Holier than Thou, and a Challenge Accepted

Two topics of recent interest here at Our Lady's University.


First, it seems that I've been hangin' out at the center of the Culture Wars for the last couple of weeks. You may have heard that the President is going to deliver the commencement address here at Notre Dame in May. You may also have heard that (a small but vocal fraction of) the local folks are piiiiiissed about it. Obama is pro-choice, which to the Catholic Church is apparently a sin on the level of sodomizing a puppy while bombing an orphanage (or rooting for Ohio State).

There are a number of calls for the University to recind the offer, and for the University President and other high officials to resign (and presumable to commit hari kiri). But the most shocking call (at least from my perspective) came from a member of the law school faculty. This letter was printed in the student paper last week. Beyond the usual claims that Obama is worse than the Fuhrer, he includes this little gem:

Apart from the "life" issues, our leaders were reckless to commit Notre Dame to Obama in the face of mounting and well-grounded opposition to other Obama policies, including his fiscal deficits and such a stunning expansion of executive power and of federal control over private entities and states that it amounts to a constitutional coup. Unmentioned in the background are the pending lawsuits - not yet decided on the merits by the Supreme Court - that raise serious questions as to Obama's eligibility for the office.

You read that right; a member of the faculty at my school wondered publicly if our President is an American, or if he's somehow secretly Canadian.

So I'm curious, oh Sages of the Internets... Do you think it is inappropriate for a pro-choice politician to be asked to deliver the commencement address at a Catholic University? And why would a just and loving God put that crazy-ass professor on the panel of judges for my Oral Argument last week?

Secondly, a few weeks ago we had a nice discussion about the complexity of modern regulatory structures. It was suggested that it was the duty of all concerned Americans to do whatever we could to become educated. And because I can never seem to shut up, I've opted to put up.

I've accepted a summer position as a research assistant. A professor here at Notre Dame is writing a textbook/casebook/reference on the topic of corporate governance, and I've been hired to help out. My little part of the book is going to (I believe) involve the interrelationship between state and federal governments.

So, after this summer, you will all have to listen to believe my every word on the subject. Right?

Read more...

Wicked Witch of Wayne County?

Have you guys caught wind of Shirley Nagel, dubbed by one blogger as the "Wicked Witch of Wayne County"? I'll bet you have, but since I just heard about it, I'll assume there must be other who have not heard.

One Shirley Nagel, of Grosse Point Farms, refused to give candy to children on Halloween if their parents were supporters of Obama! What kind of a crock of shit is that?! She apparently even had a sign out front that read "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters." OMFG?!?! It's one thing for a couple of adults to hash out their political views in some less than savory ways... BUT LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!



One commenter on Buzzfeed said "And that's how many children learned to hate republicans. Not the brightest campaign idea."

Freep.com article

Read more...

From McCain to Russia with Love.

You may have already seen this as it is about a day old. It requires no set up. Please listen and comment.

Read more...

Video of the Week (But Not Every Week) #11

It seems that to allow a taste test in a New Jersey brewery, state law requires that a tour impart some sort of knowledge upon the guests. The proprietor of Cricket Hill Brewery in Fairfield, New Jersey has some fun, taking the opportunity to tell his guests what not to drink.

It’s pretty funny stuff.

They also have a blog.

Read more...

Wednesday Boredom

In thinking about the search for vice presidential running mates the other day, the name "Dan Quayle" came to mind. And I giggled a little to myself, thinking about the infamous 'potatoe' incident. It is almost enough to make me feel sorry for the guy. He has accomplished many things in his life (he was the Vice President of the United States, for the love of Pete), but he will forever be remembered for one stupid moment.

In one bumbling moment, Mr. Quayle joined the pantheon of people who will, regardless of their other achievements, will be "that guy/lady who __________". A few other members of the club include:

• OJ Simpson: Sure he rushed for 2000 yards. But those aren't the kind of cuts he'll be remembered for.
• Monica Lewinsky: This one is too easy. Not unlike Monica.
• Bobby Knight: Best known for generally going apeshit. Apparently coached basketball too.
• Paul Newman, George Foreman: Sure one was a phenomenal actor, and the other was a world champion boxer. But for everyone under a certain age (probably 28-ish), they will forever be the Salad Dressing Guy and the Grill Dude, respectively (Okay, so maybe this one doesn't count. But I like it anyway).

Here's the catch; it can't just be something that a person is known for. Al Gore may have "invented the internet", but he's also the Global Warming Guy and the 2000 Florida election guy. Nothing OJ can do for the rest of his life will keep him from being OJ the White Woman Killer.

Best example wins. Go.

Read more...

Super Tuesday Postmortem

Yesterday was the confluence of two of the greatest days in American life: Fat Tuesday and Super Tuesday. Whether that made yesterday "Super Fat Tuesday" or "Obese Tuesday" is beyond me. However, there was an awful lot of nerd brain-candy on the television screen to accompany the stomach-candy that is paczki. But because everyone already knows about the healing power of paczki, I'll keep my comments to the politics.

Somewhat of a mixed bag on the Republican side. Sure, John McCain seems to have basically wrapped up the nomination as everyone was predicting, though it will have to play out for a few more weeks. But the rest of the results were batshit crazy. For example, Mike Huckabee had a hell of a night. Pretty much swept the south, and gave McCain a run in a couple of other states (especially Mizzou). If this keeps up, he's got a really good shot of working his way to a VP nomination.

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is having a bitch of a year. He has been saved the embarrasing title of "worst campaign ever" by the tortured existence of Rudy Giuliani, but nevertheless... Ouch. As the annointed 'alternative to McCain', he was an afterthought. Basically, he's won his own state (Massachusetts), his adopted home state (Michigan), his religious home state (Utah), and a bunch of states that don't matter, either in elections or in reality (North Dakota, I'm looking at you here...). How he continues from here is a mystery.

