I'm Not Dead Yet

Upcoming Republican Astro-Turf Events

2009-04-15T08:32:00.003-05:00

Today is "Tea Bagging Day" to protest taxes on the rich, as pushed by Fox "News" and their confederacy of dunces. FYI, here is a list of upcoming events sponsored by Fox "News" and its corporate sponsors:

"Cleveland Steamer Day" to protest the loss of manufacturing jobs

"Dirty Sanchez Day" to protest illegal immigration

"Santorum Day" to protest the granting of human rights to homosexuals

I will post dates as soon as they are available. If you hear of any others, please post them here. Thank you.

2012 Republican Convention Details Leaked

2009-02-18T19:26:00.006-06:00

A secret source has leaked information about the 2012 Republican National Convention to me. Not many details are known, but I was able to confirm the following:
* Location is to be the Superdome in New Orleans, unless there is inclement weather, in which case conventioneers will be moved to someplace in Texas, where they'll be better off anyway
* Keynote speaker at the opening dinner will be Bernie Madoff on "Why We Need a Return to Deregulation Now!"
* Dinner will consist of spinach salad and peanut butter sandwiches. Gift bags to attendees will be filled with Chinese-made toys, suitable for licking.
* Janitorial duties will be overseen by Senator Larry Craig.
* Interning at the convention will be a number of Young Republicans, overseen by Representative Mark Foley.
* Special breakfast session on day 2: "The Success of Abstinence-Only Sex Education" by Bristol Palin"
* When asked which magazines and newspapers would be given press credentials to attend, our source said "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."

The location was picked by RNC leadership in part to give an early edge to local Republican Senator David Vitter for the Vice-Presidential nomination. Look for a Palin-Vitter ticket in 2012.

The S-Word

2008-10-23T16:36:00.005-05:00

Note: If you happen to be reading this, Mr. President, please note that this post has nothing to do with swords. You might want to click on this video to idle away some time until you return to the ranch.

In order to support Republican politicians, one must suspend disbelief, ignore hypocrisy, and be comfortable with cognitive dissonance. The latest example is beyond extreme, however. The Republicans are calling Barack Obama a "Socialist." Yes, the party whose President and Secretary of the Treasury just pushed through a $ 840 Billion buyout of failed companies is calling someone else a socialist. The Republican party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress when they passed the Medicare Part D bill - the largest entitlement program since the New Deal (and one which specifically forbade the government from negotiating with drug companies, leading to much higher costs for taxpayers in order to increase profits for pharmaceutical companies).

But never mind the hypocrisy. The McCarthyite charge of "Socialist" is yet another example of McCain using campaign tactics from the 1950's (for another example, see here).

In the 1980's, the conservative movement which elected Ronald Reagan was helped along by a book called "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman, first published in 1980. The book helped promote the idea of less government regulation and laissez-faire economics, the culmination of which has been the economic meltdown of the last year.

Although I disagreed with it, the authors did an excellent job of making a good argument (ironically, Milton Friedman taught at the University of Chicago, where Barack Obama later taught). They argued that the U.S. in 1980 had an economic system dangerously close to socialism. In fact, in an appendix, they included the platform of the 1928 Socialist Party, to prove that many of the desires of the 1928 Socialists were in place already. The reader was meant to shudder and cringe in horror at the red menace which surreptitiously crept over the land, the book appendix version of the movie "Red Dawn".

But there's just one problem. Unless you're a knee-jerk idiot who only reacts to labels and doesn't look at substance, the 1928 Socialist Party platform isn't all that bad. It's a 14 point platform, and some of those points include:
* Abolishing child labor
* Abolition of exploiting convict labor
* Unemployment insurance
* Establishment of the five day work week

If you don't believe me, click on the preview in Google books here and scroll down to the appendix on page 311. Of course, there are some points addressing their desire to nationalize national resources, which would be controversial today if taken to the extreme. But if we had adult political debates in this country, instead of name calling, we could debate the pro's and con's of those positions and arrive at compromises.

