Photo of the day

We raised nearly three and a half thousand dollars this week. Even if Cheney won't, I am retiring...from my position as president of my student organization. Let some young blood in and let me sleep finally.

This week is spring break and so I might go somewhere last minute, but in all likelihood, I will just work and study. Happy Friday everyone.

over the hump

as tired as I am, I feeling pretty good. This week's fundraising has gone really well in my book and I am proud of all the volunteers, all the donors and all the support in general. Lots of people came up to me over the week and expressed their graditude for what our group was doing and all the work we had done to set up every morning, take down in the afternoon, and talk people into donating during the day.

To wit, we have raised nearly $3,000 for needy 1Ls and 2Ls that will be working over the summer for a non-profit or government job that is little or no pay. This sleepiness was worth it. Tomorrow is our last day of constant fundraising and my last early morning set up.

Politically, I loved watching Bush implode over the ports deal, and their weasel out attempts. I am enraged about Intelligence Committee and Pat Roberts in general. What a horrible senator he is because he is acting as a member of the Bush cabinet and not as a member of the legislative branch or representative of the residents of Kansas.

long week

man, it feels like it is wednesday or thursday already. I have been up early brewing coffee for the college of law along with setting up bagels and much more. Then today I got up early and taught my high school students.

and somehow I haven't been able to get to sleep because of the various things and I just feel drained.

port security--WH 08 edition

Who gains, who loses politcally? Of the likely candidates, Hillary has legislation that is nationalistic (all ports must be American owned). Edwards in his senate days had a bill on port security that he can point to, but he really hasn't said much on the UAE deal. Clark has spoken out very clearly on this issue, saying it doesn't matter who owns the port, we need to make sure the containers are checked here and their originations points.

Winner: Clark and maybe Clinton. Hillary's stance is one that in theory would play well in the heartland and plays off the GOP's fearmongering of Arab countries, but then again, it is Hillary, and the heartland will still hate her for various other reasons. Clark cut to heart of the matter and disagreed with Clinton while not saying he is against her bill, as George Stephanopolis wanted him to say. In fact, this issue is a winning one for Clark, because it plays into his national security and foreign affairs strength. It is one less time that he has to try to talk about domestic stuff, which he was clearly less confortable with in 2004.

As far as the GOP WH 08 race, McCain seems to be coming to Bush's defense ("Could you spare a few more staffers for my campaign, George?") by telling everyone to take a deep breath about it. Frist is staking out some breathing space between him and Bush by asking for a delay...which is just to give Bush more time to sell/hope people forget about it. I haven't heard from the other folks about the deal.

My problem is not necessarly the fact that UAE is in charge, although they aren't as trustworthy as i would like. my issue is that bush broke the law again and doesn't care.

what's a matter with oscar

poor Jon Stewart. It looks like his jokes were all watered down like American beer. We are now on our second montage and I just learned that Lauren Baccal can't read.

Why does there need to be a theme? Or an ode to film nior or bio pics? I mean really, the Oscars are an hour and a half show that is made into 3+ because of over production. And annoyingly enough the producers always manage to get Emmys.

The best bit so far was Steve Carell's bad makeup bit and the negative advertisment gag film. I love how they send out latina who bombed her singing of a nominated song last year for 'Crash' song.

reredistricting is unconstitutional

In my opinion, it goes against the spirit and word of the 13th and 14th amendments, plus against all that Madison and company talked about in the Federalist papers.

However, after reading reports from election law experts who attended the oral arguments of the Texas reredistricting case, it seems that the Justices were leaning in the following directions [according to UCLA's Rick Hansen and OSU's Ned Foley]:

"1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently this leaves Vieth in place [one of the least helpful opinions since Furman v. Georgia], because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity distinguish between a statewide gerrymandering claim and the distric-specific claims that Stevens was interested in... for more read here

"2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data.

"3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy's vote)." Some find Thomas' silence "intriguing" while I find it wholly unsurprising for a me-too judge. Ginsburg and Alito were also silent, but she fell asleep at the end of arguments and Alito is probably not wanting to make a big splash. It was hard to read CJ Roberts views since he has tough questions both ways.

"4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand)." Most commenters thought this was a far fetched possibility. Sounds like Orals did not go well for the petitioners.

