blueollie

22 March 2011

2011-03-22T16:22:00.000-07:00

Last night, I woke up at about 11:30 pm; I was sweating heavily, dizzy (lying down dizzy) and nauseated. I spent much of the night throwing up and dealing with dizziness; my guess is that I got food poisoning; probably from drinking out of a jug that had some old milk in it.

I feel much better today though I haven't eaten much; fortunately I was able to "work from home" today. Tomorrow, I hope to do a gentle 2-3 mile walk.

I do have some posts
Humor

From here

see more funny videos, and check out our Forever Alone lols!

Science

Remember that evolution shaped us; reproductive success was what evolution maximized...and it did that thousands of years ago. Hence, we have some not-so-refined instincts. Read about that here.

No, creationism shouldn't be taught in science class and those who do are committing malpractice.

But at least we don't get threats for teaching evolution.

World Events
Japan really took it on the chin.

Politics

GOP 2012
Here is a run down to what they are up to. Here is a list of "liabilities" that might hurt them in the 2012 primary.

Mr. Pawlenty has formed an exploratory committee; this means that he is probably running. I have no clue as to who will rise to the top; I see Pawlenty and Romney has having the best chance in the general election, though I wouldn't say that either has a good chance.

Common ground

I actually agree with many conservatives here.

But of course, I still have many issues with them; here is a long, but fair (and documented) list.

And for the time being, Republicans are holding up nominations for no good reason; as a basis they use some out of context statements. Paul Krugman argues that this will lead to mediocre people being appointed to such posts.

Economics
If our current economic state is a correction and reflects people training for the wrong jobs, what are the correct jobs? Which areas are "hot"?

Religion
No, we don't have to study deep theology to oppose religion or to argue that it is incompatible with science.

14 June 2010: NBA thoughts and College Student Evaluations

2010-06-14T06:07:00.000-07:00

NBA thoughts So the Celtics have a 3-2 lead going into Los Angeles for one or two games.

Frankly: the Lakers are good enough to pull it out, period. Nevertheless, I'd say that the Celtics, for now, have a slight edge.

I have two comments:

Phil Jackson made some interesting remarks in the huddle toward the end of the game. The Celtics had a 12 point lead with 2:55 left in the game and the Lakers had cut it to 5:

""This team has lost more games in the fourth quarter than anybody in the NBA. They know how to lose in the fourth quarter, all right? They're just showing us that right now."
"

You can see the video here (before youtube nukes it...)

Yes, the Celtics hung on to win.

Now, of course, coach Jackson was technically right...in the regular season that was true. But why?

With a month left in the regular season, Doc Rivers gathered Paul Pierce(notes), Kevin Garnett(notes) and Ray Allen(notes) in his office to tell them how they would be champions again. They were so far away, so uncertain the possibility remained plausible. The longer the season had gone with worn legs, beat-up bodies and bad losses, the clearer the truth had become for Rivers. They would stop angling for playoff seeding and home court, stop treating the regular season with urgency.

Doc Rivers has guided the Celtics to the NBA Finals in two of the past three seasons.
(NBAE/ Getty Images)

“Listen, we’re going to practice harder, you’re going to play less and there’s going to be a minute restriction,” Rivers told them. Garnett’s and Pierce’s faces grew long, and Rivers punctuated his declaration with the obvious: “And I know you’re not going to like this, but the only way you’re going to win is healthy.”
[...]
“I thought it was the right plan, but it didn’t look right because we were losing,” Rivers said. “But guys were resting and conditioning, and I thought that was the only chance we had.”

So, Rivers would watch Garnett seethe on the bench and wonder whether they would ever get through this and into the clear. “Kevin doesn’t have a shut-down button,” Rivers said. They took him out of games, lost leads and Garnett would deliver that icy glare that demanded Rivers return him to the floor. It felt like the season was slipping away in March and April, but it turned out that it was just getting started.

As Garnett and Pierce glared into space, Rivers would hear his assistant Tom Thibodeau and trainer Ed Lacerte bark out the minutes they had played, and Rivers refused to let his thirtysomething stars exhaust their prescribed limits. As a former player with a winning pedigree, Rivers combines the best of X’s-and-O’s acumen with a true understanding of the player’s plight. He’s publicly supportive and privately harsh. He never gets personal with his criticism and never embarrasses them. He treats them with respect, but never reverence.