So, the next time you hear a Republican call Obama a socialist, ask him or her if they are in favor of child labor. Or competing for their job with prison labor. Or want to abolish unemployment insurance. Or want to abolish weekends. Because unless they agree with all that, they too are a "Socialist."

Sarah Palin has Tourette's!

2008-10-09T11:23:00.005-05:00

I think people on the Left are more willing than are people on the Right to listen to and carefully evaluate the opinions of people with whom they generally disagree. Thus, I enjoying reading some conservative columnists, while most Republicans would not say a nice word to Bill Clinton if they were on fire and Bill was walking by with a bucket of cold water. Of course, like all generalizations, this one is false (warning: do not type that last sentence into your computer. If TV has taught us anything, it is that typing that phrase into a computer will cause it to repeatedly say "does not compute" and eventually explode).

All of which is a long way of getting around to saying that I enjoy reading George Will. He writes quite well, and while I disagree with much of what he writes, there is much to agree with. At least his arguments are well thought out and intelligent; he may not have voted for Hillary Clinton, but I doubt he would defend his position solely with the declaration that she is a "shrew," as some acquaintances of mine from the Right did recently. Perhaps it is because his intellectual honesty reminds me of an earlier era when the word "conservative" was used to describe people who avoided foreign entanglements and debt, while now it is used to describe people anxious for preemptive wars and who believe "deficits don't matter."

I came upon an article that Mr. Will wrote in 2004, describing a youngster with Tourette Syndrome. Like many of the columns he writes about individuals struggling with challenges - as we all do - it is very touching, thoughtful, and inspiring. But if you read his description of the symptoms of Tourette Syndrome, you realize that Sarah Palin surely suffers from this malady.

For example, he says the disease's symptoms "include involuntary muscle spasms" such as blinking. Anyone watching the VP debate last week had to be amazed at the constant eye twitch. Could anyone running for VP really be stupid enough to think that voters would vote for her because of her winking? Is "Joe Sixpack," as she describes him, really thinking "I lost my job, my mortgage is being foreclosed, and the government just spent $2,000 of my money to buy out Wall Street financiers, so I'm going to vote for that hot chick who was flirting with me over national TV!"

Mr. Will also says that in Tourette Syndrome, there are verbal symptoms: "the vocalizations are usually grunts, hisses, barks and other meaningless sounds." As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in a recent column, her response to one of Katie Courics questions was "nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head." Her response to questions remind me of the ~~Tin Man~~ Scarecrow, stating the Pythagorean Theorem after getting his diploma from the Wizard of Oz; it sounds impressive, but is completely wrong.

Mr. Will points out that some, but not all, Tourette sufferers vocalize obscenities. Our nation is at war in two distant countries; our government has been starved of competence, leaving citizens alone to cope with natural disasters; financial institutions have been left unregulated to gamble with our money, only to blackmail us into socializing their loses with threats of even greater fiscal calamity. At this dangerous time in our country's history, is there anything more obscene than trying to win an election by accusing your opponent of being a terrorist?

An Apology

2008-10-08T11:23:00.002-05:00

I need to apologize for an earlier post. I referred to a popular political commentator as "transgendered." Unfortunately, my editor included a link to Ann Coulter's web site, which could have led some to believe that Ann Coulter is a member of the transgender community. I know of no public documentation regarding her gender status.

I apologize to the entire transgender community.

Hacking Sarah Palin

2008-10-08T11:13:00.002-05:00

OK, so somebody hacked into Sarah Palin's yahoo email account. I just saw a story in which the person charged with the crime is pleading not guilty.

I say, big deal. I can't be the only person who could have figured out that her password was "gwb4ever!" Anyone with a password that easy to figure out deserves to be hacked.

But at the risk of being accused of being a member of the liberal media elite, how come there are no stories following up on the crimes that the hacking documented? Namely, Palin was copying the Bush Administration's illegal technique of using private email addresses to avoid open records laws. Palin can call Obama a terrorist sympathizer, and the media repeats it ad nauseum. But we have clear evidence that Palin broke the law, and there's nary a peep.

