Panic In Detroit

(Apologies to Bowie for the title. It's a reach, but I like the song and wanted to use it.)

Why is there so much vitriol directed towards Detroit over their potential government bailout, so much scrutiny of their recovery plans, when Wall Street - whose bailout is at least thirty times more expensive, and still counting! - gets off without any demands for recovery plans or ridiculous harping about their CEOs' modes of transportation? After all, the automakers actually produce something, it's not just money and paper changing hands. Maybe (call me cynical) it can be traced back to campaign contributions; there was a lot more money on Wall Street, some of which naturally found its way down to D.C. Maybe it's simply a question of bad timing - "bailout fatigue" on Capitol Hill - the Big Three are last to the window, so they have to beg for the leftovers. Or maybe they're simply easy targets. These companies obviously don't have the best reputation over the last 30 years. So even though they have, by all acounts, cleaned up there act a lot in the past five years or so, they're still being punished, fairly or not, for past mistakes and shortsightedness. Not that fairness has anything do do with this economic mess at this point - after Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, et cetera, "fairness" hasn't been spotted around here in quite awhile.

But how did Detroit really get into this situation? Well, I'm not the biggest Malcolm Gladwell fan, but this article by the pop-statistician from The New Yorker two years ago explains the long history of the troubles in Motown (and for American industry, in general) better than anything else I've read recently.

The Dude and The Gray Lady

The Dude moves up in the world! (but is this a positive development?): a mention in the New York Times, with a focus on the Caucasian.

More of the Same?

To anyone that expressed optimism (delusion?) that the forthcoming Obama administration would actually bring "change" to Washington, this is not a good sign. Yes, it looks like Joe keeps his committee chair despite his very active campaigning against his ostensible party's nominee. And like Obama himself said, there will be Republicans serving at high levels in his administration.

Did I miss something? Didn't the country, on the whole, vote for Democrats over Republicans at every federal level? Why do Dems seem to have this bi-partisanship fetish? They WON! That means they can select people from their party who should share a progressive viewpoint and support a progressive/liberal agenda, and then..they can go out and enact that agenda! Holy shit, it all seems so easy! But that's not what's happening. Greenwald, as usual, sums it all up nicely:

Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?

That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.

If this is how the next four (or eight) years is going to be: spineless Democrats enacting a half-baked, flaccid agenda with the help of all of their bi-partisan Republican friends, count me among the seriously underwhelmed.

Update: It's official! But I don't think Kos' comment about a tone-deaf Senate is entirely accurate; the Senate is quite aware of the political tone of this decision, it just realizes that ignoring the current tone will have absolutely no repercussions. Until Greens poll at more than one or two percent nationally, progressives are stuck - with Harry Reid and the Democrats.

Word Games

It's one week before the election, but is it 2008 or 1950? The dreaded label of Socialist has been hurled at Barack Obama so often in the past month, it's difficult to tell what year it is. Is this Palin-McCarthy - um, sorry - McCain-McCarthy versus Obama-Marx? Maybe it's a good sign that the hugely succesful demonization of liberal has run out of gas, and the Right has to reach further back in time to when their candidate was still a teenager...and Obama's mom was 8 years old.

A new Red Scare is just what this country needs, isn't it? It's not like we have any other problems to worry about at the moment. Plus, Capitalism has kicked ass lately, hasn't it?

A Real Threat to the Nation

No, this isn't about last night's debate (Sarah Palin scores major points for remaining upright and conscious, right? Oh ya, you betcha!). Nor is it about the financial "crisis". It's about how we just might be a nation of jerks. Tools. Pricks. You get the picture. Why else would Bow-Flex feature Brian Alvarez in its TV ads, other than as an mass appeal to our inner douchebag? If you've seen the ad, you know what I'm talking about. If not, lucky you! I could go on at length, but it wasn't hard to find another blogger who shares a very healthy, heart-warming hatred for Mr. Alvarez.

Palin: Scarier Than Cheney?

I know, what a crazy thought, right? Still, her interview with Katie and some of her mayoral policies make me wonder; her cluelessness versus Cheney's diabolical evil? It's a closer call than I would have thought:

A few clips of her interview with Couric, surrounded by some discussion by Mr. Greenwald (second clip is worse).

Billing rape victims in Wasilla?!?

Brian Drain (aka Gordon Gekko Lives!)

This is the second time in the past few months I've seen this topic broached in our newspapers in the past year, but it seems more relevant now than it did back in February:

In his February 20 column, Steve Pearlstein of the Post railed against how the Finanical Industry operates at the top:

Wall Street's hypocrisy on this topic is nothing less than breathtaking. When times are good, its champions will claim that their brilliance and hard work account for the spectacular returns. But when markets turn and investors lose their shirts, these same brilliant managers are sent off with golden parachutes and invariably scooped up by rival firms that are only too willing to chalk up their mistakes to bad luck.

