Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Misdirection and a Smile That Isn't
Errol Morris' new blog post examines one of the most famous and disturbing Abu Ghraib pictures. His essay will make you re-think some of your reaction to it, and his analysis will ring true with things you already know to be true, starting with this: not all smiles reflect joy.

Some of the pictures are disturbing, and the account is horrifying, but I recommend it, if only to reshape your opinion - which like mine may have been hastily drawn - of Sgt. Sabrina Harman.

If mine was a decent blog, I would have a substantive response, something contrary or at least insightful to say. But all I know to do is point you to it and see if it might resonate in your head the way it will in mine for quite some time. It asks - I think - profound and difficult questions about a serious subject, and does it in a way that is hauntingly personal.

Here are a couple of highlights, but you really need to work through the whole thing:
There are many photographs of al-Jamadi’s body, but it is the photograph of Harman with his body that stands out among them, the photograph of a pretty American girl who is alive and a battered Iraqi man who is dead. The photograph misdirects us. We become angry at Harman, rather than angry at the killer.

We see al-Jamadi’s body, but we don’t see the act that turned him from a human being into a corpse. We don’t understand what the photograph means, nor what it is about.

Instead of asking: Who is that man? Who killed him? The question becomes, Why is this woman smiling? It becomes the important thing — if not the only thing. The viewer assumes that Harman is in some way responsible — or if not responsible, in some way connected to the murder — and is gloating over the body. How dare she? Isn’t she in the same photograph as the body? Looming over the corpse? And even if she is not guilty, she stands in (in the viewer’s imagination) for those who are.

And so we are left with a simple conundrum. Photographs reveal and they conceal. We know about al-Jamadi’s death because of Sabrina Harman. Without her photographs, his death would likely have been covered up by the C.I.A. and by the military. Yes, at first I believed that Harman was complicit. I believed that she was implicated in al-Jamadi’s death. I was wrong. I, too, was fooled by the smile.
And then there is another explanation for our visceral reaction. In the course of his work, Morris interviewed a facial expression expert, Paul Ekman, who teaches psychology at UC-San Francisco. Ekman said this:
When we see someone smile, it is almost irresistible that we smile back at them. Advertisers know that. That’s why they link products to smiling faces. And when we smile back, we begin to actually experience some enjoyment. So this photograph makes us complicit in enjoying the horrible. And that’s revolting to us.

So why it is such an upsetting photograph is not just because we see someone smiling in the context of the horrible, but that when we look at her, we begin to have to resist smiling ourselves. So it’s a terrible, terrible picture for that reason alone.
I am both looking forward to, and a little afraid of, Morris' new film on the scandal and the photographs that launched it, Standard Operating Procedure.

Monday, May 19, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. Chronicles of Narnia
2. Iron Man
3. What Happens in Vegas
4. Speed Racer
5. Baby Mama

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Wow
Obama rally in Portland, Oregon.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Republicans are Simply Batshit Insane
How else to describe this?
Short Bits
Believe it or not, lots of important stuff - actually important stuff - happened yesterday. But there's other stuff in here too.

Gay and lesbian couples are lining up (again) in CA to get married now that the state's Supreme Court dramatically ruled marriage a basic civil right under state law. Of course, detractors have already prepared for this, with petitions ready to go that will put the issue to a ballot test in November as a constitutional amendment. Apparently, this is a little different from the Mass. decision, every couple - not just residents of the state - can go to California and get married, even though your state may not recognize it. You can read the opinion here (pdf), if you are into that.

The Farm Bill passed. And it's set to override Bush's veto. The compromise is essentially this: we don't get a needed major overhaul of the bloated, backwards, damaging commodity subsidy system in this country, but we do get a huge increase in food and nutrition programs. The awe-inspiring group Bread for the World calls it "half a loaf." Better than nothing.

Mark, this one's for you, er, for us. Michael Pollan ("Omnivore's Dilemma") wrote a great piece in the NYTimes Magazine a few weeks ago that I keep forgetting to link.

Bush - still a jerk, but at least being called on it.

The woman who drove a teenage girl to suicide by posing as a teenage boy admirer in a scheme of humiliation was indicted by a federal grand jury. She deserves whatever she gets, even if it's just the hassle of beating the charges.

If you lost your dog and you are in Florida, maybe the pythons ate it. If you live in Houston and your computer doesn't work, maybe "crazy rasberry ants" ate it.

If you have 7 minutes or so to spare, you should watch the Daily Show's coverage of West Virginia's primary - the show at its hilarious and depressing best.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Time To Move On
I have to say that it's just a couple of days in a row, but now that she's stopped the Obama attacks and nasty politics herself, I don't much care that she hasn't conceded and think what she's doing is fine. Pile up delegates, shoot for a resolution of FL and MI and wait for enough superdelegates to come in for Obama that it's decided. Her constitution won't let her say "I can't win, so I quit." She wants him to have to win. Fair enough. So long as she keeps up the party unity talk, and emphasizes that she thinks she would be better, not that she thinks he can't win or would be some kind of scary disaster for Democrats, it bothers me far less, because it's easier to ignore. In fact, I updated my delegate obsession post below today, but am thinking it will be the last update. Because it's pointless (maybe one more check in after we see what's going to happen with FL and MI). Obama will be the nominee. On to McCain!!
VP Choices
Obama needs to win. He needs to pick a VP candidate that doesn't just make him feel good and compatible, but one who will help win electoral votes in a map that will probably still be pretty divided. So which ever one of the following can *most likely deliver* the state(s) in question should be the pick.

Hillary Clinton - uniting the party, overcoming Obama's lack of support among elderly and poor working-class voters to win FL (27) and/or OH (20)
Claire McCaskill - Missouri (11)
Jim Webb - Virginia (13)
Tim Kaine - Virginia (13)
Kathleen Sebelius - Kansas (11)
John Edwards - North Carolina (15)
Bill Richardson - New Mexico (5) plus, maybe Colorado (9)?
Ted Strickland - Ohio (20)
Phil Bredesen - Tennessee (11)
Sam Nunn - Georgia (15)
Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania (21)
Evan Bayh - Indiana (11)

So, which makes the most and least sense? And most likely to deliver? We all know the issues surrounding Hillary. I think she would make a smart and safe pick for one big reason: this primary has been unprecedented, and we just can't be sure that the Party will come together like everyone expects. To not pick her at this point will come across as a rejection of her, in the eyes of her supporters. The election will be close enough, can we afford to risk any slippage in the base? Sure, they will probably come around anyway, but if 20% of Hillary voters really support McCain, we have lost. But, I digress. How about the other possibilities?

The new fashionable pick after yesterday is to go back to Edwards. I do think he makes a better team with Obama than he did with Kerry, and would campaign better - as he did for President - than last time around. But can he really deliver NC? The Obama Map already hopes to put that state in play. If Edwards was good for a couple points it might work. Still, I'm not sure he can. Did he boost Kerry's play in the South at all?

Bredesen may deliver Tennessee, or come close, and Bayh might do the same in Indiana, as would Sebelius in Kansas, but at the expense of boring and/or turning off the rest of the country? Bayh would have the most national campaign skills out of those three and would add a Hillary supporter to the mix.

Richardson would sew up New Mexico, and help with Obama's problem among Hispanic voters across the country, but he can be a bit of an embarrassment on the campaign trail. NM only counts for 5 and is a state we should really be able to win anyway this time around. He's definitely auditioning for the part.

Rendell would lock up Pennsylvania as would, probably, Strickland in OH. Both Governors are relatively popular. We've got a better chance of winning PA in either case, so I'd elevate Strickland here.

Nunn is an intriguing case. He's got serious national security credentials, and having him on the ticket along with libertarian Bob Barr, also from Georgia, taking Republican votes away, just might give Obama Georgia and blow a hole in the Republican map. But he would be 70 years old and I haven't seen him lately. Is he still an effective, energetic figure?

Jim Webb can come off as a bit eccentric but to me he's an obvious choice. He puts VA in play (though Kaine would be a surer VA winner) but more important, he adds key military background and, as Reagan's former Navy Secretary, would provide an avenue of appeal to Reagan Democrats. He's a forceful advocate, a Vietnam Veteran, and I believe counters every bit of McCain's perceived strengths of experience.

McCaskill says she doesn't consider herself a smart choice, which is saying something. She could probably ensure Missouri I would think, and salve the wound of some Hillary supporters who want a woman on the ticket. But she does nothing for Obama's experience gap - no executive experience and a new Senator.

