to be, but he is, because he's nobody, and the party is going nuts over him. It will be a long two years, and he is already stepping into that spotlight. Something will sink him, and race will get blamed. And how does that help America move forward?

If Barak Obama were white (what's that? He is as white as he is black, and raised by white people in a non-black community?), would he be anybody? If not, then have we bothered to judge him by the content of his character? How ironic that Obama's announcement of the exploratory committee came on the day after Martin Luther King Jr Day.

If it's simply time for America to have a black president in order to show how grown-up and enlightened we are, then you'd better bring me a black candidate I can vote for. I have nothing at all against Barak Obama, but I have nothing for him, either. And maybe someday he would have the vision and experience to win my vote, but right now I haven't seen anything. I can't vote for him simply on account of his having dark skin and a great smile. And shame on anybody who could.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2007

The Surge - Continuing Bush's Inability to Spell Anything Out for the Public

Does the American public have any idea what progress has been made by the Iraqi government in the last year? As the map above shows, progress has been made in training the Iraqi forces and in turning over some authority to the Iraqi government - clearly positive steps and a prelude to the eventual American withdrawl. Iraq might yet more closely resemble post-war Germany or Korea than Vietnam. (We can't really hope for another Japan, of course.)

But how aware is the American public whose opinion is solicited so carefully and frequently? Do they see more than the body count on TV? Is the message getting through?

By now we all know that President Bush has ordered a "surge" of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and Congress is debating exactly how impotent it will be in protest. Polls show the American people are unhappy. But it matters whether this is an unhappiness borne of ignorance, or an informed decision that they disapprove of Bush's new strategery and the surge of troops to Baghdad.

I just read an instructive editorial in the Yakima-Herald:

Ever since America invaded Iraq nearly four years ago, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies, insufficient military strength to fulfill an occupation role and misjudging the depth of the sectarian violence that would follow the departure of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

We've heard about the need to allow time for Iraqi security forces and the fledgling new government to get up to speed. We heard it again Wednesday evening from Bush.

Now it rings hollow.

Of course it does. This administration has made several big mistakes in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. They are not unforgivable, unfixable mistakes - except that the president has never attempted to really come clean about making them. This editorial is instructive because it highlights that the administration has never explained itself very well – it’s been a PR nightmare even when good is accomplished. Conservatives seem willing to chalk up the problem to a liberal media, but the buck has to stop on Mr. Bush’s desk, and the fact is that he’s been a terrible salesman all along.

Salesman?!? Oh, Wulf, you demean the War on Terror if you say that the president has to sell it like a can of beans.

Come on. This is politics. You can eradicate disease and still look like a villain if you are incapable of controlling your own image. As the editorial noted, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies over and over and over again. Rather than have an exit strategy or even a clearly articulated goal, this administration has relied on platitudes and bromides. But Americans want more than appeals to patience and patriotism. They want to know when we leave Iraq, even if it isn’t right now. By refusing to talk about timelines, the administration has ceded the debate to those who invoke Vietnam. By refusing to focus on the progress of the fledgling new government – for example, the map above - the administration has ceded the debate to those who simply count casualties.

It's not that America doesn't have the stomach for a war. It's that America doesn't have the stomach for a war that appears open-ended and whose worth is uncertain.

Back to Yakima (I can’t believe I just said that):

What will come of this new effort? Do we go in with more troops, beat up on the insurgents, declare victory and then leave the country -- expecting things to level out and for the Iraqis to find peace as we define it?

Or do additional troops just make us more of an occupier -- a role history shows is not a good one for any superpower -- while we wait for the situation to improve?

How long must we wait?

Exactly the problem. Most people I’ve talked to just have no idea what the surge will do, or what it is supposed to do. Most of them think it’s pissing down the well to send 20,000 more troops to an area we want to be done with and withdraw from – an area that only ever seems to be on the news when Americans are shot at or blown up. The president has neglected the bully pulpit over the course of our time in Iraq. That he would do so seems unfathomably stupid, given how much the president has at stake here. Military success is very uncertain, and Bush also has a lot of domestic chips riding on this hand. That's a ballsy move for a lame duck whose party just lost both houses.

