Kansas-Mizzou at (Cam)Arrowhead is Horrible

OK. This will get away from politics. Don't tell me how the election worked out; I TiVo'd it and I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

Anyway, for several years my alma mater, the University of Kansas, was been pressing the horrible, pro-slavery/pro-confederacy University of Missouri to play their annual Border War (renamed, sadly, under pressure from Kansas' otherwise brilliant Athletic Director Lew Perkins, as the "Border Showdown." I guess I am not politically correct enough to think this was necessary or a good idea.) game at Arrowhead Stadium, currently famous as the place the Kansas City Chiefs do most of their out-loud stinking. After years of wheedling by the University of Kansas, Mizzou finally agreed and last year was the first year of a two-year contract where the game was played at Arrowhead.

I was at last year's game as it was included in the KU season ticket package. I will NOT be attending this year's game as it is not in the package. And I don't think I will miss it all that much truth be told. However, I just read that an extension of this series is almost a done deal and I cannot let that contract be signed without saying why this is such a horrible idea.

For those of you who do not know, this series actually stems from a real war. Most schools refer to it as the American Civil War but pro-confederacy places (like Missouri) frequently refer to it as something like "The War of Northern Aggression" or some other name that makes it sound like all the South wanted was "state's rights" even when that "right" extended to the enslavement of a race of people. Anyway, this football game, The Border War, actually stems from a real war. There are descendants of people who were actually affected by this war who are fans of both schools, so it's not a euphemism to refer to it as a "war." It may be hyperbolic, but I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be deemed offensive to refer to it as such. I say this not to argue about the name of the rivalry but to describe just how serious this rivalry is. KU wants to beat Mizzou very badly every year and Mizzou would be happy to never make a bowl game or the NCAA tournament as long as they beat KU because they know they are an inferior institution and they feel good about themselves when they can take down KU. So, we know this is serious to both schools, right?

Here is my problem with playing this game at Arrowhead: In a nutshell MU is better than KU right now. Not leaps and bounds better and not in a different class (well, at least in a football sense. We have already established that MU is in a much lower caste, institutionally speaking), but better by enough that giving up home field advantage actually could make a difference in how the game is played out. Last year, on the neutral field of Arrowhead, KU came up short but they didn't get destroyed by MU. I honestly believe that if that game had been played at KU's Memorial Stadium (it says something that KU names its football stadium after honored war dead and Mizzou names it after a coach), KU would have won that game. I will admit that my analysis on that is biased, but it's what I believe.

So why does it make sense to give up home field advantage to a team we can beat at home? I understand that KU (and Mizzou) will both get significant pay days for playing at Arrowhead, but is it really worth it? Never mind the hit taken by businesses in Lawrence when people don't come to town for the game. What about the hit KU takes when it loses an otherwise winnable game because Mizzou isn't faced with a hostile crowd and also gets to have their own battery-chucking Oakland Raider-wannabe fans in equal numbers? I don't know how to do the math here because we are talking about something quantifiable (money) versus something unmeasurable (prestige) but it is my opinion that the financial benefits of this arrangement are more than offset by the merits of having the game in Lawrence.

But here is the thing that REALLY sticks in my draw about having this game in Kansas City: After decades of Norm Stewart swearing that he will never spend a dime in the state of Kansas, we KU fans are left with no choice BUT to spend money in Missouri. Think about that about that for a second. When we pay for parking at Arrowhead, when we buy a beer or a hot dog or popcorn for the kids we are paying sales tax to the state of Missouri. Anyone know where a portion of that sales tax goes? That's right, it goes to the University of Missouri in all its cousin-loving, meth-abusing glory. And we KU fans HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. if we want to attend the game, we have to give part of our hard-earned money to Mizzou. And Lew Perkins, who has been a great AD in my opinion, is OK with that.

You know, it wouldn't be so horrible if we could somehow rig Kansas Speedway (in Wyandotte County, Kansas) to play every other game in Kansas to at least balance out this fundamental unfairness, but I don't think that's possible and, as far as I know, it's never been discussed as an option. So we are stuck with the University of Missouri making money at the expense of KU and Lawrence businesses because the KU Athletic Department gets a few extra dollars that it will share with none of the affected parties (Lawrence merchants, the KU community as a whole).

I have to say, I haven't always been keen on Lew Perkins' decisions on how to maximize revenue. Sometimes they seemed a bit heavy-handed and they personally affected and hurt me because I can't afford to make the kind of Williams Fund (the privately-supported KU Athletics fund) donations necessary to get the priority points for really good seats. But even with all of that I went along because I knew that Perkins was trying hard to make KU sports competitive with the "big boys" like Texas, Nebraska and North Carolina. And to get to that level of competition sacrifices need to be made. But having this game at Arrowhead is too big a sacrifice. It makes it harder for our team to win the game itself, it makes it less convenient and more expensive for fans to attend the game and, in the biggest twist, it forces KU fans to support (even indirectly) the University of Missouri.

It's too much and I won't be a part of it. I will never attend that game at Arrowhead unless my tickets are free or are part of my season ticket package. I have a great HDTV, a fridge full of frosty drinks and TiVo for bathroom breaks and replays. Why would I volunteer to PAY MONEY to be cold, surrounded by leather-lunged, raspy-voiced, nicotine-stained Mizzou fans (and thier husbands) and give my money in support of MU?

And do not get me started about how this lines the pockets of the still-early-but-so-far-horrible ownership of the Kansas City Chiefs. If Clark Hunt wants a single dime from me, he is going to have to earn it with the Chiefs and he has shown no inclination to do that.

All of that being said, I certainly hope KU wins the game this weekend. I may sound like I am not a "real" fan but I would disagree with that. I want what is best for KU and and simply do not think that playing this game at Arrowhead is best for the school I love so much. If KU shows that it can beat MU at Arrowhead, maybe I will revise my opinion and it looks like KU will have a lot of chances to to prove me wrong. I certainly hope they do. But I just don't see how this works for KU except by making a few bucks.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere a Sign

I'm not even certain this is blogworthy, but I do have an amusing anecdote I want to share about something that pisses me off and what I did to stop it. I keep getting my political yard signs stolen. First of all, it should be mentioned that all the people who steal Obama signs are presumably "law and order Republicans" who want criminals arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now, is stealing a yard sign the equivalent of serious crimes like when Cindy McCain skirted the law to get illegal prescription drugs? Of course it isn't. But I do think it's the hypocrisy of Republicans in a microcosm. They're all for law and order unless and until they decide to break the law, in which case breaking it is just fine.

Similarly, I had always thought that one of the bases of Republicanism, at least current-day Republicanism, is the right to own private property and do what you want with it without interference from the government or other individuals. Yet when I decide I want to put up a couple of yard signs in the front of my house (which is on a fairly high-traffic corner), it's more than OK for these McCain supporters to steal my private property from, well, my private property. They don't feel any cognitive dissonance in the least. Unbelievable.

I know, I know. This isn't surprising in the least. The real surprise is that I am surprised in the first place. No matter how unsurprising it is, I swear it is awfully goddamn frustrating. So, I decided to do something about it and I think it is paying off just a little bit.

As it happens, I enjoy spicy foods quite a bit. Several years ago I bought a bottle (a small vial, really) of pure capsaicin that was being sold as "hot sauce." I bought it thinking that just a couple of drops would be a great way to add quick heat to whatever I wanted. As it turned out, it was nasty. It was essentially pepper spray with an eyedropper. It added plenty of heat, but zero flavor. I used it once and hated it but, since I am a pack rat and hate to throw anything away, it sat in a cupboard for a few years.

Well, I finally found a use for it. I got some rubber gloves and a disposable paper bowl and mixed that entire vial of capsaicin with a whole tub of Vaseline. I then smeared a thick coating of the stuff around the edges of all my Obama signs as well as the signs of a congressional candidate I support.

So far the results have been pretty good. Earlier this week I went out in the morning and found both Obama signs laying flat on the yard, but they had not been stolen. Just this morning when I went out to get the paper the signs were missing and I figured "eh, at least I had them up for a week. Before the fire goo, they hadn't lasted two nights." Then I noticed that the signs had been taken down but very neatly laid in the far corner of the yard.

While I have no idea what actually happened but in my imagination a couple of mouth-breathing nose-picking Repugnants (like Chase Daniel, the fine quarterback for the University of Missouri who may or may not be a Republican but is definitely a nose-picker and booger-eater. If you don't believe me, it's not hard to find on youtube) were patrolling for Obama signs because they cannot bear the notion of a Democratic president and they saw my yard and thought "YEEE-HAWWW! Let's get us some more Obama yard signs! If I don't own a house with a yard, a bunch of stupid fuckin' (please note that the ending of the word with the "n" is my tribute to Sarah Palin) liberals don't deserve to flaunt it with yard signs for some dude who wants to raise my taxes and force me to get decent healthcare for my meth habit!"

So they sneaked up in my yard and pulled out the signs and got their hands all smeared with fire Vaseline.

