Vote Dark Horse | Vote Dorshorst

Hello Friends

2008-11-11T16:58:00.000-06:00

Hi there. New to the blog? Sign in here. Any general comments? Criticisms? Suggestions? Topics you’d like to hear my opinion on? This is the place to send whatever you want. I’ll try to respond here or elsewhere.

And please, feel free to leave comments on any of my posts, whether you agree or disagree. Of course, with no comments, I'll assume the former.

Debate III

2008-10-15T18:52:00.020-06:00

Getting ready for the last debate. Watching Section 60, HBO's special on the section of Arlington National Cemetery for Iraq and Afghanistan vets. With all the focus having shifted from Iraq to the economy, the show gave me a little different perspective on the relative importance of the issues. Hey, a lot of people just lost some money, some lost their jobs. Oh no for them!

Before we start this, I know I missed the second debate. Pretty much nothing important was said. And people only remember the beginning and ending of things; the first and last debates are the ones that matter. This is the last debate, the last chance McCain make up a now sizable deficit.

And we begin the LIVE BLOG!

Why can't each guy just get a minute or two for an opening statement? They do it anyway during the first question.

McCain: buying back failed mortgages will be his first priority. McCain want a welfare state where people who can't magage their finances get bailed out by everyone else.

Schieffer: Would you like to ask [Obama] a question? McCain: No. I'd rather just attack him and not give him an opening to respond.

Obama: He's been watching some of McCain's ads. Zing! But seriously, I'm only raising taxes on people making lots of money, because the rich are greedy evil bastards.

Why all this referencing to Joe the Plumber? I didn't see him up there with Goldman Sacs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Merril Lynch, and Morgan Stanley. How's he getting all this free publicity?

Won't some spending have to be cut with $750 billion bailing out Wall Street? -
Obama: I will change some spending to other spending.
McCain: I will build the economy. Nuclear Power! Spending freeze! I oppose subsidies for ethanol. Wow. A specific answer. And one I agree with. That came out of nowhere. I was not expecting that this early.

McCain: "If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." The line of the night. Perfectly played, Senator.

Obama goes back to tying McCain to Bush. You can't do that now. McCain shut that down. You've got to adjust, find a new talking point.

Schieffer: Are either of you man enough to own up to your attack adds and repeat your claims to your candidate's face? Good question.

McCain: Gets defensive, demands apology.

Obama: I also am a coward.

McCain: Brings up Ayers. And ACORN. Really doesn't score any points with it.

Schieffer: Give some ups for your running mate.

Obama: By the way, Biden is pretty blue collar.

McCain: Defending Palin. Straight face so far. She's a maverick. And she has a retard baby.

Schieffer: How much will you reduce foreign oil. Give a specific number.

McCain: We can reduce buying oil from Venezuela by spending more on Canadian oil.

Obama: I also will not answer the question.

Schieffer: Health Care!

Obama: Let people buy into same health care plan as federal employees.

McCain: Follow example of the Veterens' Hospital. He lost me there.

Obama's plan sounds like it would work fine. It might be expensive to taxpayers, but it would work.

McCain: Obama and those Democrats in Congress! (preview of next post)

Schieffer: Nominate judges supporting Roe v. Wade?

McCain: I'd rather not answer. Interesting.

Obama: I will uphold Roe V. Wade.

McCain: I don't know how you vote 'present' on a bill regarding abortion. I usually just am not present.

Schieffer: US Education sucks. Discuss.

Obama: Early childhood is important because our parents are horrible. $4000 credit for service. Sounds good.

McCain: Public schools suck. Let's stop funding them.

Closing Statements!

McCain: I am a Mavrik! You can trust me. I've served my country my entire life. I've never held a real job.

Obama: Bush sucks. McCain is old.

Tom Brokow: The real winner tonight: Joe Wurzelbacher, Plumber, of Toledo Ohio. Let's give him another mention.

Coming up on NBC: people who should have been the VP nominees, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

Romney: I may seem to be in denial, but I really am just a tool of my party.

Clinton: I think Obama will actually win so I'd better support him.

Fact Check: McCain has only aired 70% negative ads. Focused primarily on swing states.

The real loser: Every network, for buying into the false assumption that Obama and McCain are the only possible choices. Heck, I can't even constitutionally be President, but technically I am still a choice.

Debate I and a half

2008-10-02T19:05:00.022-06:00

It's time for the Veep debates. I, like most of you, will be watching it as one watches NASCAR, hoping to see some crashes, maybe getting to see someone get seriously hurt. *Darn it, everyone else is using the same Nascar metaphor. I thought I was clever.*

Palin says she is part of a team of mavericks. Sarah Palin is not a maverick.

Palin says the economic crisis is not our fault. Yes it is! Why is a crackpot like me the only one with the balls to call America out?

Palin: "I may not answer the questions the way you might like to hear." - I won't actually be answering your questions.

Biden is on the attack early. What's the difference between Biden and a pit bull? One eats its own poop. And is a dog.

Does anyone think Palin's voice is getting annoying? You're darn right.

Biden: I agree with the Governor. The Dems are making an effort to say they agree. Also I think the decision to only refer to Palin as "The Governor" was a good call.

Palin: "A toxic mess on main street that is affecting Wall Street." Perhaps she does have the balls to call out America. Or maybe she doesn't know the words that she is saying.

Ifill transitions from energy to climate. Watch out for her.

Biden: John McCain may be for everything as long as its left up for the free market to take care of it. -What the hell is wrong with that opinion?

Palin: I have gay friends. I'm tolerant!

Biden: Chickens out on redefining marriage.

Palin: "Your plan [for Iraq] is a white flag of surrender." -Wow, when she wants to attack, she doesn't bother with rational debate.

Biden: But enough about what we plan to do, John McCain is wrong. -His debate tactic is starting to get old. If you want me to vote for you, tell me why I should vote for you.

Palin: "I'm so glad to hear that we both love Israel." -What's up with the love-fest for Israel? Do we owe them something? Are the Jews the puppeteer masters of all our politicians? I will stop talking now.

Biden: "I gave the president the power [to go to Iraq] not to go to Iraq... -Still in denial [or was and possibly still is complicit].

Palin: John McCain, who knows how to win a war [or get shot down and taken prisoner for 5.5 years].

Biden: This is the most important election any of you will ever vote in. -I guess I don't need to vote on anything after this one.

Palin: "I think we need a bit of reality [and meth production] from Wasilla in Washington."

Biden: Hey, I'm blue coller too.

Palin: Say it ain't so Joe. Now dog gone it, you mentioned the Bush administration. Talking about the past. That's not the folksy way to do things.

Did Palin say our education is too blass? Did she mean blase?

Palin: "My experience as executive..." You know, Palin is the only one of the four that has any executive experience. Think about that while you are trying to sleep tonight.

Biden: "I led the fight against Bork..." Never mind referencing Bush, but Bork? Not going for the youth vote there, are you Joe?

Note to Palin: Increasing the deficit is not decreasing spending.

Palin: I like talking to America without the filter of [not having the time to better memorize talking points].

Ifill hurt her ankle preparing for this debate? I guess you don't have to watch out for her.

Chuck Todd (NBC) Those watching to see a car wreck were disappointed. -Yep. Neither did too much to hurt [or help] their campaign.

Geraldine Ferraro: Palin did not do anything that would end up on another SNL sketch. And so everyone wins! Because women weren't shown to be intrinsically stupid.

Jon Stewart: "If Bronson Pinchot can do that [lear trapeze in a month] Palin won [will win/will have won] the debate].

Debate I

2008-09-26T19:34:00.013-06:00

300 is more than 18. Point to Obama

McCain supports nuclear power. The first thing I support him on.

Obama finally brings out President Bush and McCain's support. He could probably just repeat Bush Bush Bush Bush for the rest of the debate and win easily.

McCain is not Miss Congeniality. Good thing he said that again, I almost confused him with Sandra Bullock.

McCain pumping strategy. I think his strategy is to push his military knowledge. He just said we have already won the war in Iraq. Good news, I guess we're done then.

McCain just referred to himself as a maverick. McCain is not a maverick.

Obama too chicken to take a stand on defunding the war.

McCain likes war and/or nation building.

Obama makes ref. to Green Bay. He likes us!

McCain proposes League of Democracies. While it sounds laughable, it is a great idea I hoped to implement myself. We all know the UN is useless.

McCain having a hard time pronouncing Ahmadinejad. Really doesn't matter, it's a hard name to say. Obama got it though. By the way, I can say it too. Ahmadinejad.

McCain: Iraq is all that matters. Obama: Other things matter. McCain: That is the difference between us and why you should vote for me.

McCain dispensing with the allusions and flat out calls Obama inexperienced. McCain is no fan of subtly.

McCain wrong about Kennedy in hospital. Oh snap!

Watching NBC discussion:
Brokow says I am the most important viewer. Thank you Tom, but I already knew that.

Biden will discuss the debate. Giuliani will stand in for Palin. Why didn't McCain choose someone he wasn't embarrassed to bring out in public?

Were Biden not an old white man, he would have been a good presidential candidate. Giuliani, well, he is an asshole.

Milwaukee is up 5-1. I know what I should have been watching.

Brewers win! And for the debate? Both made their arguments, neither really scored any points. Well, Giuliani loses, McCain loses. Though this was all part of The Plan for the Republicans.

Showdown Brewing

2008-09-26T17:03:00.005-06:00

This is an open letter to the Chicago Cubs:

We all know you've clinched your spot in the playoffs. These last three games against Milwaukee don't mean anything. Some clubs might decide they aren't going to worry about the series, and let their starters rest up for the playoffs. However, I suspect that you might like to keep your momentum and beat your division rivals one last time.

But, if you beat the Brewers, what does that prove? It proves what we already knew, you have played very well against the Brewers this year. I'm sure you'd rather face them than the Mets, right? If only you could get to play Milwaukee in the playoffs... If only there was a way you could help get the Brewers into the playoffs...

If the Brewers are better than you, then they will beat you whether you try or not. If you don't want to face them, then you have to beat them, proving you are capable of beating them in the playoffs. There's really only once choice if you think about it as hard as I have.

700 Billion Reasons to stop being complacent

2008-09-26T16:53:00.004-06:00

Congress is going to pass a $700,000,000,000.00 bailout of the banking industry. That's a lot of zeros, I know. And we taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. It is going to suck, but it will suck less than if we do nothing and allow our banking industry to collapse.

We are going to pay and it is going to hurt and that is just. This is our fault. We took out loans we could not afford. We did not force our elected officials to do something about predatory lending before it was a problem. This is not the fault of Wall Street. The bank presidents did not lose their own money. They lost our money. We gave them money and we are responsible for that. We bought stock in them, rewarding them for taking on more and more unsafe debt.

Pain is an effective teacher. Hopefully this will teach us something because this is going to hurt bad. We need to be responsible for our personal finances. We can no longer keep spending more than we can afford to pay back. We should not invest more than we can afford to lose. We need to hold our elected officials responsible for doing nothing. Our current presidential administration and any member of congress whose party held a majority in the last six years needs to be held responsible for this miss.

Bringing Cynical Back

2008-09-26T16:41:00.004-06:00

After a brief 6-month hiatus, I am resuming/exhuming this blog. Apparently, we are getting close to the 08 Fall national election. Debates are coming up, the economy is going down. The Breweres are choking and the Badgers haven't yet. This is my wheelhouse.

Hopefully my readership has fallen back down to a manageable level. I'd hate to think anyone was actually reading this. If you are reading this, stop. Because once I've explained the problems of the world to you, I will hold you personally responsible if they are not fixed.

Hapy Pi Day

2008-03-14T01:59:00.000-06:00

Rerunning for President.

2008-02-27T10:38:00.002-06:00

If you've tried to watch TV during the last few months, you've seen the horrible impact of the writers' strike. Good shows like The Office, and House went to reruns and got replaced in the spotlight with 'shows' like American Gladiators and The Moment of Truth. But the effects went much farther than I could have imagined. Apparently, even this year's presidential election is a rerun.

Clinton/Obama vs. McCain is a repeat from the last season of The West Wing.

***Spoiler***

Santos (Obama) wins.

Primary Thoughts

2008-02-16T23:33:00.009-06:00

The 2008 Wisconsin Primary Election takes place Tuesday. If you didn't know that, you really shouldn't be voting. [Where to vote] [What you need to vote]

*UPDATE: I was voter 470 at my polling location at 12:00 today. I voted for McDonell for County Board and wrote in CONDORCET for Presidential Nominee.*

Since I do not belong to or support any existing political party, I plan to vote a blank ballot. I suppose I could vote to support an individual, but the cons of each outweigh the pros. While there are some I dislike more than others, I refuse to vote 'strategically', to vote 'against' someone. You all are free to try to convince me otherwise. These are the choices.

Clinton. Probably wouldn't be bad. She's got the experience. Her Presidency would be a continuation of Bill's. And that is the problem. Out of 300 some million people in America, what are the odds that the one person best suited to be President just happened to have been married to a former President? Do we really need to follow Bush Clinton Bush with another Clinton? And her attempt to get the FL and MI delegates to count is inexcusable. Oh, and then there is this. Don't bother calling me sexist here. To be honest, I hadn't even noticed that she is a woman.

Obama. Full of hope. For the future. He never voted to give Bush the power to go to war. And he has a cool will.i.am music video. What's not to like? Nothing, I have no dislikes. My problem with Obama is that there is just too little for me to actually like. Yes, he is an inspiring speaker to most people. But I don't get inspired by abstract ideas, I want concrete proposals. I know he is just playing the game, saying what he needs to to get support, not saying anything that could lose support. And that is why he does not have my support.

McCain. In many ways, he is the anti-Obama. McCain doesn't talk about hope. He talks of war. He gives details which often make very bad soundbites. And I like that about him enough to forgive him his old fogey moments. Sure there is the john.he.is video, but there is also this one. If this were 2000 again, I would vote for McCain. Unfortunately since then, he has been trying to win over the Republicans who chose Bush over him. He has reversed on his criticism of the religious right. And the man who was held a POW in Vietnam has [edit] ~~supported~~ *not opposed* American use of torture *as strongly as I'd expect*.

Huckabee. First off, I want to disclose that I have disliked Huckabee ever since he blew off my question I asked him early in the election. Clearly, the existential themes of I Heart Huckabees went over his head. I will not vote someone for the most important job in the world if he is incapable of understanding that it is actually meainingless. Sure, he's got the support of Chuck Norris, and Chuck Norris doesn't endorse, he tells America how it's gonna be. But if he hadn't lost my vote already, he would have with this comment last week. He was saying that even though most have assumed McCain is going to win, he is still going to keep fighting. And I respect that. Then he said, "I didn't major in Math, I majored in Miracles." As if that were a good thing. If you want my vote you had best not speak ill of the Mathematics. Also there is this and this and this.

Oh, and Gravel and Paul are still running. You know, the only candidates left who actually oppose the war in Iraq? The most socially liberal candidates of each party? Probably one of which is most inline with your views. They won't win so don't bother voting for either one of them.

2008-02-06T16:25:00.000-06:00

We had some snow in Madison today. Maybe 10 inches. Most of the streets on this part of the downtown isthmus are on hills, and the snow and the ice under it made driving up these hills very difficult on some streets, impossible on others. This is not news to anyone, I know.

This afternoon, I saw two cars struggling to get out. I knew I'd feel a little guilty watching and not helping (on Ash Wednesday, no less), so I went out with my roommate and we shoveled him out and pushed him up the hill. Then we pushed the car next to him. Then we started walking back in and saw another car driving up the street in front of our apartment get stuck halfway up. So we pushed him up. Then we dug out and pushed another parked car. Then we pushed a van up the hill. Then we pushed another car. Then we pushed an SUV. Then we hurried inside before another car got stuck.

So after all that, the following seems like a waste.

A police car, stuck in the same spot the two of us had just pushed seven cars through. A second unit there to help. So, do the extra officers get out and push the stuck cruiser?

Not when they can call two tow trucks to do it for them.

Your taxpayer money at work.

2008-01-20T16:52:00.000-06:00

With all the excitement over the Packers' ~~win~~ loss later today, I didn't want this local story to drop through the cracks.

The Crappiest Neighbor Ever [the smoking gun].

Iowa's Results

2008-01-04T08:44:00.000-06:00

Iowa's Democratic and Republican caucuses took place yesterday. Here are the results. [from CNN]

Democrats:
Obama 37% 16 delegates
Edwards 30% 14 delegates
Clinton 29% 15 delegates

Republicans:
Huckabee 34% 17 delegates
Romney 25% 12 delegates
Thompson 13% 3 delegates
McCain 13% 3 delegates
Paul 10% 2 delegates

What does this mean nationally?

