Life Imitating Art... Again

I was watching reruns of "Chapelle's Show" on Comedy Central after Colbert tonight, and one of the sketches was the hilarious bit about the blind black man who becomes a white supremacist. I had seen it before, and I personally think it's one of the funniest sketches I've ever seen.

The sketch also reminds me of something the illustrious Mr. Stark told me this weekend. According to this report from Indiana University's Alvin Rosenfeld, I hate Jews.

Wait a minute, my faithful readers are now saying. You're a proud Jew. How the hell can you hate Jews? Mr. Rosenfeld gives us the answer: because I'm often critical of Israel.

Of course, most of the folks who Mr. Rosenfeld accuses of anti-Semitism go beyond my often harsh criticism of Israel's government and policies and criticize Zionism and the existence of the Jewish state itself. His premise is that anti-Zionism is equal to anti-Semitism and that Jews who participate in anti-Zionist activities are as good as anti-Semites. While this premise is understandable since many non-Jews use distaste for Israel as an excuse for anti-Semitism, it remains deeply flawed.

I'll type this slowly: you can dislike Israel and still like Jews. Just as you can think Jesus was a douche and still like Christians. Just as you can hate Los Angeles (as I do) and think Angelenos are, all in all, perfectly swell people (as I do). It is obvious that Mr. Rosenfeld's Jewish identity is so wrapped up in the idea of Israel that the two are almost inextricable. Mr. Rosenfeld has forgotten that being Jewish and being Zionist are two different things. They are often associated with one another, but they are distinct philosophies. It is not contradictory to be Jewish and anti-Zionist, or even Zionist and anti-Jewish (ask Jerry Falwell). To use genetics terms, the Jewish and Zionist genes are linked but there are a significant amount of recombinants.

Mr. Rosenfeld doesn't limit his distaste to people who think Israel should not exist, however. He makes sure to classify every form of harsh criticism of the state from without as "anti-Zionism." He even goes so far as to include Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, one of the more ardently Zionist columnists out there, of being anti-Zionist for criticizing last summer's bombing of southern Lebanon. (Never mind that, at this moment, a debate is raging within Israel about that same military operation.) And other criticisms of Israel as an apartheid state, as an aggressor, or as a cruel occupier also fall under Mr. Rosenfeld's umbrella, even though they are not existential criticisms of the Jewish state but criticisms of the policies of the state (however hyperbolic or absurd these criticisms may be).

The fact is that many anti-Zionist Jews are anti-Zionist because of their Judaism, or at least because of their interpretation of their Judaism. This includes folks such as the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta, who believe that a Jewish state should not exist until the Messiah has come, and the progressive Jews that so draw Mr. Rosenfeld's ire. To these progressive Jews, distilling Judaism into a state form necessarily forces Jewish values to be compromised. As such, a Jewish state will necessarily, at some point, betray Jewish values. (My own opinion is similar, except that I don't believe that a government necessarily must sacrifice Jewish values to function. I just think Israel all too often falls short of living Jewish values. That doesn't make it evil; it just means there's a lot of room for improvement.)

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that the anti-Zionism Mr. Rosenfeld talks about comes from proud, dedicated, often deeply religious Jews. As a result, anti-Zionism cannot be considered a form of anti-Semitism, and Mr. Rosenfeld's argument falls apart. The most frustrating part of Mr. Rosenfeld's report is that he recognizes this fact and proceeds to draw the conclusion anyway. Mr. Rosenfeld relies heavily on statements from people who love Judaism and take great pride in it, but are repulsed or ashamed by the actions of the Jewish state. It is obvious to the most casual reader that the Jews Mr. Rosenfeld accuses of anti-Semitism are nothing of the sort.

I often whine that a reasoned debate on Israel is impossible in the American Jewish community. It is people like Mr. Rosenfeld that make this so. Until Mr. Rosenfeld and his ilk learn to cool it, quit with the overemotional non-sequitur attacks, and start engaging Jewish critics of Israel as Jews and not as anti-Semites, this will continue to be so. And if we as a community continue to associate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, it will turn our campaign against the latter into self-parody - and that is a real danger.

A caveat - this is not the first time I have been accused of anti-Semitism by an ignorant moron. Some fool apparently wrote a letter to then-Slant editor Mike accusing us of anti-Semitism for a piece I wrote entitled "Study Shows Jews Don't Believe In Jesus." (Honestly, readers, you have no idea how often I get asked about whether I believe in Jesus or not since I'm Jewish. It's mildly disturbing.)

As for Cohen, he responds in his excellent column, which says basically what I'm saying except more eloquently.

Obligatory Sports Post

Prophecy of the day: Bears 38, Colts 35

Things that rule:

- I think I actually saw the phrase "No. 24 Vanderbilt" used on ESPN.com. And it wasn't referring to the women's team, which is ranked 15th. (Speaking of said women's team... I don't care who you are, beating a conference opponent 61-34 on the road is pretty sweet.)

- Women's soccer - Four Nations Cup champions. Awesome, especially since it gives our ladies some momentum heading into the World Cup this September. Somewhat unimpressive draw against #1 Germany, but when we're missing Wambach and Lilly it's tough to produce goals. The fact that the attack performed well without them against England and China is definitely encouraging.

- Men's soccer - big game against Mexico on Wednesday. Seeing as how it's in Phoenix (a mere three hours from the border), I wonder what percentage of the fans will be ours. We're going to be without a lot of Europe-based players - I think we'll basically have the same team that spanked Denmark plus Taylor Twellman. In my mind, this game is Bradley's job. If we come out with a strong attack and put up some goals against the Mexicans, I think Bradley sheds that "interim" title. If not, expect Jurgen Klinsmann's phone to be ringing again within minutes of full time.

- My two Premiership teams: Reading at 6th, Fulham at 14th. I'm really impressed by Reading this year. They've played everyone well, including the Big Four (okay, maybe not Arsenal). And Fulham's at least clear of the drop. Bolton and Reading both have a real shot at knocking one of the Big Four (Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, and Liverpool for those of you who aren't soccerheads) out of the Champions League spots. Which would make me very happy.

- After tonight, no more football for seven months. Siiiigh. (And no, the Pro Bowl doesn't count.)

Adventures in Corporate Douchitude

Planning on hosting a Super Bowl party? Hope you don't have a big-screen TV. And I hope you weren't planning on calling it a "Super Bowl" party. And I hope you weren't asking people to help you pay for food.

Because, according to the idiot lawyers at the NFL, all those things infringe on their intellectual property rights - as an Indianapolis church just found out.

Maybe someone with more experience in intellectual property law than me could explain why the NFL thinks private Super Bowl parties are a threat to their intellectual property. I could understand if the church were trying to make money off the game, but seeing as how they obviously aren't, the threatened suit seems ludicrous. Not to mention that it's a horrible PR move.

This is almost as bad as Disney's refusal to allow a British couple to put Winnie the Pooh on their child's gravestone. Because we all know that giving a family what they want for their lost loved one is a threat to Disney's bottom line, right? (Disney, to its credit, went back on the threat when they discovered how much this move made them look like asses.) I came across this in a magazine - when I find a link, I'll send it to you.

Fun With Inclusiveness

The Israeli government is set to welcome its first Muslim cabinet member. The entire cabinet, with the exception of the somewhat mentally unstable Avigdor Lieberman, approved the appointment of Raleb Majadele to the post of "minister without portfolio" (whatever the hell that means). Majadele is a member of Israel's Labor Party, the junior partner in the coalition currently headed by Ehud Olmert's Kadima (Forward) Party. Labor, incidentally, is headed by defense minister Amir Peretz, who seems to be getting a lot of the blame for Israel's bungled, heavy-handed mission into Lebanon this past summer.

The appointment of Majadele to this post is a symbolic gesture, though a symbol of what I'm not sure. A symbol of a renewed dedication to inclusiveness by Israel towards its Muslim minority? Possibly. Israel has had success incorporating its Druze minority into the fabric of the state, and I see no reason why the same couldn't be done for the Muslims. Though the continued inclusion of Lieberman - someone so virulently anti-Arab that he makes Glenn Beck look warm and fuzzy - in the cabinet can't be comforting to those who want to see anti-Arab discrimination in Israel fall by the wayside.

(Aside: I have enough problems with Joe Lieberman. I don't need another crappy Lieberman to deal with. Seriously, Avigdor Lieberman and Tom Tancredo should sit down together. They'd have a lot to talk about. They could have lunch, have a couple of drinks, and discuss their plans to sodomize their respective countries. They'd have lots of fun. OK, rant over.)

Perhaps Labor is starting a push for getting rid of some of Israel's discrimination against its Arab minority, but it seems to me that such a movement would need the cooperation of the Arab Israelis themselves. As far as the Post article is concerned, the Arab parties have yet to engage in the capital derectalization necessary to launch an effective anti-discrimination movement - they denounced the appointment of Majadele as "giving a seal of approval" to Israel's discriminatory policies. Kids, it may be a symbolic gesture, but that's better than no gesture at all. It means they recognize the existence of a problem.

I've said it before on this blog and I'll say it again - the separate party thing just ain't working for the Israeli Arabs. They'll only see real change if they attempt to participate in mainstream Israeli politics instead of isolating themselves. So kudos to Majadele for having the courage to ditch the self-defeating ethnic parties and work his way near the top of one of the mainstream parties (of which there are an abundance in Israel). A more inclusive Israel will result when his compatriots follow suit.

And finally, a big raspberry to Esterina Tartman, one of Lieberman's drones in the Knesset, who said of Majadele: "We need to burn this plague out of our midst and God willing, the Lord will help us with that." I hear Hamas head Ismail Haniyeh is thinking of suing Ms. Tartman for plaigiarism.