It would be bad enough if the consequences of this excessive pay were confined to Wall Street. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. For the prospect of earning untold wealth also has attracted an enormous amount of young talent that could have been more productively used in science, engineering, medicine, teaching, public service and businesses that generate genuine long-term value.

Is it not fair to ask whether the United States can remain the world's most prosperous and innovative economy when half of the seniors at the most prestigious colleges and universities now aspire to become "i-bankers" at Goldman Sachs?

Now Roger Cohen visits this same territory in his Wednesday column in the New York Times:

When I taught a journalism course at Princeton a couple of years ago, I was captivated by the bright, curious minds in my class. But when I asked students what they wanted to do, the overwhelming answer was: “Oh, I guess I’ll end up in i-banking.”

It was not that they loved investment banking, or thought their purring brains would be best deployed on Wall Street poring over a balance sheet, it was the money and the fact everyone else was doing it.

I called one of my former students, Bianca Bosker, who graduated this summer and has taken a job with The Monitor Group, a management consultancy firm (she’s also writing a book). I asked her about the mood among her peers.

“Well, I have several friends who took summer internships at Lehman that they expected to lead to full-time job, so this is a huge issue,” she said. “You can’t believe how intensely companies like Merrill would recruit at Ivy League schools. I mean, when I was a sophomore, if you could spell your name, you were guaranteed a job.”

But why do freshmen bursting to change the world morph into investment bankers?

“I guess the bottom line is the money. You could be going to grad school and paying for it, or earning six figures. And knowing nothing about money, you get to move hundreds of millions around! No wonder we’re in this mess: turns out the best and the brightest make the biggest and the worst.”

According to the Harvard Crimson, 39 percent of work-force-bound Harvard seniors this year are heading for consulting firms and financial sector companies (or were in June). That’s down from 47 percent — almost half the job-bound class — in 2007.

These numbers mirror a skewed culture. The best and the brightest should think again. Barack Obama put the issue this way at Wesleyan University in May: beware of the “poverty of ambition” in a culture of “the big house and the nice suits.”

39% of Harvard seniors going into the financial sector, down from 47%? I don't know what's more depressing, that some of the very best and brightest only want to make money, or that they're doing such a poor job of it. Sure, there's no guarantee that, had any of these people gone into medicine or engineering, they would have found a cure for cancer or developed a car that could be powered by mayonnaise. Who knows, maybe they'd be making weapons for our massive war machine (there's plenty of money there, too) or inventing less-weighty items. But I'd sure like our odds for a better world if they had chosen those careers. Too bad that it's just about the (obscene amounts of) money.

Isn't Tech Awesome?

Here's the latest small step in the march towards....dystopia? the surveillance state? the end of speeding, illegal lefts, and mowing pedestrians down in crosswalks? Time will tell. Makes me wonder, though - did Orwell, Bradbury, Gibson, Gilliam, and all those fellows who write/wrote about a dystopic future anticipate the advance of technology, and that humans just wouldn't be able to resist using it for these purposes? Or did they think the worst of humankind, and assumed that given enough time it was inevitable that we would consciously work toward the development of these tools of the police state? In other words, which comes first, the camera or the man in the control booth studying you on the monitor? And does it even matter, now that it's here (and growing)?

Real-Life Wire

Straight from the TV screen to the actual streets of Baltimore! OK, maybe this guy and his East Side drug ring weren't as big-time as Proposition Joe or B & B, but it still sounds like David Simon could have written the script for this one.

Beaten to the Punch

I was all set to comment about the latest comments from Jacques Rogge (head of the IOC) about phenom sprinter Usain Bolt, which further cemented Mr. Rogge's reputation as a paragon of hypocrisy. This bourgeois Belgian's buffoonery cannot be bested!

But Sally Jenkins wrote it better than I could in her latest column (albeit absent the alarming attack of alliteration).

Cabin Noise

Considering (1) how inconsiderate some people can be when using their mobile phones in public and (2) that assaulting another airline passenger during these days of the Bush-Cheney regime could get you shipped to Guantanamo, this bill seems like a great idea to me. I even like the name! But it's probably only a matter of time before phones on U.S. flights are a reality; they're already allowed on planes in other parts of the world, after all.

