Finding a Cure for Cancer... Fact or Fiction?

In an episode of The West Wing entitled, "100,000 Airplanes", the fictional president Jed Bartlet debates adding a line in his State of the Union Address that would announce to the world that America was going to dedicate itself to finding a cure for cancer in 10 years. The following are some short scenes from that episode

Cast of Characters:
BARTLET (Jed Bartlet, President of the US)
SAM (Sam Seaborn, Deputy White House Communications Dir.)
TOBY (Toby Ziegler, Senior White House Communications Dir.)
JOSH (Josh Lyman, Deputy Chief of Staff)
C.J. (C.J. Cregg, White House Press Secretary)
JOEY (Joey Lucas, professional pollster who is deaf)
KENNY (Kenny, Joey's interpreter)
LISA (Lisa Sherborne, friend of Sam's)
CHARLIE (Charlie Young, Bartlet's Personal Aide)

JOEY [KENNY]
Did he [Bartlet] find a cure for cancer? 'Cause if he found a cure for cancer, I think that would be interesting. I think that was something we should share.

CHARLIE
Yeah.

JOEY [KENNY]
But he didn't. He wants to find a cure for cancer, and he wants to say that in the State of the Union. You know what my response would be? Me, too, but is this the first time you had that thought?

...

Note: At this point in the series, Bartlet has revealed he has MS and was awaiting a Congressional censure for his actions

BARTLET
A President stood up. He said we will land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. You know what we knew when he said that? Nothing. We didn't know anything. We didn't know about the lunar surface. We didn't know how to land one of these things. All we'd ever done is crash it into the ocean. And God knows we could figure out how to land soft. We didn't know how to blast off again, but a President said we're gonna do it, and we did it. So I ask you, why shouldn't I stand up and say we are going to cure cancer in ten years?

Silence in the room. No one responds.

BARTLET [CONT.]
I'm really asking.

JOSH
Well, how close are we to really being able to do this?

BARTLET
Nobody knows.

JOSH
Then...

BARTLET
Toby.

TOBY
It'll be seen as a political ploy.

BARTLET
Why?

C.J.
It can be seen... [to Toby] Excuse me. [to Bartlet] It can be seen as self-serving.

BARTLET
How?

C.J.
Using cancer to deflect attention from MS.

BARTLET
You think people with cancer care what my motives are? You think their families do?

C.J.
I'm saying...

BARTLET
Joey?

JOEY [KENNY]
I agree with everything that's been said, except, I don't think they'll see it as deflecting the MS. I think they'll see it as deflecting the censure.

BARTLET
Once again, why would somebody...?

JOEY
Everybody cares about motive, Mr. President.

BARTLET
I didn't...

KENNY
She said, "Everybody cares about motive," sir.

BARTLET
Sam.

SAM
Yes sir?

BARTLET
Why shouldn't I do it?

SAM
I think you should. I think ambition is good. I think overreaching is good. I think giving people a vision of government that's more than Social Security checks and debt reduction is good. I think government should be optimistic.

...

JOEY [KENNY]
Do I think people are in favor of curing cancer? Yes, I do.

SAM
So?

JOEY [KENNY]
But federal government shouldn't be directing scientific research.

SAM
Why?

JOEY [KENNY]
Because you stink at it. If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program instead of an independent investigator driven discovery, you'd have the best iron lung in the world, but not a polio vaccine.

SAM
When did you get an M.D.?

JOEY [KENNY]
I was just quoting Samuel Broder.

SAM
Who's he?

JOEY [KENNY]
The former director of the National Cancer Institute. The speech is gonna work fine. Don't overreact to the censure.

...

SAM
Good evening, Mr. President.

BARTLET
You got it?

SAM
Yeah.

He gives Bartlet a piece of paper, which he reads, all the while pacing the room. Bartlet finds himself seated on a chair.

BARTLET
This is good.

SAM
You know we can't do it.

BARTLET
Yeah.

SAM
We need to line up experts who can face the press, and in just two weeks.

BARTLET
Yeah.

SAM
Sloane-Kettering, Dana-Farber, The Cleveland Clinic, UCLA.

BARTLET
We'd want to include the Society of Clinical Oncology.

SAM
And the NCI.

BARTLET
The OMB would have to score it. We haven't identified the offsets to pay for it. We can barely tell them what the "it" is.

SAM
Clinical trials under Medicare and Medicaid, Science and Technology Democrats, the pharmaceutical companies.

BARTLET
[sighs] It was a good idea though.

SAM
We have other good ideas.

BARTLET
So we don't get water from a rock. We just do our thing and take our chances.

SAM
I think so.

BARTLET
[stands] We're gonna have to do it awfully well this time.

SAM
We've done that before.

Bartlet gives Sam the draft back.

BARTLET
Anything else?

SAM
[shakes his head] Thank you, Mr. President.

Sam exits. Bartlet walks back to his desk.

...

SAM
[pause] Here's something interesting. In 1940, our armed forces weren't among the 12 most formidable in the world, but obviously we were gonna fight a big war. And Roosevelt said the U.S. would produce 50,000 planes in the next four years. Everyone thought it was a joke, and it was. 'Cause it turned out we produced 100,000 planes. Gave the air force an armada that would block the sun.

LISA
Do you still have what you wrote that night?

SAM
About curing cancer?

LISA
Yeah.

Sam walks to his desk and fiddles with his laptop. He shows Lisa his draft on curing cancer.

LISA
Read it to me. [sits]

SAM
[reads] "Over the past half-century, we've split the atom, we've spliced the gene, and we've roamed Tranquility Base. We've reached for the stars, and never have we been closer to having them in our grasp. New science, new technology is making the difference between life and death, and so we need a national commitment equal to this unparalleled moment of possibility. And so, I announce to you tonight, that I will bring the full resources of the federal government and the full reach of my office to this fundamental goal: we will cure cancer by the end of this decade."

LISA
[pause] That was nice. [beat] I'll pass the notes along.