I have to rank them this way right now:
1. Hillary
2. Jim Webb
3. Ted Strickland
4. Tim Kaine
[UPDATE: 5. Joe Biden, who doesn't really play into the win-a-state theory, since Delaware will surely go for Obama no matter, but he would still be on my list.]

Yeah, to be sure, having Hillary on the ticket will be a pain in the ass at times. But the positives outweigh the negatives. Obama could quickly put to rest concerns that there is friction or a compatibility issue. But Webb would be fun to watch.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Spiritual Warfare
Kenny B send along this interesting story worth a read (and a visualization). In an almost entirely unrelated note, at my other blog today, I'm a little uneasy over the blatant religious appeal in Obama's Kentucky advertisements. But my concern turned into a big laugh when imagining a presidential candidate (Ross Perot? Ron Paul?) using similar literature but as a member of the Jedi church mentioned in Kenny B's story. Try it yourself.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Good Election News Tonight
West Virginians didn't give us any good news, but Democrats gained a House member with a special election in Mississippi. A district that went for Bush with 60+% just elected a Democrat. So, now there are 796 superdelegates, and the number needed to win the nomination is up to 2025 from 2024.5.

More important, D's now outnumber R's in the House 236-199, and outpace them 3-1 in...Mississippi, of all places.
Who Will Kill The Electric Car This Time?
In today's NYTimes, a major car company promises affordable cars you can plug in, and soon.
The Nissan Motor Company plans to sell an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010, raising the stakes in the race to develop environmentally friendly vehicles.

The commitment — expected to be announced Tuesday by Nissan’s chief executive, Carlos Ghosn — will be the first by a major automaker to bring a zero-emission vehicle to the American market. Nissan also expects to sell a lineup of electric vehicles globally by 2012.
I would normally file this under I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it, but it makes so much sense I don't really understand what's taking so long. Drug companies fall all over themselves rushing to advance delivery systems and fill needs (even if they have to create the need first), but car companies have seemed unmovable on a technology that seems basically available and would be in high demand, I would think. Has an industry ever been so slow in advancing its product's efficiency?

And if this happens - or when it does - credit where credit is due: Israel stepped out and has prepared itself to be the first mass adopter of electric car technology, devoting resources to infrastructure that will be ready for it. Nissan's partnership with Renault to bring plug-in cars to Israel just may be the springboard the rest of the world needs.

One of these days we are going to look back and wonder what the hell took us so long.

Monday, May 12, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. Iron Man
2. Speed Racer
3. What Happens in Vegas
4. Made of Honor
5. Baby Mama

Metacritics says...
Among films in the top 20 this weekend, go see The Visitor. But don't see 88 Minutes. Among recent album releases, listen to Bon Iver. But don't listen to the Brian Jonestown Massacre.

MM - It's Summer Edition
Come on people, let's get the recommendations out there. Summer reading, summer music, summer movie rentals. How will Article 19 readers know what to consume if Article 19 readers aren't out front telling them?

Friday, May 09, 2008

Feel-Good Note For Your Weekend
On August 28, Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President in Denver. It will occur on the anniversary of something else important in our history. I guess that will be a tough ticket.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

I Disagree with Kos
He says no, but I think Hillary is the clear no-brainer VP choice for Obama. And it's a no-brainer that she should accept.

The choice is about winning the election. We need a bulldog to go after Republicans (see last 2 failed Dem choices) and someone who can win a state or 2. Hillary and the Clinton team know more about defeating Republicans than anyone. And she's proven a strong campaigner (as opposed to Richardson who proved to be embarrassingly inept). If there was somebody out there who fit the bill who could definitely bring a big swing state like Ohio or Florida, I'm all for it. Virginia's Jim Webb seems like the strongest choice on that front to put that state in play. But Hillary is the choice that gives us the best chance for victory.

Yes voters tend to unify around the nominee by November, But we can't afford to find out if this is the year that Hillary supporters live up to their word in not supporting Obama, anymore than Hillary would be able to afford to pass over Obama if she were the nominee. If it weren't for McCain being the opponent, with his bogus reputation as an independent type, I wouldn't feel as strongly about it. But rightly or wrongly he gives wavering women and working-class voters an excuse to bail on the Democrats.

We need Bill and Hillary and their supporters to be strong advocates for the ticket, not just on our side but on our team.

The dumbest reason not to pick her would be concern that she might overshadow Obama. Huh? Obama is a dynamic political figure with no need for such a worry. Slouching to this kind of critique would be a sure show of weakness. Could he really be so fragile as to not be able to stand up in front of Hillary? Picking a weak and timid personality (e.g., Sebelius) would be the move that diminishes his stature.

There's nothing to be afraid of here. Pick Hillary.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

What I'm Watching For Tonight [UPDATED after Results]
Delegates--Any gain in pledged delegates by Obama is a good thing, but since NC is considered his likely win, and it's a bigger state, I am hoping for him to gain 50% more there than Hillary gains in IN. Still, any gain by Obama is a good thing and pushes her farther away from the nomination than she was yesterday. My poll-based projections below have Clinton gaining a delegate after winning 4 in IN and losing 3 in NC. But I'd say that's a pretty rosy estimate for her, and it still leaves her well behind in delegates. Even with that pace I projected, it leaves Obama to need only 100 superdelegates (out of about 278) after all the rest of the states (and Puerto Rico) have voted. [UPDATE: Obama netted 11 pledged delegates, +17 in NC, -6 in IN]

States--Obviously, they're expected to split the states. I assume they will. If he manages to win NC by more than he loses IN, he will have won the night clearly. But if the split holds up, things won't be much different tomorrow, as Hillary insists in going on and urging superdelegates to wait to declare their support. [UPDATE: They split but it was darned close in Indiana]

Popular Vote--The estimates I saw coming into today were for 1.5 million in NC and 900,000 in IN. If Obama wins NC and more than that come in, it will help him blunt her argument to the superdelegates that she can win the "popular vote". Similarly, if IN comes in higher than 900,000, it could help her case. If you follow the poll-based projections below, Hillary would gain 27,000 after combining tonight's 2 states, putting her on pace to still be about 30,000 votes short of Obama once future primaries are factored in, and that's only if you leave out caucuses that didn't report individual vote totals (estimates add about 100,000 for Obama in those few states). [UPDATE: The total was indeed much higher than estimates for Indiana, but it was so close that didn't help Hillary much in the popular vote count. Meanwhile, in NC, Obama won by more than 200,000. His net gain was around 200,000 for the night, pushing his popular vote lead back out to 700,000.]
Today's Ritual
Al Giordano knows what's going to happen today. You should read it. via Atrios.
Cross-Over
The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Republicans are voting in droves today in the Democratic primary. Hillary's win there will be padded by a significant mischievous vote that wants to keep her fighting longer. Sure, some Republicans are wanting to vote for Obama, but I'm sure the vast majority are simply following (Rush Limbaugh's) orders.

I really disapprove, and not just because it goes against my candidate. Voting is an important civic duty that should be taken seriously. I'm not really crazy about any of the solutions, but I wish there was a good way to put a stop to it. The best would be more of a national primary. Republicans can screw around because they are done. If the votes in both parties still mattered, they wouldn't feel the luxury.

In North Carolina, the primary is closed, so we don't have that same problem. Registered Republicans may not vote.

Monday, May 05, 2008

Hillary...Losing Her Grip
...on reality. Suddenly, Senator Clinton is Dr. Strangelove.
MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been watching, listening to, reading?

How Do You *Feel* About Your Car?
Stanley Fish wonders about the advertising effectiveness of those new Avis/Infidelity commercials, you know the ones where the narrator is someone's old car realizing that the owner is about to, or has been, traveling around (disloyally, from the car's pov) in a fancy rental. Fish confesses to an irrational (and familiar) sensation: that of a certain guilt over trading in, or otherwise abandoning, a car that's been with you a long time. He thinks this strange-but-true emotional instinct just might work against these otherwise brilliant pitches.
Strange to say, these are not good ads precisely because they are so good. The point of a commercial is to make the viewer fall in love with the product, in this case the hot cars Avis is pimping. But the viewers of these commercials are more likely to give their affections to the product’s victims, for it is from their point of view that the narrative has been presented.