I'm sure they grabbed the signs at first and felt the Vaseline, had a deep-seated sense memory and thought "why do I feel like I want to jerk off or fuck a pig right now?" immediately before realizing that the invisible goo that usually makes their nicotine-and-meth-stained hands feel good enough that they fool themselves into believing they've actually met a real woman was actually a caustic substance. Then, I imagine Jim Bob thought "my hands feel like my eyes after the cops show up at the Dew Drop Inn when I get fresh with Earlene, that slut who won't admit she wants me" and then he dropped the signs and started screaming. In my mind he also had to grab a fat, meaty booger at that exact moment and jammed one of his mashed digits, coated with capsaicin mind you, into a nostril before he realized that was probably a bad idea too. So, with eyes watering, nose running, hands burning and his throbbing (but still bobby-pin sized) erection in tow, he threw down the yard signs and got the hell away from my house.

It probably didn't go down exactly like that, but in my mind it did. Twice in one week. I may need to look for another vial of that capsaicin.

Hello Republican Nomination, Goodby Honor and Dignity?

John McCain lacks honor. I know, I know, this is nothing new and I do not write to provide some thrilling revelation or some clever new argument or equally clever new twist on an old argument. I am writing to express sorrow and stupidity.

Sorrow because it makes me sad (and, yes, angry too) to see what a man will do to obtain power. When I was young, around seventeen years old, I was convinced I would one day be president. Part of it was naïveté but the larger part of it was that I honestly thought that I might one day be able to do some good, As it turns out, a sometimes disturbingly weak work ethic conspired against me and I have made peace with my life as a decent lawyer and loving husband and father. There are much worse things than I can be and while I still believe I am destined to do something great, every day I become more and more convinced that the great thing I am to do is raise my daughter so that she can one day achieve true greatness. I was wrong about my prediction for the presidency but not as wrong as it would appear; I will never be President, but my daughter will one day be viewed as one of t he greatest leaders this country has ever had. And I am fine with it.

Anyway, I digress. But I have been thinking a LOT about the fact that I used to assume that I was destined to be President. I have been thinking that because I naively assumed that the President of the United States was selected because of his ideas and because of his high-minded attitude about ideas and about how America’s place in the world was to sere as a beacon to other countries. I know, very naïve. The thing is, I think it used to be true. I am 42 years old, so I am not some old guy screaming at kids to get off my lawn, but I grew up in the age of Reagan and Jimmy Carter was the first President under whom I had some speck of an idea about the world around us. There can be little doubt that Jimmy Carter was a good man who might have even been a good president if he hadn’t inherited the legacy of Watergate and the newly-found cynicism that Nixon wrought. Carter restored my belief that good people should be President and that America stood for “good” whatever that means.

Reagan, well, Reagan was a disaster. My first Presidential election I voted for Mondale and I pretty much detested everything Reagan stood for. Still do and I think Reagan is the illegitimate father of the crises we now face. He was, despite his popularity, an absolutely atrocious President who oversaw an immensely corrupt administration. Still, Reagan was a man of ideas. Ideas that strike me as evil and corrupt but ideas nonetheless. Reagan was a champion of small government (except when he was bailing out Chrysler and doing untold scores of other government expansions). Reagan wanted people off welfare and he wanted abortion illegalized. Pretty much everything Reagan wanted I despised and still do. But he had principals. Loathsome ones to be sure, but Reagan believed what he believed, even if it was in his doddering, bobble-headed fashion. And Reagan was able to make people believe in America and he did it during a time when that was not any easy thing to do.

The thing that makes me sad about the current presidential campaign is that, while I never liked John McCain, I was always pretty certain that McCain would let us know where we stood. I didn’t agree with his policies and his vision of government, but unlike the Chuklehead –in-Chief of the last eight years, at least McCain was an honorable man who had served more or less honorably. He worked, as he loves to point out, with guys like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to make America a better place even as we disagreed on a definition of the word “better.”

What a difference a few years makes. I have learned in the last several months, that John McCain places nothing ahead of his own lust for power. The honor and integrity that John McCain once displayed is now gone as his aides have convinced him that the only way he can win is to lie and make scurrilous attacks on his rival for the office. McCain has done nothing to change the tone in Washington. I don’t know how many times McCain referred to “reaching across the aisle” in the most recent debate, but the fact is that McCain is doing everything he can to make that aisle ever wider. McCain has practically incited riots and he allows his followers to call Obama ugly names and to make a fetish of the ugly tactics McCain used to decry and by which McCain was victimized himself by the previously-referenced Chucklehead-in-Chief.

So, why am I sad? Because McCain has reminded me that I used to believe in our government generally and him specifically. McCain has made me remember that there was a time I could believe that I felt that I could work with people who saw things differently than I saw them. Now I see a bunch of angry, snarling madding supporters of McCain who will try to give McCain what he wants even at the expense of what McCain used to hold dear. It is now obvious that McCain sold his soul for the Presidency and if he doesn’t win the Presidency, it’s not as if he will have his soul returned to him. I hope it was worth is, Senator. I hope that becoming that which you professed to despise in exchange for the presidency has been worth it. Assuming that you win the election and assuming that aliens don’t decide to farm your body again and that you live another four years, I wonder if it will have been worth it. If your election comes to pass, I hope to meet you one day and ask how you profited by gaining the world yet losing your soul.

I know there are a lot of you out there who will say “well, DUH! Of course he sold out.” I know, I know. And it’s not as if this is a recent development. Still, it saddens me greatly to see a man I might once have considered to be motivated by good now motivated solely by a lust for power. This isn’t new and it’s hardly the first time, but to see a man take his own honor and wipe his ass with it is something we should collectively mourn. When John McCain is on his deathbed he may well be remembered as a president, but I wonder if he will also regret anything he has done. I wonder if he will realize that, while everyone makes compromises, not everyone makes deals and the deal he made is bitter and foul.

To you, the reader, I apologize. I know how maudlin this entry is and I regret that. I also apologize for appearing to be so slow that I am only now realizing that McCain is irredeemably dishonest and dishonorable. It’s just that McCain has made me remember the boy I used to be and I find myself comparing who I was with who I am and, for the most part I like what I see. I just pity John McCain because, unless he was entirely self-delusional back in t he day, his earlier self would not recognize his current iteration and would be disgusted by the man he has become.

I promise that next post I will get back to the snark and won’t be so overwrought about something so obvious. I just can’t help it. I always feel badly for senior citizens who have had their dignity stripped away. Normally it involves old people forced to live in warehouses for the elderly, but right now John McCain has every bit as much dignity as the 72 year-old man who suffers from dementia and is strapped to his bed in only his underwear. The fact that McCain chose this path only makes me felt slightly less queasy.

Obama is the Antichrist? Is That So Awful?

I’m no biblical scholar. I’m a semi-practicing Catholic who attends Episcopalian services due to spousal preferences. So maybe I am all wet on this, but I keep seeing all of these emails and websites that ask if Barack Obama is the Antichrist (the clear implication being that we must absolutely stop this man before he attains power, blah blah blah) and I keep wanting to know why.

Now, again, I don’t know much about the bible, but my understanding has always been that, according to most Christian theology, the “Antichrist” would rise to power and that the actual Christ (Jesus) would also return to Earth in Glory. At some point there would be a Rapture (not as defined by Debbie Harry and Blondie, but something more sacred and less guitar-driven) where all the souls of the truly righteous would miraculously disappear from their cars and go immediately to heaven. Those remaining would be locked in a long, dark and gloomy period far worse than your average Scandinavian winter while a battle between good and evil would be waged the world over. The forces of evil would be led and championed by said Antichrist and the forces of Good would be led by Jesus himself. All the remaining mortals would be forced to choose sides and the ones on the side of evil would be sent to Gehenna or some other place involving wailing and gnashing of teeth. Meanwhile, those who weren’t swept to heaven during the Rapture but chose to align with Good would have their souls redeemed and eventually go to heaven after a very long struggle.

This is my (rudimentary) understanding of how the Rapture and Antichrist works. I invite anyone to disabuse me of any wrongly-held notions I have. But I think the upshot is that the Antichrist forces the arrival of Jesus, enabling Jesus to rule to world and redeem us from Satan, who is, if I understand correctly, sort of the godfather to the Antichrist.

Now, everyone who is going on about whether Obama is a Muslim (which, apparently is a prerequisite for being able to snag the gig as the Antichrist) or is from some Muslim heritage. My only quibble with this is that some years ago Jerry Falwell went to great lengths to say that the Antichrist was probably alive at that moment and was JEWISH. Is it possible that all of these people have Islam and Judaism mixed up? I guess it’s possible that everyone is forgetting that Falwell said that the Antichrist is going to be Jewish because it is far more politically expedient to go after the Muslims and to attack Obama on this basis, but whatever.

My biggest point with all of this (and thank you for staying with me all this time while I got to it) is why on Earth do we want to stop the rise of the Antichrist?!!! Seriously! Isn’t it God’s own will that the Antichrist rise up, so that the reign of Jesus may commence? If Obama actually IS the Antichrist, who the hell are we to pick McCain? Wouldn’t it seem that Obama is God’s own anointed leader of the world? How is it that true evangelical leaders are not trying to get this guy elected? That brings on the Rapture people!! That gets Mr. Jesus Christ down here on Earth that much sooner and enables him to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to the heathens who do not know Him and enables those who do know Him to get to Heaven on an express train!