Has GWB really succeeded in setting the bar on decency in public office so low that the multiple illegal acts commited by Palin (troopergate, receiving bribes while mayor, etc.) warrant no discussion? I am truly becoming scared for the future of our country.

Thank God for George W. Bush

2008-10-05T14:40:00.007-05:00

The regular reader of this blog (Hi Achmed!) may be puzzled by the title of today's entry. I have been a frequent critic of still-President Bush. But unlike right-wing critics, who wouldn't say something nice about Bill Clinton if he had saved an orphanage from nuclear attack, we on the left must give thanks when it's called for.

Sure, we've spent the last 8 years wishing we had a President who could interpret "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S." as some kind of warning. Or who could quickly evaluate the relative importance of responding to attacks on the U.S. versus the reading of "My Pet Goat" (spoiler alert: the goat ends up fine). Or who would spend time thinking about Osama Bin Laden, and keep our armed forces searching for him, rather than diverting them against a country that poses no threat to the U.S. but who tried to attack his daddy. Or who would keep his oath to protect and defend the constitution. Or who would obey laws. Or who would understand that a briefing that warns him that the levees might break when a hurricane hits New Orleans means that people have in fact foreseen that the levees might break. Or who could figure out that an unregulated financial industry that bases the country's entire economic safety on loans provided to people with no known income might not be a great idea. Or who could pronounce "nuclear."

But that's all in the past. Now, the country is in a financial crisis, and if there's one thing this country needs, it's an expert in financial bailouts. And if there's one thing Bush knows about, it's financial bailouts. He's the freaking Albert Einstein of receiving financial bailouts. Every company that he ever ran, he ran right into the ground. He always ran to his daddy, and his daddy always got his buddies to rescue him. Including his buddies in the Bin Laden family. And Bush walked away from each debacle with a nice golden parachute. Finally we know what the Republicans meant when they called him the "CEO President."

But, you ask, what can we do when our expert in financial bailouts leaves office? There is only one choice: John McCain. After all, who could know more about failures in the financial industry than a founding member of the Keating 5? And, if you review his economic plan, you have to admit he knows what he's talking about (when you review the video on his plan, pay particular attention to his tip to "avoid talking about your current wife." Majorly good advice there).

VP Riddle

2008-09-29T20:52:00.001-05:00

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle?

A: Lipstick

Riddle me this

2008-09-18T11:35:00.001-05:00

Q: What do you call a woman with teenage children who believes in abstinence-only sex education?

A: Grandma

Life without a DVR

2008-09-14T17:52:00.003-05:00

I started using a DVR about 3 years ago, and have not watched a TV commercial since then. An hour-long show can be watched in 45 minutes; a baseball game in 2 hours; a football game in 1 hour; a soccer game in 37 seconds.

This weekend, however, I started watching a football game before it was over, and ended up having to watch the 4th quarter in "real time," including commercials. It was quite a surprise! Apparently, there is an election going on. I didn't learn a whole lot about it, because the mute button still worked, but here is what I learned.

It is truly an unprecedented election. The Democratic candidate is an African-American named Barack Obama. The Republican candidate is a woman, Sarah Palin. I didn't learn much about either one with the volume off, but I'm leaning toward that Palin woman. She seemed very nice, and very pro-family - I noticed that her grandfather is in every commercial with her! Tell the truth, if your granddaughter was running for President, wouldn't you just love it if she included you in her TV ads? The old guy really seems to be getting a kick out of being in the ads!

I am very disappointed in the Obama campaigns. As you have no doubt read in other blogs, his campaign is attempting to make political use out of that Palin woman's family. I say, family is out of bounds! But I watched as just about every Obama campaign ad has a picture of Palin's grandpa in a passionate hug with some other old guy. OK, we get it; Palin's grandpa is gay. There's nothing wrong with that, and trying to make political capital out of it is very, very wrong. Two creepy old guys loving each other may be revolting to you, but it is none of your business, so leave them alone!