The Democratic results reminded me of a hampster on a wheel; a whole lot of energy exerted, but at the end of the day, everyone was roughly where you would expect. Both sides held serve, and there were few surprises (with the possible exceptions of Obama's wins in Missouri and Connectecut). Both sides declared victory, which is predictable. And they are both somewhat right; Clinton has more delegates, Obama has won more states.

Going forward, you have to like Obama's chances. The next seven states on the calendar look solid for him, and the longer things go, the more Clinton's aura of inevitability fades. I sense a nasty floor fight. Veeeeeeeery interesting.

One final thought. As a politico, I've become pretty jaded about the whole process. I work with a lot of jokers, and I've come to distrust most political speech, and to take everything said with a grain of salt. I've heard a thousand speeches, and I'd assumed that I could no longer be inspired. But then I watched Barack Obama's 'victory' speech last night.

Wow.

I'm sold. I'm too young to have seen JFK, but Obama just seems Kennedy-esque to me. Maybe it's the call to higher ideals. Maybe it's the style of speech. Maybe it's the nice suits. I have no idea. But for the first time in a while, I found myself listening to a politician as a citizen, rather than as an analyst. I wasn't making mental comments about which demographic he was targeting, or how the speech would play with the public. I just listen to the guy speak. And I was inspired.

Maybe it'll turn out like the Detroit Lions; every year they get my hopes up somehow, only to crush them. Perhaps Senator Obama will turn out to be completely full of shit. It's possible. But for the first time in a while, I'll actually be surprised when a politician lets me down.

Read more...

The State of the Union is Smug

So, here I sit on my couch with my laptop, realizing that I have no idea where I want to go with this. In the end, I'll try to pick up and the things that catch my ear and offer-up some snark to go along with it. I encourage my fellow contributors to either update and add to this peice, or add your own snippets and snark in the comments...or whatever.

9:09 pm, after 9 minutes of introductions and ceaseless clapping, did Nancy Pelosi alomost stumble over saying it was a distinct pleasure to introduce the President?

He made a point to say that 110th Congress will affect the security of our nation for years to come, and to recognize our obligations and keep them. This came up again, several times, especailly with regard to his coverage of the progress in Iraq and the Middle East in general. He essentially spent a lot of time on variations of the "don't pull out of Iraq" theme. Whatever you may think of being there, staying there, or leaving, he's clearly challenging the Democrats. And given the Dems' track record on his challenges...they'll buckle.

Pelosi looked like she was going to laugh when he said he reached an agreement with her. I bet she thought he was gonna say "boner" instead of Boener. Because I think it every single time.

Awwwww, George made a funny! He starts with saying that letting a tax decrease expire is essentially an increase, which is splitting hairs. He goes on to say that there are some people who are happy to pay higher taxes. He's happy to say the IRS accepts checks or money orders. Smug motherfucker.

Of course, he went on to say that Congress must make tax relief permanent. There is no problem with that George. So long as you also see that you either fund the war, fund education, fund corporate welfare, or fund health care, but not all three on a diminishing pot of money.

He says he'll veto any tax increase bill. If one were being discussed, I don't believe this Congress would have the political will to even send him one.

I like how he wants to eliminate $18 Billion in sending by eliminating wasteful programs. I can't wait to see the list of wasteful programs. Apparently, health insurance for poor kids is one of those wasteful programs...

I loved this one: families have to balance their paychecks....so should their government. A yes, I think that's Chapter 6 of the Book Of Irony. $734 Billion in deficit (down from a $431 billion surplus in 2001) and $9.2 trillion in debt (up from $5.7 in 2001) anyone?

Oh, gods. Earmarks...blah blah...he'll veto budget bills with earmarks and, via executive order, will require federal agencies to ignore earmarks that haven't been voted on. Again, I can't wait to see what qualifies as an earmark, or better yet, what doesn't.

He moved on to health care and the importance of patients and doctors making their own medical decisions, and to make health care affordable and accessible for all Americans. Okay...cool. Universal, maybe? No!! He says it must be based on consumer choice, not government control. That said, there are plenty of warnings about a "Canadian" health care system, many of which are not exactly accurate, but the status quo of competitive consumer choice is not getting us much of anywhere other than the richest nation in the world being unable to cover all of its citizens.

The doozy is his reiteration that medical decisions are made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not the halls of congress. Chapter 43 in the Book Of Irony. Terry Shiavo, anyone?

Ah yes. He'd like a new $300 Million Pell Grant for Kids program to "liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools" ...by giving them a government grant to send them to private and religious schools. You know, instead of revamping and rescuing...or, um, fully funding, public schools.

Wow: "embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere"...how many times did he have to practice that phrase?

Okay. Congress needs to reauthorize a program for displaced workers to get new skills and find new jobs.

In the middle of his focus on energy...did Nancy Pelosi just get passed a note??? Dying to know what that said.

Back to energy: he wants us to generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Good. Let's waste time on coal energy that's not really, you know, renewable, rather than focusing on the renewable stuff. One question: what are you going to do with the carbon emissions you capture? Send them to Guantanamo? Anyway, all the other big points were touched. Emissions-free nucular power. Advanced batteries, rebewable fuel. International clean technology fund to urge our neighbors to use clean energy (uh, our neighbors, I recall, asked us to do the same...) Every major economy must participate, nobody gets a free ride (kinda like...our free ride?).

He said global climate change! Hey hey!