While Avis’s intention is, no doubt, to advance its corporate fortunes through these commercials, the image the ads project is less than flattering. Avis comes across as the supplier of temptation, the enabler of seduction, a corporate madame. Its stable of “hot cars” lure men and women to default on their responsibilities, to throw away the tried and true, to surrender to the meretricious glitter of the new. But these wiles are defeated by the sympathy we are made to feel for those who have been harmed by them.
Weekend Box Office
1. Iron Man
2. Made of Honor
3. Baby Mama
4. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
5. Harold and Kumar...

Article 19 Film Recommendation
Lewberry and I saw Iron Man over the weekend and I was pleasantly surprised. Genuinely funny in spots, the outfit and gravity-defying effects were pretty cool (and that's just Gwyneth Paltrow's contribution -- rimshot -- but seriously folks). There's not too much to the film, of course. And it would have been nice if a few of the Afghanis were not terrorists. But Robert Downey's real good, and at least the American weapon manufacturer is the biggest villain at the end of the day. Pretty good summer super hero fare, if you're into that.

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Because the People Demand It [UPDATED-Tue 5/20 9AM]
A delegate projection update. Currently, it takes 2025 to win.

Current Pledged Delegate Count + Superdel. Endorsements
Obama: 1612.5 + 302.5 = 1915
Clinton: 1442.5 + 276.5 = 1719
Obama + 196

Upcoming Primary Projections (based on recent polls for KY, OR, SD, PR, worth a combined 388 delegates)
Obama: 77
Clinton: 96
Clinton +19

Total:
Obama 1992
Clinton 1815
Obama +177

What's left? 16 pledged delegates in Montana + 217 Superdelegates. Assuming he gets 8 in MT as he should, Obama would need only 25 of the remaining 217 superdelegates to reach 2025. That's 11.5%.

(Even if Florida and Michigan are added, with Obama receiving the 55 uncommitted delegates from MI, he would under this scenario need only 75 of the remaining 247 superdelegates. Hillary would need 193 of them.)

State projection details below:
KY (51): Clinton - 67.6 - 32.4 (34-17) C +17 [C +176k of 500k]
OR (52): Obama - 54.9 - 45.1 (29-23) O +6 [O +58.8k of 600k]
SD (15): Obama - 52.6 - 47.4 (8-7) O +1 [O +4.2k of 100k]
PR (55): Clinton - 58.7 - 41.3 (32-23) C +9 [C +156.6k of 900k]

Clinton gains 268,400 in the popular vote in these 4 contests, putting her about 328,000 behind Obama in the popular vote total of contested states where we have individual vote totals. If you add some reasonable estimates (by RealClearPolitics) of the caucus states that do not report individual vote totals this leaves her about 438,000 behind. Even adding Florida to this group will leave her 143,000 behind. That's out of more than 33 million votes. Pretty close, but Obama wins by any remotely fair count if these polls and turnout models hold up.

Friday, May 02, 2008

1 in 5
I guess this counts as progress, reported in today's NYTimes:
In what industry analysts are calling a first, about one in five vehicles sold in the United States was a compact or subcompact car during April, based on monthly sales data released Thursday. Almost a decade ago, when sport utility vehicles were at their peak of popularity, only one in every eight vehicles sold was a small car.

The switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles has been building in recent years, but has accelerated recently with the advent of $3.50-a-gallon gas. At the same time, sales of pickup trucks and large sport utility vehicles have dropped sharply.
I say "I guess..." because..geez still only 1 in 5? That still seems like quite the small percentage to me, especially compared to the rest of the world.

But beyond that, depressingly, it sounds like the reason for this consumer shift is related not directly to high gas prices, and definitely not a result of environmental consciousness (which alone should have accounted for that magnitude a shift, right?), but because of the sorry economy. People just can't afford larger cars, or are worried they won't be able to.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Bush - New Poll
His unpopularity still gaining. How low can he go?

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

So It Goes
Maybe this is more appropriate to save for a Media Monday, but hey why wait? NYTimes blogs seem to offer more and more interesting writing and writers every time I look. Today, distracted by the link while trying to care about the front page news, I found "Measure for Measure." It's a blog about songwriting. One of the contributors is Rosanne Cash, who is documenting a collaboration with Joe Henry and also commenting on her personal songwriting thoughts as well. It's some great stuff, and well-written. I'm not nuts about the song they came up with, but that's not really the point, or why it's worth following the thread.

Here are her contributions - there are 3 posts so far. Scroll down, and start from the bottom post and work your way up.
Priorities
I had a post all lined up tonight about the Rev. Wright business - my take on what compels men in a position of guidance and authority to seemingly sabotage the efforts of their protege (or of their flock in this case). I think that's what has happened here with Wright and Obama.

Lucky for you, you are spared the whole thing, because then I read John Cole's post and remembered how stupid it is that we get sucked into these trivial political vortexes. Why is Wright a story? Aren't we in a recession and in 2 wars of dubious progress, exacerbating a climate crisis and a food shortage, and ignoring a health care crisis, while trampling the Constitution? How do we have a news cycle to spare on this other crap? Or, as Cole says:
Maybe it is because I am totally and unrepentantly in the tank for Obama, but I just can’t get worked up over what his pastor said. Maybe it is because I am not religious, and I am used to religious people saying things that sound crazy. Or maybe I just refuse to spend any more time and energy getting worked up over and denouncing, distancing, and rejecting the wrong people- people who really don’t matter in the big scheme of things. If you have a memo from Jeremiah Wright to John Yoo showing how we should become a rogue nation, let me know. If you have pictures of Jeremiah Wright voting against the GI Bill, send it to me. If you have evidence of Jeremiah Wright training junior soldiers on the finer aspects of stacking and torturing naked Iraqi captives, pass them on.

Until then, I just can’t seem to get all worked up about the crazy scary black preacher that Obama has to “throw under the bus.”
Hello!! Our President *sent us to war* on the grounds of a big mistake while he was on some kind of testosterone bender *and we are still there* 4,000 dead soldiers later.... He appointed some political crony with no experience to head FEMA and they sat around while *one of our major cities drowned* and those are just the 2 monumental blunders-of-a-generation that come to mind first. And in the all important election to clean up after his mess, this is what people want to talk about? A candidate's pastor and all the crazy things he's said? Seriously?

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama Press Conference [UPDATED]
Supposedly to address the newest round of Rev. Wright, who I thought was by turn smart, funny, challenging, and incredibly egotistical and sanctimonious yesterday.

Not sure I think it's a good idea to sanction another go of questions about it, but they must know it's hurting.

Meanwhile new polls have Obama down by 6 in IN and up by 12 in NC, and new superdelegate endorsements have him within 20 of Clinton in that score now.

[UPDATE: Well, I get it now. Obama has thrown Wright completely under the bus. Ran over him, backed up, and ran over him again. Can't say that he doesn't deserve it. Press guy on MSNBC saying he's never seen Obama so angry as he was over Wright essentially hijacking the campaign at a bad time, and accusing the Senator of pandering in his Philadelphia speech on race, which was in fact very gracious toward the Reverend.

UPDATE 2: Better said, Andrew Sullivan is correct. Rev. Wright is the one who threw Obama under the bus. Obama just refused to stand for it.]

Monday, April 28, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Schumer Spreads Falsehood on Behalf of Hillary
The mistaken notion that Puerto Rico will hold a winner-take-all primary was debunked months ago. Still, today on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition, Senator Schumer repeated this untruth and of course Wolf did nothing to challenge him.

This matters because Puerto Rico is no small contest. 63 delegates will be up for grabs and if it was indeed winner-take-all, it would be perhaps the most influential primary in the entire country. As a key adviser, Schumer should know that it's not the case, especially if his argument is what a boon it will offer Hillary. But Wolf should know too, and call him on it when he perpetuates the false notion that there is a chance for her to significantly close the pledged delegate gap when in fact there is not.

Puerto Rico is a proportional primary like all the rest.

[UPDATE: Here's the transcript of the exchange.
BLITZER: All right. Here are the delegate counts, the estimates that we have, Senator Schumer. I'll put them up on the screen right now.

For Barack Obama, he has 1,724 delegates. That includes both the pledged and the superdelegates. Hillary Clinton has 1,589.

It's almost certain -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Senator Schumer, that he'll wind up with more pledged delegates. The question is, who will get more of those superdelegates? And in the end, who will reach the magic number of 2,025?