The Democrats are on thin ice with the gay community with these ads. They need to be careful, especially since the Republicans have eagerly embraced a popular trans-gender political commentator. Beware, Democrats, the LGBT community may desert you! Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Upcoming October Surprise

2008-09-05T11:04:00.002-05:00

Last night I was half-listening to McCain's acceptance speech when he started talking about the people of Georgia. No, he wasn't appealing for their 15 electoral college votes. He was pledging support for the people of the former Soviet republic, recently under attack from Russia. My first reaction was "why the hell is he saying that?" The American people are seriously concerned about the huge increase in peopling not being able to pay their mortgages, increasing unemployment, overwhelming budget deficits, an unending unnecessary war in Iraq, and the daunting threat of global warming. So why then is McCain talking about a country many Americans have never heard of, and most of them couldn't spell its capitol city if spotted the "Tb?"

Then I remembered the current trip by Darth Cheney to the region. The Vice President of the United States is pledging U.S. military support for the region, without Congressional involvement as required by that quaint document, the U.S. Constitution. This monumental commitment of U.S. armed forces has gone largely unreported by the media. His personal appearance at countries in the region is no doubt to put in motion events that one cannot put on paper or email, for fear of future historians.

I believe that in mid- to late- October, one of the countries in the region (Ukraine is my best guess) will announce itself "attacked" by Russia. Like the gulf of Tonkin attacks, Poland's "attacks" on Germany in 1939, and Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, the evidence of the attacks will elude future historians. But the compliant MSM will reprint administration press releases such as "Administration sources said that Russian troops crossed the border this morning and disconnected baby incubators in the hospital in....." John McCain will just happen to have a hard-hitting, agressive anti-Russian speech prepared to deliver, announcing the imminent threat to U.S. interests (never mind what those might be, look at that shiny ball over there) and his determination to kick Russian butt and not appease them like those cowardly Democrats will.

You might be thinking, Why not fake a threat in Iran as an October surprise? First, these are Cold Warriers, pining for a fight with the U.S.S.R, and when you lie, a lying about something you know about is much more believable. Secondly, most Americans have "Middle East" fatigue and the administration has no doubt run plenty of focus groups showing that the public is not eager to commit forces to yet another middle eastern country. More fear can be generated by an agressive Russia and headlines screaming about a threat to Georgia. War is, remember, god's way of teaching geography to Americans.

Caution: Do Not Drink Your Own Kool-Aid

2008-09-04T14:42:00.004-05:00

OK, I understand the Republican strategy. Nominate a right-wing wacko who doesn't believe in sex education, evolution, gravity, or separation of church and state. Doing so fires up the nutcase base, generating tons of money that can be spent on advertising and improve turnout from that base. Moderate Republicans have learned that the extreme conservative rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, and will not actually result in any action once the nominee is in office. The far-right social conservatives are too stupid to notice that despite their undying financial and voting support for the Republican party, Harry Potter novels are still not banned and local school boards mostly continue to teach actual science.

So I understand McCain's decision to make Palin his running mate. It's the Rovian game plan, and it's worked in the past. I'm disappointed, like all independent voters must be. We liked the John McCain who stood up to the "agents of intolerance." But it's not his first flip-flop, and the straight talking ship has long since sailed.

But if we accept that naming a social arch-conservative made sense from a fund-raising and nut-job turn-out perspective, the question is, Why Palin? I started to think who I would have named to serve that function, and the more I thought of it, the more I realized that Obama is lucky that McCain didn't do so. Because the far more daunting challenge for Obama would have been a McCain-Huckabee ticket.

Yes, Huckabee. The man is a great speaker, his appearances on Colbert were great (with potential for attracking the youth vote), he has lots of experience, and most importantly, after running for President for a year, there can't be much if any uncovered dirt. He's been properly vetted by the media already, eliminating the Palin-like drip drip drip of embarrasing revelations that distract from getting a message out. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is certifiably insane, but he would be a much better VP candidate than Palin.