Bottom line: Coach Doc Rivers kept the long term goal in mind. I remember the days (Bird-Mchale-Parish-D. Johnson-Ainge) in which the Celtics would play their starters hard during the regular season, get homecourt advantage and then run out of gas (1987: Lakers, 1988: lost to the Pistons).

That didn't happen this time, though, again, I am NOT conceding the title to the Celtics. Mr. Bryant, Mr. Gasol and Mr. Fisher have a good deal to say about that.

But in any event, Doc Rivers has done an outstanding coaching job.

My guess: 7 games, with game 7 being a toss-up.

Education

Here is an interesting article about student teaching evaluations (college level; hat tip: Edge of the American West):

College administrators tend to rely on student evaluations. If students say a professor is doing a good job, perhaps that's enough.

Or maybe not. A new study reaches the opposite conclusion: professors who rate highly among students tend to teach students less. Professors who teach students more tend to get bad ratings from their students -- who, presumably, would just as soon get high grades for minimal effort.

The study finds that professor rank, experience and stature are far more predictive of how much their students will learn. But those professors generally get bad ratings from students, who are effectively punishing their professors for attempting to push them toward deeper learning.

The study is called "Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of Students to Professors." It was written by Scott E. Carrell of the University of California, Davis and National Bureau of Economic Research; and James E. West of the U.S. Air Force Academy

It uses as a laboratory the Air Force Academy, where students are randomly assigned to courses such as Calculus, each taught using an identical syllabus. All students are required to take specific follow-up courses. So, the researchers were able to study how each professor fared in producing results for his or her students, and how the same students did the next semester, and so on.

The findings are, to say the least, counterintuitive. Professors rated highly by their students tended to yield better results for students in their own classes, but the same students did worse in subsequent classes. The implication: highly rated professors actually taught students less, on average, than less popular profs.

Meanwhile, professors with higher academic rank, teaching experience and educational experience -- what you might call "input measures" for performance -- showed the reverse trend. Their students tended to do worse in that professor's course, but better in subsequent courses. Presumably, they were learning more.

That conclusion invites another: students are, in essence, rewarding professors who award higher grades by giving them high ratings, and punishing professors who attempt to teach material in more depth by rating them poorly.

Of course, two caveats: this study does have a randomized feature and the entrance requirements for a service academy are stringent.

At other types of universities there is a bigger spread in the quality of student; at such places the popular professors often attract weaker students and of course, these students don't do well in subsequent courses.

But yes, this reveals the flaws of using student evaluations; not that this will matter to the administration.

Celtics vs. Lakers Game 4

2010-06-10T18:19:00.000-07:00

The Celtic shots are rimming out over and over again; Ray Allen is still missing his outside shots. The Lakers are making theirs and lead 12-11 with 4:35 left in the first quarter. Paul Pierce has been aggressive, though he has also missed two free shots (unusual for him)

10 points for Pierce and it is 14-14. The Celtics are still shooting poorly.

The Celtics are shooting 33 percent from the field; the Lakers 47 percent. Ray Allen is 1-5.

Not a lot of points so far.

Wallace just jumped and landed right on Pau Gasol. This is a good old fashioned NBA playoff foul.

Now Gasol flops and gets a foul call. That call was a Laker gift.

Still it is 19-16 Celtics after one quarter; the C's are shooting 36 percent, Lakers 35. For the Lakers, Artest is 1-4, for the Celtics Allen is 1-5, Rondo 1-4.
Gasol has 8, Pierce has 10.

Second quarter

Celtics are still shooting poorly. Ok, Robinson has his second 3.

At least the Celtics are attacking the rim. Garnett and Rondo are getting a nice rest.

27-26 Celtics with 8:10 left in the half. The Celtics' bench has 11 points in just a few minutes.

Allen in, Pierce out. Still the Celtics are hustling. 29-28 Celtics with 5:45 to go.

Man, is Gasol the referee's baby; you just breathe on him and you get a foul!

Rondo drives, gets fouled, but he sucks from the line (he is great at everything else!) He reminds me of Wilt Chamberlain in that aspect.

Bryant a 3 point shot. Pierce a nice hook off of the glass. Bryant another 3. Damn.
Rondo 2; 35-33 Lakers.

Bryant another jump shot. Oh good lord...this is getting away from the Celtics.
It started with 3 straight Bryant jump shots...
39-33 Lakers. 39-35...offensive rebound.

Lakers are shooting 50 percent; Celtics 38.5 percent. That won't get it done.

I am wondering: cold streak, good Laker defense or...old Celtic legs. Often a tired team misses lots of open shots.