Incidentally, does this make Israel the first Western country with a Muslim cabinet member? If so, that's hilariously ironic. I know we've had a couple of Lebanese Christians (former Energy Sec. Spencer Abraham being the most prominent in my mind), but I don't know about practicing Muslims. Someone with more knowledge on this than me, let me know.

Woodhead's Fifth Law

At any given time, someone, somewhere, is lamenting the decline of civilization.

Screw Article Six

Sorry, atheists - you're officially barred from holding office in my state. Or eight others, for that matter.

That's right, under the Constitution of North Carolina and of eight other states, atheists are forbidden to hold office by the State Constitution. In Arkansas, atheists can't testify in court. And in Massachussets, only Christians are entitled to equal protection under the law.

It's remarkable that only six of the nine states - Arkansas, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Texas - are traditionally "Bible belt" states. Maryland and Pennsylvania show up. The most restrictive religious test is applied by Massachusetts. (Come to think of it, MD, PA, and MA were all religiously based colonies when they were founded, and so it should probably come as no surprise that their Constitutions reflect that.) And that the state that most people would expect to be hostile to atheists - Utah - has no such provision.

Either way, all of these state Constitutions are in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution's Article VI, which states that "no religious test shall be required" to hold office in the U.S. As such, they're completely unenforceable. These provisions are examples of an interesting crossroads of law, one inhabited as well by laws against cohabitation and premarital sex that exist in many a state (up until recently, NC was one). They are laws adopted in the past to reflect the cultural values of a society that are now, thanks to cultural changes, too embarrassing for states to enforce. But at the same time, repealing these laws or amending the Constitution to scrap these clauses would still strike too much of a nerve among the more traditionalist elements of the populace for it to be undertaken. Such idle laws are an interesting phenomenon - to me they serve as proof that it's a bad idea to try to legislate cultural norms.

Another thing. Thanks to judicial review, these laws would be struck down if they were ever challenged (see: NC's cohabitation law). This leads to a fun little koan: these laws are only laws until they are enforced. Then they are no longer laws. That amuses me.

There is, of course, still a practical barrier for atheists to be elected to office in many areas. (In fact, it's probably easier for an atheist to get elected in MA than in a lot of other states that don't have an anti-atheist clause in their Constitution.) But that's another discussion entirely.

The Wrong Kind Of Red

Matt Novak and Ben Stark have blogged previously on the lack of honesty in the Iraq debate. I agree with them. I have reflected on the issue - see below - and I still am not sure whether the escalation is the best of a bad bunch of options or a colossal mistake that will just mess things up worse. I just hope that General Petraeus knows what he's doing and that Bush doesn't try to micromanage too much - we've seen how well that works.

Dub-Style was remarkably civil about it in his State of the Union speech. Sadly, the same cannot be said for some of his supporters, who have gone back to the old strategy of questioning the patriotism of escalation's opponents. People who argue that opposing the surge helps the enemy are disgraceful. It's a statement more befitting Stalinist Russia than a democratic society like ours. Hewitt, and all those who have made similar arguments, owe the world an apology for polluting the world with their drivel.

Hewitt, in fairness, is basing his comments on an exchange between General Petraeus and Senator Lieberman, chronicled here in the Post, wherein Lieberman asked Petraeus if resolutions opposing the buildup would encourage the enemy and Petraeus replied. "That's correct." I don't blame Petraeus for this - he was goaded into making this statement, and while he should have known better than to take the bait, his response was at least forgiveable. Lieberman, however, should be ashamed of himself. Hewitt has an excuse for being an ignorant ass who uses Stalinist argument techniques - he presumably has a day job and can't invest the time necessary to engage in debate, understand the issue and formulate a full argument. Engaging in debate, understanding issues, and formulating reasoned policy stances is Lieberman's day job. As such, he has no excuse for resorting to what is, at best, rhetorical and argumentative laziness such as that resorted to by Hewitt and his ilk. He certainly has no excuse for advocating Communist-style dissent quashing if that's what he's doing.

I hope this is just Lieberman being lazy. I have respect for Lieberman when it comes to non-foreign-policy and non-war-on-terror issues. Had I lived in Connecticut, I would have had a hard time deciding between him and Lamont. But Lieberman, more than anyone, needs to stand up in front of the Senate and apologize for irresponsible remarks that can be construed to be anti-dissent. And if he honestly has such aversion to dissent, he deserves to be removed from the Senate post-haste.

I'm sorry to be so harsh. I'm not usually this mean to anyone but Tom Tancredo. I just don't believe that it's right to claim that people who disagree with you are unpatriotic or support our enemies. Ending this sort of irresponsible behavior will go a long way towards restoring civility to our issue debates.

Update: On a completely unrelated note, shoutout to PGA Tour pro and Vanderbilt grad Brandt Snedeker, who dropped a 61 on Torrey Pines to take the first-round lead in the Buick Invitational. That 61 includes a nine-under 27 on his first nine - that's birdie golf for nine holes, kids. Rock it, Vandergolfer.

Addendum To The Sports Post

I'm waaaaay too drunk to comment coherently on the State of the Union Address (thank you, SOTU 2007 Drinking Game), so I'll put a little comment about sports on here.

Anyone who, like this idiot, believes that the Super Bowl comes down to some sort of David/Goliath battle between Rex Grossman and Peyton Manning should have their language privileges revoked. Seriously. Manning will never take the field against Grossman. Manning will take the field against the Bears defense. Which is perfectly capable of scoring more points than Grossman. And Grossman will take the field against the Colts defense. Which is incompetent. Not exactly a fair comparison.

And people apologize for their Bear-dissing by saying that, well, if the Saints weren't so mistake-prone, the Bears would have lost. (Some ESPN columnist actually said this.) Yeah. Right. The Saints were mistake-prone. Just like the last 14 teams to lose to the Bears. When are you going to give this defense a little credit? Every team in the NFL can't just happen to be mistake-prone against the same team for the entire year. Think the talent on that Bears D created some of those mistakes? Think they'll create some mistakes from Manning? Sheesh.

This Weekend In Sports

Things we all learned this weekend:

- Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman haters can shut the hell up. The rap on both these guys was always a little overblown considering the position each of them was in. The Bears' ground game and D was so good that Grossman never needed to be more than a Ben Roethlisberger-type game manager; avoid the really stupid mistakes and the Bears would win. He has done that - and more - in these two playoff games. And Manning has always needed to completely carry his seemingly sleeping team through the playoffs, which is never a recipe for success. This time, blessed with a ground game if not a functioning defense, Manning put on a clinic in the second half of the game. I guess those comparisons with Alex Rodriguez (another player unfairly accused of choking - note to Yankees fans: you're losing in the playoffs because you have no pitching, not because of A-Rod) are going to stop for a while.

- Tom Brady does have nerves. He was throwing crap passes all day; that last one was just the next logical step. Bob Sanders almost had the same exact interception on the previous series.

- Apparently, the ball in Indy was greased or something. How else do you explain two offensive fumble recoveries for touchdowns - one for each team (the N.E. one being especially crazy) and numerous drops by the previously reliable Reche Caldwell and future hall-of-famer Marvin Harrison? And how else do you explain the Reggie Wayne toss-the-ball-to-yourself fumble/recovery on that last drive?

- I'm already sick of the Peyton Manning hype. I'm glad the Katrina hype will be gone. I'm going to get sick of the two-black-coaches hype. Seriously, we've reached the point in the NFL where I didn't notice the possibility until someone on TV pointed it out to me. And I think when someone pointed out that Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith were the first black coaches in the Super Bowl, my reaction was something like, "wait, Tony Dungy's black?" Black coaches are no longer remarkable in the NFL. In any other sport... that's a different story. All the hype just seems like the NFL engaging in a little diversity masturbation.

- Boy, Bob Bradley made the U.S. soccer team's offense wake up, didn't he? Can you remember any time under Arena when we scored three goals? Of course, it was against a Denmark team that made Justin Mapp look like Zidane, but it's still nice to see us beat up on a crap opponent with our second string. (Seriously, that Mapp run was freakin' awesome. The only reason Bornstein got the goal was because Mapp banked the ball off his leg. Anyone who hates soccer should be forced to watch that play until they give in. And Cooper's goal was pretty sweet too.) If Bradley can get Landon Donovan to wake up and start playing soccer instead of whatever the hell he's currently playing, he'll shed that "interim" label - and we'll all stop bitching about it.

- How the hell does Vandy's basketball team beat Alabama and Kentucky and lose to Appalachian State? The hallmark of the Stallings era seems to be playing up to strong opponents and playing down to weak ones. Like our football team, maybe. I'm predicting losses to the likes of Ole Miss and South Carolina, one win over Florida, followed by another first-round flameout in the SEC tournament and another one in the NIT. You heard it here first.

I Think This Is A Rerun, But...

...if this is true, it's either disturbing or not the whole truth. It seems like it would have been a small price to pay for the cessation of Iranian aid to Hezbollah and Hamas. Was there some sort of poison pill in the deal that caused the White House to balk at it? Or was the rejection of the deal really based on a calculus as simple-minded and stupid as "we don't talk to evil?"

This was, of course, offered by the Khatami government in 2003, so in hindsight it may not have mattered much. Khatami, then Iran's president, was a lot more friendly than A-Train; A-Train probably would have nixed the deal upon accession. But the deal could have made us look better to the Iranians and maybe prevented the political meltdown that led to A-Train's election.

I'm pretty sure I've blogged on this before. But it's worth repeating.

Smoke Gets In Your FISA

Let's hear it for historic climbdowns by the Bush Administration! Today they have decided to let the FISA court oversee the NSA wiretapping program that has been in place since October 2001.