So why Palin? I can't think of a single advantage she has over Huckabee. The only rational explanation is that McCain swallowed some of the Fox "News" Kool-Aid and came to believe that there's a large number of women who supported Hillary who are just dying to switch parties if only he'd name an unqualified anti-choice woman under an ethics investigation as his running mate. You know, the women who think that being pregnant at 17, as long as you're going to get married, is a fine goal in life for their daughters.

Now, the reality is that the number of such women who would switch from backing Hillary to voting for a McCain-Palin ticket is about the same number of people who won't be voting for Obama because of his refusal to name Dennis Kucinich as his running mate. Suggesting that women voters will vote for a female candidate regardless of how much they disagree with her positions is an insult to women.

So I can only conclude that McCain spent too much time watching Sean Hannity et al repeat anecdotes about individual women upset at Obama and fell for the agitprop. Drinking the Kool-Aid as it were. Either that, or the concept of women having the right to vote is so new to him that he thought they would vote for any shiny bauble he put in front of them. McCain would be better served if he telegraphed the butlers at his houses, however many of them there are, and told them to change the station of the televisions to something other than Fox "News."

Sarah Palin: The Republican Thomas Eagleton

2008-09-02T17:46:00.007-05:00

For those of you who are too young to remember the 1972 Presidential election, read up on Thomas Eagleton in the wikipedia entry here.

In a nutshell, the Democratic candidate, George McGovern, named Thomas Eagleton as his running mate nominee, and the media dug up negative information about him to force McGovern to withdraw his offer, and name a replacement. Embarrassing all around, and it certainly contributed to McGovern's overwhelming loss that year (although, with the Republicans committing multiple felonies to secure Nixon's re-election, it was a lost cause anyway).

In an ironic move for the pro-torture Republican party, the embarrasements about Palin continue to drip out like Chinese water torture. Here are some of the analogies between Palin and Eagleton:

Both nominations were made after minimal background checks; see today's article for McCain's shocking incompetence.
Both appointments were made after multiple better-qualified people turned the position down (with Palin, that's an assumption at this point, although surely McCain would have picked a Republican not under an ethics investigation, such as.....uhm.....well, I can't think of any just now, but surely there's a Republican mayor of a town of 6,500 people SOMEWHERE in the country not under an ethics investigation. Isn't there?).
The Presidential candidate initially backed his VP nominee, only to later ask the nominee to withdraw (again, with Palin that's an assumption, but if she doesn't withdraw, Obama will be able to act like George Bush being given a national security memo warning of an imminent terrorist attack, and take a month long vacation before the election).
With both nominations, the public wasn't particularly concerned, but the media attention was a distraction from the Presidential candidate's messaging efforts, leading to the withdrawl of the nomination.
Both nominations cast serious doubts on the Presidential candidate's judgement (if McCain chose Palin in broad daylight, who would have chosen if called at 3 a.m.? James Stockdale? Dan Quayle?).
Both Presidential candidates' last name begins with "Mc".

There are differences, of course. The biggest is that in the 1972 election, McGovern only won one state and the District of Columbia; there is no way McCain will win the District of Columbia in 2008.

Also, Eagleton was nominated before the Internet series of tubes was invented, so he never had a blog. You should definitely read Sarah Palin's blog here.

Movie Review - Get Smart

2008-07-14T14:49:00.002-05:00

I know, a little late to review this movie. But I just wanted to encourage people to see this movie, if you're in the mood for a lighthearted comedy. I held off seeing it, because I was discouraged by some bad reviews. I'm glad I went despite the reviews. It's fun; not a great movie, but definitely worth seeing.

I think I was turned off by the reviews that said that the movie was different from the TV show in how it portrays Maxwell Smart. The reviews I saw made it seem like the movie character was much smarter than the TV character. Having seen the movie, I kind of see what they meant, but I don't agree. Maybe my memory of the TV show is failing, but I don't think the TV character was a complete idiot or something. Yes, he did dumb things, but quite often (once a show?) did something smart enough to catch the bad guys. Yes, the movie character is a shade smarter than the TV character, but not enough to radically change the experience. It's a different shade of the same color, not a different color.