Sam nods and watches Lisa leave his office. As he leans back on his chair, we see his computer screen and the words to his draft. With a touch, he highlights all the words, before he deletes them. For a moment, Sam just sits still, staring at the blank page.

I don't know if there are any great truths in there, but I found it an interesting parallel to Obama's comments about curing cancerin last night's speech to Congress.

Obama also pledged a "historic commitment" to health care and said the recovery plan could lead to a cure for cancer. He also promised the "largest investment ever" in preventive care. (CNN.com)

In this case, "The Economy" could be substituted for fears of politicizing Bartlet's MS and censure.

I wonder if the speechwriters for Obama went through similar discussions?

Thanks to this site for posting the script for the episode. No copyright infringement is intended)

Real Evidence of Shoddy Journalism and Blogging

A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

...

[The comic creators of Eisenstadt] say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

This is part of what I meant by how bloggers take any tidbit of dirt they find that shows their opponent in a bad light and run with it.

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.

This past election, bloggers and the media took small pieces of stories and ran with them, gleefully, without worrying about whether they were true or even really plausible. If there was a nugget of truth, or even a hint of plausibility, as long as it made the other guy (or gal) look silly, stupid, uninformed or evil, it was repeated and expounded on.

This is why it was almost impossible to separate fact from fiction in the blogs this year. First the opinions are biased - they're backed up by facts from biased sources that were themselves researched with biased intent. Then the comments to these articles, where supposedly the great internet strength of fact-checking is supposed to come into play, revealed refutations and defense by people who had equally biased "sources" on the other side. There was no way to tell, short of personally talking to the candidates face to face, what was right and what was exaggeration, distortion, and outright lies.

I do want to take a moment to comment about my friend Rich, of the blog "Shots Across the Bow. He took exception to me in this post and on this site for painting him and his site with the same broad brush I did with a lot of other political blogs. I actually counted on his site a great deal for some well-researched commentary and it was one of the exceptions I noted in my post. I apologize for not spelling it out more completely to him before-hand, but I just didn't want to get into naming specific sites either way out of fairness.

After the post and commentary were reprinted in the Knoxville Sentinel this past Sunday, I thought some more about it and wanted to respond to his concerns publicly.

One thing I do wish Rich had done - I would have liked to have seen more posts - any posts, in some cases - dealing not with they Obama should not be president, but why McCain should be president. Or any reasons he could find that signaled positives he could see in an Obama presidency. I know I saw pluses and minuses all over the place for both candidates throughout the election, and the positive aspects of either candidates (and their VP's) deserve to be highlighted - even more than the negatives, in most cases. But that's just me, and maybe reflects more on the lack of such posts elsewhere. It's not fair to expect one person to cover the whole spectrum of political discussion - that's everyone's responsibility.

I've seen several interviews with Sarah Palin this past week where she refuted and explained - over and over, it seemed - some of the "charges" made against her. I can't imagine they're all true, but it seemed to some they were, or must have been, because of who she was and what she represented. To start with the conclusion and work backward...that's just kind of sad.

But that's politics.

Post-Election Thoughts

1) Congratulations to Obama and his supporters. I won't say it was an honorable, well-fought race (because national races haven't been like that in decades, if ever) but the man with the most votes won. Cleanly. And decisively. At least this time there's no controversy.

2) However, for anyone to think he (or McCain, had he been elected) is going to now "unite the country behind a wave of bipartisanship and unity" is sadly mistaken. The United States is still almost equally divided between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. Looking back at the venom thrown back and forth between supporters of both candidates convinces me that it's going to take a lot more than this election to bring Americans into a unifying consensus.

3) The more rabid Obama supporters remind me of the giddy newlywed couple - all in each others' faces, in love, giggling, holding hands, continually kissing and generally making those around them a little nauseous. Guys, just FYI - the euphoria's going to fade, and fade soon. Be prepared for it, and be prepared when all your newlywed buddies don't continue to share your enthusiasm a few months down the road.

4) I was impressed with Obama's acceptance speech last night. That's the first time I've heard one of his speeches where he seemed to be speaking from the heart, and not just saying what people wanted to hear. If he'd done more like that over the campaign, he might have just swayed me.

5) I was also impressed with McCain's concession speech. I was horribly unimpressed with the people in the supporter crowd there in Arizona booing when he mentioned Obama and congratulated him. Grow up, people.

6) The popular vote wasn't as close as I thought it would be. The Electoral vote was about what I thought.

7) The biggest losers of the election cycle? The blogosphere. For an information and communication medium that purports to be a haven for free thinking, friendly, informative and factually-based expression of views and opinions, I never saw for one moment the portion of the 'sphere I inhabit give me any information I could trust. That goes for the rest of the internet as well, really, but the partisanship was so rampant, and the innuendo- and rumor-based blogging never produced any good, truthful, reliable, factual and defensible information that I could trust. On either candidate.

With very few exceptions, there were hardly any blog posts I read from either side that said to me, "This is information I can trust, or opinion based on facts that were either verifiable or recorded and accessible." One post would have a fact, and 15 people in the comments would refute it - often pointing to another post or "source" that proved otherwise. I would go to the other posts hoping for perspective and the comments on those posts would do the exact opposite. They'd prove equal and conflicting "facts" to support their own premise. Often, researching topics back to an original source revealed not much more than a rumor or obviously partisan site. I went back and forth on particular issues so many times, looking for information I could actually trust, it made my head spin.

Nothing was proved. Nothing was verified. Stories about Obama's past and McCain's connections were put out as fact, disproved, discounted, ridiculed, re-proven with new facts, those facts disproven, the facts disproving the facts reinterpreted to mean the opposite...

What it boiled down to was two groups of people who'd already made up their minds who were each bound and determined to use any means necessary - true or otherwise - to show their opponent in a bad light. It didn't matter if the story was true, only that they believed it. But the irony was each side had no hope of changing the others' position - it was just a battleground to show how smart and righteous each of them were. The ones caught in the middle, the truly undecideds and truth-seekers out there, were the ones that suffered under excessive pride, misinformation and deception.