Good lord..another horrible call against the Celtics.

Garnett hits the turn-around jumper to make it 45-42 Lakers at the half.

Photos by yahoo.

At the half it looks like this: Bryant 12, Gasol 13, Artest 6. Pierce 12, Davis and Garnett have 7, Rondo and Robinson have 6. Percentages: Lakers 48.6, Celtics 40.9. Rebounds are close; 21 for the Celtics, 20 for the Lakers.

The ABC announcers: Jon Barry called the Celtic offense "pathetic". Another announcer pointed out that the Lakers have the best court player (Bryant) and the best "big" player (Gasol). In short, the Celtics are lucky that this isn't a blow out. Old legs...it has been a good run.

Third Quarter
The Celtics pick it up; two missed shots in a row.
Make that 3 missed shots in a row. But two free throws; 45-44.
Gasol fouled hard this time.

49-44 Lakers; Celtics offense is still offensive. Two bad passes by Pierce; another missed fast break.
Fisher...wild shot and it went in...horrible 3 second call. Just awful; there were 20 seconds left on the shot clock!

Still the Celtics miss shot after shot; horrible. Another missed shot. 48 percent for the Lakers, 38 for the Celtics. But the Celtics are playing hard on defense.

4 fouls on Derek Fisher. That is good news.

Boston up 54-53 with 5:00 to go in the 3'rd.
Bryant ANOTHER 3; taunts the crowd.
Allen hits a shot.
Tie game (56-56) with 4 minutes to go in the 3'rd.

The Celtics continue to miss open shots. 39 percent shooting.
Pierce needs to demand the ball.

Another 3 by Bryant. Another foul on the Celtics.
Another 3 by Bryant. This one is over.

62-60 at the end of 3; Bryant is 5-7 from 3 point land.
Lakers are shooting 45 percent; Celtics 39.
The Celtics are very balanced: Pierce 12, Garnett 11, Davis 9, Rondo 8, Allen 8.
Lakers: Bryant 21, Gasol 17, Artest 6.

4'th quarter; 62-62. Gasol walks all over the place; no call; 64-62.
Big steal by Robinson who has given the Celtics good minutes off of the bench.
The bench getting 17 points and playing good defense is keeping the Celtics in the game.

Davis another shot; the bench is keeping them in the game.

Big stop; I am surprised the Gasol's wild 3 (with the shot clock running to zero) didn't go in.

Ray Allen a shot...another shot by Davis and a foul. 70-64 Celtics with 8:22; both teams shooting 42.9 percent.

But Byrant is shooting well.

The Celtic bench continues to step up; Davis on the boards and put backs.
74-66 with 7:43.
Wallace fouled and ran away. Still, got a technical; Bryant missed the free shot.
Big plays for the Celtics bench. Davis 16, Robinson 12.
Wallace buries a 3. Stupid technical on Robinson; he lost his cool.

79-72 with 5:39 left. Lakers shooting the technical. Fisher actually misses the free throw.

81-72. 5:30 to go.

Odom is playing well for the Lakers. 81-74. The backups are still in the game. Pierce is going to come in as is Garnett. Robinson the big drive!

The backups are still in the game, getting it done. 85-74 Celtics.
Wallace's back went on him. 85-77 Celtics.

2:51, 85-77; does Doc Rivers put Garnett and Pierce and Rondo back in? That isn't an easy call.

Bryant is shooting free throws; money in the bank for the Lakers. 85-79.
Pierce hits a key basket, 87-79.
Bryant another key basket. 87-81.
Pierce big drive; basket plus the foul! 90-81
(ok, bad call but that just made up another call)
But Bryant gets fouled while shooting a 3.

1:08 to go.

Bryant isn't going to miss these.

90-84 with 1:04 to go.
Rondo with a big steal and a lay-up. 92-84..makes that 92-86 with 22.2 seconds left. I hate Derek Fisher.
Boston ball though; the Lakers will foul. Don't give Rondo the ball. They foul Garnett; Garnett is a good free throw shooter.

94-86 Celtics with 17.7 seconds left; this one still isn't over given that Bryant can hit three 3 point shots in this amount of time.

Bryant his ANOTHER 3 94-89. But Pierce is on the line.
96-89 with 9.5 seconds to go; that is how it ends. Celtics win!

Keys to the game

Lakers: Bryant 33, Gasol 21, Odom 10. BUT, Bynum went out early with his knee; that hurt them inside. Fisher got had 4 fouls.
Celtics: 41-34 rebound advantage, Davis had 18 points, Robinson 12, and among the starters: Pierce 19, Garnett 13, Ray Allen 12, Rondo 10. Rebounds were shared.