Ah yes. He wants us to entrust and empower our scientists to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Of course. Except, you know, stem cells and global warming studies. Those are bad breakthroughs.

A call on congress to double our funding for physical sciences to maintain our edge. That we have lost to all the other countries who don't limit their scientific studies by (worse) corporate dogma.

Oh goody. Stem cells. We need to find new treatments...blah blah...skin cells...blah blah...use that rather than destoying human life. WE'RE THOWING THEM AWAY!!! Dont't destroy...what we're going to destroy. Jesus I am sick of this mantra.

Bush wants us to assure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. He wants Congress to ban unethical practices like buying, selling, cloning, etc. Question: who the fuck is talking about cloning humans? And I am pretty sure it's been illegal to sell human for quite some time now. Oh, wait, that's not what he means??

Curious...the constitution means what it says, according to Bush. Chapter 2 in the Book Of Irony.

Americans are volunteering. Charitable donations are higher than in years. For this, I am very happy.

So they will hold the North American Summit in NOLA. So, for the citizens of that fine city, another 10-block section will finally get rebuilt.

Hey! Immigration! No way! Secure borders. Fucking fences. Double border agents. We should apparently never secure our border against foreign workers to come here and support our economy. Because nothing says "send us your poor, your tires, your hungry" like a 14-foot fence with razor wire spiraling across the top.

9/11. Only twice, though. Imagine President Giuliani...

Aha. 3,200 Marines will be sent to Afghanistan. Maybe we should have done that 6 1/2 fucking years ago.

Ah, The Surge. He's really making the case that we're so successful, we have to stay. Largely, aspects of The Surge have been successful, which bodes well for the long-term. No joke here. Our military command and intelligence have done a great job.

To our military: in the fight ahead, you'll have all you need to protect our nation. Gee...thanks. That'd have helped, say, 6 or so years ago.

And back to the opening theme: any further drawdown will be based on conditions in Iraq and the input of the generals.

Democratic Isreal and Democratic Palestine...side by side...stop fighting, establish Palestine. Can't argue.

Tehran/Iran. I didn't really listen to this. I had to get some water.

I hear we need to pass liability protection for companies who thought they were acting in our best interests. Fuck. No.

We apparently now also oppose genocide in Sudan. Not a lot of troops going there though.

Expansion of an Agriculture program to purchase food grown in developing countires. Michigan State University has been doing this for some time, and it's pretty cool. Can't argue here.

$30 Billion over 5 years to fight AIDS. Again, cool. But I bet he won't want it to include condom use.

Expand access to child care for military families, allow military spouses to transfer unused education benefits to their spouse, and establish hiring preferences for military spouses. Hell yes.

Dem Response: really, truly uninspired. The message was okay. Health care, education, economic stimulus can't be just this $300 but has to instead be ongoing for the middle class, peace in the Middle East, etc. But the delivery? Boring and uninspired. Kinda like our Democratic COngress. Shit, she didn't even take the opportunity to beat the shit out of the weakened Administration. So add "spineless" to uninspired.

Have at it.

Read more...

Debunking The Debunkers Who Are Full Of Bunk, Part 1

I was recently blessed with a copy of the "New York Times Bestseller" Unstoppable Global Warming; Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, marked as "Updated and Expanded." Updated and Expanded indeed, full of bullshit.

The premise of the book, of course, is to prove global warming to be a hoax and that what is happoening actually happens in natural cycles every 1,500 years. Thus, we have nothing to worry about.

A quick check on Amazon shows some of the people who rated this tome of knowledge:

Mrs. Avery and Singer provide an excellent readable and well documented book on the global warming hoax. The reader can only conclude that this book is an invaluable resource on the topic of global warming. The work refers to a vast amount of scientific research in a wide variety of scientific journals indicating a natural sunspot magnetic wave is causing what little global warming exists. Man created carbon dixoide has very little effect on the earth's climate.

Avery and Singer go further by providing an in depth expose of the fallacious research that alledgedly supports man made global warming. In particular the authors make an incisive investigation into the so called hockey stick hypothesis of unprecedented recent warming hoax widely enunciated by the UN's climate change panel. This hoax was first exposed by two skilled and courageous Canadian researchers - McIntyre and McKitrick.

Pseudoscientists and others with a vested interest in controlling the global economy by use of the global warming hoax will not like this work. However informed readers concerned with human welfare and human progress will find this book invaluable. This book should be read by all Amercians and really by everone else in the world

My favorite is

Detailed and documented, Fred Singer is a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He also debunked the "passive smoking as a cancer risk" nonsense...
...The report attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science"

Let's start with Fred.

Mr. Siegfried Frederick Singer
Singer is the President and co-founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, the focus of which is to dispute the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke. He is also the science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax. I have not yet had the time to look into all of the organizations he is a part of, but I think I know what I'll find if I do.

As for Mr. Singer's track record on scientific matters, I offer the following:

During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Dr. S. Fred Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan said we know from the nuclear winter investigation that the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the year without a summer, in massive agricultural failures, in very serious human suffering and, in some cases, starvation. He predicted the same for south Asia, and perhaps for a significant fraction of the northern hemisphere as well as a result. Singer, on the other hand, said that calculations showed that the smoke would go to an altitude of about 3,000 feet and then be rained out after about three to five days and thus the lifetime of the smoke would be limited. In retrospect, we now know that smoke from the Kuwait Oil Fires dominated the weather pattern throughout the Persian Gulf and surrounding region during 1991, and that lower atmospheric wind blew the smoke along the eastern half of the Arabian Peninsula, and cities like Dhahran, Riyadh and Bahrain experienced days with smoke filled skies and carbon fallout.."