SCHUMER: Right. Well, I think you're right. I do think the number of even pledged delegates is going to narrow. I think Hillary is going to do better in the upcoming primary contests and catch up a little bit. And the one that people often forget is Puerto Rico. It's the last one. It's on June 3rd. It's 63 delegates, I think it is, and it's winner-take-all. She's way ahead in the polls there.

So, even assuming that all of the delegates that are pledged in these primaries break evenly -- and I don't think that will happen -- then you have a margin of 60 or 70 in the superdelegates. There are 300 of them. They could go either way.]

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Delegate Obsession Update [UPDATED 5/1 to reflect new superdelegate endorsements and new polls in IN and NC favoring Hillary.]
After PA, the current pledged delegate count gives Obama a lead of 154, 1490-1336. Current superdelegate endorsements cut that lead to 133, 1734-1601.

Following my formula for analyzing polls, in which the most recent 3 for each state are averaged, and the remaining (undecided) percentage points are awarded 2:1 in favor of Hillary, future states for which recent polls are available show Obama winning NC, OR and SD, losing IN, and getting pounded in WV, KY and PR, resulting in a net gain for Hillary in delegates of 40 (if you assign popular vote percentages to the delegates at stake - a crude approximation to be sure), which would make the delegate total:

Obama 1908
Clinton 1815
Obama +93

Currently, 2,024 delegates are required to win the nomination. Obama can safely count on at least 1 additional delegate from Guam (out of 4), and 7 from Montana (out of 16) giving him a projected 1916. There are 285 superdelegates left to endorse. With 108 of them (37.9%), Obama will have enough delegates to win, presuming none of his current delegates defect. If the campaign knows of 100 or so who are willing to endorse, the next couple of weeks would be a great time to unveil them.

Side note. Hillary's argument to the remaining superdelegates will obviously depend on the popular vote. Applying the percentages I've used from the polled states to the turnout estimates I have read would give Hillary a gain of just over 500,000 votes in those remaining states (minus Guam and MT, for which there are no polls). This will still leave Obama ahead in the popular vote count by about 100,000, unless you - unfairly - leave out the caucus states, in which case the popular vote total is closer, but Obama still narrowly leads. Adding Florida - where the candidates did not campaign - would put Hillary in the lead by a few hundred thousand. That will obviously be her argument to those remaining 300 superdelegates, that considering every state with a primary, more voters prefer her.

Because she stands to rack up huge margins in WV and KY (gaining over 300,000 in my estimate), I am hoping that wins in NC and IN on May 6 convince superdelegates to put an end to this nonsense before we ever get to those 2 states on May 13 and 20, respectively. And why wouldn't you? If you are for Obama, wouldn't you rather come out after a couple of wins, then wait through some pounding losses that give Clinton the impression of momentum?

Friday, April 25, 2008

Perception
Today's Tennessean reports on the decline in membership in Southern Baptist churches - and baptisms to their lowest level since 1987, prompting this marvelously self-aware explanation:
The president of the Southern Baptist Convention blamed the decline in part on a perception that its followers are "mean-spirited, hurtful and angry."
Ya think? He left out a few choice adjectives, but it's a decent start.
Nerd Alert
Is there an online sensation that could make fantasy sports players seem less nerdy? How about Fantasy Congress! I'm drafting Ted Kennedy in the first round! That man knows how to pile up points.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Maverick!
McCain falls in line with Republicans, approves of their killing the Equal Pay Act.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

OK I'm Done Whining
For now. About Hillary and the superdelegates.
Delegates Shmelegates
I can only imagine the extreme ridicule that would be heaped on Obama from the Clinton camp if he tried to argue that the contest should continue despite being way behind in the one metric laid out in the nomination rules: delegates. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it wouldn't occur to Obama or to most of us to even dare make the case that an insurmountable pledged delegate lead should be ignored because he still considers himself a stronger candidate that the party leaders should install as the nominee.

In a very real sense, only the Clintons and their groupies are brazen enough, and selfish enough, (and powerful enough) to openly question the process in this way. Obama would be long gone, if not out of a gracious nod to reality, then at least under intense, heckling, Huckabee-like dismissal. Even if he waited around for it to become mathematically impossible, he would have long since stopped campaigning against the presumed nominee.

This popular vote argument is outrageous, a denial of the rules as they are laid out, and nothing less than an attempted coup by the Clinton power structure, which simply can't face or accept defeat by an outsider. As Obama himself has said, if he had thought that his goal was to win the popular vote, he would have campaigned differently. Much differently. The same as a general election would be conducted differently if popular vote matters. On the (far) outside chance that she overtakes him in the popular vote, superdelegates would still take the party down a generation of revolt to vote her in. And that leads me to the thought that initiated this post to begin with:

From this point on, the superdelegates who have not endorsed are a cowardly bunch and nearly as much to blame as the Clinton campaign for this thing dragging on. Every primary we are forced to endure from here on out is a colossal waste of time, a beauty contest for the sole benefit of the 300 superdelegates remaining. All of the money spent and attacks bringing the Party down are purely for their amusement. Every superdelegate that has not endorsed is now prolonging the process. The only ones who have even an argument for delaying are those in states that have yet to vote. Not many of those left.

Every superdelegate who is for Obama should come out and drive the numbers up and make it mathematically impossible for her to win, ASAP. There's no excuse for waiting beyond political cowardice. You know who is ahead by the rules, and who will be ahead at the end. Either have the nerve to pick against the Party nomination process as decided by the voters (which is surely their right), or get the hell on board.

If they really think there are issues with Obama that make them hesitant to support him, they should say so out loud and detail what those issues are. Yes, they are allowed to stay quiet and wait all the way until the Convention. It is their right. But doing so makes them cowards, and they damage the Party's chances - hence damage the country - in the process.

We shouldn't be waiting for the 4 million or so who are still to vote, because nothing they do will change reality: Obama is in the lead. And will be. 300 people - not 4 million - hold the keys to the nomination. They are the ones making us wait. They should be held accountable for that, starting now.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Whatever
That is my current election return mood. The Clinton campaign is content to ruin the party for a generation, ruin the chances of a young political superstar, and run the country further into the ground under Republican rule. If Hillary can't be President, they are telling us, then let no Democrat be President. She would rather travel the country convincing especially elderly and blue collar voters that they simply can't trust Obama with their vote, knowing full well that *there is no way for her to win the nomination.* Oh and by the way, the networks have projected Barack Obama the winner of the pledged delegate count. That was supposed to mean something because of, you know, the rules, but oh well.

I'm not shocked that Hillary is refusing to lose gracefully. I am shocked that so many Democrats are falling for, and perpetuating, her political suicide mission. (Even my anti-Obama Hillary-supporting feminist friend has come around now. I'll have an Obama sign in her front yard by fall.) Why are so many elected officials still supporting her through her tearing down of our nominee?

I'm giving the media and the Democratic higher-ups just 2 more weeks to figure this out. And if they don't, I'm gonna....I'm gonna....like...type an angry blog post or something. So, think about that before you deny me a celebration after North Carolina on May 6.

If there was any sanity around, we would currently be celebrating the true news, which is this:
PA
My baseless prediction is Clinton 53, Obama 47, slightly closer than most are predicting.

For a while there I really thought Obama would catch her and win even in this Hillary haven. A state couldn't be much more perfect for her. The worst part is that a modest victory - and far cry from the 20-point lead she had a few weeks ago - will do nothing to improve her chances of somehow rising from the ashes and grabbing the nomination. Her only longshot possibility is a catching him in popular vote, based on a hope that huge turnout and a massive win in Puerto Rico will garner hundreds of thousands of votes in June. Yep - that's the plan. Puerto Rico, to claim the popular vote lead. Even then, she has to convince superdelegates, and lots of them, that a popular vote lead is worth supporting her over.

The number I'm looking at is 200,000. If she can't gain that many votes on Barack in PA, catching him would seem just about impossible. He's ahead by about 700,000 now. If he holds her closer to 100,000, it's a huge victory and even her popular vote plan will be in shambles. If she gains closer to 300,000, it will still be possible to pull off.

Don't even think about pledged delegates. She is behind by at least 161. She will have to win 364 of the remaining 566 pledged delegates to be selected to catch him. That's more than 64%. There is no real chance of catching him in pledged delegates.

Monday, April 21, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, reading, watching?