Nothing was learned. No great truths were uncovered. Nobody came out of the process truly educated in the actual strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. We all lost, really. Obama may have been elected, and he may turn out to be a good or even a great president (I hope so!). But he was not elected by an informed populace and he was not elected by a populace that truly cared about making a decision that was for the good of the country.

And for me, it started and ended with the blogosphere. The people I trusted to help me make a good decision. I'm sad, disappointed and disillusioned.

8) When Bill Clinton was elected, he was given 8 years of hell from Republicans over health care, Bosnia, Monica Lewinsky, and just generally being a Democrat. Rush Limbaugh built a career out of bashing the President of the United States. In return for that treatment, as well as how he won the 2000 Election, the war in Iraq, the economy, and generally just being a Republican, the Democrats have given George W. Bush 8 years of hell. Will Republicans immediately begin their next salvo or retaliation for 4 or 8 more years against Obama for little more than him being a Democrat? Or will they man (and woman) up and break the cycle, try to work with him and keep the criticism to the levels a civilized, democratic society needs to be?

Doubt it. But we can hope.

9) LOCAL ELECTIONS - I'm surprised Charter Amendment 3 passed and 4 didn't, because I considered #4 the bigger no-brainer than #3. I've pontificated for years to all who would listen that several current county elected positions had no business being electable. Every year citizens of Knox County elected people to offices they have no idea what they do, nor is there any discernable difference in the people they elect. They were, and are, skill positions that require skill people to be hired (or appointed) for. Ah well, at least now we've trimmed the county commission down to a manageable level. The fewer members, the less chance for corruption and less chance that corruption will rise to a critical mass level. Those thinking one commissioner is not enough to represent his or her district, and still hold a full-time job, doesn't hold water. So good for that at least.

Senator Ascendant

Tomorrow, we will elect the third person to move directly from the United States Senate to the Presidency. Both McCain and Obama are sitting US Senators (as is Biden. Palin is a governor.). The last time a sitting US Senator or Congressman was elected president was John F. Kennedy in 1960. At the time he was second term Senator from Massachusetts in his 8th year of office.

As of today Barack Obama is in the third year of his first term as Senator from Illinois, and John McCain is in the fourth year of his fourth term as Senator from Arizona. Joe Biden is in the sixth year of his sixth term as Senator from Delaware and is currently running simultaneously for a seventh term while running with Obama as VP. Sarah Palin is in the third year of her first term as governor of Alaska.

All the other presidents between JFK and today were governors or VP's immediately prior to election (Johnson: Kennedy's VP; Nixon: Eisenhower's VP; Ford: Nixon's VP; Carter: GA Governor; Reagan: CA Governor; Bush I: Reagan's VP; Clinton: AK Governor; Bush II: TX Governor).

Before Kennedy, you have to go back to Warren G. Harding to get the next most recent member of Congress who became president. (Eisenhower was General in the US Army. Truman was FDR's VP. FDR was Governor of New York. Hoover was Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. Coolidge was Harding's VP.) He was in the sixth year of his first term as Senator from Ohio when elected president in 1921. According to Wikipedia, he was the first sitting US Senator elected president.

James Garfield was a sitting US Representative from Ohio, having served from 1863 - 1881 before being elected to the presidency in 1880. Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's VP for one month before the assassination; prior to that he was Military Governor, US Senator from and elected Governor of Tennessee. Lincoln served one term as US Representative from Illinois before spending many years as a lawyer.

And so it goes, back into the murky history of the US presidency.

What does this mean? Well, in the 220-odd years of the US presidency, only 2 sitting US Senators have been elected president. A few more sitting US representatives have been elected. The vastly greater majority have been sitting governors or most recent Vice-Presidency (with a few military generals thrown in here and there).

Tomorrow there will be a third sitting US Senator elected to be President of the US.

Not that we have any choice about it now, but I think it's telling that by and large the people of the United States trust their governors and VP's - those who have had national administrative experience, rather than legislative experience - to lead our country. Or experience leading a military unit. Or experience in a cabinet position, even.

We'll see how Obama or McCain do, translate their legislative experiences into administrative. When dealing with military decisions, the last post-Senatoral president, JFK, had the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Harding's presidency was rocked with scandal in the cabinet with several members and assistants sent to jail for taking bribes.

Interestingly, both Kennedy and Harding died within a couple of years of taking office, Kennedy from assassination and Harding from a heart attack. So no sitting US Senator elected president has ever served out his full first term.



(By the way: Grover Cleveland, a man the US citizens voted in to office as president twice, in non-consecutive terms, was at the time of his election in his third year as first term governor of New York. Prior to that he was Mayor of Buffalo for one year. Just thought that was interesting, in light of all the flak thrown at Palin - not that it's warranted or unwarranted, just that it's not unprecedented.)

Conflicted

(Debate transcript found at Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)

Senator Obama said last night, regarding national security:

I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us.

That was Senator McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment.

When Senator McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators.

...

And the strains that have been placed on our alliances around the world and the respect that's been diminished over the last eight years has constrained us being able to act on something like the genocide in Darfur, because we don't have the resources or the allies to do everything that we should be doing.

Obama echoes the key disagreement that the Democratic Party has had with the invasion of Iraq since Day 1 - that it had nothing to do with 9/11, that there was no connection between Iraq and global Islamic terrorism, that it wasn't in our national security interests, and that it did nothing but inflame opinions of the US and its policies throughout the Middle East and around the world.

While those points are still in contention on both sides, he also doesn't seem to want to admit that what we did did some good for the Iraqi people. That they are undoubtedly, undeniably incalculably better off now than when they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein. We all know the things Saddam did, to his own people and to his enemies. We know the kind of country he ran, the ways he controlled his populace. We know what a place Iraq was like for years and years before we went in and liberated the country. So how can one equate Obama's previous statements with what he said just after?

When asked about what his approach to an "Obama Doctrine" might be in regards to using military force to solve humanitarian crises with no national security implications, he said:

Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.

But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.

Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.