I don’t agree with the editorial that we should be looking for the U.N. to get involved. And I don’t agree with the main thesis - that it is "too late". But our troops will someday, somehow leave Iraq, and the question since day one has been how that will go down. There is only one person who should be able to give a definitive answer to that question. I consider it his biggest failure that he has not recognized the importance of that question and answered it to an acceptable degree.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 13, 2007

Good Firewalls make Good Neighbors

An amusing tale at NPR - give it a listen.

When a folder called "Anna's Music" mysteriously popped up on NPR reporter David Kestenbaum's computer, with music that he absolutely loved, he followed a trail that led to an awkward encounter with a neighbor.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2007

Gender Equality

My wife took my last name when we married. I didn't ask her to. I didn't expect her to. But she tacked it on at the end as a fourth name with the expectation that it would make things easier. (That is correct, she did not drop her original last name. She just added mine on the end like a caboose, with no hyphens or other decorations.)

And all things considered, it was pretty easy. I've sometimes wondered how easy it would have been for me to take her last name. Not that I wanted to, but I know a few people who have changed their name not through marriage or divorce, and it was more of a hassle than my wife experienced. I was wondering how easy it is for a guy to take his wife's name, or whether the ease of changing names will be enjoyed by gay couples when they eventually have the right to marry.

But I never looked into it until I stumbled across this story about a guy who is suing California on the premise that "the difficulty faced by a husband seeking to change his name violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment".

Only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — have statutes establishing equal name-change processes for men and women when they marry. In California and other states, men cannot choose a different last name while filing a marriage license.

It suddenly raises my libertarian hackles. I definitely support Mr. Buday in his suit.

I did get a little chuckle over this guy in the article, though. He says

"Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women,"

Yes - because gender equality for one or the other, but not both, would be unacceptable.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Gay Adoption

Oh this made me laugh. I had to share. Pardon My Planet

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 9, 2007

Takes on Somalia

In reading about the US air strikes in Somalia, I tried to hit several sources. I particularly like to check international sources for news like this - for example, the BBC reports:

US air strikes in Somalia are aimed at al-Qaeda leaders in the region, and based on "credible intelligence", a Pentagon spokesman has said.

In its first official comment on the air strikes, the Pentagon said a raid was carried out on Sunday but declined to say if it had hit its target.

The US has long said al-Qaeda suspects linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa took refuge in Somalia.

and another BBC article:

By attacking Islamist fighters in Somalia the United States is trying to achieve two objectives.

It wants to intervene decisively on the side of the transitional government now back in Mogadishu and to get at three al-Qaeda suspects linked to bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and attacks on an Israeli-owned hotel and airliner in Kenya in 2002.

...The US sees the break-up of the Union of Islamic Courts as a good opportunity to try to remove what it regards as a serious threat from al-Qaeda in the region.

But the BBC is just a puppet for Tony Snow, as we all know, so I looked at some other sources for a potential differing point of view. Arab News:

US helicopter gunships attacked suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Somalia yesterday...

US helicopter gunships attacked suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Somalia yesterday, a Somali official said, a day after US Special Operations forces launched at least two air attacks against them in this restive Horn of Africa country. The attack helicopters were trying to kill Islamic extremists, said a Defense Ministry official. Earlier, Somalia’s president, Abdullahi Yusuf, had said the US was hunting suspects in the 1998 bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa and had his support.

Witnesses said 31 civilians, including a newly wed couple, were killed by the two helicopters yesterday. This claim and another of high civilian casualties in attacks on Monday could not be verified.