So he struck out on that one. No biggie. Just forgot to carry the 3 or something. Well, it certainly doesn't improve for Dr. Singer:

[English global warming skeptic]David Bellamy has said that most glaciers have been advancing since 1980 as evidence against global warming. This contrasts with the scientific consensus that the vast majority of glaciers have been retreating since 1850. In an editorial in The Guardian, [environmental journalist and political activist]George Monbiot said that Bellamy's argument came from Singer, and that Singer's stated source is an unspecified 1989 article in Science. Monbiot reports that he performed both electronic and manual searches of the journal, and found no such article[emphasis mine].

Okay. So, more than forgetting to carry the 3, it looks like we're now into making shit up. Cool. We're used to that. And then there's the kicker.

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty."[emphasis mine] The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change.

And there it is. A meeting with the oil and gas industry at their turf to create a PR campaign.

Let's move on to his Co-author.

Dennis T. Avery
Dr. Avery is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edits Global Food Quarterly (sounds like a real barn-burner of a newsletter. According to Sourcewatch:

Avery crusades against organic agriculture claiming that modern industrial agriculture and biotechnology will save the world from starvation and disaster. Avery also disputes the scientific consensus on global warming.

He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.

Avery served as a senior agricultural analyst for the US Department of State for between 1980 and 1988 under the Reagan administration[emphasis mine]

A look at Dr. Avery's track record, like we did with Dr. Singer, shows this little trip-up:

[Avery writes]"According to recent data compiled by the U.S Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and 'natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7)," Avery wrote in the Fall 1998 issue of American Outlook, a Hudson Institute publication. This happens, he said, because organic food is grown in animal manure, a known carrier of this nasty microbe. He said his data came from Dr. Paul Mead, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

The CDC answers:

CDC took the unusual step on January 14, 1999 of issuing a press release stating, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not conducted any study that compares or quantitates the specific risk for infection with E. coli 0157:H7 and eating either conventionally grown or organic/natural foods."

Oops. Yeah, so Dr. Avery quotes scientific studies that don't actually exist. Again, we're sort of used to that by now. The plot thickens with this one, including a phone call from the CDC to Dr. Avery, telling him to quit citing the CDC as his source because, you know, it isn't. As for the Hudson Institute, at which Dr. Avery is a senior fellow, a search string yields, at the end of the day, a slew of conservative think-tanks that contribute to it, including the Capital Research Center, which ranks the Hudson Institute "as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being 'Free Market Right' and 1 'Radical Left.'"[link broken]

So there you have it: the authors of this fine study. I intend to do many more "parts" to this "study" as I sit down to slog through it and comare its arguments to those that we know are accurate. If I have the energy.

Read more...

Lions for Lambs

Mrs. Smitty and I pawned Smitty Jr. off on the grandparents this weekend and had a day-long kid-free shop-a-thon.

And what did we buy, mostly? If you guessed "stuff for Smitty Jr." you'd be correct.

At any rate, one of the many things that we crammed-in yesterday was a viewing of Lions For Lambs. I must say, Mrs. Smitty and I were impressed. The movie really got us thinking, and it awakened a lot of thoughts that I had repressed and allowed to go dormant.

Quickly, so I don't give much away, it's about an hour and 20 minutes, give or take, in the life of 3 sets of people: a reporter (Meryl Streep) and her hour-long interview with an up-and-coming Republican Senator (Tom Cruise); a college student in a come-to-Jesus (and not the religious kind) meeting with his professor (played by an Andrew Garfield and Robert Redford, respectively); and 2 Army Rangers in a pretty shitty spot (played by Michael Pena and Derek Luke, two folks I've never ehard of but I'll give credit where it's due). Their three separate story lines converge, in a way.

It's more of a vignette. You come in to the story with events happening, and leave it without everything having been wrapped-up. I really like that as a device. But that's not all the movie does for you. For me, it left me asking what one of the characters would do. And in essence, it was like asking myself what I'd do.

Before I get into any philosphical discussions I guess I'll touch on the movie itself. Critics have been slamming this film and there's some folks out there who think it's emotionless and dull. Well, true, the only action scenes take place with the Rangers in Afghanistan. But you go to this movie to listen to what it says through its characters. And even from what they say, I imagine 2 different people with 2 different biases would come away with 2 different messages from this movie. That's pretty cool. Don't go to this movie looking for a Private Ryan-esque shooter or even a The Kingdom gripping thriller. It's not. It's 2 debates and 1 set of consequences. I found the movie to move very quickly despite the lack of action because the interplay of the 3 different stories, as well as the philosophy behind the dialogue, really moved it quickly forward.

This movie also doesn't wrap stuff up in a neat little bow for you. It makes you ask yourself what happens, and as I said above, it makes you ask yourself what you'd do. So if you need things wrapped up like a little present, don't go see this movie.

Speaking in broad terms, here's what it did for me. I am dissatisfied with our progress in the War On Terror. I don't think that stopping completely is the right answer. I see a different answer that involves engagement at many different levels; military, social and educational. But what can I do? I've served, honorably, in the military already for 8 years. I have a wife, a Smitty Jr. and a Thing 1 and Thing 2 on the way...do I reenlist? My wife certainly doesn't want me to. But like the movie points out, talk is cheap if you can figure out a way to make a change, even if it ultimately brings you to the same place as doing nothing. But where I am stuck right now is what, exactly, can I do right now to institute change? Can I run for office and get my ass kicked by Congressman Mike Rogers (R - Brighton)? Not to mention I'm a political Nobody; just another lobbyist.... Should I try to attend the National Defense Institute? Maybe. But right now, I am dissatisfied with the current direction and dissatisfied with my level of involvement.