If you are a Christian, what is so wrong with voting for the Antichrist?! Yes, I suppose the Antichrist will cause suffering the world over and millions of people will die ugly and painful deaths, but isn’t that what God wants? Why do you try and thwart Him and His will? Who are you to substitute your judgment for that of God?

I know this will piss off a lot of people (assuming anyone is reading in the first place) and I also know that it appears that I am making light of Christians and people of faith. I assure you, I am not. But if my understanding of Christian theology is correct, if God really wants this and we really want what God wants, then how can we vote against him?

Sen. Obama? Don't Fall For It!

Don’t do it, Sen. Obama. Just don’t. Do NOT fall for McCain’s proposed campaign suspension so he can “work” on t he economy. Do NOT allow the debate for Friday night to be canceled.

I have to admit, I am impressed by this move. McCain, after absorbing heavy, thudding body blows day after day on the economy has finally decided that the best thing he can possibly do is stop playing the game where he is getting his ass kicked. If your nose keeps getting bloodied and you can’t throw a punch, why don’t you just quit fighting? Then, if the other guy decides that he wants to keep up the barrage, you can claim to be better than him, above it all and accuse him of playing dirty when your efforts are focused on nobler things.

I understand the move by McCain and I understand the appeal, however forced it may be, to the Obama campaign. It will be tough to accuse John McCain of playing politics and trying to demagogue the issue when he says his efforts are focused on making an ugly situation better.

Be that as it may, you can’t let up. McCain has already shown, on September 11th of this year, that his definition of “suspending” his campaign doesn’t read exactly according to Webster’s. You cannot trust his campaign to truly “go dark” and he will keep running ads and keep trying to attack you. You must not forget that this is all a huge effort to distract the American public from the fact that his economic policies and ideas are trash and that his own campaign is absolutely rife with people peddling influence to special interests that have put this economy where it is.

The trick for you will be to finesse the issue without looking like you are playing politics. Maybe you can say “Senator McCain has asked that we suspend our campaigns while we work on cleaning up this economic disaster he helped create. I applaud Senator McCain for finally owning up to his responsibilities and trying to make things right. But Sen. McCain doesn’t want to change anything, he wants to withdraw because this is an issue where he cannot win. If Senator McCain is serious about helping this economy, then why doesn’t he actually talk about his plans, about he value of deregulation and about the role his policies and advisors (and mine) have played in this crisis? I will not agree to cancel this debate but what I will agree to do is change the focus from national security to employment and the economy. The best thing we can do, as candidates for the presidency, is to tell the American people how we will govern if we are elected President. This crisis was caused, in large part, by a lack of transparency in our government and in the operation of our financial institutions. If Senator McCain truly wants to reform the way Washington works and seriously change the culture of Wall Street, I invite him to meet with me Friday night for a debate on the economy. I will work with the Senate in Washington to help fix this turmoil but Senator McCain’s proposed response, to bury his head in the sand, is not a show of leadership, it is a display of cowardice.

Even if McCain unilaterally refuses to be at the debate Friday night, you cannot agree to “suspension” of the campaign. You must keep the pressure on McCain, even if he stops campaigning. Remember when John Kerry refused to respond to the Swift Boat ads? Put McCain in that same box and see how he likes it.

Don’t stop. Don’t let up. Don’t slow down. You can sleep all you want November 5th.

Sara Palin is Trig's Mother? Why Doesn't She Just Prove It?

I realize that as Americans we are entitled to a certain amount if privacy. No matter what certain Supreme Court justices might say, the right to privacy is given to us all.
So, I am a bit hesitant to make a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s “situation” regarding her kid and her kid’s kid. I think Barack Obama largely had it right when he said that families are “off-limits.” In an ideal world families WOULD be off limits. But we don’t always make the world we live in and I have some serious questions that Palin’s meteoric elevation only highlight. These issues aren’t going away anytime soon.

First, I have a real problem with this rumor about Sarah Palin actually being Trig Palin’s grandmother who somehow faked the pregnancy so as to avoid the shame of having a daughter having a baby out of wedlock. This story is, truly, something out of “Desperate Housewives.” The story feels like a made-up rumor and I really tend to believe that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin several months ago. I also have a real hard time believing that Palin hid this from McCain and that McCain was THAT stupid as to go with her in light of that situation. She was never taken all that seriously as a candidate until Friday of last week, so if she really was Trig’s grandmother, wouldn’t she have just declined the vice-presidency?

All of that being said, it strikes me that Sarah Palin could pretty easily put these rumors to rest very quickly and I wonder why she doesn’t do that. McCain has already set the precedent of allowing the press access to his medical records so that he could demonstrate just how healthy he is. Why doesn’t Sarah Palin shut up all the rumor-mongering right now by releasing her OB-GYN records from her pregnancy? I understand that she doesn’t HAVE to do this and that she does have a right to her privacy, but what does she have to fear? Could it be that she just wants to protect her privacy as a matter of course, even if she has nothing to hide or fear? If so, I wonder how she will square this with what will almost certain wind up as supporting telcom immunity in the newest FISA legislation?

I’d also like to say a bit about the whole “families are off-limits” thing. How is it that Sarah Palin can advocate a policy (abstinence-only sex “education”) when she can’t even make it work in her own house? I’m not saying that Bristol Palin deserves to h ave her dirty laundry searched by reporters, but I do think that between bragging about her son’s upcoming deployment to Iraq and having a knocked-up daughter despite the fact that she taught Bristol that the best way to prevent pregnancy is to keep her legs closed, she has put her family in play.

You would think that, at some point I’d stop being amazed by right-wing hypocrisy, but I still can’t get over it. The right-wing that so desperately wants this campaign to NOT be about the candidate’s families is the same party that had both Rush Limbaugh and JOHN FUCKING MCCAIN make vicious brutal fun of a pre-teen Chelsea Clinton for little more than her looks. But now we can’t talk about families? Oh. OK, I get it.

Anyway, Governor Palin, I tend to believe you. I think you really are Trig’s biological mother. But since you support the right of the government to spy on me with impunity, since you advocate abstinence as sex ed and since you can put this issue to rest almost immediately (except with a few true crackpot conspiracy theorists), why don’t you just let me see your medical records. Prove to me that you carried Trig to term in your own uterus. After all, what do you have to be afraid of?

Sarah Palin? OK by Me, Bad Choice by McCain

Really? Sarah Palin? OK. I suppose you know what you are doing, Sen. McCain but let me make a few off-the-cuff observations about your new pick.

First, let me admit up front that I don’t know a whole lot about Sarah Palin. I know she is Governor of Alaska and that before that she was a city councilwoman and mayor of some small town in that state. I know she is anti-choice, she has five kids, one of whom has Down’s Syndrome. I know she ran on a clean government campaign to get elected Governor. I also know that she is a member of a group called “Feminists for Life” (which strikes me a bit like “Muslims for Judaism,” but whatever). I don’t know much about many of her policy positions so let me just keep these observations to Sarah Palin as the Republican pick for VP and why this makes so little sense to me.

Before I get started on why I think she is a bad pick, let me discuss why I think she is a good pick for McCain. She is a conservative darling. She is loved by the right-wing base, a group that has been historically a bit leery of McCain.

That’s it. That is the only reason I can think of for McCain to have picked her. She makes guys like James Dobson more comfortable. The thing is, guys like Dobson were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Is t possible those guys would stay at home and vote for no one? Yeah, I suppose it is. But I don’t think that a VP candidate really motivates anyone to vote unless there is some special tie between the voter and the VP. I guess that in the end this will shore up McCain with the base he needs to hold on to, but it still does very little to expand McCain’s reach.

It seems obvious that McCain is trying to reach out to disaffected Hillary Democrats. All those PUMAs who were saying that they would vote for McCain over Obama really must have sent a message to McCain and he seems to think that if he can shave off some of Obama’s natural support, he has a better chance of winning. Well, here is the thing that strikes me: All those Hillary Democrats were telling Obama not to pick Kathleen Sebelius because Obama can’t choose just any woman. I had to have been Hillary. A lot of those PUMAs viewed any woman not named Hillary Clinton as being a lame sop to getting the real thing. It is my hope and belief that all those woman who told Obama “don’t you DARE pick any woman other than Hillary” will now tell McCain “Don’t you DARE believe that we are going to be fooled by this cynical ploy and that simply having a woman on the ticket will get you our vote.” Sarah Palin is not a champion of women’s rights, she is not a champion for gay rights and she and Hillary Clinton are about as far apart on most issues as any two people could be. If these so-called PUMAs actually fall for this and vote for McCain based on the fact that he chose a woman, they are more idiotic and easily manipulated than I ever gave hem credit for being.

A popular reason for bringing in a particular VP is the belief that they shore up a perceived weakness in the résumé of the candidate. Barack Obama went with Joe Biden to offset a perceived lack of experience with regard to national security and foreign relations. Another reason to bring on a VP is to bring in a state the candidate himself would not likely get; Obama considered Tim Kaine as his VP to possibly bring Virginia to the Democrats when the electoral votes were counted. Yet another reason many candidates bring in a given VP is to broaden the candidate’s appeal; Obama is also thought to have selected Biden because of Biden’s appeal to working class white voters.