Okay. Some facts, some unverified claims that the US again blew up a wedding party or something like that. But later in that article is the criticism I was really looking for:

President Yusuf told journalists in Mogadishu that the US “has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.”

But others in the capital said the attacks would only increase anti-American sentiment in the largely Muslim country.
/
...The US airstrikes will not improve the long-term stability of the volatile East African country, the European Commission said yesterday.

“Any incident of this kind is not helpful in the long term,” said Amadeu Altafaj, spokesman for EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel.

In the US, it is reported as killing terrorists. Europeans (except the British puppets) complain that it destabilized the region. Wait, wait... we're destabilizing Somalia. In my mind, a cartoon Frenchman turns to a caricature of a German and says "Ah, I miss ze old, stable Somalia. Stoopit Americawns!"

By far the most amusing anti-American take I could find was at the "progressive" site AlterNet. Follow the link. You know you want to. Your libertarian friends aren't looking, and it's healthy to expose yourself to the fringe. Here, I will give you just a taste:

The Bush administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this oil-rich quarter of the Muslim world.

In all seriousness, I don't want to make light of the violence and bloodshed in eastern Africa. But I do want to point out that there has long been a complaint that the US involvement in Iraq is not a legitimate part of the global War on Terror, since the Iraqi government was not behind 9/11.

I always took that as a challenge to focus more on al-Qaeda, who is known to be heavily connected with the Islamic Courts Union, who have encouraged suicide attacks against Americans in eastern Africa. Osama bin Laden is reported to have encouraged the development of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia - that sounds like a part of the global WoT to me, and pretty likely to involve people directly connected to 9/11.

Um... what more could a reasonable person ask for?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 8, 2007

Jon Henke

We haven't said it before, but a big congratulations are in order for Jon Henke of QandO. Watch the clip below if you don't know what I am talking about:

That's right, Jon Henke is the New Media Director for the Republican Communications Office in the U.S. Senate. Jon's announcement was met with mixed feelings in my household. We are thrilled for him and his family - personal friends of ours, by the way. But the position necessitates a move for the Henke household from Midlothian, VA to the D.C. area. And from our point of view, that's terrible.

Jon and I get together fairly often to let our children get out of their respective houses and play. The kids just love each other, and play together very nicely - though the noise level is sometimes hard for adults to handle. Gratuitous monster noises, smashed cars, wrestling on the stairs - and that's not to mention the boys. Below is a pic of Alex Henke, age 4 (in the yellow shirt), playing in his front yard this last weekend with my two children (Molly, 3 and Sam, 6).

These kids had a great opportunity to grow close over the summer. Jon got off work early in the afternoon, and I was enjoying the "summers off" part of being a teacher, so we really had nothing to do on a daily basis except take care of the kids and occasionally blog about world affairs. We took these three sweethearts to the zoo, the pool, fishing - anything to get ~~ourselves~~ them out of the house. And of course the kids loved it. Dads are fun - we were up for pizza when you know moms would have made tuna salad or something. And I was very appreciative of the opportunity to have grown-up conversations with an intelligent, like-minded guy my own age. I have no idea what Jon got out of it, but to each his own.

The wife and I were thrilled for Jon when he took a job as the Netroots Coordinator with the George Allen campaign. That one didn't involve his moving a few hours away, so it was great. Besides, by late August I had to go back to teaching, so it was just as well that Jon find something to do with his days.

Jon and I still got together regularly on Sunday mornings for coffee and discussion of politics, economics, and life in general. We meet at a local McDonald's, and our children test the limits of the indoor play area. That'll be pretty tough to continue when he's living a couple of hours away, though. Mixed feelings, indeed. We certainly wish him, Caroline and the kids the best of luck, and this certainly won't be the last they've seen of us - not least because a move to D.C. brings them closer to some mutual friends - for example, Rammage and Boon. In fact, it burns me to say it, but this very night Jon will be visiting Rammage's warm and comfortable home in the People's Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland. A home that I, shamefully, have never visited. Sigh.

