Well Done, Mr. Toles

Tom Toles gets one last lick in on Rudy Giuliani, the only presidential candidate to use actual 9/11 footage in his campaign videos.

Martial Arts and Politics

I am going to make a generalization about martial arts. There are two types of martial arts: disciplines that focus on attacking your enemy (e.g. karate), and disciplines that focus on redirecting your opponent's attacks and using them against him (e.g. judo).

Now I am going to make a generalization about politics. Most politicians practice karate. When political commentators remark that one candidate runs a better campaign than the other, they mean that one candidate is better at karate than the other, better at attacking one's opponent and dictating the terms of the fight.

If you are running a positive campaign, especially one emphasizing change, you can't fight back with karate. It runs contrary to your disposition and your message. It doesn't take many days of attacking to make your supporters feel that you're just another politician using the same negative tactics as every other politician.

Yet you have you fight back, and fight back strongly. The best (and only way, I'd argue) to do this is through judo, using your opponent's attacks against him or her.

I'm obviously talking about karate master Hillary Clinton and judo practitioner Barack Obama. Neither style is morally superior to the other. Politicians choose whatever style best suits their talents and message. Yet the judo style of campaigning is more difficult to execute, and up until a few days ago, Obama wasn't doing a good job at doing it.

For much of the past three weeks, Hillary Clinton's campaign was a step ahead of Obama's campaign. She was controlling the debate, controlling the news cycles, and got Obama to engage in karate for the first half of the South Carolina debate against someone he can never beat with this style.

I have no idea how much of this insider politics stuff influences voters, but it made me worry that his campaign didn't have the cleverness or responsiveness needed to win the nomination. And quite frankly, if his campaign couldn't figure out a way to turn Clinton's attacks on herself, then he didn't deserve to win.

It heartened me several days ago when his campaign first aired the idea that Hillary would do anything to win. That was the right Judo response. One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she is willing to do anything to win. This is a good thing. It may be off-putting at times, but if she wins the Democratic nomination and you are a Democrat, you want her to do anything to win. It's too "ends justifies the means" for my taste, but if the only alternative is losing, then it's better than losing.

But Obama was able to reframe this strength as a negative and tie it into a message about how he represented a new style of politics and Clinton an old style of politics. His victory speech after he won the South Carolina primary is a masterful example of a judo response, and made me think that he finally got it.

It's also an inspiring speech that has won admiration even from some conservative Republicans. If you don't have time to watch the whole speech, minutes 4:00-9:00 are a good example of what I wrote about.

SC Dem. Debate Reaction

I wrote this debate reaction for the comments section of another blog, and it became so long that I figured I might as well post it. Probably not interesting if you didn't watch the debate:

All three candidates had their moments. Edwards positioned himself perfectly in the first half of the debate as being above the squalor when Obama and Hillary were attacking each other relentlessly. He appealed well to African-American voters and sounded more authentic than usual in his rhetoric. He still has a few phrases that he repeats too often, but overall, he had the right tone and it felt like his best debate performance so far.

Obama showed for the first time that he can hit back very hard, but his attractiveness as a candidate is so dependent on positivity, much more so than either Clinton or Edwards, that just having to be in the position of attacking someone harshly may have hurt him overall. He seemed much better in the 2nd half of the debate, like when he connected his positive message to a political strategy better than he has before, and seemed more eloquent than in the first half of the debate (for example, when Clinton brought up his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature in the first half of the debate, I could have explained them better than he did).

Clinton's performance is hard for me to gauge. One of her strengths is policy, and she comes off as more knowledgeable and sharp than Obama and Edwards time and time again. She had a few moments of passion that came off well too. On the downside (or upside, depending on how you look at it), she has wholly adopted the "win at any cost" campaign tactics that Republicans national candidates often favor and have used to great effect. Her comments on Obama's remarks about Reagan and his present votes in the Illinois legislature are just plain willful distortions.

Some people may find it a plus that she is willing to get dirty to win, but for me, every time I started warming up to her, she would make an attack untruthful in spirit, if not in substance, and I would lose whatever admiration I was starting to gain from her. Politicians who are willing to do anything to get into power are willing to do anything to stay in power. The last seven years is as good of an example of that as any. Her character is my biggest reservation about her.

Summary:
Edwards: Did well, may have "won"
Obama: Mixed performance, better in 2nd half of the debate
Clinton: I have no idea. Probably depends on whatever beliefs one already had about her more than anything.

Debate Comments

I watched the Nevada Democratic debate tonight on MSNBC's web site. As wonderfully moderated as the ABC\Charlie Gibson debate was, this one, moderated by Tim Russert and Brian Williams, was horrible. The questions in the first 1/2 hour were unsubstantial and exclusively focused on insider politics.

At one point, one of the moderators (Williams?) told Obama that he received an email alleging that Obama was a Muslim, swore into office using a Koran, etc., and asked him to respond. Sheesh. Is this the new basement of accusations that is now worthy of a televised response?