At any rate, go check the movie out. It's not a thriller folks, but it at least makes you ask yourself important questions: is the passion of those willing to continue or repackage the war misplaced? Is it bullshit? Is our media complicit? What would you do to change things?

Read more...

A Michigan Man

Lloyd Carr might be one of the easiest punching bags in the college football world. After all, there are always 3 "L's" in Lloyd. His Michigan teams are like opossums (after all, they play dead at home and get killed on the road). And he pretty much perfected the Wolverine Cookie recipe; put them in a big bowl and beat for three hours. It's easy to make fun of Lloyd. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many coaches with a better track record.

His football credentials are solid. He coached for 13 seasons, and had 13 winning seasons. I can think of a lot of schools who would love to be able to say that (Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, and the University of Miami come to mind). With a 121-40 record, he took the highest all-time winning percentage in college football and IMPROVED it. A National Championship, multiple Big Ten titles, multiple Rose Bowls. And he ended his tenure with 11 straight wins over Penn State and 6 straight over Michigan State.

The knock on Lloyd was always that he was too "old school". He didn't adapt well to the evolution of the spread offense on either side of the ball. His defenses couldn't stop it, and his offenses couldn't run it (and never tried to adopt elements of it). He ran more draw plays on 2nd-and-10 than the rest of the Big Ten combined. And he was always content to try to win a game 13-10 in an era when 33-30 was more likely. Vince Young, Appalachian State, and the Man in the Sweatervest made that more and more obvious as the years went on.

But there is another side to the "old school" moniker. He came from an era where a successful program was not a springboard for the Next Big Thing (Nick Saban, I'm looking in your direction). It was never about Lloyd; it was always about the program. He hated interviews and the media. He was loyal to his assistants and his players (almost to a fault), and never threw them under the bus. That's probably why he was such an easy target; he never ducked.

In 13 years, Michigan's program was beyond clean. It was virtually spotless. There have been no Maurice Clarett incidents. No Reggie Bush scandals. No Florida State University (i.e. Free Shoes University) happenings. Not to pick on my Sparty brethren, but two MSU players are still starting while under indictment for armed robbery. Oklahoma seems to have a weekly appointment with the NCAA infractions committee. Even Penn State and Notre Dame, with their reputation as "above the fray" programs, have had their incidents. But Michigan remains nearly unblemished.

That was the legacy of Bo. And I have a feeling that it will be the legacy of Lloyd. Consistency, excellence, and above all, integrity.

So now the search for a replacement begins (although it has actually been underway for several weeks). Les Miles, LSU's coach, is the logical replacement. He played for Bo, and served as an Assistant at Michigan many years ago. Those of you who don't follow Michigan may not be aware of the obsession with finding a Michigan Man. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who went to Michigan (though that helps). A Michigan Man is one who puts the program first. He honors the building that Fritz Crisler and Fielding Yost built, and the program that Bo revived. The list is short. Jim Harbaugh was on that list until earlier this year. But he violated that trust by putting himself by badmouthing the program to score cheap points. That's something that a Michigan Man doesn't do.

So thank you, Lloyd. And the first time Les Miles runs a 5-wide receiver set onto the field, I'll remember the times when "Mike Hart behind Jake Long" played like a broken record, and I'll be thankful again.

Read more...

"Make sure your seatbacks and tray tables are in their upright... oh, forget it, we're all going to die anyway"

Travelling is usually an enlightening experience. This was certainly true of my recent three-day trip to visit my sister in New York City. Some of the gems I can share with you:

• If your flight is delayed due to poor weather at your destination airport, but later the airline cancels the delay and declares that they are going to "give it a shot", beware.
• If you are on such a flight, and the pilot orders the flight attendants to take their seats and suggests that passengers tighten their seatbelts, and the flight attendants reminds you that the "barf bags are in the seat pocket in front of you," you're in for a ride.
• People lose ALL sense of humor when their plane hits turbulence.
• New York is an absolutely fascinating town. And by town, I mean large-ass megalopolis. So much to see and do, and not just in Manhattan. I highly recommend it.
• New York cabbies must be some of the most skilled drivers in the world. I imagine it's what the Blue Angels would look like if they were talking on a cell phone in a foreign language while flying.
• If you are a visitor in New York City, you will stand out. There is no way to avoid it.
• The East River has a specific smell. It's like Justice Stewart's definition of pornography... I can't define it, but I know it when I smell it.
• The people of New York have a reputation for being assholes, but I didn't find that to be the case. Except for Jets fans on Sundays. They are, as one might guess, unbridled dickheads.
• Make sure that your flight isn't scheduled for the one day where it might be difficult to get to the airport.
• Arrive early for any flights out of LaGuardia. The security lines can snake back and forth around the entire Departures section. It's like the lines at Cedar Point, only without the fun ride at the end. Unless, of course, you end up on one of the flights I mentioned earlier.
• On a 7:30 a.m. flight, worry more about the 60-year-old guy next to you than the 6-month-old in the seat in front of you. Both of them will sleep through the flight. But only the 60-year-old will snore like a lumberjack the whole way.
• The three days you leave Michigan will always, ALWAYS be the nicest few days of the month weather-wise.

Anyone else have recent travel advice?

Read more...

Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is not... oh, wait, never mind.

For years now, President Bush has refused to acknowledge the parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. This week, he modified that stance ever so slightly, by telling us that it is exactly like Vietnam.

Now personally, I have never agreed that Iraq is "another Vietnam." After all, Vietnam was primarily a military struggle. The United States fought the armed forces of a foreign nation for the better part of a decade. In Iraq, the United States fought the Iraqi army for the better part of two weeks (hence the "Mission Accomplished").