In a few years, when state after state reredistricts whenever there is a change of hands in the state house, the US House will change hands since the party divide in this county is pretty narrow (since I believe the 15 seat edge the GOP have will sigificantly deminish after 2006, if not turn into a deficit). Maybe the unintended consequence of this will be de facto term limits, or maybe the Congress will turn into California's legislature, where there is barely any institutional memory and choas abounds. Maybe then congress will get off their duffs and redistrict themselves in a fair fashion...or they will just protect themselves as much as possible.

As things stand, every 10 years, candidates pick their voters, instead of every two years the voters pick their representative, as the constitution mandates.

Ye almighty [Republican] Executive

Isn't it sad that the minute the White House changes party hands, the Republican congress change their tune completely? How many inquiries did we have to the silly messups of the Clinton White House? How many grand inquisitors did Congress hire for that (3)?

Yet those same folks phone in their questioning and document requests and hearings. Folks like my Senator Orin Hatch ask softballs to administration officials when they are appointed by Republicans, but when hired by Democrats, he is all over them.

Now you can say partisan politics is corrupting both sides and copy and paste that into a "moderate" washingtonian column. But reality is that if Democrats were in control of congress and the presidency, the two branches would still eat each other alive (see 1992-1994).

McCelland Democrats

Digby's right, bloggers aren't extreme in the ideological sense, they are extreme in the tactic sense.

We are tired of being asked for more troops (money) without any more action (aggressive challenges) against the Rebels (extremist Republicans). The DC pundits and consultants seem to be afriad of their own shadows.

Bush's approval rating is at 34%, an all time low. The port deal is starting to smell more and more of cronyism. For the first time ever, more of the public believes Congressional Democrats, not Bush, have their best security interests at heart. Democrats lead by fairly large margins in generic ballot tests. Democrats are poised to pick up the majority of the governorships in the country, especially in the key swingable states of Ohio and Arkansas (and possibily Florida). Race by race polls show that if the election were held today, Democrats would have 49-50 seats in the senate, and make similarlly large gains in the House.

Now is not a time for timidity, now is a time for boldness. While the GOP is divided and weak, Democrats need to strike. They need to put out a platform that shows what we are for at the end the summer (launching a nationwide campaign starting labor day).

We need more Grants, and less McCellands.

Virgil [No]Goode and John Dolittle [for his constituents, but lots for his coffers]

Don't ethically challeneged GOP House members have great names?

Mitchel Wade, who bribed ex-Rep. (current con) "Duke" Cunningham, has pled guilty to giving illegal contributions to Goode, to the tune of $46K [by having his employees and their wifes donate to Goode and then reembursing them]


According to TPM, "Wade asked that Goode request appropriations funding for an MZM facility in Goode's district soon after he'd just delivered most of the $46K. This was at some unspecified time "in the spring" - the contributions were mostly made in March of 2005, so it can't have been long. By June 2005, 'Representative A [Goode] confirmed to Wade that the appropriations bill would include $9M for the facility and a related program.'"

Doolittle was busy taking Abramoff-paid trips (as were his staffers), as well as the other Duke briber, Brent Wilkes. Again, TPM lays it out:

Wilkes convinced Doolittle with $85,000 (from himself, his employees, his lobbyists) in contributions over three years. In return, PerfectWave won Doolittle’s support for $37M in earmarked appropriations. In a Washington Post story on this last week, Doolittle responded with a statement that "he frequently supports 'well deserving projects throughout the state.'" And "his support of PerfectWave Technology ‘was no exception and based completely on the project's merits and the written support of the military.'"

These two aren't the only ones, just ones with most scandalworthy names.

In response to commenters Bob, Col. Takashi and la

Here is the statement that was in the Salt Lake Tribune, they have it on tape, they have witnesses to confirm that it happened.

At a recent meeting in American Fork a man identifying himself as a former Green Beret stood to share his testimony.
"If you're a Democrat, I want you to understand that I support my president," he said in comments recorded by the church for homebound members. "And if you have a problem with that, we can talk behind the church."

I don't know if this is typical, or if this guy was LDS (I assume he was, otherwise, what was he doing testifying). I was only going off an interview of the article's author (who did interview lots of people and got many replies to his article) as to the extent of the problem. My concern is about over deference to authority, not the threat of violence.

As for the comparison of what Clinton did to what Bush did: Clinton did a limited strike based on concrete information. And for all we know, this strike is what eliminated WMD's in 1999 and Saddam fudged having them until 2003. By the way, republicans wanted to see proof and talked about "Wag the Dog" when he did it. I have no way of knowing what Clinton's motivations were. I think he is a smileball for having an affair with a 23 year old intern and lying to the public about it and his staff (and wife). But I don't think it was an impeachable offense.