That's going to change when I'm president, but we can't change it unless we fundamentally change Senator McCain's and George Bush's foreign policy. It has not worked for America.

That is exactly what we did in Iraq. There was a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of a dictator exacting cruel treatment and subjugation on the people of his country. It's still the same kind of situation that exists or existed during the Holocaust, in Darfur, in Kosovo, in Rwanda... The people may be different, the situations may be different, but when bad people are preying on good people and when innocent people are caught in the crossfire between warring factions that don't care who they hurt, that's when the US has historically intervened.

And Obama agrees with that policy, as he should. As we all should. But for some reason, it doesn't apply when considering Iraq - the past, present and future.

Millions of Iraqi civilians - Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds, and others - were in dire need of humanitarian intervention. The US did, and rid them of their oppressive government. No, we may not have been cheered in the streets as valient liberators, but I have no doubts that the people that it mattered to the most, the ones in the most desperate of straits, were very happy Saddam was gone.

Now, the intervening years of security and rebuilding have undoubtedly been a mess but that has nothing to do with the initial action of intervention that Obama advocates for other places around the world, but does not allow for Iraq.

In fact, it's not even Obama's fault, really. I don't blame him for having this position. It's the common position of the Democratic Party that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (see his list of reasons above). The Democractic Party has, from March 2002 onward, opposed everything President Bush has done in Iraq. They've done everything they could, from protests to talk shows to blogs to national campaigns to make their opinion known, the opinion that it was all wrong. Was it purely our a disbelief in all the reasons for the invasion - national security, terrorism, WMD's, liberation, humanitarian, etc? No, I really don't think it was.

I think they opposed him, as a group, for one reason and one reason only - the fact that they didn't believe he was elected president legitimately. That he and the Republican Party stole the 2000 election from Al Gore and the Democratic Party. And that he should be punished for it, and that his presidency and all the decisions he makes should be marginalized as much as possible.

Listen, I was as upset as anyone about Al Gore losing. I thought the whole result of the election was bogus, myself. I think Gore should've been president in 2000, not Bush. But to oppose the policies, and the man, because of the result of that election has bought this nation six years of domestic turmoil and conflict that have done more to harm us, overall, than 9/11 did (emotionally). I have no doubt there are Democrats that do oppose the war under pacifistic, legal, and other reasons - and there some legitimate arguments to be made - but the overwhelming evidence -- and Obama agrees with the reasonings for humanitarian intervention, but refuses to apply them in Iraq - suggests what was done was the right thing.

Obama will not admit this, because the Democrats won't admit it. And they won't take responsibility for the disruption that their opposition to Iraq has caused this country for six years because they can't let go of that resentment and anger. That's what caused me to turn away from the Democratic Party and become an Independent. I surely can't embrace the Republican conservative ideology, and the liberal philosophy still resonates with me much more than any other. But as a matter of public policy and practical application, it has been misapplied.

Fantasy Football - A Metaphor for Voting?

It's a fairly well-known rule of thumb in Fantasy Football that, when drafting a running back you should also draft his backup. This is called "handcuffing". If you are lucky enough to draft LaDainlian Tomlinson of the San Diego Chargers (arguably the best back in the league) you should also draft fellow Charger RB Darren Sproles and "handcuff" them together. That way if Tomlinson ever goes down with injury and has to sit out a game or two, you already have his backup ready to fill in his spot in your lineup.

Now, I've always found this practice a little odd since you never know if their backup is any good - if Tomlinson goes down, the Chargers could go to a more pass-oriented offense in his absence and Sproles may not do squat. I've always simply drafted the 2-3 best RB's available in the league at that moment and assumed one of them would always be playing. That way your 1-2 combination are always 1st string backs.

Of course, choosing this way handcuffs yourself because you miss out on some options for decent back-ups. If, say, Jonathan Stuart of the Panthers were available when your turn came around wouldn't you be much better off drafting him as a backup to Tomlinson than his real-life one, Sproles?

But some people do that, and the only reason I can figure out is they expect their top RB to be injured sometime in the season and want to make absolutely sure they have a replacement in the wings ready to take over. So instead of choosing a top RB for his full skill-set, they handicap themselves assuming he's going to check out for a while and fall all over themselves ensuring the backup is right there and ready to take over.

Ok, long, long football analogy to explain this. A lot of people criticize the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP choice because, well, to put it bluntly McCain's an old dude and might die in office. They don't believe Palin's ready or qualified to step in and be president in the event of McCain's death. I have no quarrel with anyone's opinion of Palin's readiness to take over (although you have to admit being governor of a state - any state - at least has provided a good deal of administrative experience. So she wouldn't be going into it cold at least). Still, the point is they seem to be taking it for granted that McCain's going to kick it a year or so into office and Palin needs to be a quality back-up to go in and lead the team to victory. But they don't think she's a Jonathan Stuart. Or even a Darren Sproles. They think she's the equivalent of the 5th string rookie RB on the practice squad that should never play in a real game because he fumbles all the time. And that's fine, too, as I said everyone is entitled to their opinion of Palin's qualifications and experience.

I just don't think you decide to choose against someone as the next leader of the free world because of what "might" happen to them. You choose them because of their qualities and ideas, and for what they will attempt to do while in office. To choose otherwise is foolish.

I don't care if the Second Coming of Abraham Lincoln was running as McCain's VP. You don't write off a presidential candidate based on the possibility they might croak in office and force the VP to take over.

Nor do you choose against a presidential candidate based on his age, unless you have seen ample evidence to convince you either his mind is not quite sharp enough, or his health is so bad that it's likely he won't live another four years. I think if we'd known about Reagan's mental decline in his second term (1985-88) like we do now, we wouldn't have been so quick to re-elect him to office. But again, that was a decision we would have made based on his ability to lead while in office, not what might happen if he died.

I'll try to wrap this up by putting this into football terms again. I see McCain as like LaDainlian Tomlinson from the Chargers. He's been the league a long time (for a RB) - drafted in 2001. Had his ups and downs, not the best back in the league anymore but has been pretty solid for San Diego over the years. His backup would be someone like Felix Jones - a rookie RB for the Cowboys, but toe-to-toe co-RB for Arkansas with Heisman Trophy winner Darren McFadden. Not quite as good, but still and excellent RB coming out of college.