PBS Watch
Bill Moyers' Journal is usually worth watching, but maybe especially so this coming weekend.

Standard Operating Procedure
You can watch the trailer to Errol Morris' new documentary here. And a NYTimes review is here.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Definitely Felt the Earthquake This Morning
In my half asleep stupor I convinced myself it was just a train going by or something like that. Not until I woke up did I remember that I don't live near a train. It was a very slight vibration, like what I used to feel during the spin cycle of my old washing machine, or like when my family used to live under the roller coaster at Coney Island (no, wait, that wasn't me. That was Radio Days.)

Kinda crazy to find out on the news this morning what it really was. I assume our Illinois friends felt it much more profoundly - hope everyone is ok and everything stayed on the walls and what not.
Did I Mention...
...that a guy has invented a machine that purports to kill cancerous cells?

It seems worth repeating. And, although this isn't evidence that it will actually work, it occurs to me that this is exactly the kind of step forward described again and again in Bill Bryson's history of science, in which someone without the "proper background" applies what he nonetheless knows and intuits and solves a problem that nobody else could figure, or even knew was a problem to be solved.

We can always hope.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

P.S.
Oh yeah, while you're waiting for the game to start (see post below), or during the intermission, read this. Some guy with a couple of radios and a hot dog pan has gone and cured cancer. No, really. (maybe)

via Kos.
Why Watch the Debate?
Here's what I've decided, for the good of my health - and it has the benefit of being true: the Democratic nomination is over; one of the candidates is just taking a little time coming around to the reality. So, trying not to obsess over the process of getting there, knowing that really no matter what happens in PA, or in NC or IN for that matter, Obama's lead in pledged delegates is simply insurmountable.

So, really, why bother yourself with this torturous debate, which could have you variously cringing or throwing things at the TV, as Hillary continues to pile on with GOP-style attacks designed to cripple out assured nominee?

Intead, watch an underdog with at least a mathematical chance of victory: the Nashville Predators, taking on the Red Wings in game 4 of their playoff series, trying to even things up. I have my doubts that the Preds can actually come up with a second win in a row over the best team in the NHL, but - as opposed to Hillary's postseason effort - at least they are still in the race, one win from tying things up; and even a loss tonight does not knock them out just yet.

The game is on the Versus Network around 9 Eastern/8 Central. I'll be in section 330, wearing the same lucky underwear I wore for the thrilling game 2 victory (kidding, mom).

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Salmon Crisis
A NYTimes editorial today builds on a piece from last month I read showing the collapse of the West Coast salmon population. The development caused the Fishery Council to "cancel all commercial salmon fishing" this season.
The warning signals of the collapse came last fall. Among the adult salmon that return from the ocean to spawn in the rivers of their birth are immature ones that have spent as little as a year in the ocean. The quantity of these younger fish, called jacks, is a reliable predictor of the abundance of the next year’s run. Last fall, the count of the fall Chinook jacks from the Sacramento River was less than 6 percent of the long-term average.

Two factors are suspected. One is federally sanctioned diversion of water from the Sacramento River into the irrigation system used by farmers in the Central Valley of California. The other is a climate-driven change in the normal upwellings in the ocean that could have deprived the young fish of food.
In today's opinion, the NYTimes says:
This decision is necessary if there is to be any hope of salmon recovery. It will mean even more if it shocks Congress into a serious investigation of the West Coast salmon crisis, exposes the politically driven policies of the Bush administration and persuades a new president of the need to rebuild wild salmon populations and the economies that depend on them.

Monday, April 14, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, reading, watching?

Film Recommendation
During the last week I saw The Illusionist, with Paul Giamatti and Edward Norton. Surprisingly good! When a plot is essentially predictable but still compelling in the execution that's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Turning Off -- Sunday Edition Deep Thought [UPDATED--Must Read]
I haven't watched one of the Sunday talk shows in about a month, and I seem to be a generally happier person.

I have no interest in enduring an hour of Russert's smile while he bounds through this complete nonsense passing as a new Obama scandal as if it raises a completely legitimate, important point.

I wish Obama would make (would have made) one tweak in his statement. It's not that people are bitter in general (though maybe they are). It's that they're bitter *toward the Democrats* for failing to govern in a way that looks after their interests.

[UPDATE: via Kos, Read Robert Reich. The whole post is powerful and on point.

UPDATE 2: Here, by the way, are Obama's remarks in question with a bit more context.]

Friday, April 11, 2008

Nice Response by Obama
SusanG at DailyKos runs down the latest Obama scandal. Apparently, he said some voters are angry and frustrated at the fact that Washington has consistently failed to successfully address their economic challenges. I know....who could say such a thing? Click through to read the hysterics of the Clinton and McCain campaigns, who called him "elitist" and "out of touch." But more importantly, click through *and scroll down* to watch the response of Obama later in the day speaking in Indiana.
Perception Versus(?) Reality [UPDATED]
Today's NYTimes Blogs includes the second post in a series by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris. They are both a great read, especially if you have seen his amazing and haunting film, "The Thin Blue Line." Here he is focused on the issue of perception and reality, and deception - either from within, or without - as well as the nature of re-enactment. This is the way the first part of the series ends.
The brain is not a Reality-Recorder. There is no perfect replica of reality inside our brains. The brain elides, confabulates, conflates, denies, suppresses, evades, confuses and distorts. It has its own agenda and can even work at cross-purposes with our conscious selves. Consciously, we may think that we see all and know all, but our brains may be “blind” to much of what is going on around us.

Many people believe they have found a way around the eccentricities of the brain by substituting a camera, but this only defers the problem. It does not solve it. Even photographs have to be perceived. They have to be seen. There is no shortcut around the Cartesian riddle of separating reality from the appearance of reality. There is no shortcut to reality. The brain is all we have.
I really recommend both pieces.

[UPDATE: Love the Internets. Why do I not visit Morris' blog regularly to make sure I catch every post? Scrolling through his previous writings, I stumbled upon another series; this one has 3 parts, and it's even more fascinating. Here's part one, part two, and part three. Can you tell Friday afternoon has already started my weekend?]

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Are There Any Commercials..
...more annoying than those FreeCreditReport.com commercials?

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

McCain Pastor Interview
Those handful of you who are familiar with the Baptist world may be interested in this little inside baseball tidbit.

A little background first: John McCain has been rightly criticized for his pandering to the Religious Right this time around. It's been painfully obvious, to the extent that one wonders why the panderees aren't more uniformly insulted by his sudden advances (It's as if only James Dobson sees clearly here...). You'll remember that back when reasonable, straight-talking McCain was running for President in 2000, he considered fundamentalist leaders to be something of a scourge on the Republican party, and he said so - "agents of intolerance", he called them. Fast-forward 8 years later and he's speaking to Falwell's crowd at graduation, begging for Hagee's endorsement and oh yeah, he's not Episcopalian anymore. He's Southern Baptist. (Or, at least he attends a Southern Baptist church in Arizona - not technically a member) Has there ever been a more unconvincing attempt by a politician to be accepted by conservative religious Southerners, (who generally view Episcopalian as another word for Catholic, which is to say, only grudgingly American)? But, I digress.

McCain's new Sunday stomping ground while home is mega-church North Phoenix Baptist, a member of the very right-wing Southern Baptist Convention. But here's the thing. Apparently, McCain's conversion to the far-religious-right just couldn't quite stomach a full-fledged fundamentalist doctrine once a week. The church he joined is actually quite the moderate congregation, in Baptist terms. (In normal parlance, that means it's only woefully mainstream conservative.) As one former Baptist leader who would know said to me, "If you were looking to appear like you're in league with the fundamentalist, politically ambitious crowd, that's not a church you would join."

Getting around to actual news of the day, and the reason for this post, McCain's Arizona pastor, Dan Yeary, has been quite the sought-after interview lately, what with Hagee's controversial endorsement and Jeremiah Wright's unfortunate ascendance on the national political scene. But Yeary has been reluctant to put his name out there, and respectably so, I suppose. Still, the demand may have gotten to him, or else the need to address an issue or two weighed too heavily, and so he decided to seek a reasonable religious outlet for an interview after all.