Well, once more, congratulations to Jon Henke. And here is one last picture to enjoy: my daughter Molly holding "Baby Jack" Henke.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Metrics of Employment (updated)

I just read an article at autoDogmatic that I don't quite get. I wrote out what I thought was a very nice reply, but when I previewed the comment I got an error. The site is giving me a hard time about the links I tried to include. I figure it's easier to post my thoughts here, where I at least know how to make links happen.

Aaron, either I am missing your overall point, or you’ve gotten yourself sidetracked. Why do we keep and report an unemployment rate? It is not a figure for its own sake. There is a good reason the figure does not count prisoners – or the retired, or children, or stay-at-home spouses/parents, or the disabled.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does keep track of the "Labor Participation Rate", which is more what you are really talking about. This past July, the Washington Post ran an article on the Labor Participation Rate, and it included this excellent graphic. Even though the graph starts with 1948, the article notes that the male labor force participation rate reached an all-time peak in 1949 (at more than 87 percent). But the rise in female participation has been greater than the decrease in male participation – we are at historic levels of absolute employment in this country, and it’s been pretty steady and predictable. The article even addresses reasons why the male rate has dropped, like greater numbers of men staying out of the workforce for education reasons – consider the fact that the leftmost column of this BLS chart is the only one to have a significant drop over the last quarter century.

Now, the Post article doesn’t address the fact that there are more men in prison today than ever before, but the BLS covers only the “noninstitutional population” aged 16 and over. But my point is that I don’t understand why you would want to count them. I agree completely that the US prison rate is an outrage – especially the nonviolent drug offenders. But what useful information do we get by counting them as “unemployed” or “underemployed” or having the BLS include them in the Labor Participation Rate?

Scott Lamb seems to be on the same track I am.

I think I might also have some issues when Aaron says the half with the "short end" of the stick doesn't have such bright employment prospects. The average time of unemployment is down, wages are up, non-wage compensation is up, and education is “free”. Why does the half with the “short end” of the stick lack?

Update at 10:43 ET, the links are now fixed and no longer go to Microsoft.com. Thank you Neal for pointing that out.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 7, 2007

Bronchitis

What did the sarcophagus say to the casket?

Is that you, coffin?

After two weeks of persistent coughing and fatigue, I went to see a doctor today. I don't usually go to the doctor when I am ill, because I figure I already know what's wrong with me and what to do about it. Why would I pay somebody to tell me what I already know? But after two weeks of Robitussin, Thera-Flu, DayQuil, psuedo-fed (don't get a libertarian started), ibuprofen, cough drops, whiskey, tea, and my Vicks vaporizer, my wife convinced me that I clearly don't know what to do about it. I've called out sick twice this past week - I just can't speak well enough to address the class. Uh, plus I sound like Doc Holiday, and that makes students nervous. It's not a good learning environment.

Let me say a few things about Patient First, the primary care center I visited. I had a very friendly receptionist taking my information within 20 seconds of my walking in the front door. When she was done with me, I went to take a seat in the waiting area... but my name was called before I even made it to a chair. The nurse who weighed me in and took my vitals was cheerful, and was very specific in his questions about what brought me in. By the time the doctor came in, I nearly had to laugh out loud about the popular image of primary care facilities.

I had a longer wait and more brusque customer service last week at the local coffee shop - where they are hoping for a tip.

I was sent away with a smile on my face and two prescriptions filled on site for $16. Bronchitis, the doctor said. Not the pneumonia my wife had me fearing. I did pretty much already know that. But he also gave me some antibiotics and some expectorant with codeine. I'd call that a productive visit.

I'm probably going to call out tomorrow, again. Maybe I'll spend the day looking up the various arguments about the state of health care in the United States today. I don't think I understand the supposed health care "problem", though I am certain that socialism and a lack of competition are not the answer. Don't you dare point to Canada!