Festival 2008 Recap

We hit the 2nd day of the '08 Virgin Mobile Festival on Sunday, and while not as good as last year (how can you top The Police, Beastie Boys, LCD Soundsystem, Cheap Trick, and even a vacant Amy Winehouse?), it was still a good time. There was a lot more separation between the two headliners, Nine Inch Nails and Kanye West, and the rest of the lineup - seemingly, all of the on-stage energy for the entire day was saved up for the last two acts. There were certainly other solid if unspectacular performances from Stone Temple Pilots, the Black Keys, Bob Dylan, and Moby, but nothing that could touch the aggressiveness of Mr. Reznor or the showmanship of Mr. West. There were a few acts that I had never heard of, or that had heard very little about, that I'll be checking out more, including Andrew Bird and Chromeo.

Legalizing the Surveillance State

It's done, the new FISA bill has passed in the Senate. No, this doesn't plunge us into 1984. But it does bring us a few steps closer.

I think Obama's stark reversal on this issue is oddly reassuring - having a principled, honest person running for president is way too suspicious, but now we know he's just another politician. Will I still vote for the guy? Sure! (as if I'd vote for McCain). But he's not the Second Coming, as his hard-core supporters like to imagine. He's just another poll-driven, broken-promises, triangulating candidate. Much more appropriate behavior for someone running for president.

Why The Left Runs To The "Center"?

Here's an insightful post that builds on Greenwald's latest and asks why Weakness is Strength for Dems. The answer is intriguing, although I'm not sure I buy the entire premise; I guess I have a hard time believing that today's media stars are that influential with voters, but then again for the premise to work, they only need to be influential to candidates and their advisers. The concept of "moving to the center" is summed up nicely with this line:

The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)

The Problem with Democrats

[Note that the post is the problem, singular, not problems; I don't have all day!]

Over the past...30 years (?), it seems to me that Republicans have been very successful in moving the accepted political spectrum farther and farther right - what was Right is now Center, Far Right is now just Right, Left is now Far Left, you get the picture. Don't ask me why that is, or how it came to happen, but I think there's ample evidence. Even in Clinton's eight years in office, this process was going on; look at welfare reform and the SEC during that time, as a few examples.

Democrats have been in charge on Congress for a few years, and stand in opposition one of the most unpopular presidents in history. But are they actually in opposition? Not really. Even the party's presidential nominee has fallen into an all-too-familiar Democratic trap: the fear of appearing weak on national security, which of course leads to actually becoming weak in defense of one's principles. Congressional Democrats, as a block, only allow themselves token, symbolic opposition to Bush policies; Glenn Greenwald is calling this The New Republic Syndrome. I'm glad our congressman, John Sarbanes, voted against the latest bipartisan disaster, and plenty of other Democrats did as well. But what to do when the House "leaders" are in opposition to the majority of their own party? Either try to change their minds, or remove them from these leadership positions. Too bad it's so difficult (read: expensive) to run against an incumbent. It's a sad time for Democrats when both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer can't be relied on to protect the Constitution. At least the sprinkler system at the National Archives is still on the job (I hope!).

The merits of the FISA bill or other Bush administration positions can be argued, I suppose - you won't read me defending them, but one could make a go of it, I guess. But without any meaningful opposition, no substantive defense of those positions is even required; proponents can throw the flag around this bill (or a potential war with Iran, or a morally and intellectually bankrupt energy policy), question the patriotism of those in genuine opposition without addressing their real concerns, and be home in time for the summer recess.

Of Beer and Hostile Takeovers

If the Belgian-Brazilian brewer InBev wants to buy Budweiser - that's their problem. As for any patriotic defenses of the American-brewed "king of beers"? Andrew Leonard at Salon sums it up much better than I ever could (excerpt below):

For true beer-lovers across the world, Budweiser is a joke. It's embarrassing. Since when does America mean watered down pablum, forced down the throats of an unthinking populace by sheer power of mass marketing muscle? Since when does America stand for homogenized, lowest-common denominator swill? Michelob? Busch? These are not the names of American patriots -- these are signposts of the triumph of a particular strain of capitalism in which true identity and taste are sacrificed in the service of gaining greater market share.

If we're looking for real American icons that represent the grandest traditions of our founding fathers, who threw off foreign rule so they could stand independent and seek their own destiny, we have to search elsewhere than in the realm of giant conglomerates with humongous Super Bowl advertising budgets. I'm talking homebrewers, microbreweries, and those brave, privately-owned breweries that have yet to sell out to the false dream of "going public" -- and all the betrayal of brewer freedom that such slavery to the market implies.

Well said!