Of course, the Administration couldn't take a complete step towards ensuring our civil liberties. The FISA court's surveillance will be far from perfect - it's planning to authorize the entire program and not individual cases. This is sad, since the abuses that we're all worried about would occur in individual cases rather than in the program as a whole, which is relatively sane. And for those who aren't worried about abuses, I point you to the TALON database, where your friendly neighborhood protester may be listed as a terrorist threat. Because peace protesters are the people most prone to violence, right?

It'd be nice if the FISA court could exercise full oversight over the program. But this is a step in the right direction.

When Stupid Attacks

Any idiot can offend black people. Any schmuck can insult Jews. But to do both at once in the same breath? That takes mad skills.

Virginia Republicans: Finding Innovative Ways To Be Stupid.

The War Post

First off, happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King is one of our most deserving national heroes, and he deserves to be honored in any way possible. We fret about our polarized political environment, but it's refreshing to remember that Dr. King was the leader of one side during a time when we were extremely polarized, and that today his legacy is one of the few things that bring the right and the left together. And we also wish that more people in our public life can demonstrate the kind of courage that MLK demonstrated during his battle for civil rights.

Now. Fellow blogosphere travellers Ben and Matt have blogged recently on the Iraq War and the lack of realistic debate on said subject. And it does seem that the debate on the subject is somewhat sophomoric. You either hate America and want it to be destroyed or you want to personally kill thousands of soldiers and rape Iraqi women. Naturally, this lack of debate has allowed the Bush escalation proposal (let's call a spade a spade and lose this "surge" shit) and the Iraq study group's measured withdrawal proposal to escape serious scrutiny by most Americans. Not only that, but evidence for either escalating or withdrawing is somewhat lacking in the mainstream media where I and most Americans get their information. So the thoughts that follow are uninformed ramblings on a subject far more complex than anyone - including those calling the shots - realizes.

As I commented on Matt's post, the Administration strategy seems to be fighting against the wrong problem. The problem is not a strong insurgency fighting against a legitimate government but a sectarian battle that has made the government irrelevant. Sending in more troops to fight the "insurgents" is kind of meaningless and won't do much good.

Reading this article, then, kind of confused me. It is a story about a D.C. lawyer who went to Iraq with the National Guard, but embedded in it is the story of a town that the U.S. military raided and took over. They were running the town well and getting it back on its feet when they left - and when power was turned over to the Iraqi "authorities," it quickly degenerated into a chaotic hub for sectarian murderers. So I thought that maybe it would be good for more troops to be there (note: this should have been done in the first place) in order to bring some much-needed stability to areas currently under insurgent control.

But then I read Ben's post where he raises the excellent point that perhaps the Maliki government doesn't really want peace. As a result, nothing we do will really help. Any stability that we bring to the region will be only temporary. I'm reminded of a quote by former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. When asked when peace would come to Israel, she said, "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

We will have peace in Iraq when, and only when, all sides involved place peace as their number one priority. Right now, only the Kurds seem to be close to taking this step. The Shiites and the Sunni Arabs (the distinction must be made since the Kurds are also Sunni) are only concerned with gaining power for their own respective groups. Any escalation will bring, at best, only temporary stability.

I proposed on Matt's blog a diplomacy-first solution heavy on the infrastructural development with a small military force conducting a UN-style peacekeeping mission. But I wonder now whether this is the best solution.

I look to history, and to the Israel-Arab conflict again. Only after the Egyptians invaded Israel in 1973 did Sadat learn the true cost of warfare, and as a direct result of the '73 Yom Kippur War Sadat chose to pursue peace. Only after the futility and human cost of the late '80s intifada became apparent did Yasir Arafat join Israel at the bargaining table in Oslo. The reason I support at least a partial withdrawal is this: only after the pain and suffering of a civil war hits home will Iraqis realize the silliness of their current argument and begin to seek peace with one another.

This is not a short process. It can take some people an exceptionally long amount of time before they reach the realization that war is in most cases ultimately futile. The Northern Ireland violence went on for some 70 years before peace was finally reached. Israel and the Palestinians have been at war for sixty years and have still not reached this realization. We cannot force this insight onto the Iraqis - they must reach it themselves.

Kierkegaard taught that one must cast himself into the pit of despair before he reaches happiness. Withdrawing will certainly do this for Iraq. But perhaps, in the long term, maintaining an artificial veneer of stability is actually impeding Iraq's progress. Depressing, yes, but this is what we have sown with this ridiculous war...

On a much lighter note, I just saw a male ESPN2 commentator inadvertantly grab a UNC women's basketball player's boob. The replay of this may be the funniest sports moment of the year so far.

New post on the minimum wage law and some embarrassing hypocrisy on the part of George Miller (D-CA) to come.

Also, I'd like to point out that Condi Rice just got propositioned by both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert tonight. Awesome.

Peso Bailout

A chain of pizza restaurants that caters to Hispanics has recently begun accepting Mexican pesos as payment. The predictable demagoguery and hatemongering by the anti-immigrant people ensued. Here are a couple of reasons why the people whining about this are off their rockers:

- Most countries - including our own - have many businesses that accept alternative currencies. Most of the time this occurs in border areas (like the parking lot in Buffalo I once used that advertised parking for $7/$10 Canadian). However, in areas where there is a significant recent immigrant or foreign visitor population, it's smart business to accept foreign currencies as well. My dollar has been good in Matamoros, the Yucatan Peninsula, and Nepal - which, last time I checked, is located nowhere near the U.S. I have a feeling there are a lot more places that will accept the dollar. And as I mentioned earlier, businesses in towns along the Canadian and Mexican border will accept the currency of their respective countries - the article mentions Wal-Mart as being a peso acceptor.

- Getting money changed is costly. Recent immigrants and visitors who have 500 pesos lying around would be paying commission through the nose to get that changed to $50. They'd probably end up with more like $40. So what's the solution? Give the pesos to a business that can lump a bunch of peso sales together and have the business change that money all at once. Since the pizza joint does a lot of business with Hispanics, they'll have a lot of peso sales. Often they can deposit pesos directly and have it credited as dollars by their bank (it works with withdrawals - I could take pesos out of an ATM in Mexico without having to pay commission). And it helps the customer who doesn't have to pay money-changing commission. Everyone benefits. Furthermore, acting as a money changer aids the process of assimilation by making it less costly to replace the pesos immigrants have lying around with dollars (which is what they're getting paid in).

You're not affected - you'll still be able to pay in dollars, since it is the national currency and all. It'd be pretty stupid business practice to stop accepting the official currency of the country you're doing business in. Imagine if I went into business in Mexico and started accepting only dollars.

The only forseeable problem for the business is the exchange rate flexibility. If the peso suddenly rises against the dollar, they'll have to change their peso prices post-haste or else their customers will get hosed. Similarly, if the peso falls against the dollar, they'll have to adapt to that or else they'll get hosed.

- As the spokesman in the article points out, it's good business practice. The first rule of business is to know your customer. The customer of a pizza joint that caters to Hispanics probably would find it convenient every now and then to pay in pesos. In fact, by being the first to accept pesos in places such as Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix, they'll get a lot of business from people who don't really have anything else to do with those damn pesos (see the end of the article).

OK, people, stop whining and get back to doing whatever it is that you've been doing.

Yes, But Is It The Sun Or A Train?

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal made the first step toward extricating his head from his ass today by acknowledging the reality of the existence of Israel, and appearing to understand that a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem is the only realistic one. He also added, "the problem is not that there is an entity called Israel," but that the Palestinians don't have their own state. Fair enough.

But he's still refusing to amend the Hamas charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. And he also added this: "This is a reality but I won't deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it." Which, of course, is what he just did in the interview. This statement is emblematic of one of the most major problems in the Middle East - the refusal of people to accept reality and go from there. I think something about that useless little stretch of desert makes people hallucinate. Anyway, seems like Meshaal's head is slowly moving down his intestine, but it'll be a while yet before full derectalization occurs. Which I suppose is par for the course over there.

Not to belittle the unjust ways in which Israel has treated the Palestinians at times, but the European conquerors/immigrants/colonists were WAY worse to the Native Americans than the Israelis are to the Palestinians - and yet, with the exception of Wovoka and the Ghost Dancers back in the late 19th century, very few Native Americans are engaged in active campaigns to send all white people back to Europe. And while I support the existence of Israel, no one has yet sufficiently explained to me why it's absolutely imperative for Israel to hold on to the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (all of which are overwhelmingly Palestinian areas). Sometimes I wonder if Israel/Palestine is populated entirely by people who missed kindergarten on the day they taught sharing.

Donkey Kong

I have to say I was happy when the Democrats took over the House and Senate in November. But now I'm not so sure, especially given Speaker Pelosi's plan to steamroll the House Republicans the same way they steamrolled the Dems over the course of the past twelve years.

Sure, the steamrolling is for things I agree with, such as a higher minimum wage, renegotiating Medicare prescription drug prices, and lobbying ethics reform (though Pelosi's package, in my mind, doesn't go far enough). But this leads to that age-old question: do the ends justify the means? I don't think they do. Especially not because part of the reason the Democrats got this windfall is because people were sick of the partisan steamrolling that went on in Washington in lieu of reasoned cross-aisle debate. So we should say shame on you, Pelosi, for falling victim to the desire for revenge... right?

But really, when you're a true believer like so many representatives are, how could you justify not steamrolling the other side? If you're certain that the ideas you're pushing are good and right and just... well, it's not like you're killing or stealing to get what you want. You're just using the rules to your advantage. It's underhanded, but it's not immoral or even unethical. Is it?

Perhaps, then, congressional Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) should be chastised for their moral certitude - a failing that we generally associate with the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. This, again, is a tale as old as time - those who oppose with the most fervor are in the gravest danger of becoming that which they oppose.