And maybe I'll go back to Patient First and leave a tip. Or some flowers and a card. The capitalist in me would feel much better if I did that. I'm probably not going to, but they really do deserve some sort of thanks. I hope they're reading.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 5, 2007

Can Preferences Trump Rights?

The New Jersey Supreme Court is hearing a case on what limits a homeowners association can place on the free speech of residents. It ought to be a great topic of conversation, since it pits two cherished values against one another. Should one civil liberty trump another?

The plaintiffs bring several issues to the court, but the main one is regarding restrictions on the display of political signs in the community. An NPR story reports that this issue sprang up from one of the plaintiffs trying to put up a political sign on her property, in support of her run for a seat on the Twin Rivers homeowners association. She lost the initial suit, due to the prevailing wisdom that this is a private contractual matter, and she knew about the covenants of the community when she chose to live there. But the case has continued, because

the plaintiffs contend the association should be treated like any other government entity, because it can issue fines and place liens against homes.

In other words, plaintiffs argue that a municipal government would not be allowed to violate the rights of citizens as outlined in the state constitution, and a homeowners association ought not to either. The appeals court was unanimous on this point. Personally, I disagree – I side with the conventional wisdom, and the sanctity of the private contract these homeowners have entered into. This is something homebuyers need to consider ahead of time. I am disappointed – but not surprised – to see the ACLU siding with the plaintiffs.

The Court’s opinion is not expected for several months, but it may be very important to the future of these associations. For one thing, over 50 million Americans live in these types of communities – 1 in 6 Americans, as NPR points out. I was astounded by that number, until I realized the number of urban homes – specifically, condominiums – and retirement communities this must include. If the plaintiffs prevail, the freedom of individuals to contractually promote a particular sense of aesthetics will be denied, in favor of the notion that a citizen’s preferred avenue of expressing themselves does in fact trump other liberties. That would be a terrible shame.

For those interested, the New Jersey Law Blog includes a link to the webcast of the arguments.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Why Privatize?

Yet another example of government incompetence this week in Buffalo, NY:

The fiscally strapped Buffalo School District paid more than $544,000 for health insurance coverage for dead retirees and their spouses, recouping the money only after a state audit red-flagged the problem.

Over half a million dollars. Tax dollars. And the district safeguards are defended in the article.

The state comptroller scrutinized safeguards used by 20 municipalities for making sure that they are not paying insurance premiums for people who have died. The audit found that 19 municipalities needed to improve their systems, including the Buffalo Public Schools and Niagara County, the only two local government entities that were cited in the audit...

The Buffalo Public Schools' payments represented nearly 70 percent of the $786,481 that the nine governmental entities paid for health insurance for beneficiaries who had died.

Isn't it wonderful to see the government turned loose - to solve the problems of our nation, our states, our cities?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Presently Batman has a high unemployment level

I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this, but Batman has Turkey's oldest refinery. There is also a regional airport near Batman. And yet, Batman has unemployment problems.

Seriously. Check it out.

And last week, Batman was paralyzed by heavy snowfall.

I know, I'm easily amused. It's actually a blessing.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 2, 2007

The NFL Playoffs Are Here

The playoffs are here. The second season as they call it. All that matters at this point is that the teams that made it are in. Nothing else. Previous records can be thrown out at this point and the teams are now down to the “one and done” mode.

As a Jets fan, obviously I can’t be more excited about the events of this year. Bringing in Eric Mangini as the youngest head coach in the league and his first ever chance at leading an NFL team had fans worrying in the beginning. I don’t think any fan is worrying anymore. He created an atmosphere in the Jets locker room that the team hasn’t had in a long time. It’s great to see.

Fans from the twelve playoff teams are gearing up for this weekend and beyond. But it wasn’t without incident. This past Sunday was pivotal in determining who was in and who wasn’t. Surprise victories by some left teams out and changed playoff seedings. But one fan in particular makes a great point about what transpired on Sunday to allow the Kansas City Chiefs work their way into the playoffs.