Did anyone else watch the debate? Perception plays such a powerful role in how one perceives these debates that I don't feel comfortable declaring any universal truths about this one, like who won or who looked better. I favor Obama, and that colors my view significantly. That aside, this is what caught my eye.

* I've watched all of the debates, and whatever I think about Obama and Clinton's responses, they have been syntactically different each time. The variation in language helps their answers sound fresh, and is done in part because they are adapting their language to a consistently changing campaign, including whatever interest groups they are trying to target in the state where the debate is held.

Edwards, on the another hand, keeps repeating the same phrases with little variation. This is OK if a voter only hears it once, but for me, I found my attention drifting almost every time he talked. The intense focus on message makes him come off to me as unimaginative and somewhat lacking in depth, traits he probably doesn't have in real life. I think the lack of even superficial deviation from one's message is a poor tactic, and he risks being tuned out more than the other candidates.

Next debate, I'm making a Edwards drinking game. One sip everything time he says mill, I'll fight for your interests, corporate greed, lobbyists, or middle class. I am going to get trashed.

* Small thing, but I liked it when Obama said (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that one of the biggest ways to head towards energy independence was to focus on efficiency. From what I read, it's true. The biggest way to reduce energy consumption is the most boring: buying fluorescent light bulbs, more energy efficient washers and dryers, and so on.

* Just thought of this. In spite of what I said about Edwards, I wonder if Obama needs to be more on-message, in specific, explaining to people his philosophy of governance.

I'm not sure it comes through enough during the debates. Whether you support him or not, do you feel you understand how he aims to enact and garner support for policy?

My understanding is that it is based on the principles of mediation, inclusiveness, and evaluating the interests of different groups based on science and rationality rather than ideology. In short, the language and politics of cooperation, rather than combativeness (e.g building "good enough" majorities, seeing the other side as the enemy).

This may be naive of me, but I think there is a lot to be gained from acknowledging the view of someone you disagree with, and showing that you understand that person's view. Angry people don't change their minds, whether it's you or the other person who is angry. I believe there are practical benefits to encouraging a civil discussion and reducing the overall level of emotional arguments in political discourse besides the fact that it makes most people feel warm and fuzzy.

At any one time, you can either be in an emotional state or a rational state. You can't be in both. I think better decisions would be made if politicians did less to generate support through emotionally loaded words and speeches, and instead focused on appealing to people's brains.

I remember during the run-up to the Iraq war people on both sides were extremely emotionally invested in the conflict, and we were never able to have a rational, national debate on the decision to go to war. I definitely got emotionally invested at one point and became angry above all else. A good part of that reason was that our leaders were using emotions like fear and anger to fan support for the war, which inspired similar emotions in the other side, and whatever chance we had for a level-headed evaluation of the available information by the public was lost.

It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a President to avoid creating or succumbing to an emotionally charged environment, especially if there were another terrorist attack. But the country would be better off if it could be done, and in my opinion Barack Obama is the best hope for creating a better political environment.

What Is McCain Snorting?

No, he didn't say something stupid. I ask because he's 71, and he says during the campaign season he wakes us at 6:00 A.M., and goes to bed at 1:00 A.M.

I'm 31, and that's a full five hours less than my ideal sleep time. I'm a firm believer in that when creating schedule, there should be one A.M., and one P.M. Two of each means you either aren't getting enough sleep or are narcoleptic.

The presidential campaign does nothing but remind me of how unqualified I am to be President. I can't even fantasize about being President anymore. I envision myself speaking to a crowd and I think: "Ugh, I don't want to shake all these people's hands. I'm going to bed."

I'm suspicious of everyone running for President. The job itself is slightly less worse than the process to get it. It's stressful, insular, and erodes whatever ethics or principles one may have had entering politics. If you do a really good job, 55% of people will like you. If you do a great job, you get assassinated.

There has to be a better way to obtain power. You know those six mysterious bankers that supposedly control the entire world? One of them has to die sometime. Why not aim for being one of them? There has to be a cadre of backup bankers somewhere, waiting to step in when one of the original six dies. That backup banker could be you.

Better yet, get five of your banking friends and hold a press conference declaring that you all are The Six. What are the mysterious bankers going to do, come out of hiding? They're Mysterious. They don't do that. Just issue terse, cryptic statements after events like when oil hit $100 a barrel ("If only the world didn't disappoint us.") and enough people will start believing you have power that you will have power.

Chutzpah goes a long way. I am convinced this is how Paris Hilton became a celebrity. She crashed a ritzy party and everyone was too embarrassed to admit they didn't know who she was. There was one dicey conversation ("I didn't invite her. Did you invite her." "No. I thought you did." "Maybe...Carl invited her?" "I guess.") and then she was home free.

To tie this back to the original subject, I suspect McCain will win the Republican nomination. My astute political reasoning behind my belief is that the other five Republican candidates are douche bags.

To be more specific: jerk, fear mongerer, devoid of integrity, doesn't believe in evolution, and not really a douche bag, but seriously, the gold standard? "FEDERAL RESERVE: The economy needs more money. Quick, get a pick ax!"