But mostly it was the play of the bench that made the big difference.

For my Facebook Friends

2009-07-12T19:49:00.000-07:00

Note: This is not my "regular blog" any longer; I put stuff here that I think my be a distraction from my usual "political issues, philosophical rantings and athletic reports" blog.

My regular blog can be found here.

Facebook information:
I am putting in an "outline" biography so that my facebook friends from bygone eras (up to 1985) can find photos and stories about that time.

I'll put headers of places and dates in bold so you can easily scroll to what you want to see.

For those who are interested in my endurance sports record, go here.

Tachikawa Middle School and Yokota High School, 1973-1975

8'th grade: played football, basketball and baseball. I sucked at basketball and baseball. I also took algebra and did well (Mr. Christ) and though our science course sucked (I remember the teacher's name and still think that she is an idiot)

Other memories: I often got matched up with Greg Benton and got my ass kicked; Doug Anderson broke my ankle when he rejected a basketball shot (clean block) and then gave me a ride home on his bike. There were lots of girls that made my heart go pitter patter: The Kyle sisters (Cindy is the one I remember), Braunner sisters (Patricia and Kathleen), Angie Bennett, Barbara Ault, Cathie Shuck, Petra, etc.

Mostly I was clumsy, uncoordinated and socially awkward.

9'th grade: Football (JV), Wrestling and Track. I got picked on and didn't get my revenge until months later. I liked science (Mr. Schwalder) and thought that my English teacher meant well but didn't get it. Carlos McDade, Michelle Wardlay, and Lynn Sugiama were some friends that year.

10'th grade: this went better; I played on the varsity football team; the coach rode me the whole year through I started every game. Wrestling went ok too (12-3 record) before I had to leave.
Grades: I was indifferent during this time; I didn't care about academics at all and made bad grades.

I grew a bit more comfortable with girls at this time.

Tachikawa and Yokota Photos (click to see)

Travis High School: 1975-1977
Starting out at a new school was tough; I struggled on the football team though I started on the JV team as a junior and mostly rode the bench as a senior.

Academics: I kind of came alive at this time and did ok. I liked my math teachers (Halliburton, Musgraves and Sylliman (sp)) and my chemistry teacher (Ms. Mack) and coach Rhorer.

The Spanish teacher (Ms. McDow) also treated me well.

I was socially inept for this period; a highlight was going on a Citizenship Seminar week with Paul Gonzales, Joe Galvan and Tito Menchaca (my cousin). I met some friends there that I would end up corresponding with for several years.

Travis Photos.

US Naval Academy, 1977-1981

I got my BS in mathematics and a changing event for me was my first analysis class that was taught by Professor Rich Davis. Also of note: Professor Betz (complex analysis), Professor Strohl (real analysis, topology), Professor Wardlaw (algebra) and Professor Abbot. (algebra) I'll always remember them.

My Plebe (Freshman) year was a nightmare, on military grounds. I sucked; an "absent minded professor/nerd personality" just isn't a good fit with the Navy. My grades suffered as well, though I made it up somewhat to finish 269/969 in terms of grades.

I grew to love running, weight lifting and swimming.

I participated in judo and in intramural wrestling and weight lifting.

I visited Hood College a few times.

But for the most part, my memories of the Academy were not good; the place itself IS a good place but I didn't belong there.

Oh yes, I had two knee operations (1977, 1978).

Roommates included: Ron Sandoval (3 years), Dave Kroupa, John Barnhill, Jeb Hall and Brad Belletto.

Naval Academy Photos

Navy: 1981-1985

Recruiting Duty, San Antonio, fall 1981. Bill Cone, James Daniels, Ron Sandoval and later Mike Becknell (via OCS) were my compatriots. Later I was to be a housemate with Mike; I attended JD and Bill's wedding.

I mostly ran and goofed off during this time.

Pensacola, 1982 (spring)
I got NPQ'ed. I stayed in a house with 3 guys; Mike was one heck of a nice guy and had success in NFO training. He was also quite the ladies man; he sure could hook 'em any time he wanted to. His roommate was also successful with the ladies, though he was a KKK sympathizing racist. I wonder how he feels about President Obama? :-)

I did my best running during this period, hitting these times over a 6 week period: 32:06 for 5 miles, 1:09:55 for 10.2 miles, 39:50 for 10K.