But how can we blame Democrats for having moral certitude when that's apparently what the people want? Elections nowadays are won by those who play the part of true believer. Look at the 2004 Presidential election - John Kerry approached issues thoughtfully and carefully and was pilloried as a "flip-flopper" for his troubles. The criticism most often leveled against Democrats (until '06) is that they don't have "ideals" and that they were "unprincipled" - which basically just means that they were a party that was open to discussion and debate of many viewpoints. Time after time, this openness got them taken to the woodshed. People say they're sick of partisanship, yet they still gobble up voraciously the old lie that the pragmatists, the compromisers, and the debaters are "unprincipled."

My point is this - I'm done saying someone is "unprincipled" or a sellout or whatever because they choose to compromise. I have ideals and I'll fight for them - we all do. But at the end of the day, we need someone who is willing to cut a deal and move forward. The Battle of Evermore needs not occur beneath the Capitol dome. So the shame is really on us - note the first-person pronoun here - for our combative words, our good-versus-evil outlook on too many issues, and our unwillingness to accept compromise that encourages the apocalypolitics that we witness today.

(Matt Novak, if you're out there and reading this, I'd like your opinion as to how a politics of debate and compromise can catch on when moral certitude is so damn appealing.)

Best Football Game... Ever

To: Rest of World

From: Me

Message: Suck it.

See, I told y'all Boise State deserved a shot at the championship. If nothing else, the Broncos make things interesting.

Seriously, though, if you have never watched a football game before and you wonder what it is that keeps us football nuts watching games, find a tape/DVD/whatever of the fourth quarter/OT of the 2007 Fiesta Bowl and watch it. This game was so good that even my fiancee - who hates football - was impressed at times. And for all my excitement about BSU, hats off to the also-underrated Sooners, who played a heck of a game. Paul Thompson looked awesome on that last drive, and Adrian Peterson... that touchdown run in overtime was pretty sweet too.

But a hook-and-ladder to tie the game after your quarterback royally fucks up with a minute left? A direct snap to the running back who goes for an option pass? And a Statue of Liberty play on the two-point conversion to win? Let us marvel at the balls that it requires to call a playground play when the game is on the line.

And if that wasn't enough, BSU running back Ian Johnson proposed to his girlfriend on the field after the game. Who was coaching this game? Steven Spielberg?

I'll watch hundreds of boring-ass football games if I get to see one that's even close to as good as that one every now and then. This is the stuff that keeps you coming back, folks.

Most Important Protest Ever

Janet Jackson, take heart - a judge in Daytona Beach, Florida ruled that breast-baring was not disorderly conduct and so couldn't be prosecuted. The boobies occurred during a First Amendment protest against public nudity laws. (In fairness, the laws had been used against breast-feeding mothers, so the lady had a point.)

Daytona Beach protested, and likely will continue to protest until they realize that a free-boobie zone in Daytona will draw thousands of new residents.

At least, until the new residents realize that the woman who started this was a 40-something biker chick. Yeesh.

Pino Egregio

Recently, I was discussing the death of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet with some friends when I remarked that Pinochet was the kind of person that makes me wish I believed in Hell. Between 1973 and 1990, his murderous regime killed over 3,000 political dissidents, tortured thousands more, and exiled roughly 200,000. Since the downfall of his regime, Pinochet has become a byword for despotism and cruelty and, to the left, a symbol of all that was wrong with American cold war policy (the Nixon administration encouraged the 1973 coup against the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende that put Pinochet in power, and other administrations propped him up against unrest through the 1980s). Whatever he symbolizes, I tend to associate him with that pantheon of leaders whom the world is better off without.

I suppose that I expected everyone to share my sentiments. In fact, most people do. There was much celebration on the streets of Santiago when Pinochet went, and most media outlets have made it perfectly clear that Pinochet was not a figure to be emulated. But I was surprised that Pinochet still had supporters in Chile and elsewhere, even after the truth about the excesses of his regime came out.

In truth, Pinochet was not a genocidal maniac like Hitler. He was no insane power-hungry nut like Idi Amin. He honestly believed that he was saving the country from communism and he was willing to go to gruesome extremes to do it. He often said that Allende was going to turn Chile into another Cuba. Be that as it may, to me that justifies neither the coup he launched nor the havoc he wreaked. But to many people, it does. Hard-liners in Santiago still hail Pinochet as Chile's savior.

It is this fact that, to me, is the most bone-chilling aspect of Pinochet's legacy. While it is hard to imagine a Hitler or Amin taking power in America, you could imagine America getting a leader who is so intent on "saving" our country from one threat or another that he is willing to go to extremes to do it. You could imagine people supporting our strong leader for his brave stance against this threat even as their neighbors get dragged away in unmarked cars, never to return again.

In short, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine an American Pinochet. We may be comparatively short on hate and intolerant of insanity, but we have plenty of fanaticism to go around, and plenty of fear for a fanatic to play on. It wouldn't have been unthinkable for Joseph McCarthy to have been elected President, and how much less extreme would McCarthy have been? How many Americans watch Glenn "How Do We Know You're Not A Terrorist" Beck or read Dennis "Screw the Koran" Prager? And how many Americans would support a general quashing of dissent in order to keep us safe from terrorism?

It is absurd to compare President Bush to Hitler, to Amin, or even to Pinochet. But when people ask me why I rail against the erosion of civil liberties in the name of the "war on terror," and when people ask me why I argue against the use of the legal black hole that is Guantanamo, I will now point them to the torture chambers and death squads of Chile's past. For Pinochet is not a lesson against hatred or genocidal rage, but rather a caution: it is all too easy to support someone who, in the name of defense, crosses the fine line into fanaticism. We must not only be vigilant against threats from without, but we must also be vigilant in protecting our own ideals. If we fail in this latter regard, it is not difficult to imagine a Pinochet as our reward.

Update: Bad week for dictators: Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam, the "Butcher of Addis Ababa" who murdered some 150,000 people during his 1974-1991 reign, was convicted of genocide by an Ethiopian court. Mengistu is apparently still hiding out in Zimbabwe under the protection of strongman Robert Mugabe. Interestingly, Mengistu and Pinochet can be seen as almost mirror images - they ruled at roughly the same time, were put in power by bloody coups against popular leaders (in Mengistu's case, he overthrew emperor and national hero Haile Selassie), used as Cold War pawns, and murdered people for their political beliefs. The differences - Mengistu was a lot more murderous, a lot more insane, faced a civil war, and was backed by the Soviets rather than by the Americans. Mengistu also had a racial element to his butchery - he hated the lighter-skinned Ethiopians.

A Floridan Who Can Count

Apparently the idea of fiscal responsibility isn't completely lost on Florida Republican Charlie "Jesus" Crist, the incoming governor. He is planning on cancelling his inaugural ball because it costs way too much. His predecessor, Jeb Bush, spent $2 million on the damn thing. Crist has received donations for the ball - they will be returned, and any leftover funds will be donated to charity.

Sure, $2 million is chump change when compared to Florida's state budget. And the cynic in me says that maybe this is just a publicity stunt meant to shore up support after a surprisingly difficult campaign. But maybe Crist is actually serious about cutting wasteful spending.

How he treats anti-poverty programs are bound to be another story. But at least there's someone out there who is attempting to practice what he preaches.

School Pride Moment

File this under "ridiculously cool": Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladesh economist who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in microcredit lending to poor folks who otherwise couldn't get any kind of business startup capital, got his Ph.D. in economics from Vanderbilt. That rules.

Youse Guys Are Insane

Culinary wizard Michael Bloomberg has managed to get a ban on trans fats passed in New York City.

Thanks, Mayor Bloomberg, for assuming New Yorkers aren't smart enough to avoid trans fats on their own. Or responsible enough for their own well-being to not use them. Or mature enough to choose whether or not to eat trans fats. Yes, trans fats are bad for you, but banning them? You gotta be kidding me. Let's hope that in a few months, the enforcers of this ridiculous regulation just, well, fugeddaboutit.

Meanwhile, in Congress, DC is close to getting a vote... stay tuned... it may turn out to be the only useful thing the 109th Congress has done...

White Russians For Everyone!

This has to be the coolest festival ever.

I'm curious about this online church that the article mentions. The church of Lebowski? Do we pray to the almighty bowling ball? On piss-soiled rugs? Is Julianne Moore kind of the not-so-Virgin Mary figure?

Imagine confession: "Your penance: say 'The Dude abides' six times and 'Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling' eight times."

Pardon The Mini-Rant

As you click on this link, skip over Pat Boone's anti-judge douchebaggery, the State Department's Web incompetence, and Will Smith's acting prowess. Read the Think Tank column where experts advise John McCain on where to have his campaign headquarters. Especially read Brookings' Ron Nessen's quote, which I will retype here:

“Anywhere EXCEPT Washington. Voters hate Washington and anything that goes on in Washington. Do it where REAL people live. How about his hometown, Phoenix, Arizona?”

Now I (obviously) have nothing against Phoenix. Good town, great people. But someone needs to inform Mr. Nessen that the 4 million or so people who live in the D.C. area are just as "real" as Arizonans. Walk through Arlington or Georgetown or Anacostia or Kensington sometime, Mr. Nessen. Shake peoples' hands while you're at it - you'll notice that we Washingtonians are real. We exist. We're not holograms or whatever you think we are. So take your geographical bigotry and shove it.

Thank you. Rant over.

(For those of you who don't know me, I live in North Carolina, but I was born and raised in the D.C. area.)

Just How Far Down Do You Wanna Go...

Rev. Rick Warren, the Purpose Driven Life guy who is one of America's more prominent evangelical leaders, is hosting a conference on Christianity and HIV/AIDS at Warren's SoCal church. In my opinion, he rightfully believes that Christian morals dictates that he do something about fighting the spread of a disease that has decimated African populations.