The other candidates each have at least one huge flaw, so I think McCain will win. I also think he would make the best President out of the Republican candidates, so that's a good thing, even if it makes the general election more difficult for the Democratic nominee. A lot of good can come from competition, and I would rather have two strong candidates running for President than a strong one and a weak one.

Web Sites I'm Too Lazy To Create

I need a Web 3.0 widget that will let me create Web 2.0 sites with a minimum of effort, which happens to be the maximum amount of effort I am willing to spend on making a web site. Two ideas I thought of last night:

1. "Best 10 Minutes." Almost every town hall meeting or Q&A like the candidates' visits to "the Google" has been uploaded to YouTube. There is a lot of good, in-depth information in these videos that one can't find on traditional outlets like the news, newspaper web sites, or the candidate's web site.

YouTube's system for rating and recommending videos works pretty well, but I think a web site dedicated to just videos of candidates discussing philosophy or policy would make them easier to find, and save people the time of digging through hours of video to find the best parts.

I would (I don't know what verb tense describes 'action that I wish I could take but I never will', so "I would" will have to do) set up a web site that would allow users to nominate 10-minute or less video snippets that best capture what they like about their candidate.

Each candidate would have their own section. I am guessing but don't know that YouTube allows you to embed a clip of a video using time codes, so only a link with relevant time codes would have to be uploaded. People could vote what effect the video had on them (positive, neutral, negative) and clips with the highest combination of votes and positive ratings would be featured under each candidate's section.

Yes, there is potential for abuse in a voting system like this. I'll be sure to install as many safeguards in the voting system when I don't make this web site.

2. "Pork Patrol." I am so disappointed that PorkPatrol.com is already taken. At least it doesn't go to a porn site. It redirects you to Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW. Yes, that is much catchier. If you want to remember what Web 0.7 looked like, be sure to pay them a visit.

At his Google talk, Obama says he wants to "Googlefy" government (my word, not his). Make bills fully searchable, attach Congress member names to earmarks, and so on.

If these changes were made, the next step would be to create a web site where people could search bills and mark each item in the bill (e.g. separate earmark, proposal for funding). If someone saw a questionable project, they could flag it, where it would appear in a public area for a certain amount of time. People would then be able to ask questions about the project, share information, and rate the earmark.

Every week, the Congress members with the top 10 negatively voted earmarks (for example) would be contacted by the site and given a chance to respond. There would be a new voting period, and then a determination would be made to publicly shame the creator of the earmark, start a phone campaign, or drop the matter and move to a new issue.

I think limiting the number of earmarks, bill language, and so on that would move on to the next stage is important. A limit would make people more judicious when voting and selecting parts of a bill to complain about. If only x items were highlighted a week, it would encourage people to focus on only the most expensive and egregious waste.

Since many earmarks are added at a last-minute and often without a vote, and a web site like this would actually encourage that practice, perhaps there should be a public comment period of 2 weeks after every significant bill so public watch groups like this site could at least bring a bill's shadier parts to the public's attention.

What makes this idea great in my eyes is that it's not even possible to do yet, so I don't feel guilty about not creating the web site. Also, I barely know anything about the minutia of the legislative process, so I am blissfully aware of whatever huge holes there are in my idea. But if budgets were made fully searchable, accountable, and indexable, a site like this would be the logical next step.

Every Candidate Should Answer Questions At Google

Edit: I should have used Google before writing that title. Other candidates that have appeared at Google.

I linked to a video of Barack Obama answering questions from Google employees in the last post that I have heard of but never watched. I finally watched it, both 25 min. parts.

In the campaign, we hear stump speeches, pundits, and occasionally an informative debate, the best of which might allow each candidate to speak for a few minutes at a time. There is a lot of attention paid to each candidate, but sometimes little information.

Unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you probably aren't going to have the chance to go to a town hall meeting and hear a candidate talk in-depth for an hour or two on policy and philosophy. The video of Obama's Q&A session from a few months ago was interesting for that reason, because it gave him a forum to elaborate on some of his policy interests, governing philosophy, and most important to me, his decision making process. It took place in a laid-back environment away from the mass media and before the primaries, and the talk was as unguarded as one could expect from a politician.

There is no one moment that blew me away, but he said a lot of things that seemed rational and well-reasoned. The cumulative effect made me feel more comfortable about him being elected President.

If you want a good sample, forward to 18:30 in this video and watch the rest (6 minutes).

I was already leaning towards him, so there is some bias there. The clip (and whole video) is worth watching though, and it has the type of information that I think will be difficult to get from any candidate at this point in the campaign.

If you have 10 min. of a video of another candidate to suggest, post it in the comments. I will watch it, whoever it is.

Search for America: A Presidential Campaign Website Review

I visited the web sites of the top nine Presidential candidates left in the race...

Bill Richardson just dropped out.

Okay. I visited the web sites of the top eight Presidential candidates left in the race to see which of them allowed users to search their sites. First thing I noticed: they all have a blue background. Except John McCain's web site, which has a black background, because he's a maverick.