If you were a far-right conservative Baptist in bed with the Southern Baptist movers and shakers, you would grant this interview to the Convention's "news" arm, Baptist Press. Instead - and what's interesting here - Yeary dialed up their direct competitor, Associated Baptist Press, which was in fact created to offer a moderate, journalistically sound, Baptist alternative to the overtly political, one-sided, PR-machine-masquerading-as-a-news-organization that Baptist Press became after the fundamentalist takeover of the denomination. This interview is quite the get for ABP, really. And, as if to send a little tweak in BP's direction, the ABP article includes this (my emphasis):
Yeary has been reluctant to talk to the news media about the McCains or his relationship with them. He has turned down many media requests in order to protect his relationship with the family and their privacy. But he initiated an interview with Associated Baptist Press in an attempt to quell continued journalistic curiosity about McCain’s faith, saying he trusts the independent national news organization’s reputation for fairness.
I don't know how this interview came about. The McCain camp's idea? Yeary on his own? Either way, if the SBC poobahs are paying attention they are a bit insulted, as well they should be. ABP primarily serves the kind of Baptists the SBC calls liberals and heretics, the kind they ran out of their Convention 20 years ago--the Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, church-state separating kind of Baptists. Our own Kenny B was the original Washington Bureau Chief for ABP - that kind of Baptist. For whatever reason, Southern Baptist exiles are where McCain's pastor felt comfortable. One reason is, clearly, Yeary is right: ABP is fair and reasonable and a respected news organization. They're decidedly not political. Still, considering the politics of it all, it's an interesting choice.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Petraeus-Blogging
Wonder what happened in committee hearings with Petraeus today? The NYTimes liveblogged the action. In true liveblog fashion, if you want to read the events chronologically, scroll to the bottom first, and make your way toward the top.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Some Day...
...we might get word that the climate crisis is not as bad, and not moving along as fast, as we have been fearing, but not today.
One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.

In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.

Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed"....
...
"If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.
Does This Mean I'm a Hockey Fan?
I understand there's some kind of basketball game on tonight? Some sort of championship or whatever? But I'm skipping it so I can watch the draft lottery and playoff previews on the NHL Network. (Heck, I might have even skipped a really juicy committee hearing on C-Span for it.) I'm still learning the finer points of the game, and don't know too many of the players outside the Central division - besides the ones everyone knows - but playoff hockey is becoming one of my favorite TV times of the year. Rooting for the Canadiens and the Pens in the East, and the Preds (of course) and the Avs in the West. Crosby, Malkin and the Pens drop the puck at 6 on Wednesday!
MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Article 19 Film Recommendation
I saw 2 good ones over the weekend: Paranoid Park, Gus van Sant's newest, and finally saw last year's Eastern Promises which was really great - pretty graphically violent a time or 2.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Weekend Assignment
It's the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination. If you haven't read his final speech lately, do yourself a favor. Read the whole thing. Or better yet watch the video.
Lovely Symbolism
I suppose it wasn't likely the campaign's decision to have a black man holding McCain's umbrella for him while he apologized for consistently opposing the Martin Luther King holiday (in front of an audience that wasn't thrilled with him, by the way). But still...

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Appalachia
Was talking this over with Kenny B, and also Kenny T. An interesting DKos post looks into the problem of Appalachia for Obama, which would explain why he was never close in TN, lost OH, and will likely lose WV and KY and PA. I'm not sure I understand his struggles there especially, but it would seem to be true. Personally, I think Obama will make it pretty close in PA, if not win. But WV and KY will be tough. If he pulls off a PA stunner, we probably wouldn't even make it to those states anyway. Do I have any evidence, you ask, that PA is within reach? Yes I do. [UPDATE: and there's this.]

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The Fantasy Life of Teachers
Involves things like this. Note the "3-chamber barrel", and the promise of twice the endurance.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Kudos to Olbermann
If you have been following his show, you know he has waged a week-long campaign against Walmart for its treatment of an ex-employee who's been on the receiving end of some serious personal tragedy. I won't go over details here but worth passing along that CNN reports Walmart has relented. I love stories like this, not just because it's the rare example of the greedy corporation brought to account, but because it puts the lie to their primary argument here: our hands are tied. The policy simply won't allow any flexibility. I guess that's just not true.

But even beyond that, I'm sure that Walmart was right. That probably *is* the policy everyone deals with. So now they've made an exception and hopefully opened themselves up to challenge from many others.

Monday, March 31, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Weekend Box Office
1. 21
2. Horton Hears a Who
3. Superhero Movie
4. Met the Browns
5. Drillbit Taylor
I need some new music. Whaddya got?

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Happy News of the Week
Your cell phone is killing you.

From the Guardian: "Mobile Phones 'More Dangerous than Smoking'."

I don't spend lots of time talking on mine, but do have it with me most of the time. Probably too late - I'm doomed - but maybe worth thinking about turning it off more often.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Are You Going Dark?
A loyal Canadian reader (is there any other kind?) emails a story about Earth Hour tomorrow, when environmentally conscious folks - and even some cities and corporations - will turn off all the lights for an hour at 8 pm Saturday. I can't seem to get my American-shaped computer to fit into the Canadian Internet tubes to read the Globe and Mail piece he sent, but here's Time Magazine.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

I Don't Understand Ultimate Fighting
But I really don't understand this. I can imagine the arguments for it, I guess. But none of them really work for me - not one bit. Can any of you who maybe took karate as a kid (that's the closest respectable activity I can imagine) explain why ultimate kid-fighting might be an acceptable way to corral (encourage?) the physical aggression of an 8-year-old? Whatever happened to pillow fights?
McCain
Gave a big foreign policy address yesterday. And, as Kevin Drum says, "the pandering for the independent vote has now started in earnest." The Republican primary is officially over. Indeed most of that speech is a good hopeful read. And maybe he wouldn't still be making that "maverick" label so laughable if it weren't for his Bush-hugging Iraq plans and tax promises. In other words, if it weren't for his actual foreign and domestic policies, he might just be reasonable.
Final Rev. Wright Deep Thought
E-mailing with an especially brilliant Article 19 reader (is that redundant?), about why it's somehow ok for Republicans to be associated with hate-mongering religious figures like James Dobson, John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the like, while Obama's minister is not allowed to question the country, I had a thought along these lines:

For a Republican, it's better to love the country and hate many of its people than it is to hate the country for not properly loving all of its people. For them, loving the abstraction releases you (requires you?) to loathe the particular.

But that's the final thought on this subject, because I am giving this whole episode the official Article 19 seal of *The Weathered Storm.* Obama is catching up in PA, surging in NC, and it is only a matter of time before we can get about the business of uniting around the necessary defeat of Iraq-war-loving, economy-misunderstanding, confederate-flag and religious-right-pandering, torture-flip-flopping John McCain.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Will My Team Make the Playoffs?
If you ever ask yourself that question, no matter which sport, you will agree with me that this is an incredibly cool site.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Getting Too Cute?
Bill Clinton, ever the argument-framer, on how nice a race between McCain and his wife might be:
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
An Obama adviser thinks we might as well jump to the harshest possible interpretation:
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is trying to clarify comments by former President Clinton that seemed to question Barack Obama's patriotism - comments an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy.

Clinton's campaign said the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posted a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.
...
"It's a use of language as a disguised insult. We've seen this before, this little clever spin that's put on stuff," McPeak said. "I have no idea what his intentions are, but I'm disappointed in the statement. I think Bill Clinton is, or ought to be, better than that."
When I first read this, I thought Bill was probably getting a raw deal. He doesn't of course think that Obama doesn't love the country enough. And it would be a foolish thing to say, even if he did. But the more I think about it, it seems like he might be once again (think SC Jesse Jackson comment...) trying to hint around at a criticism without having to say it, a bit of subliminal campaigning. If a debate on issues is really what he wants, and not a distraction, wouldn't it be nice if he actually tried to set a better example?

Friday, March 21, 2008

So I Had a Pretty Good Seat...

...at the near-historic Duke-Belmont basketball game last night - amazing seat actually, as you can see. It doesn't get much better than 5th row, courtside.

As for the outcome, I didn't need another reason to get annoyed with Duke. With 4 good opportunities (and one long-shot) in the last minute, Belmont just needed to have one of them go right to pull off the upset: 3 chances to score, one chance to defend, and a half-court heave. It couldn't have been more exciting though. Our small contingent of Belmont fans were standing and cheering throughout, but in the last 5 minutes the whole building full of mostly West Virginia fans woke up and got behind the underdogs. Atmosphere-wise, only hockey playoffs compare. Oh well.