The Obnoxious Factor

Dan Connolly is completely correct in his latest blog entry (and so far, his readers agree); for the past four years, the Red Sox have not only had more on-field success than the NYY, but their fans that infest Camden Yards nine times per season have definitely surpassed New York fans in obnoxious behavior. It's almost pleasant to go to an O's-Yanks game these days, if only because it ensures than no critical mass of Boston fans will be at the ballpark. How times have changed...

War Machine

I don't recall how I made my way to this link, but this gargantuan graphic of the 2008 United States budget is...interesting, in a maddening kind of way. Yes, we pay 67% of our discretionary budget (non-entitlement programs such as SS, Medicare, et cetera, which are funded separately) on military and national security. That's over $700 Billion, out of $1.1 trillion. And what do we have to show for it? World peace and prosperity? Not so much. Economic dominance? Seemingly slipping away; we were just passed by China as the #2 exporter (in case you're curious, #1 is a country of 82 million people that sits in the middle of Europe, has a high standard of living, and makes some nice cars too).

Do any of the three (OK, two) presidential candidates even talk about military expenditures? No, not really. Unless it's about an increase in said expenditures, perhaps. Nobody wants to sound like they're soft on the bad guys. Plus, they probably suspect that the big military contractors will do their best to scuttle any campaign that even thinks about substantially reducing the Pentagon's budget, and they're probably right. Remember how quickly Howard Dean was shouted down four years ago when he had the temerity to suggest that we wouldn't necessarily always have the world's biggest military? As if the third-largest country in the world has the God-given right to the biggest military force on the planet.

While plenty of things are broken in this country, things that tax money could really go a long way toward fixing, the military-industrial complex will continue to devour the lion's share of the budget, until someone residing in the White House has the courage (and congressional majority) to start a draw down. I hope that person comes along soon, but I'm not optimistic. I don't think it's impossible; dust off Eisenhower's farewell address, tell the people where the money would go instead (health care, infrastructure, tax cuts), then sit back and watch the proponents of the war machine as they attempt to defend sinking almost 70% of income taxes into weapons and troops. But whoever decides to tackle it must realize that it's a signature issue that will dominate their administration's agenda. It's four-year fight worth having though, the sooner the better.

Ethanol, Dumb Government, and Corn Syrup

Government is usually faulted for moving too slowly, taking too long to catch up to the will of its citizens. The mandated ethanol production targets are an example of government moving too quickly, before the science of ethanol - as it related to global warming - was really understood. Now that it is better understood, this is a giant screw-up that has more serious ramifications than just massive give-aways to industrial agriculture. The problem is leaking into our food supply, and does anyone really expect the feds to move quickly (or to move at all) to correct their error, especially in an election year?

[A food/health aside: The farmer quoted in the Post article argues that food costs as a proportion of the average household budget is much less than it used to be. That's true, but that's because so much of the food Americans eat is processed food which is the end result of the industrialization of agriculture; back in the 1950's, food cost more because it was real food. Now so much of what we eat and drink contains some kind of corn-based chemical concoction that's cheaper than the real food alternative. As long as we continue to ramp up corn-based ethanol production, those processed food-like items are bound to get more expensive. So maybe this ethanol thing isn't all bad, if it means that real food becomes more of a part of the national diet once again?]

Here's another food prices / ethanol article on the front page of today's Sun.

Rethinking City Streets

New York City's congestion pricing traffic/infrastructure plan was shot down by Albany the other day. No surprise there, since there's a long history of acrimony between the State and the City. But there was barely any support for London's congestion pricing plan before it was implemented, and now most Londoners seem to dig it.

This New York Times article from earlier this week presents various re-imaginings of city streets, and is worth a read if you live in a city (who lives in a city and doesn't have urban-planning impulses occasionally?) or just find this kind of thing interesting. My favorite idea is probably the woonerf, although I'll be honest, I'm not sure if it's because I like the concept or because it sounds like it should be the name of an IKEA sofa. The soy-made packs of smart-as-a-horse cars are also...intriguing. Not so crazy about urban acupuncture; "the alpha mode is the shoe"? What does that even mean? Do quotes like that really help bring in the grant money?!?

Campaigning for Israeli Votes

Yesterday, at a United Jewish Communities debate in D.C., here's what representatives from the McCain and Clinton campaigns had to say:

Lawrence Eagleburger (remember him?) claimed that his candidate "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah. . . . He isn't going to push the Israelis." Fantastic! Another president who doesn't do diplomacy. Bush's third term indeed.

Ann Lewis, from the Clinton campaign, declared that "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." Silly me, I thought this was a campaign for the presidency of the U.S.! Apparently the White House should merely act as a rubber stamp for Israel's government.