There is mountains of evidence that the Bush administration knew that the intelligence was not rock solid, but they ignored or whitewashed any doubts or hesitations of those officials. There is some sketchy evidence that a DoD official (Larry Franklin) shopped the fake yellow cake documents to people in Italy to get the idea that Saddam had nukes or wanted them in the for front.

I can name dozens of times Cheney, Bush, Rice, and others misled and insinated that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and had nuclear weapons or was trying to get them. All of these instances are on tape.

As to Bush as sinner. I get the redemption thing and I am sure Bush doesn't drink anymore and he believes in all the doctrines of the Southern Baptists. And hats off to him for that. But he still a liar, he still supports tabbacco companies, he still thinks he is more important than other people, and he still is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible. And to make him out as more religious than say Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry was an altar boy. He goes to mass...religiously, he went even though there were threats to deny him eucharist because of his position on abortion. Anyone and everyone can refer to God (in God we trust, etc.), and that is fine with me. But when they say to friend that God put them there to do, it bothers me. As Lincoln said, both sides of the war think they are doing God's will; they both can't be right.

I think the Church leaders ARE more moderate than their political leadership. Rumor has it that the Prophet (President Hinckley) is a Democrat. A very good Mormon (head of the mission in Vancover or Montreal) was liberal Democrat: fmr. US Rep. Wayne Owens. I knew Wayne; he was a great man who spent his last days working for middle-east peace and leading search parties for Elizabeth Smart.

I sure hope that Bush has been dropping in Utah. I don't understand what there is to like about his administration, what he has accomplished. And don't say 9/11: any president would have done that. And Iraq, well I am glad Saddam is gone, but the country is definately less stable and less secure becuase of our presence (see the bombing of a Shite holy site today in Iraq). I wouldn't consider that an accomplishment. No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and other domestic legislation has been a disaster. The tax cuts haven't helpped anyone but the rich. I gave all of my $50 2001 tax cut to the Red Cross after 9/11, then wished I could have given it to a better organization. THe Bush presidency has been a failure and a sad example of how far partisanship will ruin our constitution and our country.

a pattern emerges

When did they bother to tell the president? That has become the question of the last couple of weeks and might as well be the question of the Bush presidency.

When Cheney shot a man accidently in the face, Bush didn't hear about it for several hours, and he had to beg Cheney to go on Fox News. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it was several days until someone explained to the vacationer in chief that the levees had failed. When we were attacked on 9/11, Bush's detail waited 9 minutes until they bothered to tell George to stop reading "my pet goat" to Florida school children. When a plane accidentally entered restricted airspace and officials evacuated the White House and Capitol, no one interupted Bush's bike ride in nearby Maryland. When DHS has outsourced our port security in key cities to a company controlled by a royal family that met with Bin Laden in 1999, no one tells the president until the information is leaked to the public and a fury erupts from everywhere.

Cheney sees himself as the co-president I guess, getting the right to call the shots from the situation room with Lynne on 9/11 while Bush is on Air Force One running away, and declassifying matters of national security for political purposes. Meanwhile, White House officials don't seem to think informing the president is that crucial in terms of decision making on major policy issues.

Is it because he doesn't like to hear bad news? His input is unnecessary if Cheney has given his? They don't want to scare/confuse him? Or Bush isn't really in charge? If the last one is true, then who is? Cheney? Some senior WH official? A cabinet level guy like Rumsfeld? Who elected these people?

Because when Bush is asleep at the wheel, bad stuff happens politically. And when he is on the ball, bad stuff happens administratively, and eventually politically.

America's spoiled brats in Torino

I know a million bloggers must have said this already, but I am tired of hearing about seeing or thinking about Bode Miller. All talk and hype (on the cover of TIME and Newsweek and probabbly sports illustrated) and nothing. The most impressive thing I saw from Miller was after he hit a gate and was already disqualified how he stayed on his feet with only one ski on the course (the other he was trying to get back in front of him). He doesn't seem to care about being there or winning or anything. He just wants to try some crazy way down the hill instead of finishing.

