New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg said, “Ted Kennedy makes the Senate the place that it is, and has for so many years.”]]> http://www.mint400.net/2008/05/that_says_it_all.html http://www.mint400.net/2008/05/that_says_it_all.html Politics Tue, 20 May 2008 15:20:27 -0600 I'm positive that this little gem made Savage's skin crawl earlier this week:

"But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba." (here)

Come again? Honestly, I'm not sure what is more disgusting about the Man from Fantasy Island: the malicously deceptive reinterpretation of history; or the manner in which the MSM, for the most part, oogles over it.

Try this: Obama needs a history lesson.

Maybe I am missing the nuance in Obama's rhetoric. For starters, when JFK and Khrushchev met it was a year prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were not on the brink of nuclear war. But, in the spirit previously only attributed to a Clinton, maybe Obama didn't actually mean met.

Since we're all about facts here. That meeting, where you know Kennedy and Krushchev actually fucking met was after the Bay of Pigs. Which gets us to the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Crisis was the result of Khrushchev's interpretation of Kennedy's weakness, through their meetings and, say it with me: the Bay of Pigs; where Kennedy pulled the plug on an attempted over throw of Castro by not authorizing the use of air support. As the Real Clear Politics article linked above states, it isn't that Kennedy wasn't willing to confront Castro, it's that Kennedy didn't have the stomach to commit and finish the job. That's the weakness that Khrushchev perceived and lead him to think that Kennedy might be able to be strong-armed into allowing the missile installations in Cuba, and if not, at least giving up something in return.

Kennedy's mishandling of the Bay of Pigs lead directly to the near disaster of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only through a naval blockade, a near nuclear stand-off and concessions by the US, eg: giving up missile installations in Turkey and agreeing to a non-invasion of Cuba that an understanding was reached. And, if you look at it from a Soviet perspective, that's not a bad deal.

I find it interesting that Barrack Obama failed to mention that in his statements. It's also worth pointing out that Kennedy's resume was considerably longer than Obama's at that point in his career, with military service and over a decade in Congress.

So there you go, now you can vote for hope. While you do, try not to be divided by, or label things with fact or understanding.

If you are looking for me, I will be under the gazeebo-type thing on creek, with a twelve-pack, a stack of semi-used porno mags and my M60. Stop by when you get a minute.

No one in the US who runs for public office has suggested that the US break with Israel to appease terrorists. Obama certainly hasn't suggested that, and perhaps apart from the really lunatic fringes of both Left and Right, that notion doesn't get any oxygen at all here. Obviously, Bush wasn't referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.

Up until now, for the most part, W has kept himself out of the presidential race. With his low approval rating he has little to add to the race. There is no reason to think that this behavior would change any time soon. There is little incentive for him to take a swing at any of the candidates. Add that thinking to the text of the speech and you have a president defending his policies to an audience that is a direct beneficiary. It's nothing more until Obama, Biden and the rest draw attention to themselves by declaring their disbelief at the assumed accusation.

I'm not sure if this is brilliance on W's part, in that I mean his baiting of the parties to name themselves. Or, is it a gaffe by a junior campaigner and then a pile-on by the other hacks in the party. Even in combination, W is rider of the week.

"The whole point of it, it's just guy time," he said. "There's no rules, there's no bathroom. It's just getting away. ... Most of it is just relaxation and having a good time. Nothing ever happens out there that can create any extra stress."

That's right. What's getting in the way of guy-time? Rules and bathrooms. Awesome. Next time I am having a great time with men, I will only think that it could be so much better without a bathroom or rules; rules like "when you have to take a crap, go into the tiny room with a porcelain fixture and make it go bye-bye."

That's not to say that a man cave wouldn't be a great thing to have access to, especially if you got to beat the living shit out of each other... for fun.

I remember mentioning to Easy that I always thought highly of Edmonds. It's a shame that he's had some physical problems as of late. I always thought he was a total gamer. With San Diego and, I think, St. Louis picking up the tab Edmonds cannot be turned down. For the record, I bet he does just fine with the Cubs this year.

Minus a hole in the pitching line-up that needs to be filled, is this not the best Cubs team we've seen since '84? Sure, it is early and injuries can always play havoc with a season. Hands down, I think this is the most well-rounded club we've had in quite some time. Skipping past the obvious Lee, Soriano and Zambrano, guys like Mark DeRosa and Reed Johnson take up the slack quite nicely. And, it is also nice to have the 2008 rookie of the year, Geovani Soto.

I like the Cubs chances with the entire NL this year.

...well, it's actually kind of catchy.

Answer quickly now... Who is responsible for the record high gas prices?

(Hint: the answer is not Big Oil.)

Still no answers?

Try this: Our politicians are.