Obama has 16 delegates from IA. Edwards has 14 delegates from IA. Clinton has 15 delegates from IA. Huckabee has 17 delegates from IA. Romney has 12 delegates from IA...

The Primaries in Iowa are over. The other 49 states still have to vote. No one has won yet and no one will win until they have a plurality of the voting secured.

Is a basketball game won by just scoring first? Is a Superbowl won by winning the opening game? Or does winning require sustaining lead to the end of a game, to the end of a season? No matter how far down, until a team is mathematically out of it, they still have a chance to win. There is no mercy rule in politics.

So you can make your analyses about Clinton dropping or McCain rising. Just don't think that what people in Iowa think has to influence how you vote. After all, this is Iowa we're talking about. If you support Paul (and if you're reading this online, you might), then a 5th place finish in one state does not mean you have to start letting the air out of the blimp. If you support Biden (which one is he again?), he's got a ways to go and is going to need all the support he can get. If you support Huckabee (God help you), don't get complacent now. Do not grow apathetic or accept the results that the media tries to force on you. As long as your preferred candidate has not dropped out, you do not need to drop out as a supporter. Why does a candidate run, Herm? You run to win the election.

Playoffs? Playoffs?

2008-01-01T01:25:00.000-06:00

Today the first of the BCS Bowls will be played. The BCS looks bad every year, but this year is the worst I have ever seen it. Hawaii, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and LSU/Ohio State could all make a claim to be National Champions if they win.

Most BCS detractors say they'd be happy with a +1 change. 1v4, 2v3, and the winners play for the championship. But if we're going to fix things, let's fix them right. The only way to compare two teams is to have them play. You can't speculate across conferences. You can't even speculate within conference where teams don't play everyone else.

We first need to reorganize the conferences. Every conference needs to have 10 or 12 teams, split in two divisions. The Big 12, ACC, SEC, Conference USA, and the MAC are already there. Notre Dame has to finally join a conference; if not the Big Ten, then the Big East with Rutgers or Louisville switching over. Each team plays everyone within their division, plus a few from the other division, plus non conference games. There will then be clear division winners, who will play each other for the conference championship. There are 11 Division I-A conferences. The winner of each, plus 5 at large picks, go into a 4 round playoff. Sure, the winner of the Sun Belt probably isn't that good. But there are years when the winner of the WAC, or the MAC, or any of the smaller conferences are better than winners of larger conferences. The only fair way is to let them all in. Whatever team wins out would be the clear National Champion.

A 4 round playoff would also fix a few other problems I have with the current system. For the second year, the Buckeyes will go into the Championship game 50 days after their last game. A playoff would ensure that both teams entered the final game playing at their best. Also, one loss late in the season would not cripple a team's chance of playing in the National Championship the way it does now. Once a team has it's division clinched, it can play back-ups for the final game. Rankings would still have use to determine seeding. Non conference games would be as important as they are now. There would be less need to schedule easily winnable games like there is now. A non conference loss wouldn't matter to the team that won its conference, and the 5 at large picks would go to teams that showed they deserved to be included.

But the Bowls aren't about determining an undisputed champion, they're about making money. I would think, though that the 15 games would generate more combined viewers than the 32 bowls that we have now. (Or was I the only one who missed watching New Mexico beat Nevada in the New Mexico Bowl?) The games would be held at Bowl sites. And nothing would stop Chik-fil-a from hosting a bowl for two teams that didn't get in. Sure, it would be a meaningless game, but it's meaningless now. I do not understand why there would be any objections to having a playoff. So why does it seem like Jim Mora is running the NCAA? (at 0:44)

Patriots

2007-12-29T19:04:00.000-06:00

Patriots vs. the Giants

Watching the game now. I'll live-blog now and fix the misquotes later. I found the pre-game commentary interesting.

Rich Eisen: This one game, being broadcast on so many channels. It's like the State of the Union.

A football game, a regular season game, one that will have absolutely no impact on the playoffs, and Eisen compares it to the President's State of the Union address. And the biggest difference is, most people in this country will actually watch the game.

Roger Goodell (NFL commissioner): We believe there is fan interest in the NFL Network... [So why not leave the game on just the NFL Network?] This is about giving the fans what they want.

What is Brady Quinn doing in commercials? Did I miss him getting a starting spot on the Browns?

Four minutes into the game. The Giants score on the opening drive and take a 7-0 lead. As *Astro* (not Scooby Doo, Bryant Gumbel) would say, "Ruh row, Reorge!"

Starting the 2nd Quarter, Brady to Moss and the Patriots take a 10-7 lead. The Pats also set the single season team scoring record. Brady and Moss both tie single season TD records. After the catch, Moss is flagged for celebration, the kickoff will be moved back 10 yards.
Gumbel: The penalty was worth it to see the ref try to dance.
Me: Yeah, sure it was worth it.
Seconds later, the Giants' Domenik Hixon runs the kickoff back for a TD. Giants 14-10.

The Giants are up, 28-16. The NFL is doing "Road to Perfection" highlights from the Patriots season. Can't they wait until, say the end of the game, before declaring it a perfect season?

Near the end of the game, after it looked like the Patriots would win, Gumbel asked Collinsworth what going 16-0 means. Collinsworth: They still have to win the Superbowl for this to mean anything, for this to be considered a better team than the Dolphins. Gumbel: But if they don't win, doesn't going 16-0 mean anything? Collinsworth: No.

After the game. Collinsworth [reading from script]: The New England Patriots have gone 16-0, putting them right there with the Dolphins.

MLB Steroid Report Released

2007-12-13T14:22:00.001-06:00

The Mitchell Report has been released (pdf), giving the results of Major League Baseball's year long independent investigation into steroids.

And yes, names were named.
Roger Clemens, Miguel Tijada, Andy Pettitte, are among 75 players named.

My initial thoughts:
Most of the players seemed to be from specific teams, but this is because the players were named by three trainers. I doubt they were the only ones providing steroids.

Most of the players named are pitchers. So even if Bonds and McGuire were using steroids, they were facing pitchers with the same edge.

The owners and managers knew which players used steroids.

When the Boston Red Sox were considering acquiring Gagné, a Red Sox official made specific inquiries about Gagné’s possible use of steroids. In a November 1, 2006 email to a Red Sox scout, general manager Theo Epstein asked, “Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?” The scout, Mark Delpiano, responded, "Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues. Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body and re invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max effort plus stuff... Mentality without the plus weapons and without steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back durability and ability to throw average while allowing the changeup to play as it once did... Personally, durability (or lack of) will follow Gagne...

The Brewers made a very bad decision to sign Gagné unless he has started using roids again.

My Compass Points Out

2007-12-07T21:23:00.000-06:00

Bishop Jerome Listecki, Bishop of the La Cross Diocese, has issued a statement to parishoners urging them to not see the Golden Compass. “Instead of using fantasy to lead people to truth and to God,” Listecki wrote, the trilogy of books on which “The Golden Compass” is based “tries to lead them away from God.” Now, the U.S. Conference of Bishops has approved viewing the movie, pleased with the effort to remove most of the anti-Catholicism in the book. I have a bigger question: why is it so bad for Catholics to see anti-Catholic ideas?

If Catholicism is the One True Religion©, then nothing should be able to convince you otherwise. Does Listecki think that his parishioners are stupid, nothing more than sheep who believe whatever they are told without questioning it themselves? Does he believe that children are especially impressionable? Is he not aware of the sad, sad irony?

I understand that in a general sense, this is something many groups do, but it is especially prevalent with religious groups. Why is it so necessary to shelter ourselves from differing views? If you encounter an argument opposing yours, and it makes sense, I think you should consider it. When your beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny, you really should think about why exactly you believe what you do, and if you can’t justify it, you are an idiot to continue to believe it. And, if your beliefs do hold up, then they will be stronger, reinforced.

In writing this, I can’t help but be reminded of Republican Presidential candidate (and frontrunner) Mitt Romney. Romney has refused to answer any questions about his religious beliefs. For the record, Romney is a follower in the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints; you know him as a Mormon. Mormons have many peculiar beliefs. If Romney truly believes these things, then he should be able to justify his beliefs. Perhaps his magic underwear is a bit too tight, and is cutting off the circulation to his testicles. Either he knows his religion is stupid and is in denial, or he thinks everyone else will think his religion is stupid and he won’t be able to convince anyone that it isn’t (These are the same thing).

Romney is not alone. Most people have never taken an analytical view on their religious beliefs, or their philosophical beliefs, or their political beliefs… When encountering opposing views, instead of engaging them, they retreat and hide. Our President clings to ideas and plans that have been shown to be wrong, insisting that he has always been right. If he could only learn to change his beliefs as new evidence arises, then he could actually be always right. People are afraid to consider that they might be wrong. They never consider that if they are wrong, they can change and become right.

I am not saying that your or anyone’s beliefs are wrong. I’m just asking you to consider it. If you are a devout Christian, go watch the Golden Compass. If you are opposed to universal health care, go watch Sicko. If you support a progressive tax, read Atlas Shrugged. Be open to all viewpoints. If your beliefs change from new evidence, then they have probably changed for the better. You have nothing to lose but ignorance.

Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. — George Bernard Shaw
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut

Big Ten Network

2007-11-29T19:35:00.000-06:00

[Note: I began this post a while ago just about the Big Ten Network. I missed 3 Badger football games this year, and I am going to miss many Badger basketball games, so I am not happy with them. I really didn’t care about the NFL Network until this week, when I found out that the Green Bay/Dallas matchup (you know, perhaps the biggest game of the conference this year), will be on the NFL Network and so I am not going to be able to watch it either. So you can replace the Big Ten with the NFL for the remainder of this post because my argument is the same for both of them.]

Hi, I'm Charter Communications, a racist lackey of imperial ruling circles.
Hi, I'm the Big Ten Conference, a badass commie nigger.
Sounds like the basis of a firm friendship.

The Big Ten Network was set up by the Big Ten Conference in August of last year. This year they began carrying games. The agreement with the Big Ten Conference guarantees that each football team is guaranteed to make at least two appearances on the network per year and one of them will be a conference game, and each Big Ten men's basketball team will make 15-20 appearances on the Big Ten Network each winter. Unfortunately for those of us here who would like to watch these games, Charter Communications (which is the cable provider I currently use) and Time Warner have not reached an agreement with the Big Ten Network on how to offer the network to customers. Both the Big Ten and Charter have spent the last year blaming the other for the fact that fans are unable to watch games, and urging fans to call the other and tell them to cave to their demands. Both are in the wrong.

The Big Ten is not a respectable network. It's a whorehouse network, and it has to take whatever it can get.

They are not looking to give fans what they want. They want to increase revenue and increase profile. If they created the network for the fans, they would let the bigger games stay on the networks with more viewers, and just carry the games that would otherwise be left off TV. Instead they made sure to carry games that we would be upset if we missed in an attempt to get more leverage on the cable companies and get more money. The Big Ten is extorting fans by taking games from networks the fans have access to and putting them on a network that some have to pay extra for and others can’t even purchase if they wanted to. If they actually had the fans best interests in mind, they would lower their demands. But the Big Ten, and for that matter, all Big Ten school football programs, are not in it for the fans, or academics, or anything else they always claim are their top priorities. Their top priority is $.

So, I don't think I'll listen to any protestations of high standards of journalism when you're right down on the streets soliciting audiences like the rest of us. Look, all I'm saying is if you're going to hustle, at least do it right.

Charter claims that they want to put the BTN on a sports tier so only those who want it have to pay for it. This makes no sense when you look at the way Charter sells cable to customers. They have a virtual monopoly on providing cable. They can charge whatever they want and we have to take it if we want cable. They can add the BTN to expanded cable and raise the price and we will take it. If they are really concerned with limiting costs for customers and not forcing them to pay for channels they don’t want, then why even have packages? Put everything on an a la carte system and let customers choose which networks they want. What Charter offers is like a movie theater only selling tickets to No Country for Old Men bundled with tickets for Enchanted. Sure, they may only charge the price of one and a half tickets, so they’ll say they are saving you money. But if no one going to see one movie sees the other then the customer is just getting ripped off.

Right now, you are all mad. You go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'm NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" And this is doing nothing. I want you to protest. I want you to riot. I want you to write to the Big Ten and to Charter and I want you to demand that they take actions to fix things. This is what needs to be done.

My suggestion for Charter: Give us an a la carte subscription service. I have no problem paying to get the BTN because I would watch it. I don’t think I need to pay to get Lifetime, or the Hallmark Channel, or Fox News, or Univision, etc. Sure, some networks that most people don’t want would lose money and fold. That is what is supposed to happen. The first company to offer me this is going to get my business. I can even see providers in the future allowing customers to order single shows. The itunes store has shown that the idea works.

And speaking of selling TV shows over the Internet, my suggestion for the BTN is this: Broadcast your games over the Internet. If the Big Ten just cared about making sure fans could see the game, they could do this for free. But because I know they'd never do that, I'd be willing to pay for a subscription to watch the games online. Major League Baseball has already put in subscription services allowing fans to watch games streamed online. This seems like the ideal solution for the BTN as well. Fans that want the games can get them. Those that don’t want to pay extra don’t have to. And the BTN could cut out Charter and take in the revenue directly.

If the Big Ten Network and Charter continue to hold out, keeping us fans from getting the coverage we want, they will be the ones to ultimately suffer. I could care less if Charter folded up. But the Big Ten Network has potential to help the conference and the fans, so I don't want it to become the first known instance of a conference that was killed because of lousy ratings.

Armistice

2007-11-11T23:11:00.000-06:00

I appreciate the efforts and sacrifices of those who are willing to risk their lives on the behalf of my country. I am just sorry that there is ever a need to do so.

Writers Wrong

2007-11-09T15:07:00.000-06:00

No, you are not seeing things. This is a new entry. After 50 days of not writing here, I am starting again. Part of the reason is that I needed time to work on a Halloween-related side project which will be posted online soon. But I will be resuming my posts. And apparently just in time, as there seems to be a shortage of writers willing to work in this country.

I am referring, of course, to the strike by the Writers Guild of America. 12,000 movie and television writers have decided that they no longer wish to receive paychecks for doing their jobs. And so, I would think that Hollywood execs and producers are in the market for writers who are new, cheap, and morally ambiguous. I fit all three.

I am aware that it is now popular to side with the WGA. After all, they have celebrities on their side! And, surprise surprise, numerous writers have backed them. This does not mean that you or I have to support them. I find it extremely distasteful to see all the reports of various TV actors and personalities supporting the WGA strike. This is a classic advertising/propaganda technique. Sure you may like Jay Leno (in which case I should start using smaller words for you), but him giving out donuts does not somehow make the WGA right. These actors that you love so much and want to side with have their own agendas. The sooner the strike is over, the sooner they can go back to work, and get paid. And more than a few of them are also members of the WGA.

Now I would never think of crossing picket lines simply to sell a few scripts I have written (though God by Machine, An American Revolution, and The Legend of Jesus can be ready for production shortly). Instead, I am offering to cross picket lines because I philosophically disagree with the WGA and their demands.

My first problem with the WGA is their demand for residuals from online viewing of their shows. The argument is that writers get paid every time their shows get aired on TV, but not when their shows are shown online, since the networks consider online content "promotional material". My view is different. I think you should get paid fairly for doing a job (writing a show or a movie), and when that job is done, then you need to find another job to do if you want to get paid again. Writers don't have any "rights" to residuals. If you finish something and sell it, then you got paid for your work. Again, if you want to earn more money, then do more work.

If I paint a picture and then sell it to someone, the picture becomes theirs. They can show it to whoever they want, as many times as they want, without having to keep paying me more. If a band performs a song, they should get paid every time they perform the song. If someone records that performance, the recording should become the property of the person who recorded it, and they should be able to play it as they wish without owing the band or the band's producers anything. So in addition to the WGA's demands for online residuals, I also have problems with DRM on music files, the DMCA, copyright law in general, and that statement at the end of baseball games prohibiting me from discussing what I just saw.

If I build a car and sell it to you, you don't have to pay me extra every time you drive it. If I make a shirt and sell it to you, you don't have to pay me extra every time you wear it. The fact that writing is not a physical object should make it worth less, and give it less rights.

And aren't there other people who help make movies and television shows? You know, the last 4 minutes of credits that you don't bother watching. Do they get paid residuals for their work? And though they may be content just doing their jobs and collecting their paychecks, they can't now because the WGA strike has put them all out of jobs.

And that leads me to my second problem with the WGA. There is no reason why producers can't hire non union writers to take over. If some writers won't write without contracts giving them online residuals, then the producers should be free to hire other writers who have lesser demands. It should be up to whoever is buying the script to decide if the first writer is enough of a better writer to be worth the extra demands.

The WGA has every right to demand more money, but they need to realize that there are other people out there who are more than willing to do their jobs for less. And not all of them are illegal Mexican immigrants.