Warren invited over 60 speakers to his event. I suppose he figured that he needed someone who a) was intimately acquainted with the African continent and the problems of the AIDS epidemic there, b) is an openly religious Christian, and c) is a face people could recognize. This is presumably why he invited Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to speak. And not entirely unpredictably, he was met by a group of angry people. Led by Rob Schenck, they believe that Obama's pro-choice stance disqualifies him from any knowledge about AIDS and the role of Christianity in fighting it.

Apparently, a certain point of view on abortion is necessary to understand the AIDS crisis. Funny, I didn't think the two were related.

I'll add Schenck and his ilk to people who need to shut up. Reasonable people can disagree on the morality of pro-choice vs. pro-life stances. But disagreement on one issue should not preclude an alliance on A TOTALLY UNRELATED ISSUE. Send these people a memo on my behalf, please: you and Obama both want AIDS to go away. You are both Christians. You both have a place at a conference on the Church's role in fighting AIDS. Duh.

This highlights a disturbing trend in modern politics - the belief that because someone has certain disagreements with you they are therefore your enemy, and you should always oppose them. This is completely untrue. I don't know if there are too many people in American politics with whom I disagree 100% of the time. Or with whom I agree 100% of the time. Alliances form one issue at a time - bitter enemies on one issue can be allies on others. Generally I oppose what the Christian Coalition stands for, but I'll happily stand alongside them on a certain issue if they agree with me on that issue. But the idea that politics makes strange bedfellows seems to be lost on most political activists nowadays. If Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly can find the time to work together on children's issues, pro-life conservative evangelicals can find it in their hearts to work with Sen. Obama on AIDS. Come on, folks - which is more important? Ideological purity, or getting stuff done? So applause to Warren for keeping his eyes on the prize. The rest of you - and I don't say this often - follow the pastor.

This Post Needs No Title

Have you ever wanted to visit a third-world country, but you just don't feel like leaving the U.S.? Well, if you believe infamous sodomite Tom Tancredo, you only need to go to Miami.

Making fun of that guy is just way too easy sometimes.

In other news:

Police in Atlanta decided it's a good idea to send an overarmed and overzealous SWAT team to raid a 92-year-old woman's house on minor drug charges. Unsurprisingly, the 92-year-old woman mistook the SWAT team for burglars and met them at the door with a gun. Officers saw the gun and shot and killed the old lady. Good job, Atlanta police. I'm sure the threat Great-Grandma posed to society warranted treating her house like a damn war zone. Maybe someone besides Radley Balko will start paying attention to ridiculous policing tactics now?

So it's officially a civil war in Iraq. Everybody together now: no shit, Sherlock.

Dear Michael Vick haters: shut up. Seriously. I know 9-24 isn't good, but his receivers dropped, like, seven passes. And they weren't off-the-fingertips-difficult-catch drops, they were two-hands-on-the-ball-oops-where'd-it-go drops. Add that to his total, and he's 16-24 and no one's complaining.

Let's hear it for Lebanese jokers who are hoping to show Lebanon how ridiculous its sectarian tensions are. Seriously, I don't know if Lebanese people know just how stupid that makes them look. We have our religious bickering, but dude... it's just not that important. I have a better solution: Israel should bomb them again. That way, all the sects will have a common enemy. It's genius. What could possibly go wrong?

And if you're going to bribe someone in Texas, do so in cash. Apparently it's legal.

Also, if you're wondering why the rest of the country makes fun of South Carolina, look no further than this.

Post-Thanksgiving Football Blogging

Damn, it's been a long time since I've blogged.

Another year, another BCS boondoggle. This year reminds me of 2004, with one exception - instead of eight teams that had legitimate title arguments, there are now ten or eleven teams that are doing everything in their power to not get invited to the title game. Rutgers losing to Cincinnati? Arkansas losing to Louisville? USC dropping one to Oregon State? Really, folks. At least Ohio State looks like the real deal. All the rest of y'all suck.

Oh, and USC being ranked second? Bullshit. Here's who I want to see playing in the title game against the Buckeyes, in descending order:

Boise State. Don't laugh. They're the only other undefeated team in the nation, they beat an Oregon State team that USC couldn't get past, and with the exception of a squeaker against Fresno State they've clobbered everyone in their conference (including ranked Hawaii). They remind me of the 2004 Utah team that went undefeated, was rewarded with a crap game against BCS misfit Pittsburgh (whom they clobbered), and ended up ranked 4th. I have no idea why BSU is ranked lower than 3rd right now. I want them ranked second - hell, everyone else has already lost. My philosophy - if you go 12-0 in moderately impressive fashion, you deserve a shot at the title. It's hard to go 12-0 against anyone. But knowing that BSU will get screwed by the major-conference-obsessed voters, I'll go with...

Florida. Provided, of course, they finish off Arkansas in the SEC title game. Their only loss is to 10-2 Auburn, and even though this year's SEC isn't the powerhouse that it usually is, wins over Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia ought to count for something. The fact is that Florida's a damn good team. And as much as I hate Urban Meyer for leaving Utah, two title-game shaftings in three years is too much for a single coach to have to experience.

Wisconsin. No one seems to have noticed the Badgers, but they're 11-1 in a tough Big Ten with their only loss being to Michigan. Since Michigan has already faced OSU and lost, Wisconsin deserves a shot more than the Wolverines. Yeah, an all-Big Ten final sucks, but the conference is just that good this year.

Louisville. Provided they can squeak past UConn this weekend. Their only loss is to Rutgers. Normally, that's a bad thing, but Rutgers is also 10-1 this year. We can forgive them a road-game hiccup against a legit title contender. Hey, it's better than losing to an 8-4 team like, oh, say, Oregon State.

All these teams deserve consideration for the title game before USC. In my mind, if you lose a game to a clearly inferior opponent, you ought to be punished. Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisville all have big wins and all have better single losses. BSU may not have a marquee win but has beaten the crap out of everyone. Seriously, how much is Pete Carroll paying the BCS people?

And If I've Learned Anything...

I was just watching Anderson Cooper's analysis of the press conference that Dubya gave earlier today. There was a discussion of how Bush would handle this electoral defeat. Would he reach out? Would he dig in, ready for a fight? My first thought was: "well, that's simple, last time he was beaten in an election, he..."

Then it hit me. George W. Bush has never experienced decisive electoral defeat. He won two elections as governor of Texas, one election for President, and tied the other (winning in penalty kicks, as it were). He gained seats in the 2002 midterms. I don't know about his performance in the 1996 Texas legislative midterms, so I guess I can't say "never", but I don't know that voters have ever expressed their disapproval so resoundingly.

It will be interesting to see how Bush responds. Will he be chastened by the experience and remember the importance of including everyone in the decision-making process? Will he continue his scorched-earth policymaking strategy, this time from the minority - becoming the "obstructionist" that he often reviled Democrats for being? How will Bush work with a group of people who he has been comparing to terrorists for the past six years? In short, given his bridge-burning electoral style, what does Bush look like in defeat? I guess we're about to find out.

And double kudos to anyone who can pick up on the double-reference in the post title.

"Now What?"

First, a sad note from last night. We're down by 380-odd votes right now with provisional ballots still remaining, so it's not over yet, but either way I want to congratulate Greer Beaty, candidate for NC House in District 36, on running one hell of a race. Since I began volunteering for the campaign back in April, I have come to know one of the few politicians that simply oozes integrity. Greer is the kind of person who puts getting results ahead of partisan victory - and instead of being turned off by the heavily partisan nature of today's politics, she set about changing it. Greer's dedication inspired the same in her staff and her volunteers, and we wish her all the best. Congratulations, Greer, on putting a heavily Republican district in play. Should the current results hold, here's hoping you run again - and win - in 2008.

My friend John referred to Election Day as "the geek's Christmas." So come, all ye faithful, to my election musings:

Remember how I said that when the dust settled, Republicans would still hold the house, 220-215? Um... oops. Big, massive oops.

Currently, with 11 seats still remaining, Democrats have 228 seats. Even if all the remaining seats break Republican, the Dems will have a fairly safe 21-seat advantage. Even that is unlikely - Dems are up in CT-02, GA-12, and PA-08, and LA-02 will feature a runoff between two Democrats. If those results hold, we're left with a 232-203 split. The Senate is currently at 48-49-2, with only the Virginia race still out (Webb has a small but significant advantage, but it's going to go to recount and it won't be official for a while).

Here's a few half-baked and partially digested commentaries for you to spit out upon tasting:

- The red-blue divide has been proven to be, for the most part, complete crap. Yes, the Northeast became more solidly Democratic, with both NH seats turning along with a few in NY, CT, and PA. But seats also turned in KS, CO, AZ, IN, and here in NC. And Republican incumbent Barbara Cubin got a good run for her money in Wyoming - that race is still too close to call (but leans towards Cubin). Kansas was just as caught up in the Democratic wave as New York. Incidentally, a lot of people in the Democratic Party have been criticizing Howard Dean for his "fifty state strategy" of strengthening state parties in traditionally Republican areas. After tonight - when Dean's strategy forced a turnover in Kansas and forced Republicans to waste money defending seats in Idaho and Wyoming - those people will be shutting up.

- Rudyard Kipling (an ass, perhaps, but a good poet) once wrote about those who "can keep their head when all of those about [them] are losing theirs." So in that vein I offer a giant, if perhaps premature, thank you to Arizona. Why? They became the first state to reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage even as seven other states approved such measures. Arizona is something of a libertarian paradise, so it's not that much of a surprise. But maybe this result, along with the endurance of same-sex marriages in Massachussets, the court ruling in New Jersey, and the passage of civil unions in Connecticut last year (the first state to pass civil union/marriage legislation without being prompted to do so by a court), could signal the beginnings of a national realization that gay marriage will not lead to the imminent apocalypse. Arizona may still be caught up in the immigration hysteria, but at least in gay rights, it has joined the leaders.