Obama, by contrast, is Reggie Bush - 3rd year man out of USC with the Saints. Flashy, glitzy, lots of potential but still young and inexperienced. He's had trouble finding his groove with New Orleans and has been erratic (though this year looks promising for him). Biden would be like Edgerrin James of the Cardinals. Had some glory years with the Colts, been in the league since 1999, an aging once-star that's found some good years with Arizona.

So would you rather draft LaDainlian Tomlinson/Felix Jones or take your chances with Reggie Bush*/Edgerrin James? Depends on if it's very likely Tomlinson won't last the season and Jones has to take over, even though Tomlinson's potential point total will likely be much higher than Reggie Bush.

You have to be confident in the man (or woman) you elect and elect them for what they will do, not what might happen to them.

There's another analogy lurking there for those who fear Obama, if elected, is a prime target for white supremacist assassination. Not sure there's a good football analogy there, but there are some who choose against him for that reason as well. Both are good to take into consideration, but neither are good for making a final decision.



* Sorry - I just that moment realized I'd matched Obama up with a guy named Bush. That's pretty funny.

Is Hope All It's Cracked Up to Be?

I've tried to stay away from this as much as possible, but... :)

Missy encountered an elderly black man the other day that was impressed she (a white lady) was supporting a black man for president. She said:

And even today I’m still thinking about that man, and that hug, and the feeling of unity that I got with someone who I have nothing in common with. A feeling of hope that our world can change. And that’s why I’ll vote the way I will on Nov. 4th. Not because of Barack Obama’s color and misplaced white guilt. Because of his message of hope.

...

I’m just a housewife, in a suburb, and I want to believe that there is hope for everyone. For me and for that elderly Black man who crossed all kinds of lines to say thank you. Oh, sure, I’m glad that I’ve made that man happy. But he’s not the reason why I believe the way I do. I believe in hope. I believe in change. Because I’ve lived it. And I want my country to live it too. More of the same or something new. It’s up to you. Believe in hope, or don’t. It’s your decision.

I replied, in comments:

...I consistently fail to understand how a promise of “hope” - no matter how strong, no matter how pure, no matter how well-intentioned - tips the scales on whether a man is qualified to be President of the US? In a national security situation, how does “hope” make the correct decisions that safeguard the lives of millions of Americans and others around the world? How does “hope” come up with solutions to the dozens of crises that will require a President’s attention daily? What exactly is this power that you, and others believe, “hope” bestows on Obama that will give him these answers?

I am a very hopeful person, I always have been. I am deeply grateful that in many ways the racial divide is shrinking between blacks and whites. I also believe there is hope for everyone, even those who we look on as hopeless. But “hope” is a philosophical concept that requires no practical support, no nuts-and-bolts solutions. In this case it’s a magi wand that will seemingly be waved above all problems to make them go away.

Anyone - anyone - can promise hope. Anyone can promise change. Faith and hope are great ways to choose a religion, but not at all good ways to choose a human leader.

So, Missy, can you tell me how the “hope” that Obama offers translates into a successful, productive and unifying presidency?

She wrote back:

...No, I don’t think that everything wrong with our country and our world will be magically solved instantaneously at Obama’s inauguration....

...and continued to detail several policy differences between Obama and McCain that she supported.

I then said:

I don’t think that you believe the magic wand of “hope” will solve all the world’s ills, but I do think more than a few Obama supporters do believe something like that. That because Obama promises “hope”, he will do something…not sure what, but something….to cure the world. They won’t naively admit that they base their faith on this simple concept, but I see it a lot.

...that still does nothing to support the notion that Obama can be a good president. Can he? Sure. But I haven’t seen anything in your post that tells me why Obama - above all others - is the right choice.

If Joe Schmoe were to get up there and run for president, and offer you “hope” and “change” - would you vote for him? Probably not. If he offered to figure for more exploring energy alternatives before any new drilling, would you vote for him? That’s the same thing every Democrat offers. Same for several of the other platforms and talking points you mention. What is it about Obama, specifically, as a human being sets him apart so strikingly from all others that he is the man for you?

And it can’t be “hope” or “change” - anyone can promise that. We all know in today’s Washington that any and all campaign promises, by either side, are likely to be watered down, compromised, altered or simply forgotten when office is reached.

Where is this ability you believe he has to actually institute this “change”, how do you feel he has the best chance to bring them to fruition, and from where in his background (Senate, Congress, etc) does he draw the common sense and wisdom to lead us through national security and disaster crises?

At this point she hasn't responded, so I'd like to open the floor for debate.

What about Obama, specifically and personally, inspires you to believe he's the better choice for president on a practical level? It can't be in any way compared to McCain, Palin or any opposition, it has to be something detailing what about Obama in his history, experience, philosophy, wisdom, honor, whatever.... says to you, "Yes, this man will make the correct and wise decisions as Commander in Chief" and pull that lever.

Well, Thanks for the Marvelous Insight

Lord knows, I hate politics. I find no real good in the party system and especially the divisiveness and "us vs. them" mentality each of the two parties in this country take at every single opportunity. I haven't quite decided who I'm voting for this November (or if I'll even vote at all) but I wanted to comment on something.

I don't remember where I got the link (hat tip to whoever it was) but I read an article from a fellow POW of McCain's, Philip Butler, who wrote why he wouldn't be voting for McCain:

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain

I take issue with, not necessarily his opinions of the character of McCain, but the way he arrived at them and the way he presents them. I think this is telling of the whole spectrum of political criticism - ideally one should begin with a question or premise, relate facts that support the premise, then end with a conclusion that's arrived at based on those facts. Butler knows what his conclusion is already and gathers various facts and opinions that sort of sound shaky and, when combined together, somewhat support his conclusion. Kind of. If you look at it with cynical, already-decided-against-McCain eyes. Anyway, here are some examples (I've broken them up somewhat because the anecdotes are long but these are the gist):

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58....John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates....