If I had to compare Iraq to anything (and Smitty I'm hoping you can either back me up or tell me to shut my trap), it reminds me of Somalia. First, because of the scenic desert vistas and mild climate. And second, because the United States is not a part of the primary struggle, but rather we are in the middle of an internal conflict. If we were to leave, the Iraqis wouldn't care about kiling Americans; they'll preoccupied with the Sunni/Shia/Kurdish power struggle. In Vietnam, there was at least a realistic potential that Communism could end up spreading to our shores; I don't see Iraqiism taking root in central America any time soon.

And like Somalia, when we leave, it won't be America that suffer the most. It will be the Iraqis. Somalis celebrated when they "chased" the Americans away, but it plunged their country further into chaos. And I feel like many Iraqis will celebrate their 'liberty' from the Americans when we leave, but it may indeed prove Pyrric. Unless, of course, they think that democracy is overrated (which is a concept that, as a government employee, I often ponder myself...). I'm curious what everyone thinks.

But hey, who could have predicted this? Oh, wait, never mind...

Read more...

Greetings and What-not

Likely noting the absence of crazy hippie liberals in the blog over the last few months, Smitty has seen fit to name me a contributor. This should be interesting.

But I will save my pinko commie discussions (re: my belief that The Man is keeping me down, the social value of weed, Marx vs. Lenin- who would you rather?, etc.) for another day. For now, I'll just say that I'm glad to be here, especially I look at where some people are going to be spending the next few months...

Read more...

Jack Bauer for President

Compliments of Daily Kos, our top Justice Officials, specifically Justice Scalia, appear to be using dramatic devices from Hollywood writers as justifications for constitutional interprettion. God help us.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

Awesome. Recalling events that never actually happened in real life to illustrate not even theoretical constitutional tests, but purely hypothetical ones. What if space aliens threatened to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? We clearly need to employ tactics like those we saw in Men in Black to track down and destroy the Space Alien Threat.

The article from Kos goes on to point out that Scalia had decried a trend towards citing international court opinions when examining our own constitution.

The summary at the of of Kos's article says it all:

Fictional super-heroes are perfectly reasonable to introduce into panel discussions about the legality of torture. International judicial opinions, on the other hand, are to be discarded as un-American.

I can't say I'm surprised. We have a President who insists on unilateral action and a political party unwilling to pay any heed to international affairs. So that we have a Jutice on the Supreme Court willing to use fictional, hypothetical accounts derived from a Hollywood plot device meant to entertain and thrill in lieu from opinions from actual events and interpretations from the world we actually live in doesn't surprise me too much. It depresses me, but doesn't surprise me.

Read more...

Monday Link-O-Rama

New! With Misinformed Commentary and Bad Opinion!

So what it comes down to is that I am too overworked today top actually write a well-informed post. It's one of those days where I rely on you, The Reader, to fill-in the gaps with your thoughts.

1. Fuck this guy. A 16-count, 94-page indictment. Bad all the way around, and deserves swift punishment if he's found guilty. Which I am sure he is.

2. Watch this closely. Free Speech is at stake. A Marine, discharged honorably from active duty, is now being brought before the Marines to face the potential for a dishonorable disharge for wearing his uniform (from which all insignia were removed) during a protest. Disgusting waste of resources indeed, Cpl. His defense atty asked "what if his actions were in support of the Bush Administration?" What indeed.

3. Sure, it's from drug-addled reporters from a prominent music magazine...but good luck to Rudy. How do you think the author feels about him?

4. Maybe as long as these groups keep infighting we can get some other policy work done without talking about abortions all the fucking time.

Anything I missed?

Read more...

Imus Have Been a Racist

Snark is a mainstay of the blogosphere. We thrive on pointed snarkiness; it serves as humor as well as punctuation. But the difference between snarky bloggers and what Don Imus said is galactic in scale. Snark is snark, not racism

I understand the Shock Jock thing, and quite honestly don't listen to Howard Stern either (meaning including Imus). Milquetoast bathroom-humor jocks like Bob and Tom are no big deal. They're good for a laugh and never take that step too far. But guys like Imus...I guess I don't know what it is you have to turn off in your head in order to make it okay for yourself to call a National Championship group of athletes "nappy-headed hos." Or what is already turned-off in your head that your head even goes there in the first place.

So Imus gets a 2-week suspension to get his shit together and do some apologizing. And he is...he's done the obligatory Sharpton and Jackson apologies, and he's actually setting up a meeting with the Rutgers to apologize to them face to face. Gotta admire the stones, but he owes it to them.

He's been admonished by everyone including Matt Lauer, The Admonisher(tm).

But what gets me, again, is that his problem won't go away. This loud-mouthed, no-holds-barred radio schlock that mouth-breathers really love is going to stay, and if not Stern or Imus, It'd be Opus and Andy or some other bigot trying to be funny with a microphone. Jackson (in a rare instance where I agree with him) states:

“This is a two-week cooling off period,” Jackson said. “It does not challenge the character of the show, its political impact, or the impact that these comments have had on our society.”

In defense of his show, Imus states:

He has urged critics to recognize that his show is a comedy that spreads insults broadly. Imus or his cast have called Colin Powell a “weasel,” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson a “fat sissy” and referred to Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, an American Indian, as “the guy from ‘F Troop.”’ He and his colleagues also called the New York Knicks a group of “chest-thumping pimps.”