To fill you in, all Denver had to do was win their game against the 49ers and they would have secured a playoff spot. I’ll let Jack McCord, a member of my fantasy gaming group (and Kansas City fan and resident) tell it best:

“At the start of the day, the Chiefs (my team) were at the bottom with the worse case scenario to make the playoffs. They needed a Denver, Tennessee and Cincinnati losses. Plus, a victory against, Jacksonville. Guess what...it all happened. My thanx to: Pittsburgh, New England and especially San Francisco. I'm happy with that. My entire disappoint is with the media. FOX in particular. The results and scenarios were in place before the start of the Denver/S.F. game. But at no time would the big city media mention that K.C. (the small market) was in the game. Granted, it may seem that I am playing home town hero but... the situation was known before the game. It was cut and dry, Denver wins they're in. Denver loses K.C. is in. . Pretty simple. I watched the entire Den./S.F. game, they mentioned 17 times that if Denver wins they're in. They never mentioned what happens if Denver loses. It was simple, if Denver loses K.C. is in. But they went out of their way to not mention K.C. until, 9 min. left in the 4th qtr. 17 times they mention a playoff scenario but don't mention the small market team until you have to. That is B.S. Don't give the small market any publicity until you ultimately have to. Great marketing. For those of you thinking Denver is small market, guess again, they are almost twice our size. Why is this? Can't the networks give equal unbiased reporting...apparently not. At any rate....We're here, We're there and we will continue to be whether New York or L.A. recognizes us or not.”

The 17 times may have been an exaggeration, but then again it could have been more. But Jack (known as Captain Jack in our circle) makes a great point at how the media can be so biased that they lose sight of the big picture.

I offer my congrats to Jack and the Chiefs. I would love to see the Jets and Chiefs play each other so there can be the other element of Herm Edwards against his former team.

I’d comment on the other playoff teams, but I’ll leave that to someone who cares about them.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 1, 2007

Quiet and Dignified

There's a bit of complaint from some regarding the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed. For just one example, BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson:

Far from being a quiet and dignified business, the new video shows that several of the witnesses taunted Saddam during the last seconds of his life, chanted the name of one of his many enemies, and told him he was going to hell.

An incredible complaint, in my view. A quiet and dignified death is usually earned through a quiet and dignified life - not through the dictatorial genocide practiced by this deposed tyrant.

And if I believed in hell, it is exactly where I would want Saddam to go. He hasn't done anything to earn the peace of not having to hear that sort of opinion. That anybody would think otherwise absolutely boggles my mind. Come on, say it with me: To hell with Saddam Hussein!

Mr. Simpson continues:

Altogether, the execution as we now see it is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which is more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice.

Mr. Simpson could not sound more out of touch. Neither could he sound much more sympathetic of the Butcher of Baghdad:

Saddam is not intimidated by any of this, and repeats Moqtada Sadr's name disdainfully, as if to say he doesn't count for very much.

Then his gruff, rasping voice can be heard saying to the onlookers "Is this manly behaviour?"...

Saddam Hussein scarcely has an instant to collect his thoughts. He starts to mutter a prayer, but just as he speaks the name Muhammad, the chief hangman pulls the lever and the trapdoor opens.

With terrible, shocking force, Saddam's body plunges into the drop.

He deserved a terrible and shocking force. He deserved to be cut off in mid-prayer. Mr. Simpson seem not to understand the principle that how a man lives is more important than how a man dies. Rather than focus on the people being rude as they string up one of the worst mass murderers on Earth, we could focus on how much better it is for Iraq that he has been executed. Rather than fret that Sunni Arabs might be offended at the treatment Saddam received, we might ask ourselves whether those Sunnis who would defend Saddam are worth working with.

There was no behavior that was too rude for Saddam, Mr. Simpson. Again, to hell with Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)