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. ...On one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. John had a few beers, but forbid [sic] me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

First off, the author describes in particular one antic he and McCain participated in together. Of course, he neglects to admit he was just as at fault as McCain for "going over the wall" but that doesn't seem to matter. Nor does he seem to find any worse anecdotes than them sitting together drinking beers (and cokes). He hints at "other midshipman stories" but if they were much worse, why not relate one that actual has some meat to it? I will give him the part about McCain graduating near the bottom of his class being significant, but truly one's academic past only really matters when you're trying to move forward to the next step. If you've succeeded in spite of academic failings, I don't think they're too significant. The bit about his father and grandfather getting him through school is, as he says, "speculation" and not worth mentioning without it being an actual fact. He could have as easily "speculated" that McCain ran drugs, cheated on his exams or spied for the communists if he'd liked, and it would have pulled as much weight in the final analysis. Basing an argument on an "everybody knew" supposition is very weak.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years.

So...my suffering was worse than your suffering, so you're not fit to be president? That doesn't track at all, though he's beginning to build to a point later. However this inclusion, while factually irrelevant, continues to serve as an emotion-builder toward the reader to hold McCain in disfavor, as if to say if he'd really wanted to be president, he should've suffered more as a POW. Nice.

Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care.... But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

Sure, politicians control media messages in some cases but not all and while McCain may be the highest profile former POW I know of, I don't think - and neither does anyone else - that he was necessarily THE hero POW at all. Everyone who was a POW suffered, everyone who was a POW died a little over there, and all should be afforded our respect at least for that. If the media wants to portray McCain as THE hero POW, that's their prerogative. It still doesn't mean he is or is not a good candidate for president, so that argument doesn't wash either way.

John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection.... Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

Does the author believe that those who saw McCain on TV (which, admittedly, I was much too young to see at that time so I have no first-hand knowledge of how it was presented) truly believed he was the only POW? Or the only one that suffered? Again, just because the media treats or presents a person in a certain way does not qualify or disqualify them for the presidency in any way. The author just comes off as bitter of the treatment one POW got over the others in the media.

John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

Same song, second verse. No kind of indictment against McCain's time as a POW - indeed the author goes out of his way to point out that McCain served and endured honorably - yet is unfit to be president because of the way the public perceives him and his service time. I've never seen any McCain ads or publicity that paint him as the only POW to suffer, or the one who suffered the most. It's a case of someone reading context into something that just doesn't really exist the way he thinks it does.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

That's a perfectly well and good argument. I personally thinks it does go to show a person's resilience and courage but hey, that's just me. And I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. No, being a POW doesn't qualify you to be president. But it sure doesn't hurt your credibility to have gone through something like that in your life and emerged alive.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

A very valid concern that I have no argument with. One of the more serious concerns about McCain being president, and for choosing a VP candidate well. This is really the author's first point of concern that makes sense as a valid reason to NOT vote for McCain.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

This can also be a valid concern for those who know McCain personally. A personal connection is always an opinion I would welcome and give some weight to. But there needs to be more character insight than, "he's a hot head with an explosive temper." From all reports, Hillary Clinton certainly has a temper (and so did Bill. And Ronald Reagan, I believe. So did Nixon. And I don't think Teddy Roosevelt was a meek little lamb (although admittedly he didn't have quick access to nukes). I would have liked to heard more first-hand reports of McCain's temper, however, and it would take more than "an infamous reputation" to sway me one way or another.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

Well, personal opinions of the war aside...he is a Republican. And it's not a huge stretch to believe that in some of the larger issues facing the country, he might have similar views to the current Republican administration.

And I have news for everyone who thinks there are actually "outsiders" in politics. There are no outsiders in politics, especially national politics. "For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual", well, every single politician running for national office is Washington-as-usual. He might have you think that "Washington-as-usual" means Republican, but it means all politics. When you get to the national stage, the philosophical differences disappear to any meaningful degree and they all become the same more or less. Are there philosophical differences between the Mets and the Yankees (outside of their respective fanbase)? No. They're just two major league teams playing baseball, and that's how it is when you get to Washington. You can stop using that as an attack plank, because none of them are any different in that regard. Jed Bartlett or David Palmer aren't coming to our rescue any time soon.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander.

That entire paragraph could've been written by any Democratic writer, and the author completely abandons any pretense of objectivity. Thus he loses his credibility as one who had a personal relationship with McCain and was going to provide character insight. You don't have to be a fan of either party to understand the conventions of how things work - Democrats support Democrats and Republicans support Republicans. When one on either side of the aisle does so, the other aisle always expresses shock and outrage.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

So there it is - the author lays out little to no real character reasons that would convince anyone not to vote from McCain, other than the Democratic Party talking points in the previous paragraph. Which tells me....nothing more than I already knew.

Ok, so what does the author decide he won't vote for McCain as president, and wants us to know? a) McCain was a ne'er-do-well in college, and graduated near the bottom of his class, b) he wasn't a POW as long as some others, c) the media exploited his status while he was there because of his family connections, d) the media continues to exploit his POW history, e) he has a bad temper, and f) umm... ummm.... umm.... well, he's a Republican and has various Republican traits.

Yeah, that's about it.

What started as an possibly intriguing look into the past and character of a presidential candidate devolved into a political attack that was little more than a repeat of political talking points. And we learned nothing.

Way to further the public discourse. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to ignoring the Democratic and Republican conventions.

Heard on the Radio

Yesterday on the Terri and Lee Frank show on AM850 (a local ultra-conservative radio show I only listen to because they talk about local issues sometimes. And even then, it's only when Sports Talk's at commercial), they were railing about how global warming and how the "Libs" (their favorite term) misuse statistics to support their case.

Never mind that the "Pubs" do the same thing as regard to global warming, but that's not the point.