I resisted the temptation of fully reviewing each candidate's web site. While there is great appeal in spending several hours analyzing each site's layout, color scheme, organization, and pictures of Muslims holding AK-47s (advantage: Rudy!) so I could to create a comprehensive review that would gather, all in one place, a bunch of crap almost no one cares about, I decided to focus on just one aspect.

Does McBama-Hillarudy-Ronbee's web site have a search bar?

Yes, the gold standard achievement in the “I Barely Give a Shit” class. Did they bother to insert an extremely useful function that is on almost every other web page on the Internet? Let's find out.

As a comparison point, I picked a random web page on the Internet: “Pancake City.” Does “Pancake City” have a search bar? Yes, it does. Is it near the top of the page and easy to find? Yes.

Pancake City is the front runner. In response to the site's new status, I have disabled comments and will stop taking questions from the press. I will resume friendly relations with the press once my poll numbers slip, as they have in the past 437 elections when a candidate surged in popularity and became overly cautious and guarded out of fear of screwing it all up.

Democrats

Hillary Clinton: No search bar.

Barack Obama: Dude, you gave a detailed technology speech at Google and then fielded questions from the employees. WHERE IS THE SEARCH BAR?

John Edwards: Search bar, but at the bottom of the page. Clearly labeled. (2^nd place)

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: I would like to point out that I hate writing about Rudy Giuliani, because I can never remember how to spell his name. I end up having to type something like “Giulaniuani” in Google and hope it recognizes who I am searching for. No search bar.

Mitt Romney: Search bar! Top of the page! The only major candidate to have a search bar near the top of his or her web page. This is True Strength for America's Future. (1^st place)

John McCain: Search bar at the bottom of the page. A real maverick would have put it sideways. (3^rd place)

Mike Huckabee: Mike Hucka-be better putting a search bar on his web page soon. No search bar.

Ron Paul: Ronbots, what happened? The web page is snazzy, attractive, and well-designed. Except no search bar. What am I going to do when I'm drunk and looking for a plan to privatize roads?

I'm leaving Fred Thompson out. That guy is phoning it in more than Leno on most nights. Instead of campaigning 12 hours a day, he's pulling up near prospective voters in his red pickup truck, yelling “Hey, I'm Fred!” and then speeding off to his limo parked around the corner.

Here's the big question: Is the lack of a search bar on these lavishly-funded, professionally-designed web pages an oversight, or were they deliberately left out for some nefarious yet stupid reason, like wanting to control how their visitors access information? Is search too "off message" for most campaigns?

Idea for a New Primary System

Larry Sabato argues in his book, "A More Perfect Constitution", that many of the current problems with the American political system are structural and can only be remedied by updating the U.S. Constitution to handle issues the founding fathers were unable to anticipate.

For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.

One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.

A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.

It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.

With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.

It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.

I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)

There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.

That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.

I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.

This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.

It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.

Sir, Your Premise Is Flawed, and Your Pantaloons Are Off-Center

I would like to point out that three seconds after I wrote the title for this post, I found my cell phone, which I had been searching for the past half-hour. If you are really good at deductive logic, you may be able to figure out where it was with one hint: I do something when I am about to write for a while.

The Washington Post Outlook printed an essay by someone who argues that the media and public perception of Rudy Giuliani as a liberal is wrong.

My perception of Giuliani is that his name is very difficult to spell by memory. Sounding it out doesn't help either. Gee-you-lan-ee--at least one of the "i"s in his name is excessive. I'm not voting for any candidate whose name isn't spelled like it sounds. Mike Huckabee--now there is a man I can get behind. There was even a movie made about him, I Heart Huckabees. It was made by Hollywood (evil!), but I have a forgiving heart for Huckabee-named movies.

If you think I am being superficial, name the last President we elected with a slightly odd name. Heck, name the last candidate nominated for President with a slightly odd name.

Back to the article in question. I haven't spent much attention on either primary race, but I disagree with the author's basic premise: "Somehow, though, Giuliani is being introduced to the rest of America as a liberal."

Really? I haven't heard anyone besides the far-right label him as a liberal. The author himself can't even find an example of someone in the media or mainstream calling him that. He quotes a few pundits saying that he has "liberal positions on social issues" and equates that with being a liberal, but they're two different things.

This logical jump undersells his whole argument. He's trying to disprove something--the mainstream thinks Giuliani is a liberal--that isn't true in the first place.

Do you like all of these paragraph breaks? Pancake City cares about readability and short attention spans.

It's too bad the author isn't more honest with his premise, because there are interesting points to be made about the ties between perception and politics. I'm guessing that most people who know little about Giuliani will assume he's a moderate almost solely because he was a Republican elected in New York city.

Likewise, people would assume a Democratic governor elected in Kansas would be a moderate. These assumptions are often true and powerful because of that.

What's interesting to me is the lag between these perceptions and reality. Every primary candidate shifts away from the center to attract partisan voters who play a greater role in primaries than the general election. It takes time for media pundits to update their often simplified story of a candidate, if they ever catch on at all.