I loved how they worked the old shoe phone into the movie (can young people even imagine how fantastic is was to imagine that one day someone might have a wireless phone, as small as a shoe?). And a nice cameo or two; I won't say more because I don't want to spoil it.

Summer is for light, fluffy, funny movies you can take your kids too, and Get Smart fits the bill nicely. It deserves an Oscar. Would you believe a People's Choice Award? Would you believe a Blockbuster Award? Missed it by that much....

Appeasement

2008-05-15T16:55:00.002-05:00

Recently, lame duck President Bush compared anyone who questions his endless wars to Nazi appeasers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080515/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_82). "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said.

Because he is probably the most ignorant President this country has ever had, he surely didn't understand the irony of his comparison. Let's review Germany's invasion of Poland. Prior to the invasion, Germany signed a secret treaty with the USSR to divide up Poland. When Germany invaded Poland, they first tried to make it look as if Poland had attacked Germany; Germany's response would then be self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident). In other words, Hitler faked evidence that Poland was an imminent threat to justify his invasion and occupation of Poland.

In 1939, world leaders were smart enough to realize the evidence was faked and that Hitler was the aggressor in an unprovoked war and Britain and France soon declared war on Germany. The German people no doubt believed the SS propaganda of Poland's supposed attack, and few opposed Hitler. Today we judge the German people to have been liable for supporting the criminal actions of the madman who acted in their name and with their tacit and/or explicit approval.

In 2003, another world leader faked evidence to support an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a country that posed no threat, and divided up the invaded country with his principal ally in the war. He and his highest level advisers plotted and approved war atrocities against their enemies.

Mr. Bush, and the Republicans in general, are benefiting from the dismal knowledge of history by the American people. When judgment is due, will we claim to have just been following orders?

Bell Labs Holmdel

2008-03-02T12:55:00.004-06:00

Bell Labs in Holmdel, N.J., is for sale

In the summer of 1985, I graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, got married, and moved 1,000 miles to start a new job with AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey. My first visit was to a massive building located in Holmdel, NJ (I still remember spelling it "Homedel" when I mailed in my employment forms; the woman giving me the address apparently assumed the entire world knew how to spell Holmdel).

I remember the building being the most impressive building I had ever seen, and it may still be. A quarter mile long, the outside entirely dark glass. A huge water tower on the grounds, with 3 legs, signifying the three terminals of the transistor invented by Bell labs. Inside, six floors rose above an open floor. A coworker told me that when she was interviewed for her job, she was asked how the plants at the top of the interior were watered (it was a trick question; the plants were fake).

The grounds surrounding the building are huge (473 acres according to the article referenced above). When we moved to the area, I bought a county map and was shocked to see the semi-circular driveways to the building shown in the map. I remember after one major snowstorm (at least according to the locals; coming from Wisconsin I never experienced what I would call a major snowstorm in NJ) hearing that Bell Labs had lent Monmouth County their snowplows to assist in clearing roads, since the county was overwhelmed.

To me, the building in Holmdel represents a lot of things. My first post-college job. My first time living far from where I was born. Starting a new life with my bride. The pride of working for what was then the most prestigious R&D organization in the world. The friends I made, most of whom I have lost touch with.

Today, reading the above article, I learned that Holmdel building is no longer occupied, and that it is to be sold, probably to be demolished. I guess I could reflect on the decline of a world-class organization, or on how old I have become, or on how my life has changed. But more than anything it reminds me that all things in this life are transitory - a word that shares it etymology with the transistor.

Why I'm Not Running For President

2008-02-26T12:18:00.002-06:00

Sorry to disappoint you all, but I have decided to not run for President. I know that America would greatly benefit from the insightful media coverage of my innovative plans to benefit the country. However, the media scrutiny would reveal the following scandals in my past:
1) On a visit to my ancestral homeland of Germany, I wore lederhosen, and photographic evidence exists. The un-American implications are obvious.
2) My father is a Christian. Yes, he practices the same religion as Timothy McVeigh, perpetrator of the biggest act of terrorism in America prior to 9/11. Clearly this disqualifies me from a position of public trust.
3) My middle name is Arthur. Yes, spare me the jokes I've heard a million times, I share the name with failed President Chester A. Arthur. The shame!