I do not claim to be a good writer, but I am available, I am cheap, and I have no problem screwing over the union. So if anyone out there is looking for for a writer who fits that bill, give me a call. And for everyone else, you can call me a scab if you want, I won't be insulted. A scab is an essential function of the body that allows it to heal wounds.

Kid Nation Manifesto

2007-09-19T20:48:00.000-06:00

A specter is haunting network television- the specter of Kid Nation. As bad an idea as this show seemed, I'll admit it was an intriguing premise. Leave some kids in a ghost town and let them create their own town. It sounded like a psych experiment from the 50's, one no one could do today, but one that would actually give some useful results. I was mostly disappointed by the producers decisions to interfere and manipulate the seemingly open-ended premise into into every other reality show.

The first day the kids seemed like they would be able to create a successful society, with everyone finding a specialized niche that they could fill. The older, bigger kids took care of pulling the supply carts into town. The girl who had some cooking experience took over the kitchen (after some idiot kids filled a pot to the top with macaroni, then added water, and then tried cooking it). Those who had experience with animals milked the goats (really). Everyone got fed. Their society looked like it would settle into a stable dynamic. A stable, socialist society.

Then the producers decided to mess with them. And the kids were too naive to refuse to go along with the overt manipulation. The kids were told to divide into four separate groups. Why? Because. Not surprisingly, rivalry between groups developed instantly. Then the groups had to compete to decide the social class of each group. The upper class got 1.00 of spending money, and got no assigned work. The merchant class got 0.50 for light work. The cooks got 0.25 for cooking all the meals. And the laborers got 0.10 for doing manual labor. [Their daily wages can be spent on goods at the town candy shop.]

After this episode, I am hoping the kids in the lower three classes will decide not to feed the upper class unless they agree to share the workload and share their wages. I think this is the inevitable outcome for this show. The other kids can't be that stupid that they don't realize the unfairness of the situation.

I did correctly predict that the kids would be smart enough to choose the outhouses over a TV when they were offered the choice. And I predict that there will be a socialist revolution before the end of October. (Although they could go another direction toward Anarchy. Or the older kids could impose feudalism. They do have some options.)

Of course, I'm sure the producers decided from the start how they wanted the show to develop, and they will likely continue directing things. So the October revolution may never come. Anyway, despite my moral objection to exploiting children and putting there safety at risk for entertainment, I will be watching to see how this turns out (and to laugh at how stupid the kids are).

Let the upper class tremble at a Kid Nation revolution. The laborers and cooks have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a television show to win.

WORKING CHILDREN OF ALL REALITY TV SHOWS,
UNITE!

Kid Nation

2007-09-19T17:41:00.000-06:00

On TV tonight:

40 children, 40 days, no adults —
eager to prove they can build a better world for tomorrow in the new reality series KID NATION.

Settling in Bonanza City, New Mexico, once a thriving mining town but now deserted, these Kids, ages 8 to 15 and from all walks of life, will build their own new world, pioneer-style. They will confront grown-up issues while coping with the classic childhood emotions of homesickness, peer pressure and the urge to break every rule. Episodes end with a town meeting in which the kids award one child a gold star worth $20,000, all leading to the grand finale, with an unimaginable test, the biggest awards and a special surprise for every child.

Official CBS site for the show
Kid Nation Promo

sorry, Kid Nation Promo

From the executive producer of Kid Nation, Tom Forman:

"I've been a reality-television producer for a number of years and I was just getting bored by the Hollywood reality types who auditioned for every show I did, who know the answers before you ask the questions, who are looking for this as a way to further their career," Forman said.

"We started talking about how you could make a show that had the unpredictable excitement of that first cycle of Survivor, which I remember watching not as a producer, but just as a fan. How could we possibly get back to that, when nobody knew what was going to happen, not even the participants? So I said, 'Maybe we need to look for participants who weren't even born when that thing premiered.'

"So these are kids. They were born during the Clinton administration. They are, if nothing else, incredibly honest. If they are sad, they cry. If they have a crush on someone, they talk about it. If they're jealous or angry, they fight.

"It's everything that's best about human beings and, at times, worst, because they just don't censor themselves."

Might this be a bad idea? 40 kids left to live by themselves for a month, what could possibly go wrong?

Apparently, lots. Some injuries occurred on the set. Four children needed medical attention after drinking bleach that had been left in an unmarked soda bottle, a girl sprained her arm, becoming one of two children to visit a local emergency room, and an 11-year-old girl who was cooking burned her face with splattered grease. That child's mother, Janis Miles, filed a complaint in June calling for an investigation into "abusive acts to minors and possible violations of child labor laws." The claim was investigated by Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office, which found no criminal wrongdoing doing on the part of the production company. CBS said it stood by the procedures it had in place and its "response to all the minor injuries". The network rejected "irresponsible allegations or any attempts to misrepresent and exaggerate events or spread false claims about what happened."

At best, the show will be boring and this will be the last you hear about it. At worst, it will be a trainwreck. The kind you stop and get out of your car to watch. Way to go, CBS.

Hodgepodge Tuesday

2007-09-18T17:37:00.000-06:00

Never Before Aired SNL Sketch w/ Conan O'Brien

Moonbat and Wingnut Return

2007-09-05T23:08:00.000-06:00

I am relaunching my Moonbat and Wingnut comic. I know how much everyone has missed it. Adjust your RSS feeds and sidebar links accordingly. I plan to publish every MWF. This will be half as frequently as I did last time, so maybe I will publish it for twice as long. We'll see.

2007-09-01T11:17:00.000-06:00

Russia has a Doomsday device.

Mitt Romney would like one of our own.

I'll try to write more later when I have time, but I'll just let you make your own comparison for now.

Equal Rights = No Excuses

2007-08-31T09:26:00.000-06:00

This week, an Iowa Judge ruled that Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. This got me thinking, why is same-sex marriage okay in some states, but not in others? [Actually, I had already thought about this a bit, and this post is just a previous post with some edits and additions to make it more coherent]

Before I go any further, I first want to define how I view sexual orientation in reference to the law. Homosexuality is practically undefinable. It is a personal preference, a thought, a desire. This is not legislatable. There is no test for homosexuality. There exist homosexual acts, but these can be done by people who later claim not to actually be homosexual. Sexual acts could hypothetically be legislated, if the Supreme Court had not already ruled against this, but banning sodomy would apply to both hetero- and homosexual sex.

No, a state's limitation of marriage as only between one man and one woman, like all discrimination of homosexuals, is in fact a specialized form of gender discrimination. The objection is not to a man marrying a man, but that the person marrying a man is not a woman (and opposite for lesbians). Had the person been the opposite gender, it would be considered acceptable. If it's okay for a woman to have sex with a man, but not a man, then that is gender discrimination.

Section I, Article I of Iowa's State Constitution states: All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

In my view, and more importantly in the view of Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, this negates any laws banning same-sex marriage. "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said. (I am fairly sure, though, that my interpretation does not go as far toward restricting gender discrimination as Hanson's interpretation. I also have been unable to find out if the ruling was in reference to the state constitution or the federal constitution [and this is important], but I assume this was just an in-state issue.)

The "Progressive" state of Wisconsin foresaw such a court ruling, and passed an amendment to the state constitution last year, defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. As it was an amendment to the state constitution, it overrides any state statute banning discrimination. It will now take federal action to overrule our state's ban on same-sex marriage. I would not be surprised to see a referendum for a similar amendment on the ballots in Iowa next fall. Especially since these kinds of amendments are often introduced to draw out higher numbers of conservative voters, and there may be one or two elections that the Republicans will be trying to win next fall.

I do not think there is any federal ban on gender discrimination. The 14th amendment reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since the 19th amendment, giving women voting rights, was passed later, and the Equal Rights Amendment, explicitly prohibiting sex discrimination, was introduced much later, but was not passed, I would reason that gender discrimination is not unconstitutional. And clearly, gender separated rest rooms and athletic teams would be considered "separate but equal," and would be illegal if the 14th amendment applied to gender the same way it has been found to apply to race. Yet both are prevalent in public and in state institutions.

So, I will again present a call for an Equal Rights Amendment. A constitutional amendment mandating gender equality is the only stop-all measure to allow same-sex marriage. Any amendment just specifically allowing same-sex marriage would be simpler, but could be easily thwarted by states that redefine or rename marriage. I would expand the original E.R.A. from just sex to include race, national origin, and age for those over 18, because I don’t like women any more than I like old farts, queers, niggers, ‘spics, Arabs, or Jews, Bitches. My proposed amendment would read:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, race, or national origin, nor on account of age to any individual 18 years of age or older.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[I intentionally left off religion from the list. In my opinion, the government should not be labeling beliefs as "religious" and then treating them differently. The mere act of labeling something as a religious belief violates the 1st amendment, as it is establishing one religion over all others that aren't deemed religions. The only way we can truly have freedom of religion is if the state completely avoids the term. I am very close to broadening sex out to the full genetic makeup, as a ban against any state eugenic programs.]

I do realize this would have some far-reaching consequences, particularly in regards to the Supreme Court's ruling against "separate but equal" policies, and the fact that my amendment explicitly forbids giving special protection to any group mentioned. I'll discuss these consequences in the comments section. I know my view is not a popular one. Those who support gay marriage rights will probably hate this as much as those who don't support gay marriages. But it's the way I would do it.

I realize that while I have made my point that passing an E.R.A. would make same-sex marriage legal, I have not yet given any reason why we should pass an E.R.A. You know, besides the Jeffersonian idea that the bedrock principles of our democracy – "all men are created equal," "liberty and justice for all," "equal justice under law," "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" – apply equally to everyone.

It has been my philosophy that individuals should be assessed as individuals, and not as just members of a group. Sure, it's easier to establish prejudices. Making up your mind based on what someone's external features is quick and easy, and it's usually right. But the only way to be right 100% of the time is to evaluate each person.

We would like to make sure only competent drivers have licenses. Old people are more likely to be bad drivers. It may be more efficient to just require old people to take drivers' tests every few years to test their skills. But there will still be some middle aged people who are terrible drivers who aren't stopped. So, because the onset of bad driving can occur at different ages for different people, I say let's just test everyone and be sure about it.

Sure, some gay people might lead irresponsible lives, full of recreational drugs and casual sex. They should not be allowed to adopt children, and I question the seriousness of their relationships. But plenty of straight people do the same things. Let's not punish some just because of the actions of others you have grouped them with. Evaluate them as individuals and give them the same rights to ruin their lives and create dysfunctional families we all think we deserve.

So let's imagine that my rational treatise has somehow convinced enough people to get my E.R.A. passed. Let's start the extrapolations.

1. Marriage between two people is allowed, regardless of the sex of either person. This allows same-sex marriage. This does not open the door to polygamy, or incest, or bestiality, or any other crazy shit like marrying a VCR that Rick Santorum secretly would like to do. Animals, minors, toasters, and the like (sorry Pete Singer) would still not have the same rights as an adult human. While I can tolerate polygamy, it is in the best interest of the state to promote monogamy, so this will continue.

2. Gender separated public restrooms would have to be changed to unisex bathrooms. Hey, we used to have racially segregated restrooms, but we integrated, and people got over it. Sure, some women might not want men anywhere nearby when they are on the toilet, but to be honest, I don't want men anywhere nearby when I'm on the toilet either. We would adapt, either by building restrooms to provide more privacy, or by society becoming more open about what is really just a natural bodily function.

As for school locker rooms, I can see why there would be some objections. Perhaps, males and females might feel uncomfortable about undressing and showering together. Readers, I am going to let you in on a little secret. If you have ever taken a shower in gym class or any locker room, you have already gotten naked and showered with someone who is attracted to your gender. That's right, you have showered with a gay. And hopefully you weren't emotionally scarred by the experience. If you object to unisex locker rooms, you should be objecting to locker rooms in general. Again, we can become more open about it, or we can decide everyone deserves better individual privacy and put in private changing/showering stalls.

3. Title IX has gots to go (although in my opinion, a literal interpretation of Title IX would prohibit everything that Title IX has created). Gender segregated sports in publicly funded schools would be considered separate and unequal and so would be a violation of my anti-gender discrimination policy. Certain people have genes that helped them develop into better athletes than others. That's just how life is. People with a XY chromosomes typically perform better athletically than those with XX (except for flexibility and taking a shot to the groin). But there are plenty of boys who aren't good enough to start on their high school varsity team. They [I] get cut or benched, and no one cares. They just weren't good enough, and the fact that other boys were born with better genes is just a sad fact of life.

Co-ed sports is the only fair way to go. For grade school/low-competitive leagues: let everyone play an equal amount. For High-School/competitive leagues: male or female, the best athletes make the A team, the next make the B team. If any women are good enough to make the A team, then they should be congratulated, the way we celebrate the athletic achievements of short people, fat people, autistics, and Caucasians. But no one gets assigned to a team because they belong to a certain group. Individual achievement would depend on individual merit.

4. Affirmative Action has to go. Completely (no "holistic" admissions). If the goal is to give lower income students preference, because of the obstacles involved in breaking out of the lower socioeconomic barrier, then give all lower income students preference, not just those of certain races (or sexes).

5. The drinking age would be lowered to 18. Same for strip clubs and casinos. If you've got the responsibilities of an adult, you should have the rights of an adult. Enough said.

Everyone gets carded, no matter how old they appear to be. Requiring an ID for some and not for others based on age is discrimination. If I have to make sure I have my Driver's License with me to get into a bar while I'm 23, so should the creepy old guy behind me and the 16 year old girl in front of me.

6. Military service would be open to all. Don't ask, don't care. And women would also start being required to register for the draft too. If I get called up to go to war, you don't get to sit home and take my job just because you have a vagina. If a woman can't pass basic training, or lacks the mental ability to go to combat, then they get moved to a non-combat role, or discharged, same as any man who is not fit to fight. Everyone is judged on their individual capability to serve.

7. You would not have to be over 35 to run for President, or be a citizen from birth (You're welcome, Arnold). Why do we need to put such arbitrary limitations on candidates? Sure, most people won't vote for someone under 35, but they should still have the option. Every President so far has been an older, white, Protestant male (Kennedy, a 43-year-old Catholic male is an outlier). That doesn't mean we have to only consider older, white, Protestant males. Every citizen (perhaps excluding those ineligible to vote) should be eligible to serve in any federal position. It should be left to the electorate to decide whether someone is worthy of being elected based on their own individual merit.

8. There would be no age requirement for collecting Social Security. SS is a fund to provide benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death. Retirement checks should be available for anyone who has worked and paid SS taxes for a set number of years. Those who have never held a job cannot retire. If someone has not put in the set number of years yet, but is just in too poor health to work anymore, they would be eligible under disability. If someone is able to work, but is not eligible for SS yet, they should keep working. Your eligibility should be determined based on your individual situation, not what age you happen to be.

9. Birth control and abortion laws do not need to change. There are many prescribed drugs that will work for some people and will not work for others. The Pill is one of them. Only giving medications to or performing medical procedures on those who need them is not denying any rights to those who do not receive them.

10. Racial profiling would be disbanded. We shouldn't limit security checks to those who look to be Arabic. We should be checking everyone who gets on the plane. There have been quite a few crazy white guys, too. And it's only a matter of time before Al Qaeda realizes that we won't be able to pick them out in a crowd if they shave and wear muggle clothes.

Lucky Year for Bucky?

2007-08-28T20:36:00.000-06:00

Top college mascots: 1-Colorado, 2-Georgia, 3-Texas... 7-Wisconsin. After Bucky's poor showing in the Capitol One Mascot Challenge last year, I'm happy with a 7th place finish. Those above belong above, and Bucky did get the highest spot of the costumed mascots, and the highest of the Big Ten. And, coincidentally, Wisconsin has the seven spot in both the AP and the USA Today Polls.

Four days until the season starts with Washington State at home...

Total Eclipse

2007-08-28T04:47:00.000-06:00

Turn around, every now and then I get a little bit lonely and you're never coming round...

Turn around, every now and then I get a little bit tired of listening to the sound of my tears...

Turn around, every now and then I get a little bit nervous that the best of all my years have gone by...

Turn around, every now and then I get a little bit terrified I see the fucking look in your eyes...

I doubt many others stayed awake all night to watch the eclipse, but I did and I thought it was cool, even if most of my photos I tried did not turn out very well. Better shots here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I'm Baaaack!

2007-08-25T21:57:00.001-06:00

Posts will resume shortly, from my new, downtown location.

August

2007-08-18T05:37:00.000-06:00

Last year, I made the claim that August was the worst month of the year.

Slate's David Plotz backs me up this week with even more reasons.

Lightning

2007-08-14T11:52:00.001-06:00

In case anyone in Madison was sleeping at 2:00 a.m. Monday night, this is what you missed. Quite an entertaining lightning show.