That's a more interesting topic in my eyes. What is the connection between reality--what a candidate says and how voters perceive him or her--and the media's reporting of that reality, which often seems strongly filtered by long-ago made assumptions that are difficult to change?

For example, the current narrative is that Hillary Clinton is unstoppable and has the Democratic nation locked up. Polls give her a sizable lead. I've seen stories, maybe noticed because of my own filter, on how Obama's donors are worried. Political future markets are selling Hillary shares at 70 for the Democratic nomination (essentially saying she has a 70% of winning the Democratic nomination).

How much of this is based on reality--Obama and Edwards not connecting with primary voters--and how much of this is a self-feeding narrative, similar to the convention wisdom on Howard Dean four years ago? How much are undecided voters influences by these narratives? It seems backwards that such a strong narrative can be accepted and repeated without a single vote cast.

Edit: I just remembered another narrative that I'm not sure how it got started and took hold: Clinton is experienced / Obama is inexperienced. You know the last elected office Clinton held before being elected Senator on New York? None.

My guess is that experience is being used as a synonym for familiarity. As first-lady for eight years, she has had more time in the public eye than anyone running right now. She is also strongly associated with someone with a lot of experience, former President Clinton, and the connotation people have of the former President may be spilling over to her.

The closest person to Clinton in length of public exposure? Giuliani, who guess what, is also the front-runner for his party. Hmm. Maybe there is a connection.

Alberto Gonzales Will Get the Presidential Medal of Freedom

Okay, he's going to be forced to resign. But he has been one of the longest-running guests on the Bush Game Show. He has to get some type of parting gift. Like a lifetime supply of Hallmark greeting cards. Sometimes when your visit your friends in the hospital, the right words are hard to find.

Tony Kornheiser has a humorous recap of the event I'm alluding to if you missed it. At this point, the only reason I can fathom that Bush hasn't thrown Gonzales to the sharks, fishes, crabs, shrimp, and every other metaphorical sea creature that thinks he should be fired is that Gonzales knows where some bodies are buried. Not body. Bodies. Bush can handle one body. If you want to why Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are overweight, all I can say is salt, pepper, a pat of butter, and a strong desire to remove the evidence.

That's right. I just accused Karl Rove and Dick Cheney of eating people. I'm a Bush supporter. I'm trying to manage expectations. I think a news report discovering that Rove and Cheney regularly feast on the flesh of the living is the only thing that would surprise people at this point. Remember that guy Cheney shot last year? Anyone see him lately? I'm not even sure Judge Logic can rule human cannibalism out of order.

What if someone left society ten years ago, near the beginning of Clinton's second term when the biggest scandal was related to unauthorized poo-tang, and called an old friend today to catch up. "How's the new guy doing? "What? What? WHAT? Then you re-elected him? WHAT?"

If Alberto Gonzales doesn't get fired from his job by the end of the week, he might as well start walking around in the nude with only a sprinkled, pink-frosted donut around his penis, because then there will be nothing he can do to get fired. And that's a pretty good reason to walk around with a perpetual boner.

Voting Rights for Former Felons

Maryland was one of 11 states that banned anyone convicted of a felony from voting ever again, even after he or she completed his sentence. I'm happy that Gov. Martin O'Malley removed this ban when he signed the Voting Registration Protection Act.

Lifetime voting bans against former felons are one of the most backwards, punitive measures I can think of. We need to reintroduce former criminals into society, not shut them out more. This is silly that I have to say this, but once you serve your punishment, you should stop being punished.

These bans are difficult to overturn because as a constituent group, former felons have little influence. They are a politically-risky group to fight for, and what are they going to do, threaten to vote a politician out of office?

I'm even in favor of felons being allowed to vote while they are still serving time. I don't see the harm in letting them do so, or the benefit of further disconnecting them from civic life. In our lust for punishment, I think we focus solely on "How can we hurt this person who hurt us?" and not consider what's best for society.

I'm not arguing we eschew punishment for those who commit crimes. My point is that that we should switch from being vindictive to selfish. How does Law X help us? Forget whether it harms or helps the inmate. What will help us, namely, what will prevent a former criminal from committing a crime again?

Usually, that means programs that reconnect and reintegrate prisoners into society: prison libraries, job training, voting, and similar programs. But some people are against these programs solely because these measures aren't vindictive. It reminds me of the old saying, "Cutting your nose off to spite your face." I don't get the origin of the saying--who said our face liked our nose to begin with? But it's a good point. Why harm someone if it ends up harming ourselves? Let's do what is best for us, and not care if that happens to mean helping prisoners too.

High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions

From the WP:

• The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.

How lazy do you have to be to get the Supreme Court to tell you to do your job? There must have been a few people before it reached this point that said, "Hey, I'd hate to be a dick, but you haven't shown up for work in a while, and a few states are threatening to take you to court." How long until the Court hears the case? "Well, it may be a few years, but that doesn't mean--"A few years? Oh, sure. I'll get right on that.