True, the American people might want to hear the specifics of my perpetual motion machine. But the wise media would focus on these seemingly inconsequential coincidences. American democracy depends on the agenda setting of the Fourth Estate.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

2008-02-06T15:22:00.000-06:00

The day after Super Tuesday, things are looking good for the Democrats. They have two major candidates, either one of which should beat any of the Republican candidates in the general election (I believe Obama has the best chance of winning in the fall, but Clinton will be formidable in the general if she's nominated). So, how can the Democrats screw this up, as is their habit?

I believe the Clinton camp can hand the general election to the Republicans if they resort to self-serving tactics to win the nomination at the convention. First, there are a large number of "Super Delegates," party regulars who are not elected by voters. The Clinton camp could use intense pressure to bring them into line behind her candidacy. Secondly, the Clinton people are already talking about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, despite the previous decision to take away their votes. Fighting for those delegates, who just happened to go her way, despite their flouting party rules, would rightly be seen as unfair.

Either action would be seen as dirty politics and very un-democratic (small "d"), as well as insider-politics-as-usual. It could tear the party apart (once again!) and discourage voters, particularly the young, newly-enthusiastic voters Obama has brought to the primaries. Unfortunately, if the Democratic nomination is not decided before the convention, I don't see any way that Clinton would not stoop to these tactics.

Therefore, if Obama does not sew up the nomination before the convention, I hope that he withdraws for the good of the party.

I know, it's a long way to the convention, and hopefully the remaining primaries will decide the issue within the next month. But if they don't, prepare for another round of Democrats eating their young....

Air Travel: It could be worse

2008-01-22T12:49:00.000-06:00

The following is a comment I posted in response to another blogger who complained about lost baggage from a recent flight on American Airlines. I thought it worthy of a post of its own:

I too flew American Airlines over the holidays. With my wife and children, we returned from Austin, TX. The stewardess started to serve drinks, when all of a sudden she started collecting them back, saying "something's wrong." The pilot announced that they had to shut down one of the engines due to lack of oil pressure, and were making an emergency landing in Dallas. The stewardess went over safety instructions, for real this time, not the perfunctory way they do before take off. She moved some people out of the emergency exit rows and replaced them with some young men who looked more capable of removing the doors in an emergency, the procedure for which she went over with them. She instructed us in the proper position to sit for maximum safety (arms crossed in front of your face). She did an excellent job keeping people calm yet prepared.

The descent into Dallas was rougher than normal, which the stewardess said was due to only having one engine (my pilot-nephew later said that was a lie to keep us calm; he speculated the pilot of the plane was probably in his early twenties and performing his first actual emergency landing, and was no doubt nervous). We landed safely, surrounded by police cars and fire engines who quickly inspected for damage. The attention was unnecessary, but you can see why they make the extra effort to be safe.

Upon arrival at the gate in Dallas-Fort Worth airport (an unplanned stop, as I described it) American Airlines put us on new flights back to Madison. We arrived 3 hours later than planned, and two of our suitcases didn't arrive until the next day.

While I appreciate your frustration, and I certainly am no fan of the way airlines treat us like cattle at times, an experience like ours puts some well-needed perspective on the air travel experience...

If Karl Rove was a Democrat....

2008-01-11T18:12:00.000-06:00

....here is how the Democrats would campaign in the general election, depending on the Republican nominee:

Giuliani: Always refer to him as "that New Yorker Giuliani," emphasis on the first syllable in his last name. Especially effective in the South and Midwest.

Huckabee: Phone calls from phony "pollsters," asking likely voters in key battle states "Would your view of Mike Huckabee change if you knew he had 2 illegitimate black children?"

McCain: Whisper campaign: is he a Manchurian Candidate, sent to us by the North Vietnamese?

Romney: Casually bring up the phrase "magic underwear" in every speech. As in, "I'll wear my jockeys in the Oval Office, not some pair of magic underwear!"