As race, ethnicity and religion are dragged to the forefront of this campaign, it's going to get really ugly (rather, uglier), really quickly. I find the idea somewhat ridiculous that one must agree one-hundred percent with the political and even religious views of one's pastor. Not much room for free-thinking in U.S. politics. Not anymore.

The Ghost of Steve Blake

Another season, another NIT appearance for the mighty Terrapins of Maryland. Any residual goodwill from the 2002 title has dissipated, so what now? There are all sorts of prescriptions being tossed around online and in the papers: Fire Gary. Gary needs to recruit better. Vasquez shouldn't be playing the point. What's wrong with Gist? The freshmen should have played more, because now next year's frontcourt will be awful.

A bit of truth to all of those. But I think [disclaimer: I have never played organzied basketball, coached organzied basketball, or been to a single Final Four as a player, coach, or spectator] that it begins and ends with the PG position. Since Steve Blake went on to the NBA, Maryland's point guard play has been erratic at best, and often just plain awful. John Gilchrist would rather score - or pout - than pass the ball. D.J. Strawberry was never a point guard but was forced into the position due to some questionable recruiting and didn't do so well (although he tried!). And Mr. Vasquez perfers to turn the ball over by either attempting impossible passes or by dribbling around in the lane until the ball is stolen.

Is there talent on this team? Absolutely. Although it's always interesting to hear Gary's teams described as so athletic when their talent is discussed. When's the last time that Gary's teams were described as smart? Maybe...the early years of the 21st century? Was that because Lonny "Six-Gun" Baxter was any brighter than James "1st Half" Gist? Certainly not. But he seemed to be, out on the court, because Blake wouldn't pass him the ball if he was at a spot on the court where he couldn't make a good play. That's a quality PG. Everyone else on the court looks smarter. Sure, it helps to have a backcourt partner like Juan Dixon. But this team proved down in Chapel Hill months ago that the ability is there, and that it just needs to be tapped consistently.

I know the origin of the word "fan", so I understand why people are calling for Gary's head. But logically, what are the odds that Debbie Yow is going to strike gold and find a coach that will do what Gary has already done? Statistically speaking, it's unlikely. There aren't too many coaches out there that been to even a single Final Four. That being said, I don't think he has a free pass for much longer. For instance, I can't see him holding onto his job if this year's NIT appearance is followed by two more years of the same. Hell, he might only have one more year - the big-money boosters at an ACC school aren't much for patience.

So what will Gary do? Move Vasquez to the shooting guard position, for starters. This puts him back in his natural position (he is a decent scorer), takes the ball out of his slippery hands, and moves Hayes to the bench (Eric doesn't look like an ACC starter to me, not after this season). Then, find a real pass-first PG. Maybe it's Adrian Bowie. Maybe it's the 2008 JuCo PG transfer with the awesome name, Bobby Maze. There's talent on this team; all it needs is someone with the ball in his hands who can help it to reach its potential.

House Dems Locate Their Spines

Better late than never, right?

2008 Rock & Roll HOF Induction

I'm not one for award shows, but I am a fan of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame show because it's so unlike the Oscars or the Grammys. For one, the audience is full of the most random collection of celebrities and music executives - this year there was Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, some SNL cast members, and a random supermodel or two. The performances are also somewhat rough but come off as really genuine, maybe due to the relatively small venue at the Waldorf in NYC, as opposed to the cavernous amphitheaters that contain the bigger awards shows.

But the best part is the unscripted nature of the whole production. You never know what the inductees, or inductors (?) are going to say. And they can say pretty much whatever they want, for as long as they want. We recorded the show on Monday night and watched it last night; it was a good thing that it was recorded because we could zip through some of the inductees that we didn't know or care about and just get to the main acts (Leonard Cohen, Madonna, Mellencamp), because otherwise we would have been sitting there watching for four hours. On MHD they show the whole thing, edited only for bad words, without commercials, including stage change-overs and random backstage footage ("backstage" for some reason consisting of a kitchen/walk-in freezer area of the hotel). I think they edit it down to 2-hours, with ads, when they re-broadcast it on VH1 in a few weeks.

So what about all those crazy speeches and introductions? First of all, you kind of wonder how they come up with some pairings. Back in 2003 Gwen Stefani inducted the Police, and Elton John inducted Elvis Costello. Not the most natural pairings, if you ask me, but kinda fun nonetheless. This year Mr. Cohen was treated to a rambling, disjointed, when-will-it-end monologue by...Lou Reed? Sure, why not. Lou's odd introduction was thrown into even sharper relief by Cohen's brief, funny, touching acceptance speech.