A guy called in to mention that the night before at a Knox County Commission meeting, local Commissioner Mark Harmon (that is it say, local DEMOCRATIC Commissioner Mark Harmon, who is definitely one of the only honorable ones on County Commission) mentioned that according to statistics, based on the national average of one policeman per 1,000 people nationwide, Knox County has 56 too many officers. Based on the statistics, Mr. Harmon made an observation.

I hope everyone understands what he did - he simply stated that, compared to the national average, Knox County is above that average in number of sheriff deputies. That's all. Not an endorsement of the idea, not a recommendation that we fire 56 deputies, nothing like that at all. That's extremely obvious, isn't it? Right?

Not according to Lee and Frank, as Frank proceeded to practically explode at the notion that this (every unflattering name in the book conservatives insult liberals with that can be said on the air) Democrat was calling for 56 deputies to be fired, just to make the national average. In this day of increased crime - and he proceeded to rattle off recent crimes that have been going on around the area - Harmon wants to decrease the amount of officers on the street! The nerve of this city-living, peace-loving, soft-on-crime LIBERAL!!

Folks, this is a prime example of what happens when we continue to separate into our two camps of liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican. I'm confident Frank knew full well just what Harmon meant, but saw an opportunity to attack a liberal and took it. And those listening who follow that line of thinking I'm sure just ate it up.

The more we continue to follow this traditional liberal vs. conservative model as the way to define our lives, our politics and our leadership the worse things are going to get.

The Challenge

I know there are several readers out there who have made pretty firm choices in who they want for president. At least they've made firm choices on who they want to win the Democratic nomination. I offer this challenge.

In comments below, in a few short sentences, lay out why you believe a) Barack Obama, b) Hillary Clinton, or c) John McCain would make a good president.

Not the best president, maybe not even the best choice of the three - I would just like to see what people think are the primary reasons or indications they've seen that the candidate they support has the qualifications, potential and vision to be the President of the United States.

One major rule. No rebuttals. You don't get to argue against a previous commenter's reasonings. I want to hear your personal opinions on why you feel your candidate will make a good president.

Be nice.

The Campaign(s)

Are these things still going on???

I just feel a huge sadness for those still covering, or even paying much attention to the Democratic presidential primaries. Is it from a sense of duty? Or is there actually a demonstrable interest one can generate from this sad, sad group of candidates?

Stupid Is As Evil Does, But Communication Trumps It All

I kind of like this adage:

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Source)

...but I don't think it goes quite far enough.

I've found that a lot of the problems that plague us today when there is interpersonal strife is much less likely to be attributed to one or other of the parties actively seeking to undermine the other. It's much more likely that they just don't realize what's going on.

In fact, while stupidity might be a major factor I typically feel fairly charitable to my fellow human beings and see more a lack of communication as the cause of friction and conflict. One person has a problem with another person, person A speaks to a friend, person B speaks to a co-worker, words are exchanged, rumors spread, inappropriate actions taken, all leading to hurt feelings and lack of forward momentum - all due to the fact Person A never really spoke to Person B about their conflict.

Amazing.

I'm caught up in a situation like that now with our church, but I see it everywhere - especially politics. Democrats and Republicans don't agree and hate each other not because it's in their nature - it's because they don't communicate. At least, they don't communicate with any real desire to see the other side of the argument and understand the other's position. It's not that either side is evil, and they're not (usually) stupid. They just don't know how to learn and develop ideas.

You can see that here, in an editorial in yesterday's News Sentinel by a young woman named Jessica Davis:

Ode to conservative evangelical

Liberal-infested academia despises the Religious Right for its small-minded inability to simultaneously contemplate the nuances of each side in political matters and sagaciously realize that truth is relative. But, by its very nature, Christianity demands absolutism and rejects relativity; it cannot reconcile with other religions' core theologies. These Christians, then, are merely acting rationally in accordance with what they know to be true.

Ms. Davis champions the belief that Christianity is an absolutist religion that morphs into a political philosophy. Because she - and many other Christians - believe that the absolutism of their religion must, by definition, extend to their interaction with everyone else in the world they reject the idea of open-minded communication. We don't live in a world where Christians are isolated on a hilltop and the unwashed rabble of the world are spread below, unworthy of interaction. To work through problems with people who may not necessarily believe the same as you requires communication, cooperation, and possibly putting for an effort to actually understand what they believe. This doesn't just apply to people of other religions (or no religion) but even to other Christians who don't quite subscribe to every tenet of their interpretation of Christian doctrine. Left-Behinder Capital-E-Evangelical Real True Christians (tm) don't mix with the rest of us, because we don't subscribe to their views. And as such, since the light should not have fellowship with the darkness, refuse to communicate in an effort to make the world (the one, incidentally, in which ALL of us live) a little better for all who live here.

Are they evil? No, I don't think so. Stupid? Some, maybe, but mostly I think they're scared of communicating with others and risk their world-view being shaken. And maybe learning things about other people - things that they're afraid will cause them to rethink their positions, but just as possibly will get them to strengthen their positions and understand how the world works.

So therefore, I offer:

Barry's razor: Never attribute to malice or stupidty that which can be adequately explained by inability to communicate.

Thus I communicate to you. Are you listening?




UPDATE: Ok, maybe I wasn't clear...

I wasn't trying to say that I thought people could just pick and choose what to believe in the Bible.... I just feel very strongly that there are parts of the Bible we don't understand, and some that we have misunderstood. And parts are mightily misunderstood, I think. We only have to look back 50 or so years in our history and remember there were churches in the south that were ready to preach blacks had no part in white society, because GOD said so. And they were believed.

There are people who believe the Bible tells them to condemn mightily homosexuals - not just in word but in deed, picketing funerals of soldiers who are defending this country. There are some who believe the Bible tells them, clearly, to beat their children within an inch of their life, and to horribly opress their wives to the point of involuntary servitude. And to handle snakes without fear of being bitten. And so on...

Yes, there is a Truth. And it's in the Bible, I just don't think humans have figured it all out yet. And probably never will, until the second coming... until that time no mortal or groups of mortals has a monopoly on the Truth..