Iran and the Red Wagon

I'll post some funny posts soon. Right after I try to tie potential military action against Iran with a fable...

You may have heard the children's story, "The Red Wagon". Three royal guards with superhuman eyesight proclaimed no one could sneak something pass them without them noticing it. A young boy tries to trick them by pulling a pile of leaves on a red wagon. The guards inspect the pile, scoff, and proudly proclaim there's not a pinhead of anything in the wagon besides leaves.

The boy tries again, this time with a pile of wood in a red wagon. Then a pile of cloth, a pile of bricks, and so on. The guards inspect every fiber, every crevice, and are assured not a speck of dust has escaped their watchful eye. Finally, the boy goes to them and says, "I've tricked all of you. I've sneaked something past you every day and you never noticed." The guards are incredulous and demand to know what it was. The boy leads them to the courtyard, and a pile of red wagons.

What does this have to do with Iran? The administration has been telling us of Iran's involvement in Iraq for several months now. It seems like the worse Iraq gets, the more Iran gets blamed. Many people are rightfully suspicious of the Bush administration, and some expect them to concoct a story or blow-up a minor incident to justify military action against Iran.

But how do we know that Iran is actively trying to undermine the U.S. occupation in Iraq in the first place?

The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that Iran was been assisting insurgents in Iraq. The press routinely repeats phrases like "proxy war"; commentators accept on face value that Iran is playing a large role in this conflict.

But when have we ever seen any proof that the Iranian government is actively assisting insurgents? Many skeptics have been focusing on the "leaves"--the manner in which the government may justify a war against Iran. Yet the "red wagon"--the idea that Iran is supporting the insurgents, is being ignored.

I feel like we have all jumped ahead to the conclusion without any hard evidence to justify it. Maybe it "makes sense" that Iran is assisting Iraqi insurgents. It "made sense" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. It made a lot of sense, more sense than Iran actively fanning this conflict. Yet we found out later the administration reached the conclusion first, and considering that, how could they not distort the evidence to fit what they already know?

The results was that it became dependent on the war's critics to prove that WMDs didn't exist, when the administration never proved they existed in the first place.

I wonder if we are making the same cognitive error about the degree, if any, of Iran's involvement in Iraq.

Bush Administration in a Nutshell

"In next week's State of the Union address, President Bush plans to foist fiscal responsibility on Democrats who blame him for federal deficit " (WP link)

Random Election Thoughts

* I am thrilled that President Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld. I feel like the Iraq war is at a point where this is the last chance for America to salvage the situation. We need to make many changes in the next few months to have a chance of preventing a full-blown civil war, and the first was firing Rumsfeld and replacing him with someone competent. It gives me hope that the other necessary steps will be taken soon enough to make a difference.

But let us not forget Rummy's wonderful service to the army, the country, and the art of kung fu with this Internet classic.

* Most of the newly-elected Democrats to Congress are moderates. I also sense that many people will be frustrated if there is a lot of political fighting and personal attacks. At the same time, Congress' absolute lack of oversight of the executive branch has been horrible for the country's democracy, and needs to be changed. It's going to be interesting to see how the Democratic party balances legislative progress vs. investigating the executive branch, which may poison the political atmosphere and make it difficult to get veto-proof legislation passed.

* I had other thoughts, but at this point, I've had my fill writing about politics.

Not that anyone is visiting Pancake City for timely political analysis, but...

Unfortunately, I think George Allen is going to eek out a victory of about 15,000 votes. Although none of the major networks are ready to call the race, Pancake City analyzed the county-by-county data, estimated the projected final totals, and has CON-cluuuded that Webb can't make up the ground. It's too bad--Jim Webb was, to me, a more moderate, level-headed candidate than George Allen. I'd love to be wrong.


Update: This one won't be resolved for a few weeks. Jim Webb has a 3,000 vote lead (out of over 2,200,000 votes) with 99% of the precincts reporting. There is going to be a recount, and it will take a while to complete. This is also a good example of why I am not a political analysis. Pancake City has CON-cluuuuded that I have no idea what I am talking about.

See Ya, Santorum

I am very happy that one of the most anti-gay U.S. Senators will not be coming back for a second term.

Unfortunately, the same-sex marriage super ban was approved in Virginia by a solid majority. It's already banned, but now it's in the state constitution, written with unerasable ink.

I Love Keith Olbermann

He has a talent for giving scathing yet eloquent critiques that manage to avoid descending into a polemic rant because of the truth behind his accusations. This one deals with the Bush administration use of fear as a political tool. It's 10 min. long, but it's worth to at least watch the first 5 minutes.

It Used To Be Mr. Devil

Here is an odd story of Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, calling President Bush "the devil" on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly. Afterwards, Chavez pulled down his pants, waved his rear at Bush, and said, "You can kiss my brown ass."

Okay, Chavez kept his pants on, but if you are going to call the leader of a nation "the devil" in front of the leaders of almost every other country in the planet, your pantaloons might as well have wings because they're flying off soon.