- Speaking of Arizona and immigration hysteria, let's all pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that J.D. Hayworth will not be joining us next January. Harry Mitchell may not be any better on immigration, but at least he won't be as much of a pain in the ass. Now if only someone would knock off Tom Tancredo...

- Congratulations to former Orleans lead vocalist John Hall, who pulled the out-of-nowhere upset of the night to beat incumbent Republican Sue Kelly in New York's 19th district. Apparently, he is still the one. (Discussion topic: is Hall's victory at all related to his appearance on The Colbert Report?)

- Let us also pause and imagine a Senate without Rick Santorum. Aaaaaahhhhh. Sanity just sent Bob Casey, Jr. a gift basket. Also, thanks to incumbents Bill Nelson and Brad Miller for keeping Congress Katherine Harris- and Vernon Robinson-free.

- Is religious conservatism on the wane again? Sure, same-sex marriage initiatives passed in seven out of eight states. But Santorum went down hard, Harris never had a chance, Marilyn Musgrave got the wits scared out of her, and stem-cell research passed in MO. Here in NC, our chief justice beat back an attempt by her challenger to rile up the religious conservative base - by some thirty percentage points. Religious conservativism has always had periods where it collapsed on itself and retreated for a while. Are people starting to discover other things to worry about?

- Big winner: minimum wages. All the minimum wage ballot propositions passed. Conservative economists will be befuddled when the economies of these states do not undergo immediate collapse.

- We can thank Bill Frist for giving the Democrats an extra House seat. Frist's gambling ban was sponsored by Jim Leach and Bob Goodlatte in the House. Goodlatte never had an opponent, but Leach did. Leach was well ahead for most of the race and his seat wasn't even on most peoples' radars, but he ended up losing to challenger Dave Loebsack. Think backlash from the gambling ban had anything to do with that?

- Other big winner: Joe Lieberman. If Webb holds on in Virginia, Lieberman holds the Senate balance of power in his hands. Harry Reid is sure to give him a cushy chairmanship (Judiciary or Armed Services) in exchange for his caucus vote. The Republicans will probably try to bribe him with similar spoils.

- Also, let's hear it for the first Socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders, and the first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison.

- Poor Lincoln Chafee. I liked him. Though he did throw the Republican Party under the bus in Lieberman-like fashion toward the end of his campaign. I'm thinking he probably would have jumped ship had he won.

- First casualty of the post-election fallout: Donald Rumsfeld. He ended up getting most of the blame for the failed Iraq strategy that helped lead to this little electoral disaster for the Republicans. I'm somewhat surprised that Bush would fire him, but I guess even he can take a hint.

That's all. Feel free to comment with whatever insights you have on last night's happenings.

Best. Web Site. EVER.

Politics geeks: are you sick of your jock friends bragging about their fantasy football or baseball teams while you're trying to read the Congressional Record? Do you wish there was something similar that catered to your interests?

Well, take heart, for Fantasy Congress has arrived!

You pick 16 legislators - two senior senators, two junior senators, four senior reps, four moderately tenured reps, and four rookie reps. You gain points based on how much legislative success they enjoy - bills introduced, bills passed by committee, bills conveyed to the other house, etc. You use the weekends to drop and draft Congresspeople. Unsurprisingly, Transportation chair and porkmaster Don Young is the Peyton Manning of the House.

My life has new meaning.

Let me know in the Comments if you want to join a league.

Tennessee Voters Weigh In

Looks like according to the latest poll, Tennessee voters barely prefer Corker's daughter's girl-on-girl action to Ford's Playboy bunnies. But not by much. We'll see how the horny male demographic swings when the Ford campaign comes out with a sex video... of Ford.

Also in the article, I noticed that 61% of Tennessee voters say gay marriage will play a very important role in the way they cast their votes. I have only one question for you, Volunteer Staters:

WHY?

Education, health care, war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, civil liberties... and you think gay marriage is important? How does that affect anyone except gay people? In short, what the hell is wrong with you?

...And We Have A "Winner"

Your winner for the "most shameful ad" award goes to Wisconsin Republican challenger Paul Nelson, who accuses his challenger of spending money attaching electrodes to teenage girls' genitalia while they watch porn. The ad references a vote cast by Nelson against scrapping a series of NIH studies dealing with understanding human sexuality.

You know you've made a bad ad when your own party gets pissed off at you.

That's not even the worst part. North Carolinians might notice, upon reading the article, that something sounds familiar about this ad. That's because the ad was originally made for Republican Vernon "Fiesta" Robinson, who is challenging Rep. Brad Miller in the 13th District. That's right, folks - Nelson not only ran a ridiculous ad, but actually used someone else's ridiculous ad. Robinson gets an honorable mention for conceiving the ad, but Nelson wins for apparently watching this ad and you think, "hey, what a great idea, I should use that in my campaign." Fool.

More Midterm Silliness

I'm serious now - this election is entering the Twilight Zone. Some of the more entertaining things happening now...

- Sen. John Kerry attempted to make a joke at Bush's expense - and ended up insulting our troops. Republicans are trying to make an issue out of it, but fortunately no one actually listens to John Kerry anymore.

- Campaigners are always trying to figure out ways to deal with hecklers. Sen. George Allen's staff has a sublimely effective method: a good old-fashioned butt-whoopin'. That's quite a response - I wonder if Allen's campaign staffers are Israeli or something. Still, anyone who accosts another person asking why they spit at their first wife qualifies for "jackass" status.

- Desperate campaign tactic #308: make your opponent look like a former sex offender.

- A district director for Republican Rep. John Kline in Minnesota was on-record as cursing about "another Jap car". By the way, if you're of Asian descent, "Jap" = "nigger." The director half-assedly apologized. Incidentally, Kline's opponent in the race is former FBI whistle-blower Colleen Rowley.

- A Florida state rep. learns the dangers of drunk-dialing.

On a different note, my official prediction for House and Senate composition after this election:

- House: 220 R, 215 D. Sure, it's tough to get more Democrat-friendly than this election cycle, but thanks to Elbridge Gerry and his famous mandering, I don't see how a fifteen-seat swing is going to happen. A lot more seats need to become competitive before control of the legislature can change that rapidly.

- Senate: 50 R, 48 D, 2 I. Santorum and DeWine are done, Burns is medium-well, and Chafee (sadly) is fading fast. That's a four-seat pickup right there. But I only see one of Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri going for the Dems. The two Indies are Sanders and Lieberman, who will split their votes, effectively making this 51-49.

Also, Scott Adams weighs in on electronic voting.

Note to Delaware: You Are Not The South

Apparently some folks in Lower Delaware (which a few Wilmington-area folks refer to as "Slower Delaware" - who knew that a state the size of my fingernail could have a north-south rivalry?) are taking some cues from people down here in the Bible Belt. In all the wrong ways.

Some of the scarier moments from the article:

"The Dobrich and Doe legal complaint portrays a district in which children were given special privileges for being in Bible club, Bibles were distributed in 2003 at an elementary school, Christian prayer was routine at school functions and teachers evangelized."

"Mrs. Dobrich, who is Orthodox, said that when she was a girl, Christians here had treated her faith with respectful interest. Now, she said, her son was ridiculed in school for wearing his yarmulke. She described a classmate of his drawing a picture of a pathway to heaven for everyone except “Alex the Jew.”"

"A homemaker active in her children’s schools, Mrs. Dobrich said she had asked the board to develop policies that would leave no one feeling excluded because of faith. People booed and rattled signs that read 'Jesus Saves,' she recalled. Her son had written a short statement, but he felt so intimidated that his sister read it for him. In his statement, Alex, who was 11 then, said: 'I feel bad when kids in my class call me "Jew boy." I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.'

Later, another speaker turned to Mrs. Dobrich and said, according to several witnesses, 'If you want people to stop calling him "Jew boy," you tell him to give his heart to Jesus.'"

In response, I have an open letter to the people of Delaware:

Dear Delaware,

Congratulations; you have now made Mississippi look tolerant. Psychotic disrespect for the religion of others is not a good thing. Please go back to doing what you do best - pumpkin chunkin'. Seriously, you don't need to be embarrassed more.

Thanks,
Jeff

And while we're on the subject of douchebaggery disguising itself as religion, check this out. The entire idea of the Antichrist smacks of cynicism in the first place (someone unites people and brings peace, and that's a bad thing?), but it's a legit, relatively harmless religious belief, so whatever. But thinking someone is the Antichrist just because they're likable? That's insanity.

So let's add Barack Obama to the list of people accused of being the Antichrist:

- Javier Solana
- Ronald Reagan
- Hillary Clinton
- George W. Bush (thanks Leah)
- all Jews
- this guy who seems to aspire to the job

Anyone with any more fun Antichrist accusations, let me know.

College Football Made Interesting

...and cue the chaos.

I kind of figured that USC would lose at some point. They had Oregon, Cal, and UCLA still left on their schedule. But Oregon State? The Trojans couldn't deal with the Beavers? (Which is amusing on far too many levels.)

So now there are six undefeateds. Two will face off later in the season (Ohio State, Michigan). Three share another conference and will all play each other later (Louisville, Rutgers, West Virginia - incidentally, how many of you thought you would ever be seeing Rutgers as one of the last six undefeated teams in the nation?). One gets absolutely no respect (Boise State). Should the Big East teams beat each other up (possible) or get screwed by the BCS (likely), there are eleven one-loss teams that could lay claim to a spot too (BC, Wake, Texas, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Tulsa, Cal, USC, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Auburn). That's seventeen teams still somewhat alive in the title race. That should narrow a bit as BC and Wake play, USC plays Cal and ND, Texas and A&M play, the four SEC teams go through that meat-grinder, and Tulsa continues to play in Conference USA. Even so, we could end this season like 2004, where eight teams had legitimate arguments for title game consideration. Ah, but who needs a playoff?