I also met Mary on the way to the pool. We dated some. She loved the Washington Redskins as was a Republican.

Orlando, 1982
I got NPQ'ed (not physically qualified) for flight (bad knees, see the Naval Academy)

So, I was sent to nuclear power school. I survived; that was about it. Interestingly enough, I fit in better here than I did at the Academy, though I didn't fit in that well.

Oh yes, my classmates were very bright people; some were brilliant.

Nuclear Navy: 1983-1985

Prototype 1983: BARELY made it; I can't think on my feet very well. I loved the machinery though.

Sub school and USS Trepang: Here is where my absent mindedness really killed me; I really couldn't keep two thoughts in my head at the same time. But on the other hand I developed an awe for those who were successful; these men could balance 100 different things in their heads at the same time; even after meeting some of the smartest people in the world I remain impressed by them.

And yes, the enlisted men were pretty good too.

But my knees just killed me; I was to get taken off of the Submarine, operated on two more times and then booted from the Navy.

Nuclear Navy photos

USS Trepang photos

Women I've dated from 1977-1985. (photos)

-----------------

Modern Era: people who met me from 1985 on already know what I am like, though those who knew me between 1985-1992 might be shocked that I am no longer obese.

Then I ended up in Grad School in Austin, Texas (University of Texas, 1985-1991)

Personality wise I actually fit in; I was just in the lower 5'th in terms of intelligence. Still I made it when 70 percent did not; I got the Ph. D.

Other stuff: watched lots of football and basketball, met a woman and married her; she was to become the mother of my daughter. Oh yes, I ballooned up to 300 pounds.

Peoria: Bradley University (1991-present)

Highlights: established a modest publication record, got tenure, had my daughter and then got divorced, remarried, lost weight, restarted running and other endurance sports.

I also got political (worked for Senator Kerry and Obama during their Presidential campaigns) and worked for other candidates. I was president of the local ACLU for one year.

Holidays 2008-2009

2008-12-21T16:34:00.000-08:00

Here is the mistletoe!!!

So, WHERE IS MY BIG SMOOCH????

Hey, Happy Holidays! To my Jewish friends: Happy Chanukah. To my neo-Pagan friends: Happy Yuletide. To my Christian friends: Merry Christmas. To my Pastafarian friends: Merry Chrifsmas. To my friends of other religions: stay warm and enjoy the Holiday Season. To my atheist/agnostic friends: happy solstice, stay warm and enjoy the holidays!

Attitudes about Evoulution

2008-06-13T05:09:00.001-07:00

Take this poll!

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Too much time on their hands...

2008-03-24T06:14:00.000-07:00

Evidently these folks spend lots of time thinking about me. I don't spend much time thinking about them.

I posted this here so as to spare the readers of my regular blog.

My guess is that they were enraged over this. I signed on to give a little bit of money.

The Peoria Nazi Incident

2007-06-24T14:49:00.001-07:00

My blog posts: what started the nazi incident:

http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/i-hate-redwinged-blackbirds/
(yep, one line in the middle of that post!)

then:
http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/leonard-pitts-recieves-implicit-threat-because-of-column/

The Daily Kos Diaries that got me that call and those flyers:

My diary (I discuss this incident in the first three diaries)
Here I discuss the threat and my calling the FBI; this is what got me a telephone call from Mr. White
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/8/144857/9232

Here I discuss the Nazi Flyer incident:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/17/19423/7104

Here I give a follow up post

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/21/11454/6488

Link to the flyer: (it is pretty mediocre)

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/blueollie/blogphotos/nanyesflyercrop.jpg

Link to the Southen Poverty Law Center's take on the Virginia Nazi (scroll down to "the gossip")

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=216

Link to the Peoria Heights Nazi Web Page

second thought, I am not going to link there; search "Illinois + Nazi" if you wish.

most posts moved

2006-12-13T03:18:00.000-08:00

I thought I had lost my blog; it turns out that the folks at the blogger help group helped me out. I ended up being able to republish my blog, and I decided to use a more simple template.

Later this week, when final exams end, I'll make a backup copy of my blog on CD; not that my blog contains stuff that is all that important.

Still, I'll be doing most of my new posts here.

Workouts are doing ok; I am doing a little of everything. I am not 100%, but I am getting stronger and stronger on running, lifting and swimming is going ok too.

testing

2006-12-09T11:40:00.000-08:00

This blog hasn't been very stable lately; I am posting this too see if it shows up.