By any of these measures the choice of Palin makes no sense. Alaska is so red it’s bloody. She didn’t bring McCain a state that was previously not in play, so the geography theory is out. She is very young, but her age and inexperience highlight McCain’s age (one of his biggest weaknesses) and prevents McCain from arguing about Obama’s ostensible youth and inexperience. She doesn’t have any great domestic policy skills or experience that would suggest that she is shoring up McCain’s admitted weaknesses on the economy or fiscal policy.

In short this makes no sense. The only reason I can come up with is that McCain is cynically manipulating PUMAs into believing that a vote for him is really a vote for Hillary. I guess one advantage is that it will be tougher (supposedly) for Biden to really go into “attack dog” mode lest it look like he is beating up on a girl, but that’s only one debate in a campaign full of non-joint appearances.

This week was already good for Obama, McCain just made it better.

What Hillary Must Do

This is going to be a short post but I have been spending the morning hearing all about PUMAs and Hillary Clinton and how she might still be a sore loser over all of this. Mark Halperin, just this morning on George Stephanopoulos' show said that he believes we will actually have Democratic delegates saying, on the floor of the convention, that they will be voting for John McCain. The latest offense is that Hillary Clinton was never "seriously" vetted for VP.

First of all, this credibility of the so-called PUMAs is already debatable. If these PUMAs are so in favor of Clinton, why have they done so little to help her retire her campaign debt? I read recently that she still has tens of millions in campaign debt and that she has had very little success in getting it pared down. So, it would appear that these PUMAs are all in love with Hillary until they finally get some skin in the game in which case their loyalty is a lot shallower.

Still, these people also have the right to vote and they are threatening to leave Obama for John McCain. This cannot be allowed to happen. I am getting kind of tired of Hillary Clinton's wistful and insencere "endorsements" of Obama and I am also sick of hearing all the whining from a bunch of knuckleheads who lost fair and square. your girl had a chance and she blew it. get over it. And I am sick of the Clintons (despite being a big fan) and the way they cannot seem to really come across as if they mean it when they "support" Obama. Hillary, it is still not too late for you to be President some day but it will be if you do not get 100% behind Obama now and stop this intra-party internecine squabbling. You have the ability, you just have to want to do it.

And here is how you do it. When you give your speech at the DNC later this week you must say "I support Barack Obama for President and so must you. (Here is the critical part) Anyone who says they support me but will vote for John McCain does not support me, they do not share my views, they do not want what I want for this country. I disown the support of those who would favor John McCain, an anti-choice Republican, over a loyal and true Democrat like Barack Obama."

I know how simple this seems but she hasn't been able to pull the trigger on this. I get that still still likes the fawning attention and I am sure that having been First Lady and the one-time presumptive nominee can be more than a bit intoxicating. Still, she isn't going to be President for at least four years and if I hear that she hasn't done everything within her power to get this job for Obama, I will do everything I can to make sure she never gets the job at all.

I am sick of Hillary and her PUMAs dividing my party. She is the only one who can stop it and as a loyal Democrat who supported her husband through thick and thin, I DEMAND that she make this problem disappear. Before it is too late.

How do you Solve a Problem Like Jerome Corsi?

There they go again. The right wing smear machine that devastated John Kerry with their “swift boat” ads back in 2004 is at it again, still led my Jerome Corsi. Corsi, for those who do know, is the liar who wrote “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” amd who has just released version 2.0, entitled "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," which is, according to some reports, an even more inadequately sourced and researched book than the one he wrote about Kerry. In the latest book Corsi repeats and rehashes lots of the same slurs and lies that have been leveled against Obama before and have already been discredited.

Unfortunately, this book may pose a real threat to Obama. Not that it SHOULD mind you, but given how the Swift Boat mess scuttled Kerry before even his convention, Obama pretty mush is required to respond to this is some way or another. The problem is how. How does Obama respond to the smears when they aren’t being even perpetrated by John McCain?

With all due humility, I do have an idea. You know how many political ads you see where someone urges you to “call George W. Bush and tell him to say ‘no’ to big oil companies”? Obviously, these ads are popular with lots of politicians and lots of §527s for lots of different issues. Why can’t Obama create an ad that talks about Corsi’s book and how it’s all slander and lies. Run a few quotes from MSM sources that talk about how the book is complete bullshit.

Then, the kicker: Have the announcer say “Call John McCain. Tell him to denounce the slanders and false attacks.” Flash the 800 number up on the screen where people call and then wait.

This would, in my estimation, put McCain in the uncomfortable position of having to respond to attacks he didn’t issue but which he won’t otherwise denounce. At first he will probably talk about how “it’s a free country and I don’t know what he wrote since I haven’t read the book” but this puts Obama in the driver’s seat. Obama can then say “John McCain represent’s destructive politics as usual. A man wrote a book with the stated intent of getting John McCain elected President and to do that, he had to fill the book with lies. John McCain won’t renounce those attacks even though hundreds of unbiased media outlets, the people John McCain has called his “base,” have said they’re lies.

If Obama does this, he gets to claim the high road, he gets to put John McCain on the defensive for an unscrupulous hit he didn’t order and that is what Obama needs here. Obama cannot win with this issue, but if he plays it correctly, he can neutralize it, which is probably about the best he can hope for. And that is probably all he needs.

It is Time for a Barackattack. Or is that Obamattack?

I am getting chills. Cold shivers. I’ve felt this way before. I felt it in the icy grip of Lee Atwater as he worked hard to make Willie Horton the biggest threat to white people since the Black Death. I have been feeling it for the better part of ten years as Karl Rove slandered and vilified honorable men who would dare get in Rove’s way as he pursued more and more power. I see it in the history books as Donald Segretti and Howard Hunt and their “ratfucking” ways. I smelled it four years ago in the Swift Boat ads. And it is happening again.

John McCain, who cannot win this election on the issues, is adopting a strategy that has Karl Rove’s greasy, stubby fingerprints all over it. McCain has released new ads entitled “Celebrity” and “The One” to great fanfare and uneven disgust across the country. And I am afraid it is going to work.

In case people aren’t familiar, the “Celebrity” ad uses Paris Hilton and Britney Spears to point out how famous Barack Obama is and to point out that his fame, like that of Britney and Paris, does not make him capable of leading the US. In “The One” McCainholds up Obama as some great messianic figure even comparing him to Moses (as played by Charlton Heston) and saying that “he may be ‘The One’ but is he ready to lead.”

These ads are pretty gross. First, I am a little surprised that no one has thought to ask why McCain didn’t just use his home video footage of Moses since they are roughly the same age, bit never mind that. The problem with celebrity is that McCain is suing code words (and young white women) in the same way white women were used to stir up racial prejudice against Harold Ford in the last election. Put a black man with a white woman and you pretty much set the table for at least 584 racially prejudicial clichés. And the same thing is true of “The One” although it goes out of its way to appeal less to people’s fear of the big black Buck dating a white girl (especially a couple of ingénues like Spears and Hilton), it still has all the same code words inherent to racism. Instead of calling Obama “uppity,” they now call him arrogant. With a nod to Jon Stewart, I’d like to point out that McCain and Obama are running to be the leader of the free word; how can you assume you are up to that task without being arrogant? Well, you can do it if you are an idiot like George W. Bush.

Anyway, like I was saying, all of this is really, REAALLY familiar. It reminds me of Willie Horton, of the Swift Boat bullshit, of constantly accusing Al Gore of being a liar. And, for the time being at least, it is working. McCain has dominated a couple of weeks of news cycles and while I think that there are a few angry outbursts and senior moments yet to come (not to mention a few more pre-cancerous liver spots to be removed), I don’t think Obama can depend on them.

It is time for Obama to attack. If there is one lesson democrats should have learned by now but do not seem to grasp it is that when the other guy hits you below the belt, you need to kick him in the junk. It’s like the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm of the Cold War. The Soviets knew that if they launched at us, we’d launch right back and, therefore, they did not ever begin a nuclear war. Bill Clinton was the first guy since Lyndon Johnson who was willing to get his knuckles a little bloody and his clothes a little dirty if it meant stopping the other guy from telling lies, spreading innuendo and appealing to the baser instincts of people everywhere. Since Lyndon Johnson ran his famous “Daisy” we have had Nixon with his “Southern Strategy” (also a big ol’ kiss to racists everywhere), Reagan who didn’t need to run dirty, Bush the Elder who allowed Lee Atwater to arrange for Willie Horton’s coming out party and Dubya, who may have run the two greasiest campaigns ever. The only Democrats who won in that time period were Jimmy Carter, who was able to win because Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate coverup and Bill Clinton, who demonstrated a willingness to play dirty if it meant détente between the campaigns. In other words, the only Democrat to win the presidency since LBJ was a guy who ran against Watergate and even HE couldn’t win reelection.