Even worse is Shani Davis, the speedskater. I know I am supposed to be all jazzed that he is the first black man and the first individual African-American winter olympian to win anything, let alone gold, but he is a jerk. And it isn't just that he decided last minute not to do the team race. That was his call and really all those speedskaters do their own thing. But it was another to be annoyed to talk to the NBC people after he won. The lady asked softballs, tried to get him to say something memorable, something positive. His answers were "yeah," "uh huh" and so on. Then he claimed "I am at a loss for words" when his tone was completely flat and there was zero smile on his face. The facial expression of his interviewer after tossing it back to the booth was priceless. To me it said, "I gave it my all guys, but he just is too cool to talk to, what the heck is his deal?" He was the moodiest gold medalist I have ever seen.

Shani could have turned his gold into more gold for him and his mother. He could have been nice and happy and flashed a smile and said something funny or memorable and gotten a nike endorsement. He could have even played the race card and been discussed. Now he just comes off as a bratty only child. His mama smeared the US speed skating organization, but didn't elaborate on how they "operate by intimindation, and I am not going to be intimidated." He trains with some guy in Canada most of the time, why doesn't he just join the Canadian team since he doesn't seem to care for the American one. And he isn't a poor black kid from the bad part of town in Chicago, they live in Evanston, one of the wealthiest areas of Chicagoland.

Meanwhile, the guy that got a silver in Shani's race, Joey Cheek, gave the bonus money he won from his medal (and the gold bonus money from the 500m race he won too) to a non-profit that allows kids in war-torn areas play sports. He asked the NBC people to talk about the non-profit and especially Darfur. They didn't even really interview Joey, too busy focusing on the bitch off between Shani and an ex-inline skater on the American team. Why aren't we celebrating Joey Cheek, NBC? He seems like an average guy who is humble, nice, good looking, and "All-American." Seems like perfect sponsorship material.

Watching this year reminds me of how cool it was to have the games in Salt Lake, and how magical it was to fly out from college and be able to see some events and go to the German house etc. There is talk about bringing the games back to SLC in 2014 or so. Hoepfully the city by then will normally feel like the city did during those 2 magical weeks in 2002.

What is wrong with Utah?

In 49 states, 98 percent of the states that make up the United States of America, Bush is at or below 50 percent. The only one where a majority of its residents support the President is Utah with a 58% to 39% approval-disapproval rating. (source: SurveyUSA - 50 State POTUS 02/06 Sort By State )

Why? Does it have to do with the general conservatism of Utah, and its overwhelming support of him in 2004 (I believe he got around 75% in the Beehive State)? Does it have to do with Bush's religious conservatism, which match up nicely on a great many "moral values" with Utah (drinking, gays, death penalty, abortion, etc.)? Or does it have to do with the nature of the LDS religion itself and the way it manifests itself in Utah?

I have talked to many LDS people living outside of Utah who tell me that they have been to or lived in Utah and they just couldn't stand the Utah "version" of their faith. Some said it was holier than thou, others that it was overly conformist and Orwellian in feel. Could it be that a desire to follow the herd, to blindly support authorities is more prevalent in Utah and in particular LDS Utahns? I don't know and I am not going to conjecture any further, since I don't want to be accused of bigotry.

I respect the LDS religion and my LDS friend's faith and devotion to their Church. I can understand their feelings on abortion, the death penalty, drinking, smoking, and a few other things. That is not to say that I agree with their viewpoints or beliefs, although I must say that I love the restrictions on drinking and smoking in this state. I think it makes for a cleaner, safer society.

But what I don't get is their support of Bush. This is a man that routinely lies, swears, was an alcoholic until age 40, might have done illegal drugs, got himself out of war via connections, supports cigarette companies and other polluters, who has stated that he is acting on God's blessing when he lies to get us into war, and so on. I can't find much Christian in Bush the man or Bush the office. He is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible.

In a ward meeting in American Folk, a man got up to testify and stated that he was a green beret, and that if anyone spoke ill of the president (or his policies) or the war specifically, he would like to "finish it outside." That is, he threatened physical violence. Others have reported that similar (although less blatant) statements have been made at their local ward/stakehouse. So too have other LDS Utahns said that their meeting house is more tolerant. But the tolerant ones, at least anecdotally, seem to be outnumbered by the intolerant according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

I think it is sad that there is no room for discussion of the war when the LDS Presidency has not taken any official stance on it. Sure, they have said support the troops and support the commander in chief, but even the Unitarians would agree with that.