See, unlike much of Europe and Canada, America was mostly frontier fifty years ago. Sure, we had big cities and big populations. For the most part all the spaces in between the metro areas was undeveloped. Unlike other places, it was also develop-able; flat, dry, etc. So, when the automobile came online, and by that I mean everybody could afford one and the fuel to run them was readily available from a domestic source, all those empty space filled up. The result is an urban landscape that relies heavily on the ability to transfer products and people with cars and oil. Take that to the bank.

With that said, the supply of resources to support that landscape has always been available, and pretty cheap. Once our domestic supply dried up in the 70's, partly due to supply and partly due to policy, we began to rely on other sources. America was the biggest buyer on the block. Europe didn't have the need or the space for cars, Russia and China couldn't afford them. So we got to buy whatever we needed without any change in supply. [Aside: the shortages of the 70's were created by federal price fixing. Supply ran low because prices were too cheap.]

While we were able to buy what we needed abroad, our policies began to restrict what we could produce domestically. That's not a problem unless the supply available abroad begins to shrink. Enter India and China. Now there's more buyers on the block. Simple supply and demand - you got it.

At this point, our quick riders will suggest that buy reducing demand the price will go down. You're right. Except for the fact that in order to do that, you would have to tell China, India and other emerging markets that they cannot have things the way we do (because they are bad), and convince Americans to stop moving further away from employment. Why the blank stares?

Fuel prices could also be reduced by shifting demand to another resource. Let China and India buy all the oil the need while we find something smarter. Here's a clue: oil is still the best thing on the market. Run it through a hybrid and make it more efficient if you like. Ethanol is not the answer. For starters, it's not as efficient. Specifically, ethanol has a third less energy than equal parts of gas. So, you need to burn more of it to go the same distance. Producing more of it costs more gas, unless you think the tractors all run on water. Further more, the way ethanol reacts with water, specifically condensation in pipelines, the only way to transport it is with trailers. You guys see where this is going right?

Add to that line of thinking the fact that converting a food to a fuel will only increase the price of food. Taking feed grain off the market to convert to ethanol only reduces the food supply, which raises the cost of things feed grain is fed to, like milk and beef. Converting food fields to feed fields reduces the food supply further. That leads to increased food prices that effect markets abroad and, read this carefully, cause the very things that conservation policy is trying to avoid. To say that more clearly: one of global warming policy's intents is to avoid the ill-effects of climate change, ie: food shortages, starvation, etc. The cure is just as bad as the symptom. Don't believe me, here.

In wicked simple terms, that takes us up to today's situation: Rising prices due to restricted supplies and increased demand. Got it? Great.

Then we can all agree that the answer to this little mess is not: tax the oil companies and restrict domestic production further. [Aside: if Reid's thinking is correct then one would assume that eliminating farm subsidies will reduce food prices. Hilarity ensues.] Thirty years of elective restrictions are the cause. The solution is measured, controlled development of domestic supply for a short-term goal of reducing dependancy on foreign supply and reducing prices; with the long-term goal of developing a replacement technology.

I am now considering the mullet as family tradition.

Sun Times: Sewer company linked to Daley's son closes with more than 2 years left on multimillion-dollar city deal

And if that story doesn't sound familiar:
NYT: Top City Officials Arrested in Chicago Hiring Fraud

And this, too:
Chicago Tribune: Inside Daley's machine
But you know, at least Daley deals in clout.

Where as Bag-O-Chips deals in actual cash:
Rezko trial spotlights Blagojevich, not Obama

This is low-hanging fruit that I cannot resist:
Real Clear Politics: Chicago's Misfire on Gun Violence
Chicago's annual murder rate maybe in decline, but it is still three times that of NY, in terms of population. But whatever, gun legislation does not fix social dysfunction. Ever. But we talked about that already.

Suffredin Unveils Ordinance to Reign in Gun Shops
Yeah, you know what we need? More space between the gun shops. If only they were ten miles apart and not near any schools kids would stop using their open periods to upgrade their personal arsenals. Gimme a fucking break.

This wonderfully shallow quote can be found on page one of the 2007-2008 Digest of Hunting and Trapping Regulations for the state of Illinois. I noticed it while browsing the digest this year, and while a similar (if not verbatim) declaration graces the handout every year, reading it this year filled me with a small flicker of rage not usually native to reading a hunting regulations manual. This year is different though.

This is the year that "Bag-o-Chips" as he is so often affectionately referred to on the Mint has proposed to cut one of the few state programs outside of infrastructure that I actually participate in. His office has decided to cut the controlled pheasant hunting program after this year which is the only opportunity many Illinois hunters get to get out and enjoy the activity they love... an activity many people have been doing their entire life. I'm not going to try to persuade anyone to adopt my views of the merits of hunting, the merits of this particular program, or even the merits of firearm ownership (A great shock probably to those that know me). I will simply express my disdain for the reasoning our esteemed governor gives for this cutback, an explanation which is simply an outright lie.