Next up was Justin Timberlake to induct Madonna, a pairing that made a bit more sense to us. Justin started strong, but all the innuendo and lame jokes, not to mention his attempts to work in as many Madonna song titles as possible, became somewhat painful to listen to after a few minutes. Not terrible enough to wonder if Lou was still available, but still not good. Madonna herself had a solid and sincere acceptance speech prepared, nothing controversial or particularly noteworthy. But then...she didn't perform! Huh? Instead fellow Michigan native Iggy Pop performed in her stead (at her request?!?), "treating" the audience to two Madonna covers, the first which I didn't even recognize and the second an awful version of Ray of Light. Ugh.

Billy Joel inducted John Mellencamp, and while he started slow, he really delivered the most entertaining speech of the whole night. The role of sardonic and bitter aging rock/pop musician suits him quite well, plus he was very funny. I especially enjoyed his impression of Randy Newman. Mellencamp's speech was a bit rambling but solid, he seemed almost weary though at the podium. Fortunately, he had plenty of energy once he got on stage to perform three of his hits, although none of the three was Jack and Diane; what's up with that?

The big finale number, in which all inductees perform together, was just OK. They covered a song by the newly-inducted Dave Clark Five, and while Madonna didn't make it on stage, Iggy Pop didn't either, which was fine with us. So it ended up being John "Don't Call Me Cougar!!!" Mellencamp and his band, joined by John Fogerty, Joan Jett (told you this show was weird), plus Billy Joel looking clueless on keyboards - I wonder if anyone remembered to tell the old guy what song they were playing, or at least what key they were in.

Kinetic Link, Daylight Savings

After participating in our first Kinetic Sculpture Race last year (as volunteers), we were determined to enter this year's race as "competitors". Not gonna happen; we slacked off big-time. Aside from coming up with a few good ideas, we gathered no materials and didn't draw up any plans. Well, there's always 2009. Meanwhile, these kinetic sculptures are in a class of their own.

Meanwhile, what's with this extended daylight savings time, anyway? It probably increases electricity consumption, but do other health and safety-related benefits outweigh that factor?

Disaster In Garyland

Tough to win a game in which you're up by 20 points in the second half, but this team finds a way! I've always defended Gary, because more often than not he finds a way to turn it around. But there is a lot of talent on this team, and I just don't see how a good coach allows the debacle of last night's loss. Not to mention the fact that so often since 2002, his teams have needed to turn it around almost every year, just to have a shot at the NCAA tournament. Why is that the case?

That being said, it's hard to imagine a scenario under which Gary is involuntarily removed from his position in College Park. So something's gotta give.

Lego Batman!

The people that write Wired's game blog got a look at the upcoming game, and it looks awesome. Much more potential, IMO, than the also-forthcoming Lego Indiana Jones. And it's welcome news that the designers have fixed the sole annoying feature of Lego Star Wars (a game that Jenny and I both enjoy immensely), the stupid camera limitation for two players, which forces one player to temporarily drop out of the game for trickier puzzles and jumps.

Plus there's the option to play as the villains, which is always cool.

Here's the game trailer.

Something to Complain About

Seriously, is this really a big deal? We're talking about SNL here. Tina Fey's Weekend Update piece on Hillary notwithstanding, the show doesn't usually have much of a political agenda - they simply unload on the political figures that will get them the most laughs. Some of these critics need to lighten up.

Mean Frog, Good Band Name?

Maybe I've been playing too much Rock Band, because the first thing I thought when I read this article about a giant frog fossil found in Madagascar, was that Beelzebufo, and even its English translation devil frog, would be great band names. As for the frog itself? Ten pounds, and sixteen inches tall - wow.

The Police Confiscate Rock Band

Today's release of Truth Hits Everbody (an early Police single from Outlandos), brings the total number of Police songs available on Rock Band to five. Awesome. Next month, when Message In A Bottle is available for download, that number will be six, more than any other act in the game! (Metallica's count by the end of March will be five). And the Police songs so far - including one of my favorites, Synchronicity II, are of varying degrees of difficulty, which is nice.

I'm also going to have to take issue with some of the "Tier" difficulty rankings, according to this Wikipedia page. I'm not sure what the source is, but some of these seem way off to me. The Boston song that's included in the game is easier on guitar and bass than Tier 8 (out of 9), while the bass line for the Beastie Boys' Sabotage is really tough - no way it's a Tier 3. Other rankings seem entirely appropriate though; Enter Sandman and Highway Star are both brutal.