[Correction: on closer inspection, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alabama approve of Bush with a 50+% rating. However, Utah's is still the highest and has never sunk.]

head of the class

So today we taught again this mornning. A large portion of that was eaten up by a test we gave as part of the mid-terms and the requirement thereof. I was amazed by how many kids got 55% or below (1/3 at least). Some questions were a bit tricky now that I think about it if you weren't paying attention in class, but really, if you listened and took notes (we let them have a 1 page cheat sheet), you should have been fine.

In fact, because of extra credit, one kid got a 103. Many kids just gave up or made up crazy answers. And spelling was out of this world. But hey, I appreciate the effort for the most part. I think we have them whipped into some sort of shape after my partner gave them a pop quiz next time.

Fridays are always joke days for me at the law school, so I too half-listened while grading the High Schoolers tests. I am happy for the nicer weather after this bitter snow days and even happier for a long weekend and positive blood test results on my kidneys. (oh and I don't have HIV or Hep, which is good too). My sister the doctor ordered lots of tests but I had enough blood to spare.

In political news, I am amazed to some degree that Harry Wittingham appologized to Cheney for Cheney shooting him in the face. Notice in the photos you see of him his face is bruised but that the side that is shown in the left side, and he was hit on the right. So who knows what that side looks like. I hope Harry is feeling fine, and can go back to being an evil GOP lawyer soon.

McCain hypocrisy watch

So remember first off that McCain was a member of the Keating Five before he "got religion" and became a campaign finance crusader. It was a goal to save his own skin.

So then McCain signed up with liberal and contrarian Sen. Russ Feingold to eliminate soft money and close each and every loophole...once someone got in trouble (see the sudden desire to close the 'American Indian' loophole or 527 or sham 501(c)(3)s).

But now that he is running for president, he tossing aside foibles, hiring Bush fundraisers and pioneers left and right (today he hired Bush's NH fundraiser, someone who will be useful to prove support for a candidate inside the Granite State). More hypocritically, he letting himself be a money raising prop to people who gather funds in largely unregulated (or compared to the federal system underregulated) amounts.

In seeking to reach his goal [of raising $120 Million], Schwarzenegger is offering large donors personal access. Invitations to a March 20 dinner in Beverly Hills offer "head table seating with the governor" for two and six photos of couples with the governor for those who contribute at least $100,000 to his reelection campaign and the state GOP. The dinner's star speaker is Sen. John McCain..."The important thing is that all the rules within the state are followed, and the senator himself is not soliciting large donations," said John Weaver, a McCain strategist.

That's a pretty fine line. McCain isn't soliciting large donations for himself, but soliciting them for his friends, whom he can later ask political favors from in the primaries.

Let's say the GOP 2008 primary is between George Allen and John McCain (which CPAC straw polls show are by far the most liked candidates) and that McCain took NH but Allen took SC, the rest of the other states have been pretty even but now it is Super Tuesday and California is the biggest prize. Don't you think helping out Arnold get re-elected (let's hope CA voters aren't that dumb twice) would mean that the Governor would endorse and work for McCain?

a peek inside the mad house

From Hotline on Call:

We heard Mike Allen refer to this on Larry King Live, and this morning, The Note offers up this nugget: "Sources close to the Vice President say that there was actually a statement prepared either by Cheney, or with his help, to be delivered Sunday morning after the accident. It was something the White House suggested -- and might have been prepared with some White House help. But it was determined by his advisors and by him that morning that it was too 'convoluted,' and might not be the best way to proceed. They decided it might be best to have somebody who actually witnessed the accident explain what happened. For some reason, they thought that would seem more 'credible,' hence, the involvement of Katherine Armstrong. They now see that this was likely bad judgment."

Here's what Allen said last night: "And, Larry, the vice president and one of the staff members actually had worked up a statement that they considered releasing on Sunday morning but it was so obtuse and elliptical that it was decided that that would just cause even more of a frenzy, so they waited to do it this way."

So they couldn't even swallow the lies that they were preparing to give on the story. I wonder what it said, because the story that they did come out with via a lobbyist and an appointed ambassador, was pretty pathetic. Maybe they thought saying the same thing through a different source really would be more believable.

Meanwhile, when did the President hear about it? What about Scotty? Was Scotty's communications team crafting the story? Was Karl Rove? These folks are pathalogical lairs. Forthcommingness and honesty is just about the last thing that would come to mind.