The article points out that Chavez has called Bush names before, but it was "Mr. Devil". Now, Chavez is dispensing with the formalities.

Mr. Devil does have a nice ring to it. Sounds like something an orphan would say. "Mr. Devil, can I have some more porridge?" And the devil would smile and say, "Well, the devil wouldn't give you more porridge, but maybe Mr. Devil can help a young, polite man like yourself out."

Can you understand how crazy this is? It's like a far-left version of Ann Coulter got elected president of a country. Calling a president a devil in a public forum is something a crackhead would say. How is the President supposed to respond? "You called me what, bitch?"

Whoever gave Chavez the key to the liquor cabinet in his room is going to be fired. Chavez is going to wake up the next day, hungover and groggy, and get a call from his frantic aide: "I said what? Wow. Really? They knew I was drunk, right?"

Bush Revives Gay Marriage Ban

It's nice to know that when everything is going wrong, you can still pick yourself up by bashing a gay person. We're the chocolate of bigots.

The Washington D.C. version of "You Know You're A Redneck When..."

You know your legal defense is is trouble when...

Your supporters defend you by using a video clip from the Colbert Report.

Stephen Colbert's Speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

It took a lot of guts for Stephen Colbert to attack President Bush and the press when they're right in front of him. It's on-target and hilarious (video) [about 50 min in.]

Final Cheney Update

The Cheney jokes were fun, but the event has run its course. Cheney finally did the right thing by publicly apologizing and taking responsibility for the incident. That should mitigate most of the outrage against how he handled the event. I still don't know why he didn't do this on day 1, but in the grand scheme of administration screw-ups, this one doesn't seem important enough to press further.

Medical Term Euphemism Watch

The man who jumped in from of Cheney's gun while the trigger was in the act of being pulled had a heart attack yesterday. Excuse me, a "minor heart attack" (AP). Where's Monty Python when you need them? ("It's just a flesh wound!").

The Washington Post decided that "minor heart attack" was a poor description, so they are describing it as a "cardiac event." I think a cardiac event occurs when the planets in the sky line up with the bird shot in the left aorta. In the actual article, the agreed-upon term is "abnormal heart rhythm." The type of heart rhythm one may have after undergoing a minor heart attack.

I have bad news: Whittington is dead. This whole incident smells of a cover-up. He probably died days ago when Cheney bludgeoned him to death with a crowbar after Whittington quipped, "Looks like there's two things you can't find: quail and WMDs."

"Whittington's" condition is gradually going to improve over the next week. The hospital will proclaim he is in perfect health. The Bush administration will release a short video of a Whittington stunt double shaking Cheney's hand. Then Whittington will die in a mysterious car accident, his car plunging over a road guard and into the river. His body will be found days later, smelling strangely of formaldehyde.

Print this post out while you can. I'm not sure how long the NSA will let me keep it online. I know I sound paranoid, but Hey Everybody, this is Jason. The above post is just a joke. Vice President Cheney is a valued public servant. Mr. Whittington is in good health. Since this whole post may confuse people, I will take it down soon. I am going on vacation for a few weeks, but when I come back, I will be writing lots more of the types of jokes that I like to write. Unless something happens to me on my vacation. LOL.

Why I Am Worried About America

This excerpt of a speech sums up my feelings about the last five years much better than I can hope to express them.

Have Gun. Will Kill.

I don't understand the commotion behind Vice President Cheney shooting his companion on a quail hunting trip.

One, have you seen a photo of the victim (shootee?), lawyer Harry Whittington? Kind of looks like a bird. Maybe not a quail, but he definitely has some duck in his cheeks.

Two, I know the vice presidency isn't the most glamorous or powerful position in the U.S. government, but come on. You can't even shoot a man without creating a ruckus? What the heck is the point of being vice president then? He's not even a first-term vice president. He went over five entire years without shooting someone. Be honest: how many of you thought that would happen in 2000? I predicted Cheney would eat a man by 2006. We should be grateful he hasn't decided to eat a protestor yet. He could do it. Picket sign and all. Cheney is a beast.

Mr. Whittington isn't even dead. As most of the news accounts describe the incident, Cheney didn't shoot him. He "peppered" him with shot gun "spray." Much like you would pepper a salad, and spray it with a delicious glaze of flavored olive oil.

And the hospital where Mr. Whittington is staying at describes his condition as "very stable." Mr. Whittington is doing so well that the hospital had to invent a new way to describe a patient's condition. Stable doesn't cut it. There's a new king of the hill in town, and his name is "very stable". For all the losers in stable town who think they're doing well: you might as well pull the plug now, because stable = disabled. It rhymes, so memorize it, mother fuckers.

Should the White House have informed the press about the incident instead of leaving it up to the ranch owner? Should Cheney apologize and admit he was careless instead of claiming it was an unavoidable accident? I suppose so, but demanding that the White House show honesty and take responsibility for this incident is like having a spouse that had an intimate affair with another person every few months for the past five years, and then getting into an apoplectic rage when you find out he kissed a co-worker on the cheek yesterday.