Points of Emphasis

In advance of the Terps' meeting with the Team from Durham on Wednesday, I thought that it would be appropriate to go to the rule book (courtesy of Grant Wahl's online column for Sports Illustrated):

"Acting As If Charged: The unethical practice of a defensive player or a screener acting as though he has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he has not been, is having an extremely undesirable effect upon the game. Without a doubt the practice is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. Those who 'put on these acts' must be penalized. The 'actor' wants to create the false impression that he has been fouled in the charging-guarding situation or while he is screening when in either case incidental contact has ensued. The acting guard or screener falls to the floor as though he were knocked there by the force of a charge. By his actions he indicates his opponent should be charged with a foul. He appeals to the official, either vocally or with a gesture. He attempts to get the sympathy of the spectators. Such conduct unfairly burdens the official. It incites the spectators. These acts tend to make a farce of the game and often are unsportsmanlike."

"Coaches must not allow players to make believe they have been fouled. The fact that contact occurred does not necessarily mean there has been a foul. When contact occurs, the official must decide whether it has been incidental or whether a foul has been committed. In making his decision he certainly cannot permit his judgment to be affected by an 'act.' In fact the official must completely ignore the acting unless it becomes unsportsmanlike or it tends to make a farce of the game. If the guard or screener persists in putting on the act, and if in the opinion of the official it is making a travesty of the game, the player should be charged with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct."

This is an actual "point of emphasis" for officials, from the college basketball rulebook. The rulebook for the 1968-1969 season. I suppose it really is true that the more things change, the more they stay the same!

O's Pull Off a Decent Trade

In trading Erik Bedard, Baltimore actually gets real value back in return, and according to the "experts" pulled off a great trade. Bedard wasn't going to sign a new contract with the Orioles, and they get a nice young outfielder in Adam Jones, a serviceable lefty reliever in George Sherrill, a pitching prospect who's on the cusp of top-100 prospect lists (Chris Tillman), and a couple more big young pitchers with some upside (lefty Tony Butler is 6'7", Kameron Mickolio is 6'9"). Now all they need to do is trade Brian Roberts to the Cubs for a few more pitchers, and resist the urge to start adding free agents in '09 (bad Peter! No!). This team won't be ready to compete for anything until 2010 at the earliest, but after ten straight losing seasons, what's two or three more?

Who I'm Voting For on Tuesday

This year Maryland will hold a primary that actually matters! While my preferred candidate, John Edwards, is no longer in the running, there's plenty to like about both of the remaining candidates. [My quick summation of the Edwards campaign; loved his message about corporate influence in D.C., too bad he (A) didn't know how to talk about it, and (B) not enough people care, or view it as a big issue.]

Despite the awesome speechifying prowess of Mr. Obama, I'm going to have to cast my vote for Hillary come Tuesday evening. Why? Three reasons, in order of importance to me; I'll try to keep them short.

1. Health Care: In case you missed my sixteen-part series prompted by the movie SiCKO, this is a pet issue of mine. Hillary's plan of mandatory coverage moves us closer than Obama's plan to universal single-payer coverage - albeit incrementally closer.
2. Partisanship: If anything, we need more fights in D.C., not fewer. The current Pelosi-Reid Congress rolls over on war/security matters all the time - if that's what bi-partisanship or post-partisanship look like, then no thanks. I have no desire to see Dems working together on security issues with a party that constantly questions the patriotism of any politician or citizen who opposes war, torture, or spying on Americans. Enough is enough. The president sets the tone for the party, and Hillary is more of a fighter.
   
3. After everything she had to deal with four her previous eight years in the White House, thanks to Bill, Ken Starr, and the VRWC, she still wants to be president? What can I say, I'm impressed by that.
   

With all that having been said, I'd be perfectly fine with Barack as our next president. Two very solid choices; that's awfully nice, for a change.

The Final Four

I am relieved. Since after 2004's election, I assumed that our next president, no matter what party he or she belonged to, no matter what ideology he or she embraced, would be an improvement over the White House's current occupant. Then Giuliani entered the race, and promptly started threatening to bomb everyone. Uh-oh. More recently, Mike Huckabee roared into the picture, and he suggested that the Constitution needs to be Bible-cized. Hmmm, that's one faith-based initiative that sounds like a much worse idea than abstinence-only sex-ed.

Now, in the wake of Florida, we're down to two nominees apiece for each major party, and thankfully none seem as angry as Rudy or as theocratically-inclined as Huckabee. This is good. On the other hand, though, plenty of people - myself included - regarded a Bush victory as a pretty innocuous event back in 2000, so who really knows?