As for other teams I'm watching, the Cats were dismissed without fanfare by a mediocre Marquette team (if next year is a disappointment, the coach is in trouble?) and the Predators suddenly can't win at home. They probably have to win out the last 7 to make it in the playoffs. Even then it might not be enough. All of these mini-dramas masquerading as disappointment, of course, are why they play next year. And really, so long as there is next year, who cares?

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Tourney Brackets
Who ya got? I'll be cheering on Belmont tonight. When they beat Duke, it will be the biggest upset in tournament history, right?

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama Speech Reaction
I rarely get to say this, so here goes: I agree completely with Andrew Sullivan.

I don't frankly understand why, much less how, anyone could hear the speech any differently, unless encrusted with a cold cynicism that is intractable. But alas, many do. My Hillary-supporting friend, no cynic she, who once claimed merely that Obama supporters were blinded to our deep-seated sexism, now has a more anti-Obama slant. I believe the exact quote yesterday was "He's a black separatist and he's lying through his teeth. You don't sit cheering in that church for 20 years without feeling the same way." So, there you go.

Somehow, he's got to overcome this. His speech was thoughtful and unprecedented. But what he needs now are some positive poll numbers (I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that a large group of potential voters have now simply struck him from the list) and a bit of a change of the subject. The line he is trying to walk in this race discussion is a fine one. He wants to acknowledge some difficult truths, but doesn't really want to make the discussion central to the campaign, as you can see by the end of the speech, when he encouraged us to show that we were moving forward by focusing on other things: the economy, the war, health care.

So, yes let's talk about race finally, and let's demonstrate our progress by not talking about race so much. I understand what he's saying, but it's a tough balancing act.
Why Phil?
I wonder what my Governor is up to? He has an op-ed in today's NYTimes urging a June superdelegate convention to settle the nomination well in advance of the August Dem convention. Makes sense, I guess. But why is he the one out front? I believe he could be Hillary's VP, but not Obama's. Would he put TN in play? Or could he be angling for a cabinet post? HHS?
Early Morning Deep Thought
Because of their calling - or perhaps their ego (we'll talk later about whether the one leads to the other) - many members of the clergy like to take ideas further than our comfort level, or for that matter a reasonable level. The flock generally accept what they can or will and dispense with the rest. I even know a few Catholics who are not completely opposed to contraception, for example. Failing to leave the Church over such disagreements doesn't make you a reprobate or a bad parent. It makes you a normal church-goer. At the risk of offending my ordained readers (for whom of course this deep thought does not apply), the minister and his/her preaching content is not the only reason folks go to church; nor is the sermon usually even that person's biggest selling point, much less the church's. I would say it's not even in the top 5.

I say we hold our elected officials more accountable for the wars they start than the preaching they endure. But maybe that's just me.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Idiot Box
I have never heard commentary any stupider than the blather in these minutes waiting for Obama's address on race and, presumably, the Rev. Wright story. Geez people, he has a fiery pastor, he didn't get caught with teenage prostitutes. I really don't see why people are freaking out about this.

We'll see what he has to say.

[UPDATE: Here's the speech.]

Monday, March 17, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What you been reading, listening to, watching?

Completely out of the arts loop this week. Help me.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Michael Kinsley
Yeah, I was offended by the Ferraro business, but can still appreciate that this new piece by Michael Kinsley gets it about right:
Let me be absolutely clear where I stand on all of this. There is no room for sexism in a modern political campaign. There is no room for racism either. There is no room for remarks that could reasonably be interpreted as sexist or racist. In fact, given the history of sexism and racism in this country, there is no room for remarks that could even be willfully misinterpreted as sexist or racist. There is no room for rudeness, or for the appearance of rudeness. There is no room for comments of any sort by anybody a candidate might have met under any circumstances in the course of his or her life, unless they have been vetted for sexism, racism, rudeness, or the appearance of these qualities by the campaign's senior staff. There is no room for unfair accusations that the opposition candidate has engaged in sexist, racist or rude remarks, or that anyone he or she has ever met has engaged in such remarks. And of course there is also no room for perfectly fair accusations of this sort, which can be misinterpreted, and usually are.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Delegate Math Update[UPDATED]
With MS and WY settled, and a better idea of the final delegate counts in OH and the TX caucus, a revised CA count, and final results certified in CO, all the pledged delegates from states already voting have now been alloted by some news organization or another. The current pledged delegate count on that score has Obama up by 154 160, 1414.5 to 1254.5. With 566 pledged delegates still remaining, Clinton would have to win 63.5% 64.1% of them to catch him in that category.

Adding superdelegates who have endorsed, Obama's lead is cut to 117 124 125, 1623.5 to 1498.5. There are 342 341 of those yet to endorse. To catch him in the overall count, Hillary will have to win 56.4% 56.8% 56.9% of the remaining 908 907 delegates, pledged and superdelegates combined.

All of that contingent on whatever they do with FL and MI.

[UPDATE: First of all, when an update gets updated, you know that the original suffered from bad timing, which this one did. Here's what happened: Iowa's county caucuses took place on Saturday, and in all of the hullabaloo Obama gained 1 of Clinton's delegates (don't ask me how that happens. I don't know.) and 8 of Edwards' for a net gain of 10. Meanwhile, that revised CA count got revised again but in Hillary's favor (net O loss of 2), and DC may have moved from 12-3 Obama to 11-4 (another loss of 2). Overall a net Obama gain of 6. Numbers updated above to reflect.]
Science Friday
EPA scientists recommended new and slightly more limiting ozone restrictions in conjunction with their mandate under the Clean Air Act. From the Washington Post:
Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade.

Ozone, which is formed when pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and other chemical compounds released by industry and motor vehicles are exposed to sunlight, is linked to an array of heart and respiratory illnesses.
Sounds good, right? Except of course when your President is George W. Bush. He stepped in and significantly crippled the ozone standards suggested by the EPA scientists. That's against the law, of course, but hey he's the President and on his way out anyhow, so who cares?
EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The president's order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past EPA statements on the harm caused by ozone.
Oh, and while on the subject of Bush, did I mention yet today that he is a monumental, hypocritical, embarrassment?

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Ferraro Flap
I have lots to say about Ms. Ferraro's rather vile dismissal of Obama, but little to no time to type it. In short, I think she's essentially saying he's nothing but his race - nothing of substance underneath. And it's only a short walk from there to the idea that he's nothing *because* of his race. It's not just a crass, divisive, hateful, Republican style of politics, it's effectively a denial of his humanity. He's just an empty black suit.

It really pissed me off, obviously.

What say you?

[UPDATE: Keith Olbermann's passionate statement on the issue is here.]

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Stupid Questions
The answer to this is no.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

If You Care About the Torture Issue
Read this.

Monday, March 10, 2008

The Important Spitzer Question
All evening I haven't seen anyone explain what the heck kind of federal investigation is it that goes after a prostitution ring? ABCNews is on the case and through TPM comes the story: the feds were called in because of the suspicious money transfers. They thought they had the Gov in a bribery or money laundering case, but after some investigation and a wiretap they figured out where all that money was going: seriously over-priced sex.

What an idiot.

And for a guy who spent his career prosecuting white-collar cases that involved similar kinds of evidence, the stupidity is that much more pronounced.

I have lots of sympathy for all kinds of personal indiscretion. You know, people make mistakes, and have issues. But this is so profoundly dumb, and shows such incredible hubris, it's a bit hard to fathom. You don't get to that level of public service by yourself, but on the backs of lots of people who pour their hearts and lives and pocketbooks and reputations into helping you get there because they believe in you and what you can do for the public good. To then - after all that - be willing to risk throwing it all in the toilet for something so asinine, and throw your wife under the bus with it (she surely held down the family while he was out being Eliot Ness and running for Governor) in public humiliation...it pretty well boggles the mind. There's gratitude for you.

All that being said, if Senator Craig and especially Senator Vitter didn't have to resign, I don't see why Governor Spitzer should have to. After all, he didn't in fact launder public money or engage in a bribery scheme, like they thought. He paid for sex, just like Vitter. And went so far out of his way to hide it, that he was caught. Would have done better to go out Hugh Grant style. But then, wouldn't we all.
MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, watching, reading?

Film Recommendation
The Bank Job is actually pretty good. A little worried at first, but it warmed up. Also saw Waitress over the weekend. Funny in spots, a little trite and caricaturish in other spots, but overall thumbs up.