Sure, Clinton's first reaction was to duck the hard truth about his womanizing nature, but he didn't shoot anyone in the face, neck, and chest. Nor did he lie to go to war in Kosovo or Haiti. As far as I can tell the CYA of the Clinton White House was on unnecessary non-scandals that were turned into scandals by zealous GOPers like Barbara Comstock. The CYA of the Bush White House involve Iraq, outing a CIA agent for political gain, information on key legislation (Medicare plan B, Energy policy, spending bills for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), warrantless domestic spying, Katrina, and much more.

Dick Cheney firmly believes that the executive can do whatever it wants and doesn't have to share any information. In fact, information sharing is a sin or necessary evil in the Cheney world view. And this was just the latest example.

friendly fire

by using this title, i can link together various semi-related topics.

Like Dick Cheney accidently shooting a 78-old friend from 30 feet away while the Abassador to Switzerland looked on. And then no one wanted to report it, except the campaign donor whose land they were on at the time 18-hours later. Oh and the man is still in intensive care. Much has already been said about this, and even my sleepy East High students knew about it and asked me what happened.

And now for the main thrust of my article, I ask that there be no more pieces from bloggers on how DINO one primary candidate is, and how the other is so much better, without laying out any policy positional differences. The number one offender of this is Michael in Chicago on MyDD. I have no way of judging other than money and polling at this point which candidate is better for Henry Hyde's seat. But just because the D-trip supports Duckworth over Celigis (sp?) doesn't mean that Duckworth is enherantly worse. There may be reasons to support Duckworth other than the fact that the bloggers liked the other canidate last time (fundraising ability, appealability to more voters, etc.). Same goes with Sharrod Brown and Paul Hacket.

I personally like Hacket in this one more than Brown, if only because Hacket got in first and didn't pretend like he wasn't going to enter the race only to enter in later. Brown just strikes me as more of a stereotypical pol than Hacket. Of course, whatever Ohio democrats decide is ok with me. Ditto for IL primary voters.

It is just completely unproductive to smear candidates without actually having any real policy discussion. I am fine with people not supporting Casey in PA because of his abortion stance, or is support of Alito (again on abortion most likely), but you can't deny that he stands the best chance against Santorum based on polls.

Again, go ahead and bash Lieberman and Cuegular (sp?) for their support of Bush policy's and contrast the differing positions of their oposition.

But don't bash John Morrison in Montana because the DLC named him as a new dem of the week (I did) or because he was a member of the DLC's 100 to watch a couple years in arow. The DLC supported Morrison because he looked like he would run for governor or senator down the road, and was vaguely in line with their political philosophy. I haven't heard much about Tester's positions other than his support by (1) Kos and (2) Pearl Jam. I like both, but that doesn't do it for me. Morrison supported ways of increasing health insurance coverage for Montana's children, he knows about water issues and western issues and can explain it to easterns in a way that will get positive changes made in Washington. Tester is an organic farmer whose district was republican in the state senate. That's about all I know of him. That, and as Kos points out, he has a donkey and the word "democrat" in his web banner. Who cares?

Oh and Morrison is currently polling ahead of Burns, while Tester is behind Burns (and Morrison has more money than Tester).

Whomever wins these contested primaries will need our support come November in order to have a chance of taking back either house of Congress. So please, if you prefer a candidate, state your reasons why in policy terms, not conspiracy/slur terms.

Long days

Wednesdays are long for me, but made only longer when they are sandwiched by long Tuesdays and long Thursdays like this week. Yesterday, I taught in the morning (7:45) with my fellow law student, worked for 4 hours at the DA's office, then went to school until 7:30. After that, I played basketball from 8:30 to 9:30 (I ate dinner and changed at a Subway restaurant). I didn't get home until 10 PM.

Today, I didn't get home until 8:45 and I had been going since 9 AM. Tomorrow's schedule is just like Tuesdays. At least Friday will be light, with a mid morning class, a lunch meeting and a afternoon class. I have the opening ceremonies to watch up at my parent's house while they are away. The big screen awaits.

In other commentary, I am impressed at how quickly messages can be solidified for the Democratic party/liberals on the lefty blogostan. [For example, see the reaction to the furor over CS King's funeral] Great talking points emerge from the big blogs, and evidence to back up the ideas emerge either within the group blogs or becomes linked to the big ones. Now all Democrats need is the ability to get this honed message out to the non-blogging public.

That requires getting real air time on cable news channels, which are becoming angry conservative AM talk radio with pictures and fancy graphics, or newsprint, which is filled sniveling cowardly bootlickers like the NYTimes staff and the WaPo editorial board. Occasionally, there are some good journalists, like ex-TIME now Slate's John Dickerson. Dickerson, while still a creature of the beltway, at least has a code of ethics and knows a rat when he smells one (and isn't afraid to point out the rat).