That About Sums It Up

Here's a portion of a comment that was a response to this Salon article about Mike Huckabee and his biblical designs on the Constitution:

Why is it that policies set forth under claims of national security, religious conviction, patriotic values and democracy are not subject to the same criticism as independent policy proposals? Is it because these constructs remain extremely effective and highly repeatable insulators to open discourse? Policies put forth under these four umbrellas are packaged in this way just in order to silence dissenting views.

Yeah, why is that?

In Today's Paper

A few weeks ago, days in advance of the receipt of our state property tax assessment for this three-year cycle, I emailed the Baltimore Sun journalist who writes the paper's real estate blog and asked her what became of the Mayor's blue ribbon committee that was formed to study ways of lowering the city's tax rate. Oddly enough, it was released last week, and then as a follow up she ended up calling me and asking some questions for a tax-related story she's working on. I don't think I provided her with any great quotes or particularly new insights, so after the call I figured that my chances of getting into her article were slim. Time will tell, I suppose.

Meanwhile, I decided to package my thoughts on the committee's asinine recommendations in a letter to the editor. Someone from the paper called me Monday to confirm that I was in fact the author of the letter, and also to ask whether I was affiliated with city or state government or any organization with an interest in the property tax issue.

Then...it was printed in today's edition! Sure, it's not the New York Times, but I'll take it just the same - after all, this is the same editorial page that was once presided over by one H.L. Mencken (we're actually quite close, Mencken and I - every day my train to D.C. passes by the cemetery where he's buried). I even like the way they edited it; I had emailed my letter in one large block paragraph, but it definitely reads better broken up into shorter segments.

New Hampshire Aftermath - The Media's Role

Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald takes a look at how the press influences (or attempts to influence) elections. I swear, this is one of the smartest guys online today, even when I don't agree with his position - which isn't too often - he always constructs an excellent argument. Plus we agree that Chris Matthews is a pompous windbag.

SiCKO, Part Four

Did you know that there's a House bill sitting in Congress right now that creates a universal health care system? H.R. 676 was introduced by John Conyers last January, and was referred to subcommittee in February. What do you want to bet that it never finds its way out of committee for a vote?

I think it was Bill Maher who identified this brilliant Republican strategy of proclaiming that the federal government doesn't work and needs to be smaller, then they fuck it up and say "See?!?" Or something along those lines. Well, it's true, but they're not the only ones destroying government these days. Neither party has a stranglehold on corruption and incompetence. But despite their best efforts, there are some things that the feds do well, do OK, or used to do well. They built the federal highway system, created Social Security, and are good at fighting wars (whether the war is justified, and how the aftermath is managed, is another matter entirely). The administrative costs of existing federal health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are a fraction of private providers' costs, about eight times less. The EPA and Department of the Interior, even while currently hamstrung by the White House, are still working for a cleaner environment and maintaining public parks and open spaces. U.S. attorneys, despite shaky/criminal leadership at the top, are still going after political corruption and organized crime.

Despite all this, there is still reticence about universal coverage. But what do we have to lose? There's widespread acknowledgment that the system is broken, so how are incremental steps to fixing the flawed privately-managed patchwork of health insurance going to help? Sure, people don't want to be taxed more, but if you can show people the numbers, and that any additional taxes would be less than their current premiums plus deductibles plus co-pays, what else is standing in the way? This idea that government will screw it up doesn't hold water, when comparing the two scenarios.

The existing scenario is privatized health care; a provider is interested primarily in providing a good return on shareholders' investments. There is financial incentive to deny costly procedures, while maintaining a minimum level of satisfaction. Why minimum? Well, since so much health care is employer-sponsored, not many people have a choice of who will insure them. Yes, there is often a choice of plans, but the provider is not negotiable. These companies have a captive audience, so to speak, so the level of service must simply reach a level where the company isn't getting the bad publicity that can be detrimental to earnings. Under the current arrangement, your health and personal finances are in jeopardy, should you be denied a claim or if a medical professional or administrator screws up.

Under a universal care scenario, let's assume you're paying about the same; more in taxes, but no premiums or deductibles, so it's a wash. The doctors stay the same, but they're paid by the government. The government administers the system, which they've already proven - with Medicare and Medicaid - that they can do more efficiently than private insurers. There is no incentive to deny care, there's only incentive to keep people healthy. Like docs in Britain, medical professionals would earn bonuses based on health improvements of their patients (accountability!). Yes, there would be screw-ups, but since the whole system doesn't have co-pays or deductibles, the only mistakes are going to be by the doctors, and those will happen no matter what system you're under. In other words, you can't be bankrupted by paying out-of-pocket for the coverage you need.

OK, time to move on, since a four part post on health care probably decimated my already minuscule readership [I'm guessing that it dropped from 5 people down to 2 or 3].