The governors office maintains that the program costs the state $1.3 million dollars a year to operate. The program consists of operations at three rookeries to raise the birds, and operations to transport and release the birds at a variety of state parks. What they don't disclose is that not one dollar of state money not collected directly from the hunters or sportsmen's pockets goes to fund the program. Not one cent.

Anywhere from thirty seven to forty thousand hunters buy permits in a given year at a cost of $15 a piece. All of this money goes directly to fund the program for a total of between $550,000 - $600,000. The remaining $700,000 to $750,000 needed to operate the program comes directly from excise taxes paid in the state when purchasing firearms, ammo, and other hunting equipment. Typically eleven percent. In order to make this cut palatable to taxpayers, the governor has run out the usual ruse that the program cut will save money for the state in these hard economic times. Another lie. The stated mandate of the program cut is that the employees will not be laid off, instead absorbed into other state programs... another win/win.

... Their salaries are paid for from the funds mentioned above, meaning that instead of turning the cutback into a surplus for the state (not possible to begin with) it actually turns into an extra shortfall. As the employees are absorbed into other programs, so do the costs of the employment including health care and salary.

I'm not that upset about the loss of the program. I will go out of state to hunt I guess... Just not as frequently. What really upsets me is that this is just another example from this administration of the worst in politics. Lies, misleading statements and double talk to further a personal or unstated agenda.

I marvel day after day watching the acts of this guy as he sleazes his way through my state and I wonder how people were duped into electing this confidence man in the first place.

We can do better than him. We need to do better. I don't know what else to say.

So long as you like NY, LA, Miami, Chicago, and Houston electing your next president exclusively, then ditching the electoral college is the way to go. I expect that very idea warms the hearts of people who like the policies on the coasts, but always remember this: in a democracy, you must always be willing to see the power you create in the hands of someone you disagree with. The primary fallacy of the Democrats is that Bush's failings are singular to him as an individual, ignoring the fact that they more generally represent what is possible in the role of the president. Having the "right" person, or being in temporary agreement with the views of some population, is a horrible reason to extend power.

But the article seed links to is even more troubling, as it points once again to the horrendous state of our journalist class.

Please, if you're going to report on political issues dealing with the electoral college, at least have the common fucking sense to know how it fucking works.

A simple read through Federalist Paper #68 should do. It is my fervent hope that the shame at such public idiocy will drive the reporter and the responsible editor from the profession forever. They have proven themselves wholly incapable of functioning in the one job they need to perform: writing down sentences that are as factual as possible, in a pleasing order.

They fail. To wit: "It's part of a push by a California-based advocacy group to get around the odd political math of the Electoral College and prevent a repeat of the messy 2000 presidential race."

Uh, no. The Electoral College has only one bit of math: each state is apportioned electors according to the number of senators for the state plus the number of representatives. The EC does not decide that number of representatives, so it is not responsible for the distribution of electors. The EC does not -- please, let's repeat this so it sinks in, it does not -- have any say in the allocation of the electors to the vote of the people.

Indeed, the whole "winner take all" system of elector allocation is not even Federally mandated. It is entirely a state-level decision. Know how I know? Maine and Nebraska don't work with winner-take-all elector allocation. Oh, yeah, and I know how to read.

Bag-O-Chips is just another idiot who wants to look like he's doing something without actually doing it. Nothing is holding the man back from saying "Know what, the whole winner-take-all system is screwy. Illinois is changing, no matter what anyone else does." You could then have a real argument about the merits and demerits of elector allocation. Otherwise, you're pandering.

We expect this of our politicians. We get the government we vote for. But journalists, who claim for themselves a status both unrecognized in law and clearly unearned in practice, are left to the whims of the market. Which is fine, save for the fact that it seems demand doesn't drop when the reporters prove themselves to be the intellectual equivalent of pudding.

It's funny that you never hear this argument come from a state like Rhode Island. I suppose Bag-O-Chips won't have much to worry about when the presidential campaigns focus on the top half-dozen metropolitan areas. If he's not in jail, he'll have a pretty good chance at catching the campaign.

Anyway, here's my nomination for Honorary Rider of the Week: Dr. Jonathan Shepherd. Dr. Shepherd was just awarded a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for his contributions to health and science. What did he do to win that award and our own notable HRW distinction?

"Professor Shepherd conducted the first field research comparing injuries from toughened glasses used in bar and nightclub fights to those of glass which becomes sharp-edged. His work prompted many bars to switch to tougher glass in the late 1990s, leading to a fall in injuries."

No one wants to spoil a good brawl with unnecessary cuts and broken glass in the eyes. Thanks, Doc!