Soon, TV and radio may die away as effective messengers to the voters/opinion shapers. Blogs like Daily Kos are growing so rapidly that soon their "circulation" numbers will trump not just big papers like NYTimes, but all papers COMBINED.

Democrats have a built in advantage as consensus builders who like to argue out crap forever, while GOPers like the unity of top down messengers like talk radio, cable news, or op-ed columnists. Democrats need to learn how to use free tools effectively, and not just spam us bloggers for money twice a week. Like I care about the LG race in Alabama.

post-super bowl heartburn edition

This is my photo of the day. I know the person who put it up there mistyped, but I think it is a Freudian slip. The media is so gutless, so willing to report smears and pathetic arguments as "both sides" instead of the truth, that this caption is partially true. Norah doesn't sell herself for sex, but she is paid to be unnecessarily deferential to the White House's arguments and the Republican-controlled congress. That makes one an informational whore, not a sexual prostitute.

I went to go see "Good Night, And Good Luck" last night.

It was pretty well done cinematography wise, it had the feel of an old
(50s) movie beyond the fact that it was in black and white. The film
made me sad because there doesn't seem to be a Murrow
(except maybe Anderson Cooper) out there to challenge the current McCarthyesque
tactics of the current administration and their lackeys in Congress.

A Patriots-free Super Bowl just isn't the same for me. As much as I was rooting for the Steelers, I still had trouble caring as much. How sad that Tom Brady tossed the official coin instead of calling heads or tails and actually playing in the Super Bowl. And weren't those ads lame? The only "good" ones were the AmeriQuest ones, the McGyver one, and the Emrald Nuts one.

I remember back in 2000 or 1999, the ads were fantastic. Like that E-Trade one with the monkey ("Well we just blew $2 million, what are you doing with your money?"). All those Christian conservatives that yelled at the networks and the NFL over Janet Jackson when she and JC plotted the scheme to attract sales to her records. If you should be mad, be mad at Mr. Jackson who beat his children into being 1) a child molester 2) drug/alcohol addicts 3) a flasher to a billion people 4) just plain crazy [LaToya] and who knows what happened to Tito. The creativity has gone out the window in favor of super bland ads.

Here is another Super Bowl that was effective: WhatistheMaxtrix.com the ad for the movie that left me confused and intregued. Wow, that was neat I thought, I wonder what that ad was for. Then people explained to me it was a film. With Kenu Reeves? Well, I did see Bill and Ted's and that Budda movie, I must be a sucker for Whooa!

medicial reform

recently I have been having some health scares and have been seeing various doctors. And now from personal experience, I can tell my dear readers that our system is completely out of wack.

Because it is an employer-based and profit-motivated system, we get loads of unnecessary tests to bill to insurance rather than to make sure something is nothing. In the rest of the developed world, their health care system is dramatically cheeper and their life expectancy is just as good or better (Japan) than ours.

Why? They don't have loads of officials trying to weasle there way out of paying for something, or asking for people to fill out and copy the same forms a billion times. They share as much equipment and patients as possible, making the cost per a patient dramatically lower.

When the focus is on cost rather than profits, we will practice preventative medicine rather than letting millions of Americans wait until they have to go the emergency room until they get expensive care. There will still be precautionary tests, but we won't have doctors insisting on expensive tests that serve no purpose when it doesn't effect their bottom line.

By pooling patients and doctors, we can reduce medicial insurance and malpractice premiums, instead of creating thousands of little boxes to put people in. The more I think about our system, the madder I get and the more irrational and unnecessary it seems.

The rich could still have supplimental care so that all our super specialists could make their big bucks and do all their fancy tests with pricy machines, but most people would not need to use those super specialists except in rare cases of acute problems.

All this fear of socialism has gotten us into this prediciment. Our people are earning less because premiums go up while wages stay stagnant or lower. Americans are quickly having a competitive disadvantage relative to Europe Canada, etc. when it comes to companies wanting to employ people here. Why else would GM make noises about a single-payer system.

Here's a thought: change federal law so that states like Maine and Massachusetts could try out a single payer system. Then if it works in a place like Massachusetts, with all its teaching hospitals and specialists, it can work nationwide. What is Congress afraid of? Political donations from Pharma and insurance companies drying up?