Thompson: Talk in that loud voice you use to talk to your Grandfather whenever you talk about him.

Ron Paul: He's insane. Arguing for smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility: since when has a Republican ever stood for those things?

Call it what it is: Treason

2007-12-19T10:10:00.000-06:00

According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason), here is the definition of treason:

1.	the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.	a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3.	the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

According to previews from former White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6994.html), President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove were involved in McCellan's providing false information to the American people about the Valerie Plame outing.

Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent in charge of nuclear anti-proliferation. Outing an undercover CIA agent, especially during a time of war, is a violation of allegiance to one's state. The cover-up (obstruction of justice) is as bad as the crime. I'm sick of the media dancing around the issue when talking about Scooter Libby, Bush, Cheney, and Rove. Call it what it is.

Why my corporate bosses hated me so

2007-12-06T17:45:00.000-06:00

Well, now, time for a first serious post on my blog. Actually, my first blog was written on an Underwood. But then, I still answer the telephone machine with "Ahoy hoy!"

I believe my corporate bosses hated me so because we had completely different ideas on the relative importance of employees. Corporate minions believe that one's importance depends on his or her level in the organization. Middle level managers are more important than the employees they manage because, well, they're higher in the hierarchy, receive higher pay, get to suck up to higher level bosses, etc. Executives are more important than middle level managers, and the CEO is as near to God on Earth as we mortals will ever see.

I've always thought that the inverse is true. The most important employees in any organization are the customer-facing employees, and those that support them are next most important, etc., until one gets to the CEO, who is completely interchangeable with any other CEO at any other corporation. They grow CEOs in pods and should one experience a fatal accident, another is dropped in without missing a beat. Sure, your former CEO may have exhorted you to "think outside the box!" while the new one wants you to "Develop a new paradigm!" but it really doesn't matter much in the long run. The technician who sees a hundred paying customers a day, and who can either keep them as happy paying customers, or piss them off so much they leave, depending on the results of his/her favorite sports team last night, seems to me to have more impact on the bottom line.

I realize this comes from a career of having spectacularly incompetent middle-level managers. The manager who required his assistant to print out every email he got. My first boss, who on my first day at the corporation after moving 1,000 miles to work for the company, decided to take a two week vacation without telling anyone. But my favorite is my boss who was almost completely out of contact with any of her direct reports (but who spent hours on the phone with her own boss). I would go weeks without hearing from her - and I was certainly not "empowered" in the job, as I needed her approval for anything more complicated than going to the bathroom. Finally, I got her on the phone and asked her if we could schedule a half-hour every other week, just to talk on the phone to resolve outstanding issues. She called me "needy." She then retreated, and said she didn't mean that I was "needy" in a negative way. This was years ago, and I have yet to understand how someone could be "needy" in a positive way.

But upon further review, perhaps my inverse-pyramid theory of importance in a corporation needs adjustment. After all, the CEO can have impact the organization. Jerre Stead was an inspirational leader at AT&T Global Communications Systems, and actually achieved positive changes to the corporate culture (he gave his home phone number out to everyone, and told employees to leave meetings after 10 minutes if the subject was not customers or the competition). And, some CEOs have had Katrina-like impacts on corporations (I'm looking at you, C. Michael Armstrong!).

So, perhaps my theory of corporate importance should really be the "doughnut view." The customer-facing employees are extremely important, as are the very highest level of executive, while everyone in between is worthless overhead that does nothing but waste space and interfere with working employees' ability to get anything done.

Oh, and to answer the question: my corporate bosses hated me so because when they were incompetent, I let them know that I knew they were incompetent (most middle level managers secretly know that they are unqualified for their job, but can't admit it for fear of being unmasked to their employees). I never mastered the art of pretending someone was worthy of respect when they were not, and in fact I never even tried. If I had mastered that art, I would be a well-paid middle-level manager at a major corporation today! There but for the grace of God.....

I'm Not Dead Yet

2007-10-18T09:35:00.000-05:00

I can dance and I can sing.

I feel fine

Jon