Oh, and Duke? Good job making Chris Nickson look like Michael Vick. Seriously, there are high school teams that could keep a freshman Vandy quarterback from getting five touchdowns (two passing, three running). Incidentally, Vandy only needs two more wins to become bowl eligible. Unfortunately, its remaining three games are against Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Tennessee Confuses Me

The RNC has been running ads in Tennessee against Harold Ford, Jr. Their most controversial spot is apparently one that involves a young actress saying she met Harold Ford at the Playboy party and asking him to call her. (Ford is single.)

So the acme of the RNC's attack machine has accused the Democrat in the race of... being attractive? Exactly how is this a negative ad? Harold Ford. Women find him sexy. Is this who we want representing us?

They've since pulled the ad, since it apparently fueled outrage. I haven't seen it, so maybe there's more to it than that. Anyway, they've replaced it with accusations that Ford has taken money from porn moguls and wants to force-feed abortion pills to teenagers. (Aside: what kind of complete moron actually believes this? Seriously, if you take that ad at face value, you ought to lose your voting rights. Permanently.)

I'd rather have the ad with the woman saying I'm hot, personally. This latest one makes Vernon "Fiesta" Robinson look sane.

Instant Update: The Post's Chris Cillizza discusses the ad, revealing that the party girl was a part of a series of satirical "man on the street" interviews. The ad's actually pretty clever, if disingenuous and factually challenged. Cillizza posts the ad, but I don't have a video connection here so I can't see it. Tell me what you think, especially about the Playboy woman's appearance. I'm still not seeing how a woman insinuating that she has the hots for Harold Ford is supposed to be negative.

Even More Update Goodness: Harold Ford scored points with the "call me" chick, but in the race for the all important horny-man demographic, Bob Corker pulls ahead with these pics of his partying daughter making out with another chick. This has to be the weirdest Senate race in recent memory. Kinda makes me sad I don't live in Tennessee anymore.

Sorry, Sir, It Was Subconscious

Apparently two Israeli warplanes attacked a German ship that was charged with preventing weapons trafficking in the area.

Talk about fighting the last war. Except in Israel's case it was, like, eight wars ago. Something tells me that some Israeli pilot has a deep-seated revenge complex. I'm picturing Ehud Olmert coming out on TV saying something like "uh... we forgot the Germans were the good guys now... oopsie."

Update: ...or not, according to Amir Peretz. I lean towards believing Peretz - the Israeli military is famous for overreaching, but not for stupidity. So you can all go on to the next post, now... nothing more to see here.

Midterms 2006: The Good, the Bad, and the WTF?

Not necessarily in that order.

We start off in Arizona's 1st Congressional district, where Republican Rick Renzi faces challenger Democrat Ellen Simon. The R thing is not a mistake, folks - he is married to a woman named Roberta and twelve of his children have "R" names. (I didn't even know there were 12 R names.) But he gets on my "jackass" list for a TV attack ad he ran against his opponent accusing her of being - gasp! - an ACLU member. I was kind of half watching in a groggy just-waking-up state while in Tempe, so I'm not sure exactly what he said and a quick online search doesn't turn up any video of the ad. But he made being an ACLU member sound like an action slightly worse than selling your soul to the devil. (Simon led the Cleveland, OH chapter of the ACLU for a time.)

What's even more frustrating is that in my brief foray into the Renzi-Simon blogosphere, one of the commenters trashing Simon says that Simon is a "freedom destroying commie type." Because we all know that the best way to destroy freedom is to dedicate yourself to an organization whose sole aim is the preservation of freedom. Incidentally, this is probably the nastiest Congressional race I've come across, with both candidates accusing each other of having the approximate moral fiber of a jelly doughnut.

I would rant about this, but that has already been done to perfection, so I'll just quote: "For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?" For that matter, why would Rick Renzi and so much of the American right choose to reject upholding the Constitution? I seriously have to physically restrain myself when someone badmouths the ACLU. You may not agree with everything they do, but you can't take someone who spends their time protecting your Constitutional rights and call them un-American.

Renzi may be an ass, but he might not even be the biggest douchebag in his state. For that, we move to Scottsdale, where Congressman J.D. Hayworth (watch out - the web page talks) is running against former Tempe mayor Harry Mitchell.

Caution: what follows hasn’t been verified by a mainstream news source, so beware – this may be one of those blogosphere rumors.

Update: The Arizona Republic confirms, at least in part.

Two of Hayworth's staffers suffered a severe meltdown (from the deliciously snarky Wonkette) at a Jewish synagogue in Scottsdale, apparently lecturing the crowd for several minutes and calling Hayworth - a conservative Christian - a "more observant Jew" than everyone there. When that comment was met with predictable derision, a staffer commented: "No wonder there are anti-Semites." The speakers, Jonathan and Irit Tratt, were Jewish - as some folks at The American Prospect point out, Irit is a modern Hebrew name. (Best comment on that string: "Jesus was a Jew? Then how come he's got a Mexican name?")

This is probably the biggest "what the fuck" campaign moment in recent memory (narrowly edging out Macacagate). I have two possible explanations:

1) Jonathan and Irit Tratt are modern-day Isaiahs. Sick of what they see as the empty rituals of modern Judaism, the Tratts have begun exhorting their fellow Jews to live their lives morally and not just follow the laws for the sake of their laws. Thus, saying that Hayworth was "more observant" is a comment about morality - i.e. that Hayworth's morality is closer to what God wants from the Chosen People than is the perceived moral emptiness of the Scottsdale Jewish community.

2) Jonathan and Irit Tratt are morons.

Given that their boss gone on the record as supporting Henry Ford's "Americanization" plan - an immigrant assimilation plan so brilliant that it was praised by Hitler - and given that the “no wonder there are anti-Semites” comment doesn’t get covered by option 1, I'm going to go way out on a limb and assume the latter.

Update: The Republic article states that the comments were made in the context of abortion, lending a little bit of credence to option 1. Interestingly, Jewish law has traditionally allowed abortion until the 40th day (when it is assumed that the heart starts beating). Still, it’s kind of dumb to call a proud Baptist a better Jew than actual Jews.

Here's another account of the event that supports option 2. This account makes it seem like the Tratts are an Israel-obsessed couple who tried to slam Mitchell for - shocking! - associating with the A-rabs. (Guess that makes me a "fake Jew" since I talk to my Palestinian and Jordanian neighbors.)

I really wish someone had got this on tape since it would make for excellent television.

Note: I've slammed Hayworth on this blog before for his hawkish anti-immigrant stances. Sadly, Mitchell isn't much better in that regard.

For sheer dipshittery, it's tough to beat this one: Kansas Senator Sam Brownback - one of the many decrying Democrats' "obstructionist" tactics on judges - has put a hold on one of Bush's judicial nominees for a court in Michigan. His excuse? She hangs out with lesbians. Dear Kansas: Your elected officials already tried enforcing this "intelligent design" crap. Now this. Please stop electing idiots - you're embarrassing yourselves. At least you had the good sense to elect Kathleen Sebelius as your governor.

In the even-more-WTF department, Nevada Rep. Jim Gibbons is involved in one of the most bizarre scandals I've ever heard of (two Wonkette links here). Gibbons is running for Governor and had his race won... until he either groped a cocktail waitress or helped her stand up while she was drunk. Gibbons was obliterated as well. He was also with several women who were not his wife at the time.

Foley's Follies. Macacagate. The Great Scottsdale Staffer Meltdown. What Happened in Vegas. There are usually scandals in an election cycle, but damn, there have been some frickin' hilarious ones this year. Jon Stewart must be shitting his pants right now.

And finally, the award for "best negative advertisement" goes to this mailer from New Hampshire Congressional candidate Paul Hodes attacking his opponent, incumbent Charlie Bass. This is the kind of brilliant idea that could only have arrived in the heads of the campaign staff at about 1 A.M. after several beers. Anyone whose campaign can pun that prolifically gets my vote.

(The campaign I'm working on is running against a guy named Dollar. Sadly, we have yet to take advantage of the numerous pun possibilities that lie therein.)

I Didn't Know I Could Pitch Like That

So what the hell was on Kenny Rogers' hand? And if it was illegal, why couldn't the Cardinals hit him even after he got rid of it? Did he switch to the clear pine tar? Or was it a Tootsie roll (like Andy Van Slyke suggests)?

Discuss.

The Homestretch

So how, exactly, did I end up completely drenched in the men's bathroom of a women's college dining hall wringing out my clothes and trying desperately to dry myself off? The answer follows.

Yesterday I woke up late (the result of a trip to Phoenix over the weekend). It was kind of a dreary, Seattle-sunshine kind of day. After getting some work done, I decided I needed to go pay my rent (it was a little bit late since I was out of town on the 15th, but my landlady is nice about such things). Unfortunately, to do so I had to ride my bike some 10 miles to her house on Lake Wheeler Road in far south Raleigh. This went without incident, though the entire trip was made on country roads without sidewalks (or really even shoulders) and was a bit nervewracking. After leaving my landlady's, I rode straight up Lake Wheeler to Centennial Campus, where I work. I had almost reached my office when it started to rain. Not a particularly hard rain, mind you - just a few drops here and there. I was moderately soaked when I walked into the office, but within twenty minutes I had dried off.

Then Noah, who coordinates volunteer stuff for my State House candidate, called me and wanted me to man a booth at Meredith College's candidates' meet and greet, since neither he nor Greer could be there. Meredith is only about two miles away from State and three from Centennial, so I sighed and said I'd be there at 5:30.

Little did I know that by 5:30, I would have a driving rainstorm on my hands.