The lessons of the past are clear. Barack Obama needs to go on the offensive. W e keep hearing about how sharp his organization is. We hear about how he is a Chicago pol and he knows how to survive a street fight if he has to, even against accomplished hair-pullers and cock-punchers like McCain has running his campaign. Well, then Senator Obama, unleash the hounds, let slip the dogs of war. Go after him. Hard. Hit him in the mouth and knock his fucking dentures down his throat. Because he has won the last two weeks and is showing some discipline at staying on message.

The good news is that most voters (re: people who aren’t geeks like me) haven’t really started paying attention yet and there is plenty of time for you to set up your narrative and the public’s perception of you. You are still not well-defined n the eyes of most voters. But McCain is defining you as I wrote these very words and you are letting him.

Let’s not forget that in August, 2004 the Swift Boat ads were really gearing up and John Kerry ignored them displaying tremendous yet unearned faith in the American public to see though the smears. It didn’t work. Not only did Kerry ignore the smears, he went windsurfing. Sweet Jesus, he went windsurfing.

And now I read that Obama is taking a family vacation to Hawaii. Look, I am all for vacations. I love to take them myself. But I am not running for president. I have been an Obama supporter pretty much this whole time but I have a hard time thinking that Hillary Clinton would be going on vacation right now, no matter how exhausted she might be. I know Obama has family in Hawaii, but how tone deaf do you have to be to purport to represent the general American public and take a vacation most people cannot even hope to afford? Fuel prices are skyrocketing and you are taking your family to Hawaii. This makes no sense. It’s not quite as bad as windsurfing, but it is just not a good idea.

Senator Obama, you are carrying the hopes of hundreds of millions of people on your shoulders. I am begging you to get off the bench and get in the game. Don’t go to Hawaii; stay here (send the wife and kids if you like) and take care of business. Do not let McCain further define you while it is within your power to define yourself. Do not be the John Kerry/Al Gore/George McGovern/Michael Dukakis who stays the course and tries to appeal to people’s better natures. Instead, appeal to their base instincts, incite some anger in them and direct it where it needs to go and I suspect you will see McCain stop this shit amy maybe decide to talk about the actual issues for once. I doubt it, because once you get him talking about the issues, he can’t win. But you cannot get him to talk about the issues as long as you let him keep wailing on you and don’t give him a reason to stop.

It is time to attack, ruthlessly, relentlessly and without remorse or pause. You can do it.

Penn & Teller Are Full of Bullshit!

OK, this is getting done just a wee bit late. I have been on vacation for the last week (of course, it’s been a good long time since I posted anything anyway, so vacation isn’t a great excuse), but I just cannot let go of the otherwise pretty good Showtime television show “Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!” For the two of you reading this blog who may not know, this is a show where magicians/anti-magicians/famed libertarians Penn & Teller destroy what they view as myths, fables and other stuff hat has a pseudo-scientific bent but is actually worthless. For the most part, I enjoy the show. Some of the things they go after are good targets, like PETA. Some of the things they defend are ridiculous, like Wal-Mart or their supposed libertarian stance on gun control. I have been waiting for this entire season for them to go after something where I think they are wrong and it took them a few weeks, but they finally did it last week. When they went after the “gren movement.”

Now, Penn & Teller were careful to technically only go after the green “movement” and not after global warming and I will get to that in a minute but first let me set forth a few ground rules before I go after these two knuckleheads and their spurious sourcing.

I am going to say whether Penn & Teller are full of bullshit using common sense. I don’t have the time or the inclination to do any actual research but then they don’t do any either and they have a much bigger budget than me. That’s it. I’m going to point out, based on my memory of what they said and just using my brain, how absolutely full of shit they are on the “green movement” and, more broadly, global warming.

First, let’s dispatch with haste what they got right: They had on some ridiculous “eco-therapist” who helped people assuage their guilt over what we are doing to the planet with some new age-y therapy, some “river rocks” she picked up from a parking lot and walking a labyrinth. That woman is a stone idiot or she is brilliant for being able to carve out a living peddling bullshit to credulous people. That being said, I cannot let it go hat Penn even got it wrong when this woman had her clients walk some sort of eco-labyrinth. Penn really lit into her and said that it’s a maze because there are choices. Well, I didn’t look at it all that clearly because the show didn’t give us very much time to look at it, but it certainly appeared to be a labyrinth. Penn is right, a maze is when you have choices and dead ends while a labyrinth is simply a planned but circuitous route that you have to walk but which allows you to contemplate whatever is on your mind. Clearly the woman is an idiot, but it strikes me that they were all walking the entire thing together, which is something that would be more fitting for a labyrinth and not a maze. In any case, this woman is stupid and is peddling bullshit.

Other than her, P&T should pretty much be ashamed of themselves. They went out of their way to expose a woman who owns a business that allows people to purchase carbon offsets to “equal out” the carbon they produce. Yes, we all love it when someone gets roasted for being a hypocrite and a woman who claims to be interested in preventing global warming but drives a Range Rover (like this lady) certainly appears to deserve that roasting, but P&T didn’t even bother to ask this woman how she invests the money she gets from people who purchase these offsets from her. I agree with P&T that this woman didn’t appear to be applying any actual science to her offset purchase plan and I think she should be regulated, but would it be too much to ask where she sends the money she gets from the “sale” of these offsets? Does she actually keep the money she makes? Does she send it to groups like the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society who have it as their mandate to conserve resources? Is she buying stock in companies that are ecologically friendly or maybe shares in a “green” mutual fund? We do not know because Penn & Teller couldn’t be bothered to ask or if they did ask, they didn’t bother to tell us what they found out. It is indeed possible that this woman is a scam artist and a hypocrite, but these guys didn’t even try to tell us where the money she raises goes. They certainly told us that the woman is “making money” off the sale of these offsets, but they didn’t tell us how much or give us any details to help us figure out what she was really up to.

Second, they go after Al Gore. Now, I will admit that I am a fan of Al Gore but these guys certainly got very pissy when Gore’s “manager” (I don’t recall the title of the person) declined their interview request because the Nobel laureate and former Vice-President is very busy, which is reasonable because he is, well, a Nobel laureate and former Vice-President. They got all bent out of shape because Gore wouldn’t take the time to go on their bitchy little show and defend himself to them. So they started attacking him both personally and professionally. Wow. Way to maintain your credibility there guys. I’m sure that if I got through to your management they would be more than willing to book you on some public access TV show I might choose to produce to quiz you about your views on global warming, right? Of course not. You guys are as important to Al Gore as I am to you and I have even paid to see your live show as well as bought several of your books but do you think you would be within your rights to reject my request to appear on my public access TV show? Of course you would.

And then you get on with the old straw man attack on Al Gore about what an “energy hog” he is and how he uses more electricity, by some enormous factor, than does an “average” individual. As if that proves anything. A l Gore is wealthy and, if I am not mistaken, he lives in the same house that has been in his family for generations. It’s a big house owned by a wealthy man but to somehow live in a big house in which he grew up makes him some sort of hypocrite. And it’s not good enough for you that Gore is going to retrofit his home with solar panels and compact fluorescent lights either. It’s ridiculous. Nobody, not even Al Gore, is saying we should live our lives without a carbon footprint; it’s simply not possible. But to be as carbon neutral as possible is a worthwhile goal, don’t you think?

And yet, when you discuss the carbon offsets trading company that Gore formed, all you can do is attack him for making money off reducing the carbon footprint of humanity. I am so sick of supposed free-market libertarians who attack people who try to do well while also doing good. I don’t see why you object to Gore making money off of what he views is a good business. You guys are more than willing to defend legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, fucking Wal-Mart and limitless ownership of guns but you have such a problem with a guy making an already-legal buck in a business that he happens to think also has benefits for society. Are you saying he should do this for free? Doesn’t that undercut all of your talk about free markets and being able to make money? How is it that you can defend Wal-Mart for taking advantage of a free market when you KNOW they make money off of mistreated workers all over the world (including their own workers) but scream about Al Gore making money for doing something he believes in? You’re trying to expose him as a charlatan but what you really are doing is destroying your own credibility. You cannot have it both ways, boys.

And speaking of free markets, as your biggest denier of global warming and/or the effect of carbon in the atmosphere, you go to some guy who proudly decrees that he heads a “free market think tank” and then you let him blather on about how 97% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere today is from decaying plants and volcanoes? Really? The head of a “free market think tank” wants to deny the effects of carbon or the sources of it? Did you guys think to ask him how he makes HIS money? I don’t know, but I will wager a dollar that this guy makes his money either from his own carbon-producing concerns or from donations to his “think tank” by other carbon-producing concerns. You want to rail against Al Gore and some other woman who sells carbon offsets for making money off their positions on global warming but you don’t even think to ask this fucking guy how he makes HIS money? This is just like the “scientists” who are paid by tobacco companies to deny that smoking causes cancer except we KNOW who writes the checks to the scientists and with you we don’t.