Some closer than we realized at the time.

Hodge

2007-08-14T00:30:00.000-06:00

Grasping at Straw Poll Reactions

2007-08-12T20:55:00.000-06:00

The Results for the Republican Iowa Straw Poll came in Saturday night. Here are the numbers, posted on Iowa Independent.

1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%)
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%)
11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)

Liberal slanted analysis - Conservative slanted analysis

Yes, Romney won. That was expected since the other major candidates, Giuliani, McCain, and F. Thompson did not bother to compete. And I think Romney is a lot like Iowa. They are both pretty undistinguished, other than for just a general suckiness.

The big winner? Huckabee. Huckabee and Brownbeck had been battling for second, and basically for the position of the "true conservative" option compared to McCain's, Giuliani's, and Romney's less than ideal conservative credentials. I suppose his failure to understand existentialism was considered a plus by those idiots out wandering around to our southwest, although both Huckabee and Brownbeck presumably get the Iowa seal of approval for their incomprehensible refusal to accept the theory of evolution. Brownbeck finished third, despite spending more than Huckabee. He says he is not ready to call it quits yet, but I think it will happen before long.

The big loser is clearly Wisconsin's own Gov. Tommy Thompson. He had basically tied his entire campaign to winning the Iowa straw poll and using it as a springboard, saying he would end his White House bid unless he finished in first or second place. This didn't happen, despite the fact that he should have appealed to Iowa voters. Thompson announced today that he is officially out of the race.

"I'm outta the race," Thompson told MyFoxMilwaukee.com. Thompson, 65, said he felt like he'd been hit by a Mack truck after hearing the news of his 6th place finish at Saturday's Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll, adding that his campaign was shocked after hearing the results. They were hoping for a top two finish.

Buying Bonds

2007-08-08T13:01:00.000-06:00

Barry Bonds now holds the all-time record for career home runs. On Tuesday, he hit career home run 756, putting himself ahead of the previous record holder Hank Aaron.

Full article on the historic at bat.

Many people are going to claim that this record is now tainted, that it needs an asterisk. They believe that steroid use is what enabled Bonds to hit so many home runs, so his total is not legitimate. But this is not something to be upset with Bonds about. Rather, our dissatisfaction should be directed at Bud Selig and Major League Baseball. It is solely their fault that Bonds is suspected of using steroids. It is their fault we can't prove that either yes he did use, or no he didn't use. If the League had tested for steroids in the '90s, then there would be no questions, but they turned a blind eye to the issue of steroids because the sudden surge in home runs was bringing back the popularity that baseball had lost during the strike. Sure, you can get upset with Bonds for possibly cheating. But is it really cheating when the League doesn't care?

Whether or not we should celebrate Bonds' achievement is debatable. One thing that is not, however, is the fact that it now sucks to be Mike Bacsik.

A Worthy Challenger

2007-08-06T21:15:00.000-06:00

I don't know how accurate this article is, but it appears my nemesis Russ Feingold may be getting back into the race for President.

The Mysterious Congressman, whose presidential campaign continues to be propelled by the dashing, effortless flair with which he exposes the cowardice and duplicity of lesser legislators, challenged presidential candidates of both major political parties Monday to a great public debate.

Capitol police called to the scene once again found only a single red-white-and-blue rose, accompanied by a stack of talking-point memoranda written in the form of tastefully understated rhyming quatrains. Penned in his trademark droll yet frank style, the memoranda laid out a demanding but elegantly simple debate format, in which "no fools shall be suffered and no question begged."

"His appeal for a debate unconstrained by time or subject is exactly what I have yearned for, lo these many years," said Alexandria, VA carpet salesman Craig Hendershott. "Did you hear how he laughed off the moderating services of [CNN anchor] Wolf Blitzer when he was so arrogantly offered them? That we finally have a candidate who stands for the gloriously free and open exchange of ideas is as a great bell pealing in our hearts."

"Long have I dared hope of a wonderful man who would speak plainly yet truly of the national matters that darken our days, especially health care, education, and our tragic entanglement in a war amongst the Muhammadans," said Maribel Suarez, a Walgreens cashier and mother of three. "Now, hope, once near-extinguished, flames brightly within my breast once more."

An Education Plan with Merit

2007-07-31T21:42:00.000-06:00

The Wisconsin State Journal editorial staff would like to see more teachers like William Farnsworth teaching in Wisconsin. The opinion article mentions William Farnsworth, the only Wisconsin teacher out of 90 who received a 2006 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. I mention him only to say I'd rather see him teaching at a university, so he would be Professor Farnsworth.

-The Republican-led state Assembly has proposed a $250,000 annual fund from general tax dollars for teacher merit pay. The proposal is part of the Assembly's version of the state budget. The Democratic-run Senate should accept this modest yet important expense as leaders from both houses start to negotiate a final state spending plan this week.-
The WSJ thinks that rewarding good teachers with merit pay will improve state public education. I agree, mostly.

I disagree with most Republican efforts to apply capitalistic ideas to public education. Public education is by it's very nature a socialistic endeavor. It is the idea that every child deserves access to a good education, regardless of what his/her parents can afford. The idea that every child starts out with the same opportunity to succeed based on their abilities and their determination. And Capitalism does not fulfill this. Parents' choice of school is largely dictated by location, not quality. It would be more cost-effective to just not teach kids who are poor, or stupid, or with disabilities. Giving out school vouchers will simply increase the cost of private schools, which will remain out of reach to the poor. And President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative makes no sense at all. Yes, the passing schools get rewarded by getting full funding. But I have never understood how cutting funding to failing schools will help them improve. I understand that you don't want to reward anyone for failing, but I don't see how punishing the schools that need help can in any way help the students there.

Unfortunately, Socialism has it's own problems. Mostly that everyone gets paid the same and so there is no reason to overachieve.

The proposed plan for merit based pay is a good one (at least to start with) for two reasons.
1. It rewards good teachers. Who can argue with that? I know that simply paying teachers more does not make them better teachers. The best teachers teach because they enjoy it or they think the work is important. But, a higher salary will attract more potential teachers who would be good but choose to go into more lucrative fields.
2. The additional funding comes from the State. School districts should not take a financial hit because they have good teachers.

But I would go further. The State should provide all funding for every WI public school. As long as schools are funded by local property tax, funding, and therefore quality of education, will remain tied to the affluence of a school district. And that just does not mesh with the Socialistic ideals of public schooling. Every school should receive the same per student funding, which the districts can budget out however they like. Teacher's salaries should be paid from a separate fund to allow for merit based increases.

And the proposed budget does not identify what criteria would be used for the teacher's bonuses. I assume they would be tied to students' scores on standardized tests. And teachers whose students score high are doing their job well. But teachers whose students score average, but but had failed the year before, are also doing their job well. I have always considered improvement to be more important than achievement. I would like to see yearly bonuses based on improvement over the previous year, and then incremental raises every few years based on average scores over a teacher's career. That way, there is an incentive for teachers to go to failing schools, where there is more potential for higher bonuses. Also, teachers would be rewarded more for maintaining high scores than for maintaining average scores, instead of the current system, which gives all teachers the same raises, regardless of performance. Those teachers who maintain failing scores would likely just get fired.

Yes, I know, merit based salaries sounds like capitalism. I assure, you, as long as it's all paid for by the State, and everyone has equal access to it, it is still a Socialist program.

While the Assembly's proposal is not quite as good as the one I have outlined here, I do think it is an improvement on what we currently have. And I like to see improvement. So I will join the WSJ in encouraging the State Senate to support this plan. Of course, even with my suggestions, our students will never compete internationally until we overhaul our education standards. Start with increasing the amount of reading and reading comprehension in all subjects, as Althouse has suggested. Emphasize mathematical logic over rote memorization. Emphasize the scientific method. And Do Not Politicize Science. But that's another topic. Let's just get this first attempt at merit pay passed.

Disturbing

2007-07-27T14:08:00.000-06:00

She was cool when I met her, but I think I like her better dead...

Apparently, necrophilia is legal in the state of Wisconsin. You know, in case anyone was wondering.

-Three men who dug up a young woman's corpse to have sex with it after seeing her obituary photo cannot be charged with attempted sexual assault because Wisconsin has no law against necrophilia, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

The three men went to a cemetery in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin on Sept. 2 to remove the body of Laura Tennessen, 20, who had been killed the week before in a motorcycle crash. They said the men had seen an obituary of Tennessen with her photo and wanted to dig up her body to have sexual intercourse.- Yahoo news via Reddit

I realize I should have just been disgusted and then forgotten about this. But I decided to look into why it would be and why it should be illegal to have sex with a dead body.

Rape is charged when sex is performed and the victim is unable to consent to it. This applies if the victim is unconsciousness, or in a coma. I suppose it does not if the victim is dead, as then they are not legally recognized as a person.

The article notes that WI does have a provision in the sexual assault law saying criminal penalties apply "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse." I would think this clearly makes it illegal to have sex with a dead body, particularly the part where it says criminal penalties apply "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse."

-The appeals court ruled that the most reasonable interpretation was that it does not ban necrophilia. Instead, the court said, the law was meant to make sure prosecutors could bring sexual assault charges in rape-murder cases in which the victim ends up dead.-

This is what I dislike about legislatures, judges, and lawyers. That the "intent" of a law is more important than what the law itself actually says. Laws should be written to clearly say what is intended. If cases come up that aren't covered by the law, then it should be amended. And no one should infer or interpret anything else. But that is another issue...

But do we need a law explicitly banning sex with corpses? State Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, introduced legislation Wednesday that would make having sex with a corpse a felony with punishment of up to 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. I can understand the desire to protect dead bodies, but I thought we already had laws against disturbing burial sites and buried human bodies, and I think that should be enough. Sure, sexual assault on a living person causes harm, both physical and psychological, but that doesn't apply if the person has vacated the body. I certainly wouldn't want to be put in an oven and incinerated while I am alive, but if I were dead, I don't think I would care. I hope everyone agrees, though, that it is rather sad that this topic even comes up for debate.

The Tragedy of the Commons

2007-07-22T22:45:00.000-06:00

Last week at LIB, after tcz won the first round of "Fightin' Ed"'s Where in the World is Brad Vogel Today? challenge, I totally pwned any possible future rounds. For my prize, I asked "Fightin' Ed," if that is his real name, to write a post about the Tragedy of the Commons and how it relates to environmental regulation/global warming controls or evolutionary biology/development of altruism. Even though he shamelessly hides behind a pseudonym, Ed did make good on his word and wrote the requested article.

Ed's post was fine, but as expected it did not come close to covering all the points I wanted to see, so I since I want to see it done right, I'm going to write it myself. This will likely be a substantially lengthy essay, as I feel this is a very important idea to understand, because I see it as proof that ironically, self interest alone is not always best for self interest, and government regulation is required to maximize the long term common good.

The Tragedy of the Commons involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good. It occurs when there is "a tendency towards free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource." The theory behind it has been discussed at least since Aristotle. The name comes from a 1968 essay by Grant Hardin which described a hypothetical example of a common pasture shared by local herders. Each herder can choose how large a herd to let graze in the commons. For every animal added, the herder receives additional proceeds, but the pasture is slightly degraded.

"Crucially, the division of these components is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared between all herders using the pasture. Consequently, for an individual herder weighing up these utilities, the rational course of action is to add an extra animal. And another, and another. However, since all herders reach the same conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to each herder than the individual share of the distributed cost is. The overgrazing cost here is an example of an externality." /wikiplagiarism

There are really only three ways to reach on optimal solution.
1. Divide the land up for private use, eliminating the issue of the shared costs.
2. Force an equal distribution of all yields, eliminating the issue of the individual gains.
3. Enact a governing authority to enforce regulations limiting usage, eliminating the issue of the herders making rational decisions.

The idea of the commons can be applied to any commonly shared resource. One example is the issue of global warming. Everyone shares the atmosphere. People benefit by burning fuels which produce CO2. The costs of global warming will be shared by all. It is still in each individual's best interest not to worry about it. This topic does have the added problem that there is no way to divide up the atmosphere, so Option 1 is not applicable. Option 2 would require a global socialist government. Option 3, establishing limits on CO2 emissions, seems to be the most practical.

The study of game theory, particularly examples such as the prisoner's dilemma and the stag hunt, are of much interest to those studying evolution. As a general rule of evolution, those whose actions benefit themselves the greatest should dominate. It seems that altruism could not have evolved because the tragedy of the commons would always favor selfish individuals; whose genes for selfish behavior would therefore come to predominate. However, altruism has developed, along with an understanding of fairness, both in humans and to a degree in other animals. The tragedy of the commons shows that adopting common, fair rules regulating social behavior generates a better outcome for all than simply acting according to self interest. This suggests to me that government regulation is a product of evolution.

You can bring up Hobbes' Leviathon, Locke's social contract, or any of the other philosophical theories about the origins of government. But, I think it is possible, that we have a behavioral instinct to form rules and laws to limit our individual self interest.

I do realize that this is just a hypothetical and that there is no clear right answer, as Ed states. If it were otherwise, there would be little point in discussing it.

I would like to add that one of the most appropriate topics to apply the Tragedy of the Commons, and the one Grant Hardin focused on, is population control. It is in everyone's best interest to have many children. Explosive population growth makes Malthous angry.

Added:
*tcz deserves recognition for giving the first correct answer to the Where is Brad Vogel challenge.

*"Fightin' Ed" questions the application of evolutionary biology to altruism. I had decided not to get into altruism too deeply as altruism reflects a free choice to act against self interest and rules and regulations force one to act against self interest. This is the difference between donations and taxes. But, for anyone interested, I'll direct you to the Wikiarticle on Reciprocal Altruism, which should be noted is the best strategy at the Prisoner's Dilemma game.
Also, moderately related, two studies on altruism in chimps.

As for the TotC being a zero-sum game, I was not aware that it had to be. I do know the classic Prisoner's Dilemma is a non-zero-sum game. I would have to do a bit more research, however, to determine if zero-sumness matters or can be applied to things like inclusionary zoning.

*I do realize that the crux of my argument relies on the government regulations being fair. And I know the adages about power corrupting and too many cooks. My ideal government is run by algorithm, or by me. For a somewhat related article on why some governments irrationally remain corrupt, Reason Mag explains Why Poor Countries are Poor.

*And of course, the one thing no one has mentioned yet. Option 2, the division of profits, is a horrible solution in game theory because then it is in the best interest of each farmer to do no work at all because they will still receive the same profit as those who do work.

Hodgepodge Revisited

2007-07-18T20:13:00.001-06:00

I did miss Hodgepodge Tuesday yesterday, so to make up for it, here is The Internet Reposted. This is a look back at some of the virals, crashes, accidents, stunts, mis-haps, bloopers & calamaties over the past few years of the internet. Some of your old favorites will be here.

Part 1
Part 2

A Milwaukee Throwback

2007-07-14T10:52:00.000-06:00

Barry Bonds currently has 751 career home runs. He needs four more to tie Hank Aaron's all time record. If you look at the schedule, guys, it is conceivable that 756 could happen during the stretch of road games at Chicago and at Milwaukee this week (although I predict a cold streak after 753, until he suddenly gets hot in August).

I'm sure the Giants organization would prefer to see Bonds break the record at home in AT&T Park. In fact, when Aaron was about to break Ruth's record in 1974, the Braves pulled him from the lineup after he hit the record tying shot on opening day in Cincinnati, trying to guarantee the record would be set in Atlanta. (Commissioner Bowie Kuhn ordered the team to play Aaron in the series finale against the Reds and Aaron did not homer.) But Bonds might actually want to break Aaron's record in Milwaukee. Milwaukee had been the hometown for Aaron, who has said he will not be on hand when Bonds hits 755, and, more importantly, is the home of MLB commissioner Bud Selig, who has also refused to show any support to Bonds. It would be a great opportunity to stick it to Selig.

The Cap Times asked, what if Bonds breaks the record at Milwaukee? Or anywhere on the road, for that matter. There would have to be some sort of obligatory celebration. And whoever was lucky enough to catch the ball would be very happy at the chance to sell it. But... How awesome would it be to catch Bond's record breaking home run ball... and throw it back. If somebody had the balls to do that, it could be the greatest moment in the history of sports. So here is my suggestion to anyone attending an away game hosting the Giants in which Bonds has a chance to hit 756. Sort of a compromise to the dilemma. Bring an extra ball into the game. If, by chance, 756 is hit to you, pocket it, and hold up the extra ball. Let everyone yell, give the TV cameras a chance to zoom in on you, and then throw it back (the extra ball, don't be an idiot).

rabble rabble

2007-07-11T23:02:00.000-06:00

Apparently, I haven't been rousing enough rabble lately. I apologize. I hope today's posts make up for it. I will also apologize for the excessive amount of rabble rousing posts I am about to write.