It's roughly a 15-minute ride from Centennial to Meredith. By the time I reached Meredith, there wasn't a dry spot on my body. I locked up my bike in front of the dining hall and dodged into the men's bathroom (the existence of which I wasn't expecting, Meredith being an all-girl school). After a brief and futile attempt to dry myself, I wandered into the dining hall.

There was Noah, dress shirt and tie. And me, drenched T-shirt and cargo shorts. At that point I informed Noah of his impending debt to me of several tasty beverages, to be cashed in at a later date. At which point Noah left. As it was, Meredith students were mostly unfazed by my waterlogged clothing, and I got eight volunteers out of my crowd-cruising.

Of course then I had to get home. I wasn't relishing the ride back to Cary in the rain at night. Fortunately, I made an offhand comment about someone having a pickup truck to take my bike home - and a friend of mine ended up having a pickup truck and time to take me back, thus saving me from getting drenched a third time. Sweet.

I return to four wheels on Friday. I'll give you a nice little summation blog then.

Also, I'd like to call your attention to this delicious tidbit of information. Samuel L. Jackson as God...

"I've had it with these muthafuckin' snakes in this muthafuckin' garden!"

Update: Fark.com steals my joke.

Il Communication

So North Korea just detonated an explosive device that may or may not have been a miniature nuclear weapon. I've heard radiation test results that both confirm and deny the existence of a nuclear bomb. I've also heard that the bomb tested was approximately one kiloton - roughly 1/60 the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It can still do some damage, but it's hardly apocalyptic.

Anyway, this is another Kim-Jong-Il-wants-attention moment. I guess no one hugged him when he was a kid. I'm glad to see China and Japan start punishing North Korea for the test (there's very little we can do since we don't actually have any sort of relationship with the Hermit Kingdom). I wonder, however, how much closing NK off will actually help the situation. Kim seems perfectly happy torturing his own people with hunger and poverty as long as he gets his self-aggrandizing sideshow taken care of. Any economic activity that ceases because of sanctions will probably not hurt Kim at all.

So what is to be done? Opening ourselves up to NK makes it look like we tacitly approve of nuclear proliferation (not a good message to be sending right now, especially with Iran waiting in the wings). Threats of warfare don't work - I'm sure the entire world knows that we won't be as eager to invade the Korean Peninsula as we were to invade Iraq. (Hell, if Bush applied the same standard to the two countries North Korea would be a parking lot right now.) Some people want to deploy nukes to South Korea - fortunately, Condi thinks that this is a bad idea given our goal of denuclearizing the peninsula.

Is being open to the North and trying to convince them to enter the global marketplace the best idea? Increased openness broke down the Soviet Union as citizens there discovered what they were missing. But NK's propaganda machine is so good that their people might not respond as expected to the discovery of the fruits of prosperity in other places. Hell, they've been living next to booming South Korea for fifty years (though SK only started booming a couple of decades ago). What may be needed is a massive human intelligence program aimed at undermining Kim's propaganda machine and popular support, and once an opposition forms, we'd have something of an opening to work with. But what do I know about foreign policy?

Also: Congress may have failed to address immigration reform, health care, the minimum wage, the tax laws, or much of anything for that matter. But they've banned Internet gambling. The opponents want to ban Internet gambling because it's addictive and because it's populated with dishonest bookies. The dishonest bookies, of course, would be taken care of by legalizing Internet gambling and regulating it - such criminals are only encouraged by making the whole shebang illegal. As for its addictiveness - aren't the supporters of this bill (conservative Republicans) the same people who vote against smoking bans? I hear there are other other addictive Internet games out there, too - are we banning them? Or coffee - I hear that's addictive?

At least the bill the ban was attached to did something good - procured more money and resources for port security. It's probably the best thing the 109th has done, and it's a shame that the news of this got lost in the douchebaggery of the gambling ban.

The Washington Post reveals the real reason Democrats will retake Congress in November - we're way hotter than the Republicans. Think about it. Hillary or Condi? Maria Cantwell or Liddy Dole? Ladies, Barack Obama or John McCain? It's an easy call. Because obviously we should be casting our votes based on physical attractiveness.

Something To Keep Your Mind Occupied For A While

In my Spanish class, I was mild-manneredly taking an exam. The exam asked us to describe the weather in January in Argentina (answer: rather nice). A student piped up: "Where's Argentina?"

Keep in mind that this is a college student. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Well, now you can find out just how much of a geography idiot you are by going to this online geography game. It's how map geeks like me who can keep the capitals of Kazakhstan and Eritrea straight. And if you understood the joke without me having to tell you that the cities I just referred to are the easily confusable Astana and Asmara respectively, this game is for you.

Happy Jeffrey Maier Day

Yes, folks, it was ten years ago today that young Yankees fan Jeffrey Maier reached over the wall in right field and scooped Derek Jeter's long fly-out away from Orioles right fielder Tony Tarasco, allowing Game 1 of the ALCS to go to extra innings and eventually be won by the Yanks. The Pinstriped Ones went on to win ten AL East titles and four World Series titles. The Orioles won the AL East the next year but have been in search of a winning season ever since.

So in memory of that fateful day, I give you a random sports post.

- If anyone so much as thinks about placing the blame for the Yankees' ALDS loss to the Detroit Tigers on A-Rod, there will be consequences. The entire Yankees offense - Damon straight down to Cano - took a holiday for three games. Whiffing on a bunch of Justin Verlander 103-mph heat is understandable, but they couldn't even hit Kenny Rogers. Oh, and it's hard to win when your pitching is giving up eight runs a game to the normally light-hitting Tigers.

- College football teams that desperately need a little respect: Missouri, Rutgers, Boise State, Navy. The former three are undefeated, the latter a one-point heartbreaker (against fellow one-loss team Tulsa) from being undefeated. Mizzou is the only unbeaten left in the Big 12, has a legitimate shot at winning the conference... and they're ranked nineteenth? Either way, there are so many unbeatens left that I'm really looking forward to the BCS clusterfuck this year.

- The A's are damn good. That was one heck of a manhandling of the rather impressive Twins (who, granted, had a total of one and a half pitchers since Radke was without a throwing shoulder). If anyone left can challenge the Mets, they're the team to do it.

- The 'Skins are not. What the hell was that against the Giants? Were we suddenly playing the '85 Bears?

Olbermann Deals A Smack-Down

I just thought I'd post the text of MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann's show-ending special comment last night. It's a brilliant smack-down aimed at a President who likes to make up things about what his critics are saying and proceed to compare them to terrorists and traitors. Olbermann's pissed, and most of the rest of us are too. You go, KO.

Also, I'm now 25. Woo.

Congressional Year In Review

There's not a whole lot, unfortunately, to review here. Most major legislation got bogged down in disagreement and never made it to the President's desk. Immigration reform, the estate tax/minimum wage bill... yeah, didn't happen. Hell, I don't even think we have a budget yet. Fortunately, the Stupid Constitutional Amendment Brigade crashed and burned as well. Here's what did pass, to the best of my recollection:

- The Patriot Act got renewed. I don't remember significant changes being made to it.

- Lots of pork got through - the 109th will be remembered as the least kosher Congress in history.

- Congress approved a big-ass fence to go on the Arizona border. Often in places that are unreachable by vehicle, so God only knows how it's gonna get built. Also, there's no appropriation for the necessary manpower to patrol the fence, so any idiot with a shovel can dig under it. And I think Boeing was involved somehow, though I'm not sure how. Either way, I'm sure that this fence will go up as the most expensive proof of Woodhead's Fourth Law (build a better wall, someone will build a better ladder) ever devised. Note to Congress: illegal immigration won't stop until you take away the disincentives to legal immigration.

(Also, there are apparently some people who believe that Hispanics want to vote the Southwest back to Mexico, Pat "Florida Jews Love Me" Buchanan among them. This currently holds the lead in my contest for Most Outrageous Conspiracy Theory, right above the Bush-planned-9/11 yarn.)

- Congress attempted to limit the CIA interrogation program and failed miserably. They eliminated detainees' rights to challenge their detention in court (ah, but can detainees challenge the lack of a right to a court challenge in court?). They decided that any non-US citizen can be picked up and declared an "enemy combatant" - a label that's all too often misused, as this CNN commentator pointed out a couple of years ago. (He makes the excellent point that Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, shoe-bomber Richard Reid, and "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui were all tried under the civilian justice system with full habeas rights. If the justice system is good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for others?) Most laughably, they told the President that he had to obey the Geneva Conventions, but they give him the power to define what the Geneva Conventions say about torture. I guess Congress only wants to look like they're doing their job while still abdicating even more power to a President who has a fearsomely large amount of it already.

The Republican Congress' refusal to limit the Republican President's power is one of the most disgustingly partisan, unprincipled, and cowardly actions of the past decade (certain Senators excepted). You know they'd be screaming their heads off if a Democratic President tried even a quarter of what Bush has tried. I would say this is the best reason for us all to vote Democrat in November. But that's assuming that the Democrats grow a spine between now and November. Right now, the political will to challenge the President's power simply isn't there in the Democratic Party - the best we could hope for is a Senate Judiciary Committee with Feingold (probably the most outspoken civil libertarian of them all) at the helm.

And finally, I want to share with you the most unsurprising, yet interesting, media study I've seen: Indiana University researchers have shown that The Daily Show contains as much substance as broadcast news programs. Which is less of an endorsement of The Daily Show than a condemnation of so-called "real" news programs.

Random Silliness

I'll blog about something important later on. Don't worry.

In the meantime, consider the hell that it must be to be this woman's child. Imagine getting crap from all your classmates for being the kid whose mommy wants to ban Harry Potter. I bet when her kids all go into therapy in their 20s, she'll blame witchcraft.