Colin Powell being called a weasel is hardly a racial slur. Bill Richardson being a fat sissy is...well, let's just say it's not racist. Offensive, sure. Senator Campbell being called "the guy from F Troop" is one step...one teeny tiny step...from overtly racist. And calling the Knicks team chest-thumping pimps is pretty much on-the-nose racism. See, what Imus and guys like him miss is that spreading insults broadly, as well as spreading racist comments around, is equally bad. Spreading insults is fine. We do it here. But covering all of your racist bases doesn't make racism okay. Only attacking blacks is no less evil than attacking all racial minorities, yet that's what Imus's response implies; "hey, I call everyone by their epithet, so I'm not racist because I'm not just after 1 specific group. I spread the hate around."

What kills me is that he still has an audience. And I don't mean after he made these comments. I mean at all, over time. There are people out there who will continue to worship at his shrine and listen to his show, including this guy:

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose presidential candidacy has been backed by Imus on the air, said he would still appear on Imus’ program.

“He has apologized,” McCain said.

With friends like that...

**UPDATE**

Some comments from the Rutgers' Women's Basketball Team. Classy and well-spoken comments, I might add, and completely unlike the incoherent grunts of a washed-up radio jock:

"I would like to express our team's great hurt, anger and disgust toward the words of Mr. Don Imus," Carson said. "We are highly angered at his remarks but deeply saddened with the racial characterization they entailed."

"Our moment was taken away -- our moment to celebrate our success, our moment to realize how far we had come, both on and off the court, as young women," said sophomore forward Heather Zurich. "We were stripped of this moment by degrading comments made by Mr. Imus last Wednesday."

"I would like to speak to him personally and ... ask him, after you've met me personally, do you still feel in this category that I'm still a 'ho' as a woman and as a black, African-American woman..."

"Before you are valedictorians of their class, future doctors, musical prodigies, and yes, even Girl Scouts," she said. "They are young ladies of class, distinction, they are articulate, they are brilliant, they are gifted. They are God's representatives in every sense of the word."

Read more...

What Would Ahmadinejad Do?

A busy mid-week has kept me from rapid and relevent posts, but I have been thinking a lot about Iran, the British sailors and Marines, and exactly what Ahmedinejad got out of this whole ordeal. Why would he do this? Why would he essentially kidnap British troops who were, according to GPS systems, well within Iraqi waters?

Clearly, Ahmedinejad is the head of an insane regime who is potentially significantly more dangerous and threatening to Mid-East peace than, say, Syria. But what he did was win a "moral" victory (for lack of a better way to put it) by broadcasting video of the captives, in Iran, eating, drinking, laughing, smiling. Consider the picture right at the top of this article. Certainly nothing at all like this picture. A strong message indeed.

Take a listen to this report from NPR's Morning Edition this morning. They crew came off of a jet from Iran wearing fresh uniforms and bearing gifts, like pistacchios, from the Iranians. Several of the crew, including the woman, Turney, were recorded upon landing saying that they were treated with dignity and repsect, and never once felt as though they were in danger. Again, it draws a distinct contrast between Iran's treatment of prisoners (despite is "barbaric" moniker) and the United States' treatment of the same.

Now, I do see that our detainment of individuals arises from those whom we are actually fighting in an armed conflict with: Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither we nor the British have such an armed conflict with Iran. That said, most certainly did Ahmadinejad seize an opportunity to display such a massive disparity in conduct. It is most likely dishonest as its core; I believe him to be a demagogue of the sort that Hugo Chavez is, who will create opportunities to draw contrasts, however contrived. I believe that this was certianly contrived by a great Showman.

But in that contrivance lies a kernal of truth. If nothing else, it should serve to remind us of just how shitty of a job we're doing in Guantanamo Bay. That is partly Ahmadinejad's mission, at least as far as I can read his mind. I think he was trying to go a few steps further: look at how great we treat people who do us wrong, look at how generously we pardon them, look at how we're not positioning ourselves for an armed conflict. Who knows...what if we did enter in an armed conflict with Iran. Would they treat prisoners the same still? Would they still give them pressed suits and food? I doubt it pretty strongly.

In the end, this was Showmanship, not statesmanship. But Ahmadinejad did accomplish something significant: he held Britain's balls for just a mere moment, and made a giant take a pause. It said that while the UK and the US are stretched ever so thin, that one little motion from one little man in Iran could cause untold havoc; "come and get me....psyche. Here's your troops back. Ready to negotiate with me yet on better terms?" But how else was he going to be able to negotiate from a position of power? He is not generous, nor especially giving. But I think he found a way to get a seat at the table more effectively than this lunatic ever could on his best day.

The Brits say that this has "opened new lines of communication" with Tehran. And accordingly, the nuclear talks have re-opened. The ball is in our court now. What will we do?

Read more...

All The News That's Fit To Miss

Well, it's Monday. Nothing big really happened to me this weekend. It's too early in the week to turn the Outrage-ometer all the way up, so instead, a Monday News Roundup:

1) Some people are too sick for words. Enough said.

2) Somebody has to take some leadership. I am a little grumpy about the title of the article on CNN, because her visit is much more than a pro-Israel, anti-Hezbollah tour de force. The Whitehouse continues to employ their "if we don't like 'em, we ignore 'em" policy, whereas Syria, if not ignored, could play a major role in MidEast peace and reconstruction.

3) THIS is a safe neighborhood walk? Jesus. Sure, when you have a small army accompanying you, anything is pretty safe.[thanks to Think Progress] But to insist there is a drop in violence flies in the face of the facts. 6 more soldiers dead that very same day. Read the whole article. Lots of blood.

4) This is what "one of the world's worst terrorists" got for a sentence on the charges levied against him. Do I think it should be more? Not the point. The point is that the case against him, as well as the "system" that is keeping these people is weaqk at best. World's worst terrorist got the sentence of a shoplifter.

Discuss.

Read more...

One, Two, Three, Fo'....FIF!!!!