Terror

2007-07-11T15:16:00.000-06:00

Full article from Reason

By definition, the aim of "terrorism" is not to topple the U.S. government, or even to rack up a massive body count (though that seems to be a perk for them). The aim of terrorism is to cause terror. It's to scare us. Frighten us. Alter our way of life, and get our government to change its policies.

In this sense, the very people who are supposed to be protecting us from terrorists are playing right into the terrorists' hands. Despite the absence of any specific information, and despite the fact that his saying as much would do little if anything to actually thwart a pending attack, Chertoff still feels he has to go public with his "gut feeling" that something awful might happen this summer. And so the newspapers and Drudge and the blogs run with it. And now we get to go about our summer business with the foreboding cloud of a possible terror attack looming on the horizon.

Al-Qaeda doesn't actually have to kill people to cause terror, especially if we're doing their PR work for them. They don't need to actually land any body blows if we keep falling to the canvas every time they fake a punch. What if Chertoff's right? Maybe there will be an attack this summer. I hope not. But if there is, what purpose did this vague, scary warning serve, other than to frighten people?

Zeitgeist

2007-07-11T13:24:00.000-06:00

Up for some crazy theories?

Zeitgeist [1 hr 56 min movie)

The Bible is plagiarized, 911 was done by the U.S. govt, and a group of international run the Federal Reserve. And all three are ways of keeping you under control.

Answers: ʎlʇsoɯ 'ou 'sǝʎ

NOPEC

2007-07-11T13:06:00.000-06:00

I may have said before that WI Senator Herb Kohl has not done anything significant enough to warrant reelection. It seems I was unaware of his "NOPEC" bill he proposed last spring, and I now feel obliged to drum up some support for it.

from Slate:
The American legal system's bizarre tolerance of the OPEC oil cartel has long irritated Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who around the time the Prewitts filed their OPEC lawsuit undertook to remove any legal doubt as to whether OPEC was susceptible to U.S. antitrust enforcement. That doubt, more imaginary than real, arises from whether OPEC's member nations enjoy "sovereign immunity" because they are countries, not private companies. "Sovereign immunity" is a red herring because OPEC itself is not a sovereign nation. And anyway, Kohl has pointed out, "The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act … already recognizes that the 'commercial' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity." To wit:

Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction
of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are
concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the
satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with
their commercial activities.

Is conspiring to set the price of oil a "commercial" activity? Of course it is. OPEC's member nations get paid for the oil they export.

Kohl drafted a bill, dubbed "NOPEC," that said OPEC could no longer protect itself from antitrust prosecution by citing "sovereign immunity" and explicitly granted the Justice Department jurisdiction. The bill went nowhere back in 2000. But this past spring, Kohl dusted it off, and John Fialka reports in the July 6 Wall Street Journal that NOPEC has won the support of veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. The appeal of NOPEC extends from left to right; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is pushing it, and so is the Heritage Foundation. The Bush administration, however, can't stand the idea.

Defense of a Breach of Marriage

2007-07-11T12:46:00.000-06:00

Senator David Vitter, R-Louisiana is now the first lawmaker named in connection with the "DC Madam." Sure, senators shouldn't be committing felonies, but I really don't care if pay for prostitutes. What bothers me is that Vitter was a strong supporter of the "Defense of Mariage" movement. And that he admits it was a "very serious sin" but says it's all okay now because God forgave him.

Hustler magazine is claiming credit for revealing Vitter. A bit of Trivia: Hustler was responsible for the resignation of House Speaker-designate Robert Livingston -- whose congressional seat Vitter won the next year.

2007-07-11T12:45:00.000-06:00

Normally I'd wait for some actual evidence before linking to something like this, but I'm in a muckrakely mood right now. Enjoy (via Digg).

Burying Niggers

2007-07-11T12:18:00.000-06:00

The NAACP has buried "the N-Word" (Nigger). The article mentions the fact that Nigger has been a racial slur used by whites against blacks, and has the obligatory mention of Michael Richards, but this does not seem to be about figuratively burying racial slurs. It appears that they were figuratively burying the black glorification of the ghetto thug lifestyle.

"Today we're not just burying the N-word, we're taking it out of our spirit," said Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. "We gather burying all the things that go with the N-word. We have to bury the 'pimps' and the 'hos' that go with it."

I find this hilarious. First Nigger was a racial slur used by whites. Then blacks reclaimed the word and changed its meanings. Now some blacks want to take the reclaimed word away from the other blacks.

The Nameless

2007-07-09T21:25:00.000-06:00

Bad news on the Stephen Colbert Elementary front. In their meeting tonight, the Madison School Board voted to amend the naming process from the former "MMSD schools are named for a prominent local figure (city or state), a prominent national figure, or a locally significant geographical site, or a place of local significance," to now only consider deceased figures.
In short, the Madison School Board hates freedom.

It appears we are now left at an impasse. We need to find a suitable [deceased] replacement or we'll end up with someone like that New York shyster Shirley Abrahmamson, or that union agitator Paul Olson. The Board of Education will also allow ideas and concepts, along with deceased prominent figures. Online submissions should start again soon, so before then, let's hear some ideas!

Colorblind

2007-07-09T20:42:00.000-06:00

The Madison School Board meets tonight to reopen the naming process for the new elementary school. More on that later. For now...

Reason #51 why the Madison School Board should name the new school Stephen Colbert Elementary: Stephen Colbert exemplifies the true meaning of diversity.

Last time around, the MMSB chose Vang Pao in the interest of "diversity." But they had it all wrong. Instead of choosing someone who represents a specific ethnic group, they should choose someone who does not even know what ethnic group he belongs to. That describes Colbert, although not because he comes from a grab bag of ancestries. It is a fact that Stephen Colbert cannot see color or gender. He only sees Americans (he also cannot smell flowers). For proof, here is Stephen with his black acquaintance Alan.

Human Nature

2007-07-06T20:50:00.000-06:00

This article on Psychology is worth a read. It focus on evolutionary behavior relating to sexual reproduction and male-female relationships. By my interpretation, it seems that although polygamy is the natural course of behavior for humans, there is real evidence that monogamy is actually better for society. And, because I know Mike H has been wondering, the article explains the draw of "72 virgins."

Miss Independent

2007-07-04T13:55:00.000-06:00

Miss Informed

[This is a repost from last year]

Today, as you might already know, or you probably could have read just above this post, is the Fourth of July. You might also know it as Independence Day, or America’s Birthday. You might just be wrong. Time for a history lesson, bitches.

The Second Continental Congress actually voted for independence on July 2, 1776. This resolution was rewritten by Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence was approved and signed on July 4, 1776. But that just declared our intent to be independent from Britain. Britain still wanted a say in the matter, and it took a little something called the Revolutionary War to convince them. So we didn’t win our independence until May of 1781, with the British surrender at Yorktown. And it wasn’t official until the Treaty of Paris, signed September 3, 1783.

But that just meant the states were independent from Britain. They didn’t have to join together to become one country. Certainly, not everyone thought they should. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, established a formal union between the states, but the power was still with the individual states. The United States of America as we know it, was “born” with the ratification of the Constitution, approved in 1787, and ratified by the last state, Rhode Island, in 1790.

My point is this: We did not instantly go from being 13 British colonies to a unified independent nation. It was a long process, full of war and debate. And it took another hundred years of uprisings and rebellions and finally a civil war before things settled down. So don’t expect anything different from other new nations.

All Stars

2007-07-01T17:33:00.000-06:00

The rosters for the 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game have been announced. Notably, Milwaukee's Prince Fielder received the second most number of votes in the NL, and will start at first base, becoming the first Brewer voted to the starting lineup since Paul Molitor at third base in 1988. Teammates J.J. Hardy (SS), Francisco Cordero (P), and Ben Sheets (P) also made the roster. The Brewers tied the Mets for the most players on the NL roster. Detroit led the AL roster with 5.

This pleases me. If things go according to plan, we will have a Milwaukee-Detroit World Series. While all the national focus is on the coasts, the Midwest is growing strong, and power is coming back to the middle, where it belongs.

Stephen Colbert cares about children

2007-06-29T17:26:00.000-06:00

Reason #18 why the Madison School Board should name the new school Stephen Colbert Elementary. Stephen Colbert cares about the children.

And not just in the "used child soldiers to fight his CIA backed, drug money financed war" way.

Colbert regularly uses his nationally televised show to help educate children. He has even featured a segment specifically directed at children, "Balls for Kids." The first segment taught our youth to fear bears, a very important message children need to hear. Other segments have taught about the dangers of gambling, and carnivals.

So, if you oppose the movement to rename the Madison School after Stephen Colbert, then you hate children.

Aggragate

2007-06-28T12:12:00.000-06:00

During the discussion at the last Madison Blogger Roundup, I had an idea. Madison (or just the UW) should have a central blogging hub. Now, I know, there are already several blog aggregators. But those aren't quite what I envision.

I would like to see a site set up where local bloggers could submit links to their own posts. Ideally, non-bloggers could write their own posts through the site and submit them. All readers could then leave comments and discuss the post.

What would make the site different than the other aggregators is that it would take the idea of ranking posts from sites like Digg, Reddit, and the like. Newly submitted posts would go to a page where readers would read them and add or deduct points. Anyone could submit posts, but the readers would decide which were good enough to make the front page.

It would be a great place to post breaking news. The various newspapers could post articles, breaking stories immediately and updating them as things developed. Sure it may hurt print sales, but it would increase online ad revenue. It would be a way for the two (and a half) campus papers to directly compete with each other (as Brad had suggested), and compete equally with the larger papers. Whoever got wrote the better article or posted it first would have a better chance of making the front page, and getting seen by more readers.

If developed properly, it could become a city- or campus-wide forum for discussion of local issues. It would be an easy place for the average person to voice their opinion and get it seen by those in power. And the point system would show how many others agree.

I would set something up right now if I had the website development skills to do so. Since I don't, I thought I'd just throw the idea out for consideration.

Money Trail

2007-06-28T08:36:00.000-06:00

Just a reminder, Saturday night is the deadline for second-quarter fundraising. Five of my competitors were out on the campaign trail yesterday attending fundraising events. I think I've got them worried, though they'll never admit it.

While I'm not going to beg and pander for money like the other candidates, I certainly won't turn any of you away if you wish to contribute. My campaign chest is currently at $10. Thanks for the birthday card last week, Grandma.

Mitt Romney Hates Animals

2007-06-28T08:27:00.001-06:00

Romney's Cruel Canine Vacation - TIME

Wednesday Hodgepodge Tuesday

2007-06-27T18:03:00.000-06:00

MSNBC asks "Will science render men unnecessary?" As usual, they completely ignore my warnings. Apparently Brian Alexander is incapable of basic statistics.

Researchers are planning an expedition next month to the UP to search for Bigfoot. As someone who has done extensive research on the subject, I suspect the Department of Homeland Security will suppress any evidence they find.

The Supreme Court recently issued their rulings on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case and the Wisconsin Right to Life case. Before I get into the White House, I'd like to know, is court-packing still considered a bad thing?

And now, some actually useful links. More than you probably need. TIME's 25 websites they can't live without. MSN's 100 blogs they love and 25 Web Sites to Watch. Sadly, both fail the "link to me" test, but you're already here, so I clearly don't need them.

Hodgepodge Tuesday: Expanded

2007-06-26T09:48:00.000-06:00

Occupational Hazards

2007-06-26T09:47:00.000-06:00

As if there wasn't enough build up and backstory to this year's Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. First, last year's runner up, Joey Chestnut, set a new world record of 59 1/2 hot dogs on June 2 (video proof), breaking the record set by Takero Kobayashi, who has been unbeatable at Nathan's the past six years. Now, in an unexpected turn of events, Kobayashi has developed "jaw arthritis" while training. On his blog, he said, "I feel ashamed that I couldn't notice the alarm bells set off by my own body. But with the goal to win another title with a new record, I couldn't stop my training so close to the competition." Really. A man who regularly eats 50+ hot dogs in 12 minutes and still holds world records for eating rice balls and cow brains, did not notice the alarm bells his body was sending? So, does this mean that we won't get to see the long awaited rematch of Kobayashi vs. Chestnut this Fourth, and that Kobayashi's reign is over, not with a bang, but with a whimper? Or is this just a feint? We'll find out soon enough.

Tom Cruise ist offiziell verrückt

2007-06-26T09:46:00.000-06:00

Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defense Ministry said on Monday. Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult." I'll agree with them that Scientology is just a money-making cult. But not allowing them to film because the lead actor has some irrational beliefs? That sounds a bit crazy too.

Reapproprating Chimp Culture

2007-06-26T09:45:00.000-06:00

Further proof that altruism is an evolutionary trait inherited from our primate ancestors. Many researchers have claimed that such altruism emanates from a species-unique psychology not found in humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee. In favor of this view, the few experimental studies on altruism in chimpanzees have produced mostly negative results. In contrast, we report experimental evidence that chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards spontaneously and repeatedly toward humans and conspecifics. I'm not sure who's argument this hurts more, the Theists who claim morality is unique to humans and is created by God, or the Randians who claim altruism is evil and runs counter to our logical biological desires.

Update: And the studies keep poring in. Apparently, our minds, our emotions, our morals, literally our souls, are products of evolution. The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”

Artificial Independents

2007-06-25T09:57:00.000-06:00

A Newsweek poll from last week found that 57% do not think the two-party system does a good job of addressing the issues that are important and presumably the same 57% would like to see a third major political party. I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in our current system, and I think adding a third party, which would prevent both Democrats and Republicans from having a majority, would be better. What frustrates me more, though, is that despite the previous numbers, only only 31% of those polled considered themselves Independent or had no party affiliation, with a fraction of a percent choosing a third party.

Of course, it doesn't help that there is no viable third party candidate to get behind. Many have speculated that billionaire NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg may run as an independent, but I'm not so sure now. A TIME article, Why Bloomberg May Not Want to Run, suggests that he does not plan to run, but encourages speculation to get the national attention to promote a few of his key issues. Plus, he is too short to win.

George Will further argues that Bloomberg can not win. I agree with Will that a third party would need a key issue or a focused agenda to rally around. However, Will fails in Economics when he states that "The two major parties are sensitive market mechanisms: What makes Bloomberg think they are failing to supply something the public strongly demands?" The two main parties are in collusion to maintain their oligopoly over politics.

It seems clear to me that most people recognize that our current system is flawed, and should be changed. It also seems clear to me that no one else is going to step up and get it done.

Balls for Kidz

2007-06-21T08:53:00.002-06:00

The Madison School Board recently decided not to name a new elementary school after controversial Hmong leader Vang Pao. The board will now reopen the naming process sometime after their meeting on July 9th.

I am going to pose a challenge to my fellow local bloggers. We need to spread the idea of renaming the school the Stephen Colbert Elementary School. Not already convinced? Compare Colbert's bio with Vang Pao's. Not only is Colbert the Greatest Living American, and not accused of past drug trafficking, war crimes, and plotting to overthrow the Laotian government, but Stephen has shown a genuine effort to help kids. The man has Big Brass Balls. I can not think of a greater role model for our children than Stephen Colbert, and I can not think of a better word to describe Madison Schools than "truthiness".

This isn't about getting recognition. This isn't about demanding that the school board go along with a vocal minority. This isn't even about Stephen Colbert. This is about doing what is best for the children. Won't somebody, please, think of the children?

So what can you do, as a mere blogger, who likely would be happy to get 50 views a day? Lots, my friend. Using tactics inspired from Colbert himself, we can use the power of the Internet to help achieve our goal. Write your own posts (write many if you can) describing why Madison should rename the school the Stephen Colbert Elementary School. Link to this URL - http://dorshorst08.blogspot.com/2007/06/balls-for-kidz.html
Use anchor texts of "Stephen Colbert Elementary School", "Vang Pao Elementary", "Madison School Board", and "Renaming Madison School". If you want, feel free to just copy the html here and repost this on your site. Your posts will spread the idea around the local Blogosphere, and your links will spread the idea to anyone Googling the above phrases.

When the board reopens the naming process, we need to flood them with submissions for Stephen Colbert (link will come when available). We need to write letters to the board members (contact info here) explaining why Colbert is the best choice. We need to write letters to the editor to all local papers. And if this ever gets read by Mr. Colbert, your support would be tremendous.

So go now and spread the good word. Together, we can make the Stephen Colbert Elementary School a reality for the Madison School District.

Reason #18: Stephen Colbert cares about children.

Defector

2007-06-19T23:04:00.000-06:00

My plan to get people to leave the Republican and Democratic parties is working.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg left the Republican Party on Tuesday and switched to unaffiliated, a move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration does not mean he is running for president.The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run, said the change in his voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

"The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy," he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

This does not mean that he will be running for President as an Independent, but it is very likely. Although, he could just be planning on using his billions of dollars to support my bid. Either way, Phase 1 of the Master Plan is coming along just fine.