All Cheney did was shoot a man. Why would anyone believe this incident would spur personal change?

Good Ol' Virginny

How homophobic is Virginia?

Gay marriage is already barred under state law. Enough? No. A constitutional amendment was proposed to prevent not only marriage for gay people, but any type of same-sex partnership.

The amendment has to be approved by both houses in the state legislature two years in a row before being brought to the voters for approval. It did so overwhelmingly both years. The governor, a moderate Democrat (or in Virginia, a left-wing radical) is against the amendment. His argument? The amendment is so loosely worded that it may deny the rights of other straight people.

Wow.

Canada, sorry for poking fun at you last week. We need a foreign exchange program. Half of Virginians for the same number of Canadians. We don’t have ice hockey, and our beer isn’t that great, but you can legally carry a gun in the state house (I found this out when one of the delegates accidentally discharged his weapon last week).

Another Random Assortment

The election results for Canada's next Prime Minister will be announced tomorrow. Which brings up an obvious question: Canada has elections? Good for them. Just like a real country.

(Look, I need a warm-up people. You don't serve aces without some practice, and Canada's my automatic ball machine.)


"Lay, Skilling Ask to Postpone Trial"
How's 2017 work for everyone? No? Shit.


My roommate was watching a History Channel show on "USOs: Unidentifed Submerged Objects." Essentially, they're UFOs that swim under water. Here's a typical line from the show:

NARRATOR: "Some researchers believe that the lost city of Atlantis is the home base for USOs."

How many takes the narrator went through to say that without snorting milk through his nose, I don't know.

The show references an event many years ago on a dark night (of course) where "hundreds of objects burst from the ocean and flew into the air." One of the producers found a 911 recording of someone calling in about the event. Here is the beginning of the dramatic conversation, which I swear I am not embellishing a bit:

OPERATOR: "911."
CALLER: "Has anyone reported anything unusual tonight?"
OPERATOR: "Uh.....can you be a little more specific?"
CALLER: "Anything involving lights?"

And was the caller arrested afterwards for crimes against humanity? No. And some say there is justice in the world.

Happy Voting Day

It’s election day in Virginia. It’s a real "horserace". Political pundits are calling the race "neck and neck" because the candidates are "actually horses" and not "people". Tim Kaine likes to eat apples. Jerry Kilgore will crap on your children.

If you live in Virginia, I strongly encourage you to vote. The race is very close, making everyone’s votes marginally less worthless. I almost always vote, but I understand the "What’s one vote going to do?" sentiment many people have. That’s why we should take advantage of electronic voting machine technology and randomly select a person to get 10,000 votes. If you’re the person, after you vote, a flashing pop-up box will appear:

"YOU’RE A WINNER! YOU JUST GAVE WRITE-IN CANDIDATE "voting suxs" 10,000 VOTES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMPLETE A SURVEY FOR A CHANCE TO WIN $50?"

Virginia is one of the most conservative states in the U.S. When Democratic governors get elected, it’s by narrow margins. I hope the Democratic candidate, Tim Kaine, wins. Overall, he seems much more fiscally responsible and realistic than Jerry Kilgore. Also, I like his campaign policy of "No using the name of Hitler in ads against my opponent." But it’s hard seeing Virginia elect a Democrat for governor two elections in a row.

The VA Gubna Race

I haven’t been following the Virginia governor’s race closely. It’s between the president of the Mark Warner Fan Club and some guy named Kilgore. Kilgore sounds like a evil robot the Republican party devised during the 2000 Presidential race. Now he’s broken away from his masters and campaigning against Democratic candidates around the country. “VOTE FOR ME, HUMANS. I WILL PROTECT YOUR BROODLINGS AND DESTROY TAXES WITH MY METAL JAW.”

Oh, and there’s a third-party candidate. It was thoughtless of me to forget. Third-party candidates are very special people and we should give them as much respect as any other candidate. Because, one day, one of us may become a third-party candidate.

My main news source about the race has been the radio ads that occasionally play when my alarm clock turns on. The radio ad this morning was one of the best political ads I’ve ever heard. Do you know how it started? “Jerry Kilgore has a sugar daddy.” And it got better from there.

It wasn’t a throwaway line designed to grab people’s attention. It was the theme. The deep-throated announcer repeated “sugar daddy” half a dozen times in a 30-second ad. “Even when the corporation was under investigation, he kept taking their money. Taking it and taking it.” I forget the details, but by the end, the message was clear: Jerry Kilgore is a slut.

All I hope is that the TV version of the ad shows digitally alters Kilgore’s face so he’s wearing gobs of lipstick and blue eye-liner. And big hooker boots with “Tiffany” embroidered on them.

No, the Photo Isn't Doctored

I first saw this photo of President Bush writing a note to Condoleezza Rice on a liberal blog, and thought someone was making a silly joke. Then I realized Reuters took it.

What I like best about this photo is that he isn't sure that he needs to go to the bathroom. "Do I need a bathroom break? I'm not sure. Better ask Condi."

Not that I'm making fun. Sometimes