And later, in an effort to dull the argument that maybe his guy has a point of view that leads him to take a stance that is profitable to him, you say something like “we talked to a LOT of people who are in general agreement” with what this guys says about 97% of all atmospheric CO2 being the result of plant decay and volcanoes. Really? Who are they and why didn’t you identify any of them? If the BEST guy you can get to support your position is the head of a free market think tank, one might assume that the other people you got are all coal company executives, Chinese government officials who want to deny the effect China is having on the planet and Karl Rove. And why didn’t you interview any credible scientists who think that CO2 emissions are actually contributing to global warming? You talk to this knucklehead without proffering any scientific credentials but just allow him to baldly assert that 97% of all atmospheric CO2 comes from sources that have nothing to do with humanity but instead of having a scientist who actually understands global warming and might have some credibility on the subject, you offer an “eco-therapist” and some guy who writes a well-intentioned (but seriously lacking in expertise) book about how to reduce one’s own carbon footprint.

Why is that again? Oh that’s right, this show is supposedly about the green “movement” and not so much about global warming. But, then, why did you have on the free market think tank guy again? He really talked about carbon and didn’t have much to say about whether the green movement is or is not bullshit. His argument wasn’t so much that global warming doesn’t exist (although he is a denier) but that the carbon we are arguing about doesn’t come from humanity. Very clever fellas.

Oh, and the weatherman you used? The guy who was on the Today show back in the 1960s or whenever? That was a refutation of global warming. Again, he didn’t comment on the green movement, he just said that the earth’s weather patterns have correlated with the sun’s activity and output. What bullshit. First of all, there is a difference between climate and weather and you don’t point out how this guy knows the fucking difference and second, this is a denial that global warming exists. You guys need to grow a dick because you are letting all your surrogates say that global warming doesn’t exist but then at the very end of the show you say that you simply don’t know whether it exists or not. Maybe you don’t really know, but it’s pretty obvious that you wanted to deny it but don’t have the balls to do it yourself so you let washed up celebrities and “think tanks” of unknown provenance say them for you.

Penn & Teller, you guys are chock full of bullshit.

Senator Clinton? It's Time to Go.

I am a huge fan of Bill Clinton. Even though he was never quite liberal enough for me and even though he was a bit manipulative and cynical for my tastes and even though he squandered so many opportunities by indulging in his taste for zaftig women, I have always admired the man. I was born during the Johnson administration and I am not sure I have seen a better politician in my life than Bubba. And I have long admired his wife; I believe she has massive strength to go through the Republican’s treatment if her and the complicity of the mainstream media in those attacks. While she was not my first choice for President, had she been the nominee, I would have supported her without hesitation. I would have sent her money, I would have worked for her and I would have done anything else I could have to see that she won t he presidency. Unlike a lot of people I didn’t begrudge her staying in the race even as it became less and less likely that she could ever secure the nomination. While I would have preferred that she get out awhile ago and allowed the campaign against John McCain to proceed, it was her right to stay in and it was also good for all the states that held their contests later in the cycle to finally have a say in choosing the nominee.

But yesterday’s results in North Carolina and Indiana have changed all of that. It is time for Senator Clinton, for the sake of her party and the sake of her legacy, to drop out of this race. I know this will be difficult for her. Less than one year ago she was all but the presumptive nominee and the primary season was a conclusion that had been reached and merely had to be played out. She has already lived in the White House and she knows all the good she could do as President. I get it. But she still has to quit.

She has been reduced to relying on ever more outlandish schemes to keep alive her hopes of getting the nomination. A couple of weeks ago it was all about her momentum and the fact that Obama had never won an actual primary election in a large state; all he had won were caucuses as if the opinions of people in Texas mattered less. Then it was all about who could reach the blue-collar workers better and just wait until we show that he cannot connect with rank-and-file Joe Sixpack –type voters.

And lately she has been employing her weakest but still most potentially divisive attack yet: She is arguing that the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated exactly as they have been allotted. I find this argument to be repugnant. Michigan and Florida knew full well that they were jumping the queue and t hat they would be penalized if they held their contests before their sanctioned time and they did it anyway. And all the candidates agreed with them being penalized, Sen. Clinton too. Her name was the only one even on the ballot in Michigan and she and Sen. Obama both agreed to not campaign there or in Florida. And Sen. Clinton won both of those contests back when she was an even stronger candidate. Now she wants those results upheld because of the principal issue of “fairness” as she sees it. This is ridiculous; to allow the seating of those delegates would undermine the process that all the candidates agreed to before the primary season even started and it would encourage future states to jump ahead of their “turn” without fear of repercussion.

The fact that Clinton is willing to place her own desire to be President ahead of what is good for the party. The kind of credentials battle and floor fight she is proposing would be devastating and would stall any campaign Obama wanted to get going. As long as Clinton was able to draw breath, well, I don’t like it but I could understand and accept it. But the game has now changed: She is out of money, she got creamed in North Carolina and barely won (assuming she did at all) in Indiana, a state she more or less admitted she needed to win to continue. Now, while she did win it, her margin was paper thin and significantly undercuts her ability to argue that she has demonstrated that Obama can’t win in the Midwest or with the white middle class. Certainly she won the white vote but it is naïve to accept that people who voted for Clinton will refuse to vote for Obama. Yes, there will be some soreheads out there who will refuse to get behind Obama for one reason or another, but I believe that most Democrats will come home for the election, especially after the campaign against John McCain begins in earnest.

It appears, to her credit, that Senator Clinton knows she is beaten. She loaned her campaign $6.4MM between mid-April and May 5th but if she is that low on money it means that donors are leaving her and she can’t continue. At some point it becomes a case of good money after bad. She canceled her morning media appearances today and she may be thinking of her exit strategy. Her “victory” speech and email sounded, as Keith Olberman said, “austere” and it certainly seems like she knows the end is nigh.

When you add it all together, this campaign has become untenable. It is a house of cards suddenly built on a tower in a high wing on a fault line. She is relying increasingly on kooky theories as to how she can get enough delegates and those theories all seem to involve seating the full contingents of Michigan and Florida and convincing superdelegates that she is still deserving of their support. She has not money except her own.

It’s time for Senator Clinton to do the honorable thing and step aside and help her party take back the White House before she does real damage.

Why I Am No Longer Mad at Roy Williams (Part II)

Kansas- 75
Memphis- 68

Why I Am No Longer Mad at Roy Williams

North Carolina- 66

Kansas- 84

Why I'm Still Mad at Roy Williams

For those of you who don’t know (which is to say everybody), I am a fan of the University of Kansas. A big fan. I wish I could afford season tickets to see my beloved Jayhawks play basketball but I have to feed the kids and keep the electric bill paid. So, I content myself with season tickets for football and a game or two at Allen Fieldhouse every season and the rest I watch on TV. It’s a very bog deal when the KU game is on hi-def. As you might expect, I am trembling with excitement about this weekend’s Final Four. I will be rooting for KU to win it all and I will especially be rooting for KU during the Saturday game with North Carolina.

As you may know, North Carolina is coached by Roy Williams a man formerly held in high esteem by KU fans everywhere and who is now somewhat vilified by a significant section of the KU population. Ever since KU and UNC made the Final Four we have been treated to a non-stop barrage of stories about Roy Williams and Kansas and why KU fans need to get over it. We have heard from Williams’ friends, former players and even a few “average” fans. To me, none of the articles seem to “get” the point about Roy Williams and his connection to KU. What follows is my opinion and I don’t know how many people agree with me or even if anyone does at all.

I am one of the people who is still angry with Roy Williams. I don’t hold the vitriol for him that so many people seem to have but I am also not yet at the “let bygones be bygones” stage with Roy. I would have to say that I am somewhere in the middle. I am softening somewhat on Roy but every time I read some story where some close friend of his tells me that I need to get over it, I get angry all over again. Roy isn’t helping this with his constant line about giving his “heart, body and soul” to KU either.

Before I get to explaining why I think about Roy the way I do, I think a little history lesson might be in order. Roy Williams came to KU on the heels of Larry Brown, a short-tenured but highly successful coach who, in a five year span, went to two Final Fours, won one NCAA championship and produced an All-American and player of the year. Larry Brown was completely beloved in Lawrence his entire time. He made Kansas basketball relevant one more time and he restored a proud and historical program. Keep in mind, before Brown, KU was coached by James Naismith who, in a stunning bit of irony remains the only KU coach with a career losing record. KU had won an NCAA championship under Phog Allen, the father of Basketball Coaching and had possibly the game’s most dominant player ever, Wilt Chamberlain. Under Ted Owns, Larry Brown’s predecessor, KU had some significant success but also had eventually fallen off the pace of the other blueblood basketball programs.

While Larry Brown brought back the swagger, KU was forced to confront Larry’s penchant for moving al over the place. He was a true itinerant coach. From the moment he arrived at KU we were force fed the idea that Larry Brown would eventually leave us. We loved Larry Brown and, despite the fact that he put KU on NCAA probation that prevented us from defending our national title, he is still a hero to many, myself included. The entire time Brown was here KU fans only wanted to hear him profess that he loved us as much as we loved him. He never did. While he has recently admitted that he regrets having left KU and still has a great deal of affection for the place, the fact remains that at the time, Brown didn’t return to us the love we gave him. All KU fans wanted was our own Dean Smith, our own Jon Wooden, our own Adolph Rupp. Yes, we did have Phog Allen but he was finished coaching before I was even born and I don’t have any memories of him at all. We wanted that coach who gave us the same undying affection we would give him. We wanted that guy who was identified as and synonymous with “Kansas Basketball.” Sadly, Larry never gave it to us but he did win us a national championship before leaving KU on probation. Despite this, he is still largely revered as a hero at KU and no one begrudges him his itinerant ways. Besides, no one can say we didn’t know what we were getting when we hired him.