Beans?

2007-06-17T21:36:00.000-06:00

I had brought up the idea of a baked beans challenge at the last Madison Blogger Roundup. A few expressed interest, but there no definitive plans were made. If anyone actually wants to do this, I will need to know who and how many so I know how much beans to get. So if anyone was serious, and if anyone else wants to give it a go, please RSVP by leaving a comment here.

I was thinking doing this before or to start the Blogger Roundup 3.0 would be the best time. Brad had set a start time of 6:30 at Ians Pizza Annex. The bean eating could be done concurrently, as I doubt competitors will want to eat anything else afterward. I can bring the supplies needed, but I do need a suggestion for a good place to hold the event (and possibly someplace to cook the beans).

When I ate a 7lb pound can a while back, I ate the first half in under an hour, but the second half took me the rest of the day. So, in the interest of finishing this in a reasonable amount of time, I think we need to limit the competition to just a half-can (3.5 lbs, 7.5 cups, 13 servings) per person. If you want to eat more, you can, but I don't plan on waiting for you, or calling 911 when you die.

I am open to suggestions. If you really want to compete, but can't do it when I have proposed, I am still open to rescheduling at this time. And certainly, be sure to let me know if this whole idea was just half-baked. I thought I'd do this because a few wanted to make a competition out of it, but if no one else was serious I have no problem with eating my giant can of beans by myself.

ADDENDUM: I had figured that a speed competition to see who could finish 3.5 lbs first would take about an hour. I can see how some may not want to spend that much time on this. Another option would be doing a 'how much can you eat in 15 minutes' competition. Let me know what you'd rather do and I'll go with the consensus.

If anyone was wondering, the official IFOCE record for baked beans is 6 lbs in 1 min 48 sec.

And yes, I am aware that doing this Wednesday will result in a bit of a stink at the Blogger Roundup.

UPDATE: It's clear this needs a bit more time to get the details worked out. So let's postpone the competition for now. I imagine the Roundup tonight will be the best time to work things out if anyone can make it.

Hitless

2007-06-13T09:07:00.000-06:00

Things are not looking good for the Milwaukee Brewers right now. Sure, their 34-30 record stills leads the horrible NL Central by 5.5 games, but the team had led the League a month ago is in danger of dropping below .500 (they were 24-10 on May but lost 20 of their last 30 since then). And now this:

Detroit's Justin Verlander threw a no-hitter against the Brewers last night. Sure, Verlander deserves full credit for an amazing pitching performance. He stuck out 12. He was throwing great off-speed stuff and was still throwing 101 mph fastballs in the 9th inning.

I don't care how good the opposing pitcher is, though. A good team should not go hitless. Right now, the Brew Crew is not a good team. I'm hoping this was a wake-up call for them.

Evolution, Smevolution

2007-06-09T22:24:00.000-06:00

Do you believe in Evolution?

This question has come up a few times in the Republican Debates (Huckabee's beliefs, Brownback's beliefs). It has not with the Democrats because we all know the Democrats are all fag atheist abortionists. I was not invited to either debate (thank you MSM blackout), so I will say it here: I do believe in the theory of Evolution. All of it.

"Wait," you say. "He admits evolution is just a theory." Yes. But for a theory to be adopted, it has to be able to explain past events and accurately predict future events. Gravity is just a theory. If you hold a rock up and drop it, you expect it will fall. You have no proof that it will, or even that there is such a thing as gravity that has made things fall in past situations. Yet, when you drop the rock, it does indeed fall, and your theory of gravity holds. [Sidebar: this is the Newtonian theory of gravity. Scientists have essentially proven it false. But I assume those of you not familiar with relativity and space/time curvature do not really care.]

The same thing goes for evolution. We don't know why living things are the way they are. Evolution and natural selection does explain things. It is testable on a small scale. We have no proof that it is definitely what brought about the species homo sapien, but so far, it has held up, with some minor tweaks and additions as we have discovered new evidence.

If you want to say that evolution is really the will of God, that He has guided it all, well I can't prove you wrong. Essentially, you are multiplying all terms by the same variable, which gets canceled out and can't be solved for. You're adding an unnecessary level of complication that doesn't explain things any better. And you are assuming the existence of God, something that has no scientific credibility.

The best thing about evolution is that it is just a theory. If new evidence surfaces that contradicts what evolution says should happen, then the theory has to adapt to explain the new evidence. It doesn't assume our knowledge 200 years ago (much less 4000) was perfect and does not need to be updated.

Religious Tests

2007-06-09T10:12:00.000-06:00

Should a candidate's religious beliefs matter?

A while back, TIME's cover story brought up the question of religion, specifically about Republican candidate and Mormon, Mitt Romney.
John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 was supposed to have laid the "religious question" to rest, yet it arises again with a fury. What does the Constitution mean when it says there should be no religion test for office? It plainly means that a candidate can't be barred from running because he or she happens to be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a Pentecostal. But Mitt Romney's candidacy raises a broader issue: Is the substance of private beliefs off-limits? You can ask if a candidate believes in school vouchers and vote for someone else if you disagree with the answer. But can you ask if he believes that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Mo., as the Mormon founder taught, and vote against him on the grounds of that answer? Or, for that matter, because of the kind of underwear he wears?

Slate editor Jacob Weisberg threw down the challenge after reviewing some of Joseph Smith's more extravagant assertions. "He was an obvious con man," Weisberg wrote. "Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country." That argument, counters author and radio host Hugh Hewitt, amounts to unashamed bigotry and opens the door to any person of any faith who runs for office being called to account for the mysteries of personal belief. He has published A Mormon in the White House?, a chronicle of Romney's rise as business genius, Olympic savior, political star. But Hewitt has a religious mission as well when he cites a survey in which a majority of Evangelicals said voting for a Mormon was out of the question. If that general objection means they would not consider Romney in 2008, Hewitt warns, then prejudice is legitimized, and "it will prove a disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life."

I am not one of those who believe the founding fathers were infallible, but I think they were right to prohibit any sort of religious test for elected officials. That doesn't stop individual voters from having their own religious tests.

If a candidate believes in God, should we say, "Eh, it really won't affect things," or say "Is he retarded or just crazy?" or say "We need him in power so our country has God on our side"? Most people are of the first, moderate opinion, as long as the candidate believes what they do. If his beliefs seem strange, then they go with the second and think he is crazy. If he is Wiccan, he's a godless pagan. If he's a Scientologist, we rightly call him out for belonging to a cult. If he's an atheist, then he has no morals. But there is no official religious test.

Why is it that people who hold religious beliefs can clearly see that all other religions are preposterous, yet they cannot see the flaws in their own beliefs? Let's examine a few religions:

Scientology [The Church of Scientology does not officially consider itself a religion]: Our problems today are because an ancient galactic ruler named Xenu trapped billions of aliens in a volcano, nuked them, and then brainwashed their ghosts, who now inhabit our bodies.
Clearly this is stupid.

Mormons [I know the religion is called the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. That's just too long to write and LDS sounds like a mental handicap. Mormon sounds slightly less like a mental handicap]: God gave Joseph Smith a set of gold plates which said that the first man and woman lived in Missouri and that Native Americans came from Jerusalem, were visited by Jesus, and had their skin turned red by God when they rejected him.
Clearly this is stupid.

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was literally his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil curse on your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree.
Why isn't this clearly stupid?

But back to the original question. Should a candidates religious beliefs matter? Can we accept a President who admits he holds stupid ideas about cosmology? Isn't it more important that they know more relevant things like economics and foreign relations? I previously supported the idea of an Egghead for the Oval Office, but do we really need a President that can explain M-theory?

Yes, it does matter. A willful irrationality in one area is a good indicator of a willful irrationality in others. Faith is the absence of reason. If any religious beliefs could be tested or proven, they would be considered scientific theories. Unfortunately, most Americans are not entirely rational themselves, and they want the man representing them to hold the same superstitions.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

Godless

2007-06-09T10:02:00.001-06:00

It is well known that an Atheist cannot be elected to any significant public office. Fortunately, I already know I will not be elected. So I am not afraid to let you know that I am an Atheist (perhaps a pseudo Buddhist/Unitarian/Ba Hai/Catholic/Humanist in practice, but Atheist nonetheless in theory). This makes me more of a minority in the U.S. than being homosexual, or black, or a woman.

One common misconception about Atheists is that they don't believe in morals. This is Nihilism, and it isn't the only only type of Atheism. A Theist believes that morals come from God. A Humanist believes that humans just are moral. A true Atheist does not know where morals came from, but is open to the idea that morals came from non-supernatural origins. It is possible that morality is an evolutionary trait, as new research suggests; establishing a code of conduct helps humans survive. Many other animals exhibit various degrees of what could be described as morals. Not surprisingly, other primates show the most developed morals, next to ours. Morality could be encoded in our genes. Young children show some understanding of morality, but it does develop and mature with age, so there is probably an element of environmental/cultural influence to morality.

Another misconception is the idea the Atheists believe that they know God does not exist. This is false. There is no possible way to prove this. If you want to call that Agnosticism, that's your option; I don't feel the need to pussyfoot with the terminology. But, while it would be very difficult to prove definitively that Bigfoot does not exist, most people are willing to dismiss the idea because of a lack of evidence. We don't believe in unicorns, or fairies, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Atheists simply don't make exceptions.

A third misconception is that Atheists think they can know everything. The reality is, we have a greater appreciation for the vast mysteries of the universe, because we can't just explain things by saying "God made it so."

So why can't theists tolerate atheism? My theory is that their own beliefs are so fragile that they will unravel if any sort of doubt is entertained. Of course, I think that if you are unable to defend your faith to criticism, then you really shouldn't be following it.

Idiocracy

2007-06-03T19:02:00.000-06:00

Not just a movie.

From the New York Times:
Now Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing? In his provocative new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.” Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself.

So the question is, is it possible for candidates like this to get elected, as opposed to candidates like this? I know my campaign is doomed. But can't somebody else run that won't end up on the Must Not Be Elected List?

Cows and...

2007-06-01T16:29:00.000-06:00

June is dairy month in Wisconsin, because apparently the dairy industry doesn't get any recognition the other 11 months. To start things off, the Dane County Dairy Promotion Committee will be holding the 29th Annual Cows on the Concourse.

Saturday, June 2, 2007
8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Rain or Shine!
Event Admission: FREE

Location: Capital Square, Madison, WI
Main Street & Martin Luther King Boulevard
[detours]

Event Highlights:
- Visit three cow petting areas
- Ask our "Moo Experts" your bovine questions
- Tempt your taste buds with ice cold milk, cheese,
ice cream, cream puffs and yogurt
- Stay for lunch, visit our grilled cheese stand
- Enjoy live entertainment
- Visit with special guests

...More Cows

2007-06-01T16:28:00.000-06:00

I can't think of a better way to end the Cows on the Concourse event than the "Running of the Cows" idea that came up during the last Madison Blogger Roundup. With a little planning, this could be a pretty good event.

Imagine, Saturday evening. Crowds lining State St. watching cows amble down it. Daring individuals could risk unlikely injury by walking in front of the docile beasts. We could put numbers on the cows, so individuals could make friendly wagers on which cow would make it to the end first, and everyone could cheer on their favorites.

Now to the name. This shouldn't be just a Pamplona knock off. Let's come up with a better name than "Running of the Cows" to 'brand' this event. My submission: Mad Cow Stampede. (My brother rarely comes up with ideas that are any good, but he gets some credit for this).

2007-05-29T21:58:00.000-06:00

Memorial Day

2007-05-28T14:56:00.000-06:00

Today is Memorial Day. The day we honor those soldiers who have died at war. Mike H over at LIB wrote up a nice post explaining what Memorial Day is all about. I'm not going to dispute any of that. Rather, I'd like to wax philosophical for a moment; instead of asking "What?" I am going to ask "Why?" None of this is to demean anything Mike or any other soldier has done. Again, I am not challenging the what, only the why.

From the Veteran's Affairs Canada-
Why Remember?

We must remember. If we do not, the sacrifice of those one hundred thousand Canadian lives will be meaningless. They died for us, for their homes and families and friends, for a collection of traditions they cherished and a future they believed in; they died for Canada. The meaning of their sacrifice rests with our collective national consciousness; our future is their monument.

Why do we celebrate Memorial Day? Why do we feel the need to honor fallen soldiers? Isn't this just a way of glorifying war? By saying that the greatest thing a man can do is to die for his country, we are encouraging men to do the same. We are perpetuating this cycle of war, of death.

Did the soldiers of past wars die hoping that their deaths would inspire others to go to war? Or did they hope they would be the last?

I know the saying: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But do we still need to memorialize war? Is is an unchangeable, unending part of humanity? Should it be celebrated, or viewed as a deplorable last resort? Is this Sparta? Or is it just madness?

Title Missing

2007-05-25T08:10:00.000-06:00

Today, May 25, is National Missing Children's Day.

May 25, 2007 marks the 25th National Missing Children’s Day. First proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan and observed by every administration since, May 25th is the anniversary of the day in 1979 when 6-year-old Etan Patz disappeared from a New York street corner on his way to school...The widespread attention brought to his case and those of others eventually led to a nationwide commitment to help locate and recover missing children. National Missing Children’s Day honors this commitment by reminding parents, guardians, and other trusted-adult role models to make child safety a priority.
-from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Kids.

Recently, 3 year old Madeleine McCann went missing while she and her family were vacationing in Portugal. You may recognize her photo, as the case got a huge amount of publicity, and she has a weird, keyhole eye. Unfortunately, though the media would have you believe that only one or two children go missing each year, the US Department of Justice reported that 797,500 children are reported missing every year. That's over 2000 a day, just in the US, and sadly, not all are cute little white girls.

False Idols

2007-05-22T16:44:00.000-06:00

courtesy of Moonbat and Wingnut

The American Idol finale is finally upon us. Jordin Sparks and Blake Lewis will perform tonight and the finale results will be announced tomorrow. If you want a fawning review by someone who has bought in to the whole American Idol crap, go check out Althouse.
There will be none of that here.

American Idol is helping to destroy music. It is a summation of all that is wrong with popular music. It is the paradigm of style over substance.

Those who make music can be divided into two groups: performers, and those who actually create the music, the composers, the songwriters. Music today only focuses on the performers, and mostly on how they look on stage or in a music video. Unfortunately, music is entirely auditory. Sure, Fergie might be nice to look at, but hearing "My Humps" on the radio makes my soul retract. The market is oversaturated with singers who got record deals because of their attractiveness, who put out garbage which gets put on the radio by industry execs who know that the average listener has no taste and will buy whatever they are told is popular.

Oh, the irony of people who can not judge music for themselves voting on which singer is better.

Singers (do not call them artists) are overrated. If someone reads prose really well, the credit goes to the author of the prose. If the prose was bad, then the reader is just ignored. Music should be no different. No one knows, or cares, who first performed Wagner's Ring Cycle, or Shakespeare's King Lear. The works are remembered because of their merits, as are the men who created them. So I take some comfort in knowing that whoever wins (and her name will not rhyme with Blake), they will be forgotten.

Reemergence of the Brood

2007-05-20T23:50:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, this post is not about StarCraft II. There is no release date yet for that game, though I've been waiting a long time and the demo clips on Youtube have gotten me a little excited.

Billions of cicadas are about to hatch in Midwest. Brood XII, which has spent the last 17 years underground, is expected across northern Illinois, and in parts of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.

Exactly when the cicadas will emerge is a subject of debate, although there is agreement they emerge once the soil temperature is consistently 64 to 65 degrees for several days. Biologists and insect experts predict the cicadas will emerge between Tuesday and June 1.

They are periodical cicadas, which are only found in the eastern half of North America. The annual, or dog-day cicadas, that appear every summer are common around the world.

A single male's shrill courtship call can reach 90 decibels, equivalent to a kitchen blender.

Fortunately, cicadas only live about 30 days, but this still might end up being a long, long month.

Looking Forward

2007-05-19T11:23:00.001-06:00

The 06-07 school year is over, so that means it is time to start looking at the 07 college football season.

Is Wisconsin the best team in the Big Ten? It seems strange to see that question on ESPN's homepage, but many are saying yes.
From Mark Schlabach at ESPN:

Wisconsin was very, very good under former coach Barry Alvarez. In his 16 seasons, the Badgers claimed three Big Ten titles and won three Rose Bowls. But under Alvarez's watch, Wisconsin never seemed to be a true national championship contender. Thanks to Alvarez and many of the players he recruited, the Badgers are on the cusp of becoming one of the country's truly elite teams in coach Bret Bielema's second season. The Badgers return nine starters on offense and seven on defense from a team that finished 12-1 and beat Arkansas in the Capital One Bowl. How good were the Badgers last season? Since they didn't have to play Ohio State and won only one game against a team that won its bowl game, no one exactly knows. With home games against Washington State and Michigan and road games at Penn State and Ohio State, the Badgers will earn their ranking in 2007.