I heard this report on NPR on the way home last night, and immediately thought of the whole skit referenced in the title and picture. Too funny for words, and SO poignant. "I pleeeead the fif...(SLAM)...I pleeeead the fif....(slam)"

Then I read this report on WaPo today. Again, chuckles and chortles. Because of Bugs Bunny, Monty Python and Dave Chappelle, there is not much that I can possibly take seriously any more.

From the NPR story:

Monica Goodling, who serves as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House and counselor to the attorney general, notified the committee Monday that she will not be testifying about the scandal.

Justice Department documents show that Goodling helped determine which prosecutors should be fired . The documents also showed that she worked closely with White House political operative Karl Rove to remove the United States attorney in Arkansas so that one of Rove's aides could take the job.

As White House liaison for the Justice Department, she'd be able to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee whether top Justice Department officials knew they were giving false testimony when they said that the White House was minimally involved in the removal of the U.S. attorneys.

Her contention to the committee is that she had "become aware that a senior justice department official had blamed her for his false testimony." And as yet another indication that Gonzo is all alone, along with Rove and Bush, is

Goodling's invocation of the Fifth Amendment rattled Republicans on Capitol Hill. Adam Putnam, the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, and a staunch Bush supporter, had this to say about Gonzales: "I believe that this tornado that he's in the center of is largely of his own making, and I believe [it] does undermine his ability to continue to serve the president in the way that you would expect."

I would also like to point out that Republicans joined Dems in the House to repeal the sneaky little section in the Patriot Act that allows the AG to appoint US Attorneys. Bush has apparently said he will not veto the measure, which while smart, is also not surprising and doens't help one way or the other. Geese are cooked.

It makes me wonder:

In the House yesterday, a provision stripping the attorney general of the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate confirmation passed overwhelmingly, following a 94 to 2 vote in the Senate last week.

Exactly who are the two who voted against it?? What misguided bumblefucks actually see the good in this provision so as to have voted against the blatant political maneuver with no benefit to justice being served? And even in the House, by passing "overwhelmingly," there must still be a few who think this is fine. Click here for the House vote (329 - 78). Got one of the Fighting 78 in your district as your Rep? Write them and tell them they're out of touch. I am proud to say that Mike Rogers (R - MI), my Rep, actually voted no, thouch the 78 nay votes all came from the Republicans.

For the Senate vote, click here. The 2 no votes were Bond (R - Hopeless) and Hagel (R - Outtatouch).

Discuss.

Read more...

Scandalous

I am frankly underwhelmed by the whole Scooter Libby verdict. First, it's no rel surprise. Let's say it's as much of a surprise as the impending pardon will be. Second, as everyone says (including the jury), wrong guys. So Scooter lied. Big deal. It's who he lied for and why that I really want to know, and we never will. With Scooter's conviction, this whole issue goes away. The federal prosecutor didn't charge anyone with the "outing" of Valerie Plame because he didn't think there was anything there that would stick. But again, now that Scooter got smacked, I think we're at the end of this whole deal. Scooter took the hit for Rove and/or Cheney and this investigation is done. Color me...bored.

I see a lot of hay being made about this. I see there is something cathartic about someone in this administration finally...finally being held accountable for something. But the "victory," for what it's worth, is empty. The people who should pay won't. Cheney was exposed as the architech behind the smear campaign of Joseph Wilson, but h is not going to be held accountable for it.

The Dems on Capitol Hill are pointing out that this is one more thing that confirms the administration's lies to get us into Iraq. A concerted effort from the White House to suppress information from the CIA that proved the "yellowcake" charge was bullshit, stemming apparently from Cheney (as the trial showed), is the root of the idea the Dems are pursuing. But I think it's a chasm of distance between the root reason behind why we're pissed off - being lied to - and Libby's conviction, which strikes me as a bit more about retribution against those who we really can't touch (but really, really want to. In a bad way) than justice.

There seems to be a lot of grasping at what is going to be "really really big." Libby's conviction was going to be "really really big" and expose all sorts of...whatever. Well, he's convicted. Sure, he lied in a big, illegal way and essentially tried to block an investigation. But an investigation to what? To nowhere. The federal fucking prosecutor sees no case that will stick. So the "big thing" turns into a bit of a mediocrity.

The firing of the six U.S. Attorneys is being touted as the next "big thing." Maybe. Maybe we'll burn another Republican Senator over it, but I certainly don't smell jail time. It is tough to prove there is some White House conspiracy here to fire guys who might be leading an investigation against administration people and replace them with hacks. Well, we know they replaced them with hacks. But why? How long will it take to find out? And will it nail anyone who means anything?

Nothing makes me more furious than how we treat our wounded troops. I can hardly listen to the NPR reports or read the Newsweek article without wanting to cry. Dudes in DC are getting fired or quitting all over the place about this. But it's not the first time our Government have fucked our injured troops (what do they mean Agent Orange is eating their skin off?), and the worse that Bush himself is guilty of in this collassal fuck-up is political gamesmanship. It rrrreeeeeaaaallllyyy pisses me off that he does it with our injured troops. But we're burning all the people who ought to be burned for it. Sure, it shows more lack of leadership from the Bushies, but if you want to talk about inept leadership when it comes to dealing with our injured troops, you've got to blame every administration since the end of WWII. As a veteran, this shit has got to get solved by someone pretty damn quick. It's been wrong from a long time.

What this is is a sum of all evils; an indication of poor leadership and a group of people so sure of their own power that they don't even try to hide the bullshit. Mostly because...what exactly are we going to do when we find out? Convict a Fall Guy and celebrate a great victory? Pretty hollow.

Read more...