Now, I'm sure that we all believe we understand the Truth. Or rather, believe our own interpretation of the Bible and God's acts, to be The Truth. And that's fine... it's great to believe. It's great to have Faith. But we have to be intellectual enough to understand that just because we believe we know The Truth, it doesn't mean we can't learn from other people. Even people of other faiths - even radically different faiths. There are always Truths to learn out there, Truths to better understand... Truths to get better perspectives on. And so forth.

You don't have to drop a belief of your own in order to understand someone else's. Communication can strengthen one's own faith, but we don't have to be so afraid that we might introduce ourselves to something so radical it changes our beliefs.

Don't be afraid to reach out to other people, test communications, test boundaries. Be strong in your faith and you'll grow even stronger.

I'm Not Running for President, and Neither Are You

Bloomberg: I'm not running for president

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has squashed the notion of running for president this year, declaring that he will not seek the White House but might put his support behind another candidate who embraces bipartisan governing.

Yeah, well, I'm not running either. So there. I win.

I'm also not running for mayor, County Commission, dogcatcher, or in the New York Marathon. Does that get me an AP Wire story? Probably not...

6th District to get a Merry Christmas this year

(from the live blogging of the County Commission meeting)

District 6, Seat A

Interim Knox County Commission Chairman Thomas "Tank" Strickland drew 6th District, Seat A from the hat.

Strangely enough, there's a little-known Knox County regulation: Tank Strickland is now also required to be the 6th District's "Secret Santa" at the County Commission Christmas party.

Catfish Hunters

Voters boot officials tied to county turmoil

Republicans repudiated the officials directly involved in the year-long political upheaval in Knox County on Tuesday, turning out all but two of those who had opposition in the county primary.

Democrats got in on the rebellion, too, with Amy Henley-Vandergriff thumping George Stooksbury, despite running a shoestring campaign against a seasoned politico in the county clerk's race. Stooksbury has been running the clerk's office since October.

Foster Arnett Jr. attributed his runaway victory over Commission Chairman Scott "Scoobie" Moore and two other opponents in the GOP county clerk's race to anger over the status quo.

The citizenry taking charge of their county combined with the NYT article that said (among other gems):

At curtain’s close, the 12 appointments included the son of one outgoing commissioner, the wife of another outgoing commissioner, the father of a sitting commissioner, a top aide to the politically muscular sheriff, and a businessman who years earlier had come out on the wrong end of a sexual harassment suit. It seems a catfish could have been appointed if properly connected.

The Catfish Hunters have practically hurled a no-hitter.

So Ironically Symbolic

One of the worst things about election time in Tennessee (one of the many bad things, of course) is the interminable litter:





Pathetic.

What makes it ironic is that the candidates' campaign staffs - all campaign staffs, nationwide really - actually think these road sign jungles represent anything more than what their candidates really are: artificial, paper-thin, insubstantial participants in popularity contests. All that matter are their names. In their eyes if you recognize the name, the more likely we are to vote for them. The more people recognize the name, the better chance they'll be elected.

Meanwhile we have to put up with scores of blighted spots like the one above (taken at lunch on Northshore Dr. near Kalamata Cafe and the Pizza Kitchen). They might as well be cardboard cutouts of the candidates waving for all the good they do.

Fossils on Exhibit

Sue the T. rex stomps into East Tennessee

Millions of years ago, T. rex was the top of the food chain. Today the T. rex named Sue comes to East Tennessee State University and General Shale Brick Natural History Museum at the Gray Fossil Site near Johnson City for a first-ever visit to Tennessee.

This is really cool, and I'd love to take a trip to Johnson City to visit. However, it occurs to me that we have more fossils in Knox County than we can handle.

They call it county government...

Lack of Updates

Hey folks, all my 2 or 3 regular readers out there - I'm still here. Twittering, commenting, but not a lot of posting.

I would love to get back to more deep, philosophical posts but have found it difficult to string coherent thoughts together. Maybe it was the stress of the month-1/2-long holiday. Maybe it's a hundred other things. I'd love to be able to write prolifically, but every time I want to start a post, I can't think of a thing relevant to discuss.

But I am here, and the site's not going anywhere. I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The Atomic Horns performed New Years Eve and I somehow mustered up my best Elvis impression for the celebration. We have two more gigs coming up at the end of January and first of February I'll be posting more info about if people want to come...

UT beat Wisconsin in the Outback Bowl and we didn't screw up too awful much. Go team, go. Titans are also in the playoffs, but will lose to San Diego on Sunday so there's that.

I can't find a single interested cell in my body of the presidential elections. I don't care about any of the candidates. Can they all just go away and let us elect David Palmer? Yeah, yeah, fiction, right. Whatever.

The floor's open - what should I post about?

Random Political Banner Ads is Funny Things...

There's a great site everybody should add to their RSS feed: Oddee - A Blog on the Oddities of Our World.

It reads like the old "Book of Lists" that the folks behind the Guinness Book of World Records put out several years ago, and I used to check out of the library over and over again. Oddee has posts like, "10 Most Bizarre People on Earth" and "15 Unfortunately Placed Ads" (which may need to add #16 after you read on..) and "50 Greatest One-Hit Wonders".

Anyway, today's topic was, "World's Most Bizarre Political Candidates", which included the likes of

• Mitsuo Matayoshi (Japan), The self-proclaimed Jesus Christ
  
• Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey (USA), The Satanic Vampire that ran for Governor in 2006, now runs for US President 2008
  
• Jackson Kirk Grimes (USA), Running for US 2008 election with "the ideologies of Mussolini and Saddam Hussein"

...and so on. Interestingly, today there was an unintended addition to the top of the list of "World's Most Bizarre Political Candidates", due in part to an unfortunately-timed paid rotating political banner ad at the top of the page:



You make your own jokes. I have no opinion one way or the other on Barak Obama, I just thought it was funny... :)

Random Citationless Quote of the Day

Yeah, the odds of Ann Coulter telling the truth is substantially decreased by her either speaking, typing or writing. I don't know her record in sign language, but I wouldn't rely on it.