An Overview of all Big Ten teams on ESPN shows why the Badgers are being picked as "the team to beat".

Stewart Mandel's spring power rankings for SI have Wisconsin at #10 in the nation. The best part of these rankings: Notre Dame is nowhere to be found.

Rapier Wit

2007-05-17T13:21:00.000-06:00

Recently, the radio show Opie and Anthony got some criticism after a segment where a regular guest, "Homeless Charlie," talked about raping Sec State Condi Rice, First Lady Laura Bush, and the Queen of England. I won't post the clip or transcript, because I do not happen to think it was funny, and I don't think it's content is particularly important to my point I'm making, but the clip is here if you want to listen to it.

Normally, in this case I would quote Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Instead, I am actually going to take a pro-rape joke-stance. (Now let's be clear: I do not condone rape.) To me, this is even more than a freedom of speech issue. It is about the freedom to have a sense of humor, the right to laugh at whatever you find funny. I'll let Patrice O'Neal explain. (It's worth watching to see the "Angry Pirate" and the "Donkey Punch" discussed on Fox News.)

I like him. And he's consistent (on Imus, on Richards). And in my opinion, he does know funny, as he says. Though he did try to talk over people far too much on Tough Crowd.

I think is is extremely hypocritical to make a big fuss when someone jokes about raping women, when at least 95% of all rape jokes are about men getting raped.

I think this is funny.

Humor is okay. Failed humor is regrettable, but it doesn't hurt anyone. Jokes do not encourage rape any more than they encourage infanticide. I don't want the world censored. I don't want someone to decide for me what is and is not funny. No topic should be off limits for discussion. Rape humor is okay. Holocaust humor is okay. Much of humor is derived out of that which is painful. How else is this funny?

I wanted to link to some funny rape jokes, but they are surprisingly hard to find through Google. Sarah Silverman has one that goes: “I was raped by a doctor, which is so bittersweet for a Jewish girl.”

That one's not that bad. Now, to practice what I preach, I will tell the worst, most offensive joke I know. And it involves rape. And children. Just warning you.

--------------------------------------------------------------

How do you make a little girl cry twice.
Wipe the blood off on her teddy bear.

Rise of the Middle

2007-05-16T11:11:00.000-06:00

Will I actually get an 08 Presidential candidate that I can support? Might there be a third-party, centrist, who is a recognized contender?

Howard Fineman of Newsweek says, maybe. He mainly cites the long period of time between the primaries and the actual election, due to the primaries getting moved up.

As a result, there is now a solid chance that we will know the identity of the GOP and Democratic nominees by February 6, 2008, a full seven months before the political party conventions in Minneapolis and Denver, respectively.

SEVEN MONTHS!

There has never been a period like it in presidential campaigning. Nature abhors a vacuum; so does politics. Buyers’ remorse among Republicans and Democrats will have eons of time to set in; independents, as numerous as party loyalists, will have little to do but nurse their dissatisfaction.

NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg (R)is mentioned as the most likely candidate to run as an Independent. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) also may run. A post from The Nation discusses a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket.

Clouding things a little is the Unity 08 party, which is trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states. It is an attempt to create bipartisan ticket as a third alternative to the Democrat and Republican candidates. And it has Sam Waterston as it's spokesman (perhaps jealous of L&O costar Thompson).

I would much rather have a nonpartisan ticket than a bipartisan one. Kucinich-Tancredo would not be a centrist option. A true centrist/Independent will completely disassociate himself from both major parties. Otherwise, he'll just be doing what Lieberman did, only he won't win the election. But it is at least an attempt at giving a centrist alternative.

I am certainly hoping that someone runs on a centrist ticket, and it would be great if they could get people to vote for them. However hopeful does not mean optimistic. People are generally afraid of voting outside the major parties [see post below], and I don't know if anyone will be willing to put the time or money into a campaign that will likely lose. Of course, if no one ends up running, there will still be at least one option for those who want to support a centrist candidate.

Self Imposed Political Prisoners

2007-05-16T08:55:00.000-06:00

[This is part of a theory I have been developing. I have not published it yet because it is not complete. I decided to piece this together as succinctly as I could as a response to another bloggers post.]

When commenting on the possibility of Hagel running as an Independent, Erik at HP said:

So what would this mean for the 2008 race? Obviously any third-party candidate, while they have no chance of winning, can severely alter the election. Republicans blamed Ross Perot for George Bush's loss in 1992 and Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss in 2000. Considering the factions present in the Republican Party, Hagel would ruin the Republicans' chances in this race.

One of my major complaints about American politics is the lack of any real choices. People vote for the popular candidate because they don't think their preferred choice can win. Of course your preferred choice isn't going to win if you won't even vote for them! It's that simple! This is such a simple point that I don't know how to state it any more forcefully. Maybe I should add more exclamations and use all caps. Every time I hear someone say they don't want to waste their vote on a third party candidate, I want to punch them in the face and say, "YOU IDIOT!!! THAT IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY!!!"

Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the 2000 election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Gore had the opportunity to court the Green Party vote. If the Nader voters really wanted Gore for President, they would have voted Gore for President. Gore lost because not enough people wanted him to win. He lost because he failed to impress enough people to win. To claim anything else is just wrong.

Everyone just accepts that their only options are the two candidates given to them by the main parties. When you only have two candidates, you wind up voting for one because you don't want the other to win. Considering a third (or fourth) option forces you to make a choice as to which is the best. Any time you don't vote for the choice you really want, even if you win, you still lose. I don't claim to have studied any political theory, but this idea of voting to minimize your losses reminds me strongly of the prisoner's dilemma of game theory, though I know it doesn't directly apply in this case. Like the PD, I do think it is possible to learn and adapt new strategies that will result in an optimum solution. But people have got to start thinking for themselves.

The 2008 election does not have to be the Campaign 96: America Flips a Coin from the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror VII.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

The next day, Kodos announces the result: "All hail, President Kang."

The field in front of the Capitol has now become a working ground where humans are whipped by aliens and used to carry materials.

The Simpsons family is working too, with Homer and the kids carrying wood, and Marge pushing a wheelbarrow of cinderblocks -- with Maggie on top.

Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.

Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

God Strikes Falwell Dead

2007-05-15T20:14:00.000-06:00

RIP Jerry Falwell (1922-2007)

Tributes by CNN, TIME.

I can't say I am real happy with the way Falwell brought Fundamentalism into politics. And he has said some stupid, hateful things. But as Erik said at HP, still death sucks.

A Message from Stampy

2007-05-14T18:53:00.000-06:00

Stampy says: Don't forget about the increase in stamp rates.

First-class letters will now cost $0.41. I'll bet Lou Nolan is happy. Whenever they raise the postage, people need the little stamps. Also of note: size matters. So does shape, and thickness. Full details from USPS.

The Forever stamps seem like a good idea. I don't know if I'll be buying any, though. I send less than 5 letters a year, and I still have a ton of $0.37 stamps to use up.

If Someone Wanted To Publish My Blog Entries For Money, I Wouldn't Say No

2007-05-13T23:30:00.000-06:00

This article was stolen from my brain.

Brownback Fumbles at WI GOP convention

2007-05-12T15:10:00.000-06:00

Not that Brownback had much of a chance to begin with, but this couldn't have helped. Full article on MSNBC.

The Kansas Republican drew boos and groans from the audience at the state Republican Party convention Friday evening when he used a football analogy to talk about the need to rebuild the family.

“This is fundamental blocking and tackling,” he said. “This is your line in football. If you don’t have a line, how many passes can Peyton Manning complete? Greatest quarterback, maybe, in NFL history.”
Oops.

Realizing what he had said, Brownback slumped at the podium and put his head in his hands as the crowd expressed its displeasure.

“That’s really bad,” he said. “That will go down in history. I apologize.”

His apology brought a smattering of applause and laughter. He tried to recover, saying former Packer Bart Starr may be the greatest of all time, but the crowd was still restless.

“Let’s take Favre then,” Brownback said. “The Packers are great. I’m sorry. How many passes does he complete without a line?”

“All of them!” more than one person yelled from the back.

“I’m not sure how I recover from this,” Brownback said. “My point is we’ve got to rebuild the family. I’ll get off this.”

The Man Purse

2007-05-09T12:21:00.000-06:00

President Bush vetoed the last military spending bill passed by Democrat-controlled Congress because it had included target deadlines leading to an end to funding the war in Iraq. CNN reports that he plans to veto the bill under vote in the House that includes similar deadlines, but that he would be open to a bill that had "benchmarks." They report this as if he is offering some sort of a compromise, as if Congressmen should be encouraged at the possibility of reaching an agreement. I have a slightly different opinion.

A deadline is a fixed date that will cut off funding. This idea of a benchmark means absolutely nothing. A bill without fixed deadlines means we will be there until our job there is done (which will be an indefinitely long time). So what should Congress do, faced with a President that won't let them pass the bill they want?

Nothing.

(Now this is not what I want Congress to do, but it is what they should do if they have any stones.)

Normally, when Congress passes a bill, and the President vetoes it, the onus falls back to Congress. If they really want the law made, they need to find a compromise with the President or override his veto. This one is different.

If I offer to give a friend $5, and he says, "No thanks, give me $10 instead," I will say, "Here's $5, you can take it or leave it."

Congress passed their bill authorizing military spending. If Bush wants the funding for our troops in Iraq, he can take it or leave it.

President Bush, as Commander in Chief, gets to decide how to command the military. But Congress has the power of the purse. That doesn't mean they have to be the woman of this relationship. Call it the power of the European carryall if you need to.

Bush should listen to former Sec. Rumsfeld. As you know, you go to war with the budget you have. It's not the budget you might want or wish to have at a later time.

5 Second Opinon

2007-05-09T12:10:00.000-06:00

What to do...

The New York Times takes a look at a study completed by Clemson University on the 5-second rule. This study was more in depth than a a similar study done in 2003 by Jillian Clarke (which won a 2004 Ig Noble award), replacing gummi bears and cookies with slices of bologna and bread.

In case you live in a bubble, here is the Wikipedia definition of the the 5-second rule: The rule applies to foods that have fallen to the ground. Normally, customary rules of hygiene dictate that food that has fallen to the ground should be discarded, in order to prevent ingestion of disease-causing agents acquired from the dirty surface. The rule states that if the food is picked up within five seconds, it can still be eaten.

Prof. Paul L. Dawson and his colleagues at Clemson measured how long bacteria could survive on various surfaces, and later placed test food slices onto the surfaces for varying lengths of time, and measured how many live bacteria were transferred to the food. Their bacterium of choice was salmonella; the test surfaces were tile, wood flooring and nylon carpet; and the test foods were slices of bread and bologna.

The results: 24 hours after applying salmonella broth in doses of several million bacteria per square centimeter, "thousands of bacteria per square centimeter had survived on the tile and wood, and tens of thousands on the carpet. Hundreds of salmonella were still alive after 28 days. "On surfaces that had been contaminated eight hours earlier, slices of bologna and bread left for five seconds took up from 150 to 8,000 bacteria. Left for a full minute, slices collected about 10 times more than that from the tile and carpet, though a lower number from the wood."

Mmm... floor cookie...

It appears that the 5-second rule is wrong. Quick retrieval does help limit contamination, but contamination still will occur. Now, do I suggest that you should not eat any food from the floor, as many experts have? No. I say the 5-second rule should be extended to 30 minutes. Ingesting bacteria is natural and good.

From George Carlin's You are all Diseased special:
"What do you think you have an immune system for? It's for killing germs. But it needs practice. It needs germs to practice on... If you kill all the germs around you, and live a completely sterile life, then when germs do come along, you're not going to be prepared. And never mind ordinary germs, what are you going to do when some super virus comes along and turns your vital organs into liquid shit? I'll tell you what you're going to do, you're going to get sick, you're going to die, and you're going to deserve it, 'cause you're fuckin' weak and you've got a fuckin' weak immune system."

Our society has become germ phobic. We try to raise our children in sanitized environments. You can now buy sprays to disinfect your air. Guess what? Rates of asthma and allergies are rising. Anti-biotic resistant "super strains" of diseases are spreading. Thousands are getting sick from e. coli in their food. Our immune systems are not being trained to do what they are supposed to do. If you're worried about getting sick, improve your nutrition. Or you could just live in a plastic bubble, where you only have to worry about Trivial Pursuit typos.

So there you have it. My healthcare plan: eat food off of the floor.

Got to get those last crumbs...

Tuesday!

2007-05-08T16:04:00.000-06:00

I think they may be going a bit too far to market Spiderman 3.
"They were walking on my eardrums," said Jesse Courtney. "It was real interesting, 'cause, two spiders in my ear -- what next?"

Bats always turn left when exiting a cave.

As if their 22-10 league-leading record wasn't enough reason to go see a Milwaukee Brewers game, there will be one more for today's game against Washington. Doctors will be giving free prostate exams from an RV parked outside Miller Park.
Screenings will take place Rain or Shine, and are free, private and confidential with no appointment necessary. A free pair of tickets to a future Milwaukee Brewers game will be given to the first 50 men who complete the exams as a special thank you. Free parking.
Free Brewers tickets, and a free prostate exam? Sounds like a good deal to me.

Madison Blogger Roundup 2.0

2007-05-06T22:27:00.000-06:00

The much awaited Madison Blogger Roundup 2.0 took place tonight. We met at the Terrace, and later moved inside to the Rathskeller where the Roundup changed to more of a rectangle. It was a good opportunity to talk with fellow bloggers, many whom I had never actually met in person. Who says bloggers are anti-social? The topics spanned a wide range, gay rights, the Republican debate, Iraq, Sol Grosskopf, the Dalai Lama (big hitter, the Lama), Mifflin St, dollar coins... I did feel a bit left out by all the College Republicans gossip, which only remound me how low the College Neutrals numbers are. Attending were Brad, Steve, and Mike from LIB, Mark from OotM, Erik from HP, Mike from DFfF, Ryan from MpG, Mark from PI, Hastings from the Post, and Shane from D101 (Why did I choose a name that abbreviates VD?). And there was even a female present. A heartfelt huzzah for those who came, as your presence was appreciated. And to those who did not, SHAME!!!. How can we show that we are better than our Milwaukeean brethren if our higher profile bloggers do not show their solidarity?

Brad now has a recap and pictures up. Erik gives his take and a video on shoes on his site. Mike talks about cows.

I do regret that I did not cover a round tonight. I hope I can make up for this faux pas if we get together next month by bringing a 7lb can of beans for each person who wants to try eating one. Althouse, I know you can't resist the aggregate goodness of 7 pounds (26 servings) of baked beans.

*Added: this was a great observation from Hastings:
"Anyway, observing the underage flight from police--bookended as it was by various remarks re: civil liberties and invasions of privacy WRT to textbook sales, Stalinist cops, etc.--made my evening."

Hey Ma, what's for Dinner?

2007-05-05T08:01:00.000-06:00

Reach up your nose, and pick a winner.

It is time once again for the "Greatest two minutes in sports", also known as the 133rd running of the Kentucky Derby. As I did last year (I was close), I will post my picks here. Scat Daddy, Curin, and Nobiz like Shobiz. Full Odds here. Again, I encourage a one week boycott of Yum! Brands to fight corporate branding of sporting events.
*I didn't get to see the race, but it appears I was way off.

Later tonight, in a much more anticipated event, Oscar de la Hoya will fight undefeated Floyd Mayweather. It seems like it's been forever since there was a fight anyone cared about, so people are looking to this as the Fight to Save Boxing. Mayweather is younger, and is the better boxer, quicker and with a better counter, but I can not root for a guy who calls himself "the 50 Cent of boxing". I've got to go with the Golden Boy in an 8th round KO. Here is another opinion to back me up (warning: try to avoid looking at the picture at top).
*By split decision (115-113, De La Hoya; 116-112, 115-113, Floyd Mayweather) "Pretty Boy" Floyd Mayweather (38-0) becomes the new champion. Not my day.

Shoddy Execution

2007-04-24T16:17:00.000-06:00

According to a new study, execution drugs apparently sometimes do not work. To clarify that a bit, they do work, in that they do their job and kill the guy. It's fairly hard to botch that part. However, lethal injections are supposed to put down the inmate without causing pain. From the article:

Most states use three drugs — thiopental, an anesthetic; pancuronium bromide, a nerve blocker and muscle paralyzer; and potassium chloride, a drug to stop the heart. Each is supposed to be capable of killing all by itself, but if not, the anesthetic is supposed to render the inmate unconscious while the other drugs do the job. Even when administered properly, the three-drug lethal injection method appears to have caused some inmates to suffocate while they were conscious and unable to move, instead of having their hearts stopped while they were sedated, scientists said... The study concluded that the typical “one-size-fits-all” doses of anesthetic do not take into account an inmate’s weight and other key factors. Some inmates got too little, and in some cases, the anesthetic wore off before the execution was complete, the authors found.