More Books About Food
I hear from a well-read (and good lookin) loyal blog follower that Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) has a helpful follow up book called "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto"
What Are Baptists Up To?
The front page of the Tennessean ran a story today, as did the NYTimes, on a declaration signed by several Southern Baptist bigwigs - including the current President of the fundamentalist convention - which says essentially this: global warming is likely real and likely a problem and so we should address it as a moral imperative. Since the religious right has pretty well been front and center of the global warming denier's caucus, this could be a significant development. The signers here include not just high ranking officials but influential poobahs as well.

I have to assume, frankly, that they are up to something, but what's the angle? The NAE's Richard Cizik has been trying to move conservative Christian groups in the direction of, well, conservation, for a while now and has been practically drummed out of the club for it. What's changed?

Reasonable Baptist Robert Parham seems to think they are inserting wiggle room by refusing to acknowledge that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Yes, that's a problem of logic (how are we supposed to address it if we aren't the ones that have been contributing to it?), but I don't see a real strategy there. I can think of 3 possibilities:

1) They sense drift in their membership, especially young people. Are member churches letting leadership know that their congregations want to see action on global warming? Honestly, I don't think that's it. Without being too insulting about it, the Southern Baptist churches that have clung to fundamentalist rule aren't exactly ones for stepping out against the leadership and forming a grassroots push-back.

2) Trying to bigfoot the New Baptist Covenant meeting on Wednesday? The leaders of the recent New Baptist Covenant meeting in Atlanta are getting together Wednesday to discuss next steps. It wouldn't shock me if they are intending to come out in full support of policies aimed at the climate crisis. By releasing this declaration today, the SBC can claim to be leaders and not look like followers here.

3) The McCain Factor. This is where I'm leaning. Whichever President we have after the November election will not be a global warming denier. McCain's not as good on the issue as Obama or Clinton, but he's not completely anti-science about it, and ackownledges it is a problem to be dealt with. So, I'm thinking the SBC sees the writing on the wall. As (even crazier) nutjob John Hagee is endorsing him, it could be that Convention strategists, keen on maintaining a high level of political sway, want to get ahead of the curve and move in a way that will help McCain embrace them back. Together, fundamentalist Christians and reasonable Republicans may believe they can shape policy and make the defeat of global warming a conservative triumph (surely, looking to addressing the issue in a way that keeps oil companies happy as well) rather than fighting the wave of public sentiment.

They support him on global warming and he will support them on, what, judicial appointments? gay rights? And the SBC jumps ahead of some other perennial Religious Right powerhouses like James Dobson, the Family Research Council, etc. in White House influence?

Friday, March 07, 2008

I've Got Nothing Today
Nor, obviously, yesterday. It's a Friday in March and afer a tease of spring on Monday, we're supposed to get 3-4 inches of snow overnight tonight. Everyone's freaking.

Most of my thoughts lately are toward various races: Will Obama win enough to take the nomination? Will Kentucky win enough hoops games (maybe just one more?) to make it into the NCAA tourney? Will the Predators win enough hockey games to sneak into the playoffs? Can my alma mater Belmont win 2 more games this weekend and go to March Madness for the 3rd straight year?
My predictions are: yes, probably, probably not, and I'm afraid they're due for an upset.

Obviously, I'm in a win-or-lose frame of mind. I'll depend on you for substance and nuance. What are you reading or thinking about out there heading into the weekend?

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

State Projections Look Pretty Good {Edited to Fix My Screwup KennyB Caught}
In my delegate obsession update below, part of my calculation is a 3-poll average of upcoming states, plus allotting the leftover to Clinton 2:1. That ended up pretty close to the actual results last night. Below are the popular vote results, with the projection in parenthesis.

Vermont Obama 59 - Clinton 39 (59.3 - 40.7)
Ohio--Clinton 54.3 - Obama 44.0 (54.4 - 45.6)
Rhode Island--Clinton 58 - Obama 40 (54.9 - 45.1)
Texas--Clinton 50.9 - Obama 47.4 (51.8 - 48.2)

The delegates are a little different story. From the looks of it, Hillary gained maybe 5 in RI, 4 in TX and 11 in OH. Obama gained 3 in VT and will likely gain a few in the TX caucus as results come in the next few days. Let's just say that Clinton gained somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 for the night, reducing Obama's pledged delegate lead to about 135.

There are 338 left to come. To gain 135 and take the pledged delegate lead, she will have to win them 247-91, 73% of the remaining delegates. And there's this: she's not going to win WY or MS this weekend, so that number will go up.

{That was wrong - way wrong. Here are the real numbers:
There are 611 left to come. To gain 135 and take the pledged delegate lead, she will have to win them 373-238, 61% of the remaining pledged delegates. As it is not looking likely that she can gain during the 45 coming up this next week, she will have to win at least 62% of the delegates in states beyond that. She has only captured 62+% of the vote in 1 state thus far: Arkansas.

Her chances are better than I credited earlier when I typed the original version, but I still believe she can't win the pledged delegate vote without re-opening FL and MI and getting some big wins along the way. Maybe it's fair to make him prove he can close the deal, but it seems selfish and hurtful to the party, given that she insists on praising McCain's experience in comparison, and play coy about Obama's religion.}

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

March 4 Predictions
Based on very little:
Clinton wins RI and OH 53-47, and TX 51-49, but Obama gains more TX delegates, and gains more in VT delegates than he loses in RI, so delegate picture stays roughly the same after tonight. She'll gain less than 20, and as Jonathan Alter points out, the race is over. Will Hillary be the last to acknowledge it?

Monday, March 03, 2008

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Homage to the Heist Movie
Terrence Rafferty in the NYTimes ahead of the upcoming "Bank Job." I think he leaves out some pretty good ones, but it's a nice piece. What are your favorite robbery flicks?

Monster Cables: Not All That Special
from BoingBoing
A reader forwarded us a post from the Audioholics Home Theater Forum... He says his brother ran an experiment on him and four other audio aficionados listening to a new CD from a new group blindfolded. Seven different songs were played, each time heard with the speaker hooked up to Monster Cables, and the other time, hooked up to coat hanger wire. Nobody could determine which was the Monster Cable and which was the coat hanger. The kicker? None of the subjects even knew that coat hangers were going to be used.
Article 19 Movie Warning
Don't see Vantage Point.... you have been warned.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Delegate Obsession Update [UPDATED Thurs 5/1. 2 PM]
It will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. That number goes up and down slightly as superdelegates are added and removed for various reasons.

Article 19 Delegate Projection (current pledged count + superdelegate projection + projection of upcoming states that have been polled)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
(John Edwards--19)
Obama +98

Details below...

Current Pledged Delegate Count [UPDATED Sat. 4/26 3 PM to reflect PA results.]
Obama 1490
Clinton 1336
Obama +154

Current Superdelegate Count (and superdelegate projection, supposing the remaining split evenly)[UPDATED: Thurs 5/1 12 pm]
Obama 244 (389)
Clinton 260 (405)
Clinton +16 (+16)

Projection of upcoming states which have been polled (based on average of 3 recent polls, plus assuming undecideds break for Sen. Clinton 2:1) [UPDATED Thu 5/1 2 PM to reflect new polls in NC and IN.]

NC (115): Obama - 51.2 - 48.8 (59-56) O +3 [O +36k of 1.5m]
WV (28): Clinton - 67 - 33 (19-9) C +10 [C +134k of 400k]
IN (72): Clinton - 55.8 - 44.2 (40-32) C +8 [C +104.4k of 900k]
KY (51): Clinton - 69.9 - 30.1 (36-15) C +21 [C +199k of 500k]
OR (52): Obama - 54 - 46 (28-24) O +4 [O +48k of 600k]
SD (15): Obama - 52.6 - 47.4 (8-7) O +1 [O +4.2k of 100k]
PR (55): Clinton - 58.7 - 41.3 (32-23) C +9 [C +156.6k of 900k]

Obama 174
Clinton 214
Clinton +40
Clinton +505,800

Total (current pledged + projected superdelegate + projected polled states)
Barack Obama--2053
Hillary Clinton--1955
Obama +98

What's left to consider[UPDATED Mon 4/26 3 PM to reflect polling in PR, SD, OR]:
That still leaves 20 pledged delegates yet to be assigned from those yet to vote for which there are no polls: Guam (4) and Montana (16).