Into this arena steps Roy Williams and he is an overnight sensation. He is an immediate success at KU. Despite the fact that he had never been anything other than an assistant for Dean Smith at North Carolina, KU hired him and KU fell in love with him. He won, he was dignified, he was classy and he was charming.
Still, Roy never gave us that unconditional declaration of affection we KU fans were after. Every year it seemed that one program or another called Roy to gauge his interest in taking their job. Some of those jobs would be seen as “inferior.” I recall once that the University of Tennessee called Roy to see if they could tempt him. He practically had a standing offer from the Los Angeles Lakers to take over as their coach anytime he wanted the job. I recall once, on Roy’s weekly call-in show, a woman asking Coach Williams why he always listened to those job offers and why didn’t he just tell the world that he wasn’t interested in leaving KU. Roy’s answer was eminently reasonable and he said that he owed it to himself and his family to listen to anyone who wanted to talk to him. While he couldn’t imagine a situation that would be better than what he had at KU, he would be a fool to not at least listen to what the other job had to offer. While KU didn’t like to hear this sort of thing, no one could deny that he was being reasonable and, besides, he said he loved KU, even if he didn’t say he would stay forever.

One other thing we had to constantly deal with as a result of Roy’s success was the constant barrage of calls that Roy Williams would replace Dean Smith the second Dean decided to retire from North Carolina. Roy used to shrug this off by remarking that the man who replaced Dean Smith at North Carolina is a fool and, UNC defused the situation when Dean retired by announcing that assistant coach Bill Guthridge would take over immediately as Dean’s replacement so there was no great public gnashing of teeth over what would happen next. But a few years later Guthridge retired and everyone knew that Roy was going to be the target.

And he was. UNC came after Roy like a lion after a limping gazelle. And Roy listened. And he thought. And he thought some more. Meanwhile, the entire city of Lawrence, Kansas threw a huge love-in for Roy. People pasted notes to the windows of Allen Fieldhouse, sent him flowers and loving emails, publicly begged him to stay. After about a week of being told how great he was, Roy Williams decided to stay at KU. While doing so he also said that he was never going through this again and that the next time he had a press conference to announce career plans it would be to announce his retirement or that he had been fired.

The celebration in Lawrence was enormous. The outpouring of love had finally been reciprocated. We had our Dean Smith/John Wooden/Mike Krzyzewski-type coach. Roy would be associated with Kansas basketball forever. God damn we were happy. After years of Larry Brown’s roving eye and twelve more of Roy taking calls from the Lakers and other colleges, we knew we had our man for good and forever. No more worries about North Carolina stealing our coach or the Lakers buying him out from under us. He had just said what we had wanted to hear years before he ever even got to Lawrence.

Of course, as we know now, it didn’t last. The Tar Heels hired Matt Doherty who came in and recruited brilliantly but was too much of a disciplinarian for a lot of his players. Three years later, in response to a player revolt, North Carolina fired Matt Doherty. During that three years, the Athletic Director who hired Roy to come to KU retired and KU went out and hired a search firm that recommended that KU hire a dithering idiot, Al Bohl, as the new AD. From the beginning Roy, by all appearances, hated Bohl. Roy, who could have had anything he wanted, did not request a space on the search committee and he did not make much input into the decision on the new AD.

Despite Roy’s promises of eternal fidelity, it was obvious that the new vacancy at North Carolina represented a real threat to keeping Roy at Kansas. In response to this, and knowing that Roy had become unhappy with how things had become in the Athletic Department, KU fired Bohl, signaling that it wanted to keep Roy Williams happy at KU. Nevertheless, UNC aggressively wooed Roy Williams and finally hired him, about one week after Roy had KU appearing in the NCAA championship game. Immediately following the game Roy had famously said that he didn’t “give a shit about North Carolina.”
As you can imagine, there were, and are, a lot of hurt feelings in Lawrence. Benedict Williams t-shirts started appearing and a lot of anguish was expressed by KU fans. Additionally, there was some taunting of KU by North Carolina fans. It was a very difficult time for KU fans everywhere. We felt as if we had been punched in the gut. It was as if we had been dumped by our one true love who also told us that she would love us forever. Or some other metaphor.

Shortly thereafter KU hired Bill Self away from Illinois, inducing a similarly anguished reaction from Illini fans all over the county. Bill Self as gone on to be a great success at KU and I, like most other KU fans are grateful he is here with us.

But this upcoming Final Four has a lot of people anguishing over Roy yet again. We have multiple stores by the national media quoting Roy’s friends and former players telling people with hurt feelings to get over it. They all talk about this and ask who has never changed jobs? Who has never moved? They remind us that Roy was from North Carolina and that he had family there and he wanted to be close to them. And they are right. All of those things are true. Roy did and does have the right to take any job he wants for any reason he wants and those reasons are valid.

At the same time, I get pissed off at Roy every time he gets on television to tell people that he was treated harshly by KU and that for fifteen years he “gave [his] heart, body and soul” to KU and how special he thinks it is. It’s like Roy doesn’t realize that he did make promises to KU. They were, admittedly, promises he didn’t have to honor and may have even had good reasons to go back on but that doesn’t mean that his doing so didn’t hurt. He can talk all he wants about how much he still loves KU and how we’re still his second favorite team, but the fact of the matter is that he told us what we wanted to hear and that we believed. And when he exercised the right to change his mind, he thinks that the pain we felt is somehow not reasonable.

I want to make it clear: Roy Williams had every right to do what he wanted and he had every right to change his mind and his job. But I will also maintain that we KU fans had every reason to feel hurt by Roy’s actions. It may not be fair, but Roy isn’t dealing with only his legacy, he is also dealing with that o Larry brown. He has to accept that KU fans believed him, took him at his word and invested emotionally in the “promises” he made. And it’s always easier in a relationship for the person doing the leaving to get over it than the person who was left behind. Again, it may not be fair but I really don’t understand how Roy and all his surrogates can be so blind to this.

Speaking of his surrogates, one of Roy’s closest friends is, apparently, Randy Towner. Towner is the golf pro at Alvamar Country Club in Lawrence. He is quoted today as saying that there is no bigger KU fan than him but he will be rooting for North Carolina this weekend. He says, essentially, that Roy is his “brother” and that’s different. Well, Randy, I have news for you, there are lots of people who are bigger KU fans than you. I am not telling you that you should root for KU over Roy and his Tar Holes; that’s between you, your conscience and Roy. I would always cheer for my brother over my alma mater. But if you want KU to lose a game, you aren’t as big a fan as me. I’m sorry, but it’s true. I never want KU to lose a single game to anyone ever. Fortunately, my brother is also a KU fan and isn’t in danger of putting me in a position where I have to choose. But if you want KU to lose this game, no matter how noble your reasons, you aren’t the biggest fan. I wonder, when you and Roy play golf, do you throw games for him? I mean, I assume you try to beat him when you play him, right? So why is it OK for you to root against KU tomorrow but still think of yourself as a big fan when you don’t even want Roy to win a meaningless round of gold when you play him? I know, it’s a stupid question but I want you to think about it before you tell me what a huge fan of KU you think you are but cannot cheer for them to win in the Final Four.

And as for you, Coach Williams, shut up with that heart, body and soul talk. Every time you start in with that crap you make it sound like you got the short end of the stick in some uneven trade. What did you ever want but not get from KU? You had a loyal fan base who would have given you anything you wanted for as long as you were here. You got unmitigated love from KU and you had undying devotion. Never mind the money. I am so sick of you going on and on about how much you gave us but never seeming to think about how much you got in return.

Elliot Spitzer, Meet David Vitter, Larry Craig and Mark Foley

And the hypocrisy machine rolls on.

The news on Elliot Spitzer isn't even half a day old and already there are all sorts of Republicans out there demanding the resignation of Elliot Spitzer who, by the look of things, engaged/employed prostitutes, possibly in violation of the Mann Act, making him subject to Federal prosecution. Pardon me if I don't joing the clamoring throng of people wanting to see Spitzer's head on a stick. I know what Spitzer did was wrong, illegal, possibly immoral (depending on what you believe) and breathtakingly stupid but, hey, he's a Demcorat and sex scandals are our thing.

What I want to know is, where was all this Republican outrage over David Vitter, famous Louisiana Senator and prostitute enthusiast? When Vitter admitted his sins, all the Republican talking heads and their giant noise machine jumped up and down angrily about how Vitter was being railroaded and he didn't have to resign over this because it was a personal matter. Before Mark Foley was forced to quit, Dennis Hastert and the Republican leadership turned a blind eye to Foley's clumsy passes at male Congressional interns. Larry Craig is STILL a member of the US Senate despite having PLEADED GUILTY to "disturbing the peace" in an incident apparently stemming from an attempt to engage in gay anonymous sex in a public bathroom. And, of course, the Republicans made inevitable comparisons to Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton and their attendant sex scandals.