I don't really see how any of this matters. Sure, it may hurt for a few minutes. In the grand scheme of things, inflicting any amount of pain is small potatoes compared to killing them. Some anti-death penalty advocates claim that this shows lethal injection violates the 8th amendment's ban of "cruel and unusual punishment". Again, I'm not too concerned. Personally, I think the lone act of sentencing someone to death is much more cruel than anything else you can do to him. In the Idiot, Dostoevsky explains it better than I could.

“It’s a good thing there’s not much suffering,” he observed, “when the head flies off.”

“You know what?” the prince picked up hotly. “You’ve just observed that, and everybody makes the same observation as you, and this machine, the guillotine, was invented for that. But a thought occurred to me then: what if it’s even worse? To you it seems ridiculous, to you it seems wild, but with some imagination even a thought like that can pop into your head. Think: if there’s torture, for instance, then there’s suffering, wounds, bodily pain, and it means that all that distracts you from inner torment, so that you only suffer from the wounds until you die. And yet the chief, the strongest pain may not be in the wounds, but in knowing for certain that in an hour, then in ten minutes, then in half a minute, then now, this second—you soul will fly out of your body and you’ll no longer be a man, and it’s for certain—the main thing is that it’s for certain...

...To kill for killing is an immeasurably greater punishment than the crime itself. To be killed by legal sentence is immeasurably more terrible than to be killed by robbers. A man killed by robbers, stabbed at night, in the forest or however, certainly still hopes he’ll be saved till the very last minute. There have been examples when a man’s throat has already been cut, and he still hopes, or flees, or pleads. But here all this last hope, which makes it ten times easier to die, is taken away for certain; here there’s the sentence, and the whole torment lies in the certainty that there’s no escape, and there’s no greater torment in the world than that.

The only real 'humane' form of capital punishment would be to have all death row inmates fight each other to the death in gladiator combat. There would at least be the possibility of survival, and as I have said before, death in combat is better than death strapped to a table.

I don't care about how humane the execution is. I don't care about the deterrence argument. There has been nothing close to conclusive evidence for either side. I don't care about the cost argument. This is not an issue I want decided based on fiscal management. I don't care about the racial discrimination argument. That may be an issue with the legal system as a whole, but it is irrelevant here. I don't care if the murder has reformed and started writing children's books or not. I don't care if he can heal my urinary tract infection by grabbing my penis. There is only one reason to kill a criminal: retribution. If a private citizen does this, we call this 1st degree murder (punishable by death, in some states). As long as someone is in prison, and is no longer a threat to others, then killing him is murder.

Murder is a federal crime. Therefore, I would have the DoJ prosecute anyone involved with any future executions. I don't need to bother with calling a moritoreum so we can do more research into the issue.

Hodgepodge Tuesday

2007-04-23T10:05:00.000-06:00

No Tuesday, All Hodgepodge!!!

Happy Earthday

2007-04-22T21:39:00.000-06:00

From the VD archives: originally written 22.4.06-

Here’s your first problem, hippies. You have a terrible choice of heroes. How can anyone take this “Earth Day” seriously, when the guy who started it was named Gaylord. I mean, really. Couldn’t you find somebody with a name that wasn’t quite so, ahem, unmanly. You’ve got to find someone with a name like Dick. Dick Steel. Yeah, that’s the stuff. I knew a guy named Dick Steel. He would go on and on about his 60’s hippy music. But if you saw the guy, you would instantly notice the enormous amount of hair in his ears and you would know that this was a manly man.

Now, while I do not condone your aversion to showering, or to employment, I do still think environmentalism is a worthwhile issue. So I’ll do all of you a favor. I’m starting a new day for environmentalism. It will be April 22 (22.4). It will be easy for you pinkos to remember because it's Lenin's Birthday. I will call it Earth Day. Hey, I want to make things easy for you. And when you tell people about it, they’ll say “Steve started it? Well, that sounds cool.”

My brand of environmentalism is a little different, though. I don’t view Earth as our mother, or as something we have to protect. I don’t say “no one owns the land.” I own the land. It’s mine. Why is it mine? Because I can shoot an eagle. And I can run over a squirrel with my car. And I can club a baby seal to death. I live here. It is my home. I own it, and I can do what I want with it.

But it’s pretty stupid to trash your home if you still need to live there. It’s okay to paint a few walls a different color, but you don’t want to burn a hole in the floor of the back porch. If you run out of toilet paper, you need to restock it, because no one else will. And if you break a window, you get it fixed, or it will get awfully cold in the winter. And even if you don’t plan on being there much longer, it would be good to leave behind a nice place for your kids to inherit.

Yes, other people can be inconsiderate. Many are jerks. Many more are just idiots. They may leave trash on your front lawn. They may steal your chairs, get drunk, and burn them. And more than likely they don’t really care. I’d like to tell these morons what I think of them, and beat the crap out of them if they don’t pick up after themselves. But this is my home, and I do care, so I will do what I can to keep it clean.

The rest of you, you need to start changing how you think of the Earth. You live here too. Start having some pride in your home.

Thoughts on Va Tech

2007-04-19T19:48:00.000-06:00

I was going to write a post giving my thoughts on the Virginia Tech shootings. I had it all written up and ready to post, but I held off. I had seen all the knee-jerk reactions flying around by everyone else, and so I kept mine to myself.

And then, some other writers published what I was going to say. Since they beat me to it, I'll just link to them here - TIME- Don't rush to judgments, Washington Post- A Moment of Silence. Here is a video version by a "ranting swearing bastard". Following is my original post, nearly unedited. I apologize for the rather long post. As a college student, this incident has bothered me somewhat. It is interesting that we don't react the same way when we read the news of what is going on around the world, although this type of massacre is almost commonplace in some parts. That's a valid point, but it is a discussion for another time.

The need to blame someone following something like this is understandable, but it is way too early at this point to blame anyone other than the shooter (who has now been identified). Yes, it was possible for the police to have put the entire university on lockdown after the first shooting, but should they have? Double homicides, perhaps resulting from a domestic dispute, are not that unusual. Typically, the shooter leaves. Could the university sent out mass emails, put a post on all university home pages, sent out news flashes, stating that a murder took place and the killer is still on the loose? That probably should have been done. Some were quick to blame violent video games, even before the shooter had been identified. It appears they were completely unfounded, although they would have been wrong no matter what.

Perhaps the worst I’ve come across so far have been those who have blamed the victims themselves. Those who say the students in the classroom should have tried to take down the shooter, and were cowards not to have. 5 or 6 guys can take down one guy with a gun, right? Of course, at least one of them is going to get shot and probably killed in the process. Some have brought up the pack/herd debate. In a situation like this, the response is going to be to duck/run. Just try to stay alive. Given the choice, most people will take a possible future death over a likely immediate death. (There were enough Jews in Auschwitz, they could have overwhelmed the guards, right?) If you want to call that cowardice, fine. But it’s what I would probably do. Imagining that if you were there, you would have charged the shooter, risking your life to save others, is a great fantasy. But unless you’ve ever actually been in a situation like that, it’s just a fantasy, and there is no way to know how you would react. For all we know now, a half dozen guys might have tried to take the shooter down, and gotten killed in the process. We don’t know. And whatever happened, not only is it inaccurate, not to mention distasteful, it is completely unnecessary to blame those who were shot, or had to watch their classmates get shot.

It is inevitable that a situation like this will spark debates about safety at schools and colleges, and about gun control. It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to break us out of our complacency. However, this one incident should not be used to shape policy. I am almost certain that neither stricter gun control nor CCW laws would have prevented this. This was one isolated incident, completely unlike almost every other violent crime.

Would concealed carry have prevented the Va Tech shooting? Impossible to prove. How many students would have brought their guns with them to their 9 am class? How many of those would have reacted any different? Might extending concealed carry to all college campuses result in 30+ people being killed over a 10 or so year period through mishaps and drunken altercations? Certainly possible.

Would tougher gun control laws prevented Cho from buying his handguns? Probably. Would they have forced him into buying illegal automatic rifles? Possible. More likely, he would have gotten bomb instructions off the Internet (I assume they are there, I've never checked myself).

The debate on gun control is not going to be solved anytime soon. I'd rather keep the focus on effective ways to respond to the rare emergency. Cell alerts, emails, warning sirens, won't hurt. Some people actually do turn their cell phones off during class, so I'll pitch the idea of some sort of digital signs spread throughout campus to give news in emergencies. The main problem, though seems to be the time it takes to evaluate threats.

Guns don't kill people. People found ways to kill long before guns were around. Guns are a tool to make killing easier. That said, I don’t like the idea of solving gun violence by throwing more guns at it. I do think everyone should have a right to protect themselves. Firearms aren’t the only way to do so. I see no reason we can’t just use non-lethal weapons. Equip everyone with an air tazer. Give every teacher a gun with rubber bullets. Install vomit rays in every classroom and run tear gas through the sprinklers. There would be a slightly less chance of someone overreacting and killing someone unnecessarily. I even think people would be more likely to use non-lethal weapons, knowing that it wouldn’t kill the person they were trying to stop.

The bottom line is this. Every time you are in a public place, you are not safe. The only way a free society such as ours can operate is if people are given freedom and trusted not to abuse it. It would be incredibly easy to go into any building on campus tomorrow and kill much more than 30 people. Guns would be the most efficient weapon, but it could be done with others. Heck, you could probably get quite a few with your car driving around campus. The opportunity to kill others is always there. Shootings like this and worse could happen every single day, but they don't. Cho Seung-Hui was an aberration. Thankfully, whatever breakdown in reasoning caused the shootings at Virginia Tech, it is a rare enough occurrence that it shocks us.

I am also disappointed by the coverage given to Cho and his videos he made. NBC has shown them, others have posted them; I will not link to them here. I see no good reason to glorify a mass murderer, or to fulfill his wishes. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant, explains why we shouldn't watch it better than I could. It is understandable that our society has a fascination with murderers. Cho is destined to make the list of the most famous ones. Personally, I'd rather just accept that he had some problems and move on.

I'd Rather be Fishing

2007-04-18T15:33:00.000-06:00

The NFL has asked Wisconsin offensive tackle Joe Thomas to come to New York for the NFL draft next month. Thomas is expected to be drafted as one of the top 5 picks, and the NFL likes to have the premier draft picks at the event.

Thomas' repy: see above title. Thomas said he'll spend the day fishing for salmon off the shores near Milwaukee with his dad. I'd say that's the right decision. The NFL draft is an enormously overrated, overhyped spectacle. It is not something that needs to be a three day long televised live event. I can get the same information in less than a minute by reading the news after it's over.

Shooting at Virginia Tech

2007-04-16T13:12:00.000-06:00

Full story at CNN, any other news source.

32 now reported dead, plus shooter.

Sad stuff. No comment from me on this.

Fallout from Imus-gate

2007-04-14T15:15:00.000-06:00

Don Imus is irrelevant. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are terrorists.

I recently posted a link to an article by Jason Whitlock about the Don Imus fiasco. Here he is calling out Jackson and Sharpton.

Ht to The Big Lead via Digg.

Yes, I wish I could go on these types of rants myself without coming across as racist. Yes, I am just propping up Whitlock as my little black puppet. Yes, he looks like a giant sea monster. But while I thought Whitlock was bad on PTI and I cannot agree with his support of Jeff George, I think he is speaking the truth here.

Children of Women

2007-04-13T18:48:00.000-06:00

German scientists have announced that they have created immature sperm cells from human bone marrow samples. They took adult stem cells from within the bone marrow are differentiated them into spermatagonial cells - cells found in the testes which would normally develop into mature sperm cells. The procedure would allow both lesbian couples, and men who are sterile or have lost their marbles, to have children that are their genetic offspring. If this technique is successful, testicles would no longer be necessary for sperm production, and therefore reproduction. It would mean the extinction of the human male.

You probably think that last line was a joke. After all, even if men were to become unnecessary for reproduction, that doesn't mean that women would wipe us out, right? And they wouldn't intentionally. But it will happen.

Let's have some fun with Punnett squares and statistics. Normal reproduction between a female (XX) and a male (XY) creates females half the time and males half the time. Reproduction between two females (XX and XX) would only create females. The next generation would have slightly more females then men. Assuming that the rate of homosexuality is constant, a slightly higher concentration of females would mean a slightly higher concentration of lesbians and more female-female reproduction. Each generation would have a higher concentration of females and a lower concentration of males. If the human population ever reaches a limit, then the number of men would eventually drop to zero.

Sure, men could just keep having children until they had a son, ensuring that men won't die out. But that son could die before he had his own son, or he could be gay. Sure, we could develop a way to make eggs from male bone marrow, allowing two males to reproduce. But that would create female offspring a third of the time, and the scales would still tip to the women.

The only way to prevent men from being wiped out would be to allow heterosexual couples to choose sons over daughters, or to not allow people to choose their mates. Of course both of these policies are currently in limited use today, and would likely increase if this scenario ever plays out, so the survival of the Y chromosome is safe for now and my crazy prediction of men dying out likely won't happen. But to any women reading this (and I suppose there could be one or two): I hope you appreciate having us around now to kill bugs and open jars, because we may not be around forever.

Friday the 13

2007-04-13T11:27:00.000-06:00

Today is Friday the 13, a day that some people don't like because they think it is unlucky. I would just like to point out that in the metric calendar, The 13th of every month is always on a Wednesday (although Wednesday and Friday have different names).

The I-man Goeth

2007-04-12T17:22:00.000-06:00

Today CBS announced that Imus in the Morning will be canceled. MSNBC had dropped the TV simulcast yesterday. Here at Vote Dorshorst, we enjoy a challenge every once in a while. So today, I am going to defend Don Imus.

Last week, the following was said during his radio show:
Imus: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos,
McGurk: Some hardcore hos.
Imus: That’s some nappy headed hos there, I’m going to tell you that.

1. Imus (the I-man) has been singled out because he is an old white man, otherwise known as 'the man.' He is hardly the only person who has ever said 'nappy' or 'hos'. I do not believe that there would have been any reaction had any black entertainer said what he did. Like it or not, rap music has brought 'pimps' and 'hos' into mainstream usage.

2. A minor point: Imus' initial comment simply called them 'rough'. It was his producer McGurk who brought the word 'ho' into the discussion, effectively putting the word into Imus' mouth. Of course, this does not excuse him.

3. I'm pretty sure Imus was joking and was not seriously trying to convince anyone that the Rutgers women are prostitutes with dirty unwashed hair.

4. The remark has been labeled a racial slur, but it is not. It was a cultural slur. Granted, nappy headed is generally used only for blacks, but the discussion was not about them being black. I seriously doubt blacks being on a basketball team was any surprise to Imus. The discussion was about their appearance, specifically their tattoos. Imus was calling them thuggish and ghetto. I'm not saying that is any better, but that's what he meant.

The fact that many African Americans chose the inner-city thug life as their identity is a serious issue, but not one that can be blamed on Imus.

5. Al Sharpton does not speak for all blacks. He has never been elected ambassador of black America.

6. The Rutgers women's team needs to stop playing the victim. Now, while I'll defend Imus' right to say what he did, it was still derogatory. No woman should be referred to as a 'ho'. But there is no reason to get hung up on. As Imus said before he got pressured into kissing Sharpton's ass, people needed to relax about "some idiot comment meant to be amusing." The team made it to the championship game of the NCAA tournament; they should be celebrating that. If they don't want this issue to tarnish their season, as their coach has said, then they probably shouldn't be giving this the attention that they are.

Side note: if it weren't for Imus, no one would even know or care who won the women's championship game, much less who lost it.

7. Imus has since said that "you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it." I disagree completely. Everyone is human, imperfect, subject to ridicule. Expecting to never hear a single negative comment from someone else is a pipe dream (sitting in a bar talking about how nice it would be isn't going to make it happen). Rather than banning free speech I would rather see people get over themselves and not get offended any time someone makes a disparaging remark. I hope someone now calls me ignorant, racist, or something similar so I can prove my point.

That all from me. Time has another look at the incident that I think is worth reading.

*Jason Whitlock has an article on this subject (HT to Erik at Hippie Perspective) that I completely support (although he is still no substitute for Wilbon on PTI).

*Phil Taylor from SI gives his take on how this should have been handled.

*Snoop Dogg tries to explain why he can be misogynist and Imus can't.

*And the last link. David Carr explains how the incident got to be the big deal it became.