But now they want Spitzer's blood. They don't have the balls to demand that Vitter resign for doing the same thing lest it give the Democrats a larger majority in the Senate but they are happy to take shots at Spitzer. They were impotent in the face of Craig's desire to remain in the Senate despite all of what he had done. One big difference, of course, was that they paid lip service to wanting Craig gone because they knew Craig's replacement would be selected by a Republican governor but they also knew that if Vitter quit, he would be replaced by a Democrat.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending Spitzer. I'm not certain I think he should resign, but I'm not defending him. But Spitzer, who did run on a platform of accountability and stamping out political corruption has never, unlike Vitter, run on a "family values" or "morality" platform. Vitter and Craig both spent so much time railing against gays and people who would destroy our family values but I just do not recall anything like that coming from Spitzer.

So, please, excuse me if I find it difficult to get too wrapped up in all the Reoublican calls for Spitzer's head. You Republicans go clean up your house first and then we can talk.

**********************************

Just so we are clear, let's have a brief rundown of what all the recent and relatively recent sex scandals were about.

Elliot Spitzer: Apparently paid prostitutes for sex although nothing has yet been disclosed. While he has gained political fame for running on an anti-corruption platform, he has not run on a "family values" platform or attacked others for their beliefs on gay marriage or sex outside mariage.

Mark Foley: Forced to resign rom his House seat when it became clear that he was sexually pursuing underage boys who were in the US Capital page program.

David Vitter: Ran on a platform of "family values." His own wife made comparisons between herself and Hilalry Clinton about how much better her marriage was and what punishment she would inflict on her husband if she found out he had been cheating as Bill Clinton had been cheating. Has, I believe, admitted to sexual involvement with prostitutes.

Larry Craig: Criminally charged as a result of an incident involving him cruising for anonymous gay sex in the Minneapolis airport. Later pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace. When the plea was found out ny the public, he attempted to withdraw it and stayed in the Senate. Remains in the Senate despite being unable to withdraw his plea.

So, both parties have sex scandals and both parties act hypocritically in terms of trying to get people to resign as a result of the scandals. The only real difference I can see here is that all those Republicans (except maybe Foley) have run on platforms that put their own personal conduct up to scrutiny. At least Elliott Spitzer isn't one of those guys talking about family values while fucking a hooker. Yes, Vitter, I am talking to you.

Rick Majerus, the Catholic Church and Free Speech

Earlier this week Rick Majerus, the coach of the St. Louis Billikens men’s basketball team was asked by a reporter his views on abortion. Majerus said that he was pro-choice but indicated that it was/is a decision more for women than men and that it was very personal and that a lot of people could have a genuine disagreement of conscience over the subject.

The next thing you know, Raymond Burke, Archbishop of St. Louis, was calling Majerus on the carpet for expressing his opinions while he works for a Catholic university. According to Burke “It's not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions. When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic Church."
OK, first, the Archbishop cannot make this argument. It violates Majerus’ rights to free speech. I know you’re thinking that Majerus is an employee of a private school and they can put any kind of muzzle on him they want. The problem with this is that SLU just got a big dose of public financing for a new basketball place and they got that money by, essentially, arguing that they served the public of St. Louis and were a public facility/utility that warranted public funding. Now, I am not sure I agree with that reasoning, but the fact of the matter is that the Archbishop cannot have it both ways: He cannot say that SLU needs public money and then try to muzzle free speech. If you want public money, you have to live with the public responsibilities. That means that Coach Majerus gets to say what he wants.

But more important to me is how the fuck did Majerus public statements about being pro-choice call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic Church? Now, I am a Catholic although you could say I have lapsed quite a bit and you would be correct. But I do not recall EVER hearing that the “identity and mission” of the Church was being anti-abortion. True, the official position of the Church is to be anti-choice on the subject of abortion and a lot has been said and written by at least the last two Popes about the subject of abortion, but I always thought that the “identity” of the Church was “Christian,” not Anti-Abortion.” And, similarly, I had always thought that the “mission” of the Church was to bring people, souls more precisely, closer to God through his son, Jesus Christ by teaching the Gospel of Christ. And, while I am a bad Catholic, I do not recall Jesus ever saying a word about abortion.

So, to be blunt, according to Burke, the Catholic Church has gone from being a body in Christ whose message is to spread the gospel to being an anti-abortion group whose reason for existence is to stop abortion. That is not the church I signed up for.
I am sure someone out there will say that maybe Jesus didn’t talk about abortion but he sure did talk about how killing people is wrong. True enough. But why is it that Burke has never said anything like this about people who are in favor of the death penalty? I know that Majerus never said anything about the death penalty, but there are plenty of people in Missouri (their governor, Matt Blunt for one, former Senator Jim Talent, a Catholic, I believe, for another) who are against abortion but in favor of capital punishment and have stated their opinions thusly, but the Archbishop has never scolded them in public. And what about pro-choice Catholics like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger; why hasn’t the Archbishop talked about them?
I know that this has ranged a bit far afield but Burke really needs to take a step back and decide if he feels comfortable trying to muzzle public opinion, even if that opinion is of employees of Catholic universities in his bishopric. The First Amendment protects not only Majerus’ right to say what he wants, it protects Burke and his flock’s right to practice whatever religion they want. He should be careful about weakening that Amendment lest it weaken him in the long run.

Spike

Roger Clemens is Guilty. I Think.

Poor, poor Roger Clemens. He gets named by his former trainer and is implicated in the streoid probe that George Mitchell has ben conducting. Now, after the report is out and he has been named as a drug cheat, he goes on the offensive and bitches on 60 Minutes about how this used to be America and you used to be innocent until proven guilty but he just doesn't get that smae respect anymore. This coming from one of the biggest bullies and pains in the ass ever to play the game of baseball.

Don't get me wrong: Clemens was a brilliant pitcher, maybe the best I have personally ever seen and certainly he has the best and longest career of anyone in my lifetime. I will be 42 years old next month. Still, Clemens is a whiny-ass crybaby who should shut his punk ass up. This is the same guy who threw a hunk of broken bat at a runner and who made intimidation-as-pitching an art form.

But more importantly, this is the same guy who chose not to speak with George Mitchell when he was doing his investigation in the first place. he had every opportunity to tell his side of the story, to try and spin it if he had wanted to. Clemens could have taken a cue from politicians and gone out and gotten on message if he had wanted to. He just figured he didn't need to.

And boo-fucking-hoo about his condemnation prior to his conviction. First of all, Roger, that applies to criminal cases and this most certainly is NOT one of those. Yes, I suppose technically you run the risk of true legal jeopardy, but you aren't going to be charged in a criminal case and we all know that. You do have the right to be innocent until proven guilty, just as I have the right to have whatever fucking opinion about you I want to have. You don't go to jail based on what I think but you don't get to stop me from thinking whatever I want, you cheating piece of shit.

And do you know who created this problem in the first place? Drug-cheat athletes and their enabling union, that's who. if you don't want to be pilloried by the public then you should have met with Mitchell. It was your right not to do so but you cannot have it both ways. You can't complain about this perception of you when this is the perception you helped create.

And that goes for all of you cheating jocks out there. Shawne Merriman, I don't care if you served your suspension or not; you're a cheating piece of shit too. I don't care if you took some "dietary supplement" and that is what made you test positive because you are responsible for what goes into your body. Barry Bonds, I've got my eye on you, you drug-tainted cheat.

Look, if a player wants to not talk with a special investogator about his past drug use, that is his right. And I won't quarrel with the guys who chose not to help an investigation unless they refuse to help but them start complaining about how they weren't accurately represented or portrayed in all of this. You want my sympathy? Get out from behind your lawyer and start answering questions honestly. America is a very forgiving place if you ask for forgiveness and admit to being wrong. But these jocks have been in a culture that gives them everything and demands nothing for so long that they have no idea how to actually admit they were wrong. Even Michael Vick denied all the dogfighting stuff untill he was good and caught.

And this reminds me of Mark McGwire, another drug-cheat. Mark, I hope you nevermake it into the Hall of Fame. I was entrhalled that summer you set the record and I never thought you were a cheater. But I think so now. That Congressional testimony was so awesome that it shoudl doom you to chetaer's hell forever and ever. The best part of all was where you knew you couldn't lie because of perjury but you couldn't admit the truth because you are an unrepentant drug cheat. So, whenever you were asked if you did steroids or other illegal drugs you answered that you weren't there to talk about the past, you were there to talk about the present. Which is ridiculous but it also exposed that there are some bad lawyers in Congress. If I were able to ask you questions under oath and you decided to give me that "not the past, the present" line I would have asked you if your name was still in any record books. Do you still possess the Cardinal's team record for home runs in a season? Are there any other records you possess despite being retured? And your name is "presently" in the record book? That would seem to make the questions about your steroid use pretty fucking pertinent to the present, wouldn't it Mark?

I hope Bonds, McGwire, CLemens and all the rest of you drug cheats never make it into the Hall. You should all be ashamed of yourselves you miserable drug cheats.