Finals begin today; tons of stuff

2006-12-08T07:51:00.000-08:00

Final exams began yesterday, and today is my first. I had office hours almost all day yesterday and the day before that; mostly there was nothing but the sound of crickets.

The good news is that I got the rest of the "last class day" exams graded.

Of course, I got an e-mail message from a student who didn't bother to see me during my office hours (schedule specifically when they didn't have other exams) who wanted last minute tutoring.

I politely reminded the student that I was completely avialable during the pevious two days.

Sigh...there is always one; at least this is only one out of 71.

My injury continues to improve slowly; I've been doing indoor cycling, yoga, treadmill "running", weights and swimming.

My mood is better than it was last year at this time, though I am still a bit down. I think that the reason that my mood is better is that I have my injury to work through. I think that I am the kind that needs something to look forward to.

Local Snark

What is making news in that big-time city Peoria, Illinois? Why, it is that a Krispy Kreme store is opening! I kid you not; this is actually a newspaper worthy story in this two-bit hick town!

I am so thrilled; our population, which is already too fat to begin with, has yet another place to fatten up! I'll bet that the folks who do bypass surgery (both the kind on the heart and on the digestive track) are happy about this; business will get even better!

Iraq Study Group Report

The Iraq study group (a bipartisan group of smart people) just issued its report and made some recommendations. You can download a free copy here:
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

It's conclusions: the amount of violence is underreported (duh), the situation is bad (duh), we ought to get the neighboring countries involved; they might cooperate as they don't want instability on their borders (duh).

I admit that I am underwhelmed. I think that Senator Feingold said it very well:

December 6, 2006

“Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change the flawed mind-set that led to the misguided war in Iraq. Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn’t working, but the American people are way ahead of this report.
While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn’t adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority – defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can’t continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of ‘official Washington’ missing the point.”

There is more about Senator Feingold's reaction here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/7/35434/6690

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq.

Amen.

Of course, there are those in the loony right wing who take issue with the report from the other direction. They say idiotic things like this:

Enemies like this understand only one thing: power. They do not keep promises, or honor treaties and agreements that do not serve their primary interests. For them, those interests include humiliating the United States, securing Iraq for the acolytes of Osama bin Laden and then moving on to challenge America in other places and finally on our own soil. The problem is that if we wait to crush them until they reach our shores (and too many are already among us), it will be too late.

What morons like Cal Thomas don't seem to get is that most of what is going on in Iraq is either simple lawlessness, the Shites and the Sunnis going after each other, or simple Iraqi's who don't want us there. Only a small percentage of the fighters are Al Qeda who are actively there to fight us.

See, for example,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

It is no wonder that an article in the newest issue of the American Conservative magazine called our Iraq war "operation provide targets". Basically, all sides end up using our troops for target practice; it isn't that uncommon for our troops to be shot at by one side today, and then get shot at by the other side the next day!

So, why be in Iraq at all?

One then wonders why we attacked Iraq at all, since it was clear that they posed no direct threat to us at that time? A good background read for how the smarter "pro-Iraq war" people think can be found in Thomas Barnett's book The Pentagon's New Map.

First, understand that this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, no matter how much the Bush administration lied. The idea is something like this:

We are subject to attack by terrorist groups that spring up in areas that Barnett called "The Gap". Barnett divides the world in to two regions: "The functioning Core" (countries connected to the global economy) and "The non-functioning Gap". There is a rough loop drawn around the equator that shows where the Gap countries are; the exceptions would be a country like North Korea (a Gap country) and Israel (a Core country).
Shrinking "the Gap" is essential to our security and to global peace.
We can shrink the Gap by a policy which combines diplomacy, economic means, and by appropriate preemtive war (such as the one to topple Saddaam Hussien).

Ok then, when is a preemtive war appropriate? When a Gap country violates a given "rule set". Yes, the "rule set" is different for core countries (where things like economic health and deterrence work) than for Gap countries (yes, this is a double standard).

Who decides when to go to war? We do! What gives us the authority? "Might makes right". Yep, he really says that!

Wait, what about the experts who say things like "well, you know that Iraq consists of three seperate groups (Sunnis, Shites, Kurds) who really don't like each other, and the elimination of a brutal dictator could well plunge the country into a civil war"?

Barnett calls such experts "pessimists" and "vertical thinkers"; "if we listen to them, we'll never do anything" such as invade other countries!

Yes, in Dr. Barnett's world, too much specialized knowledge isn't a good thing.

No, I am not making this up.

I'll report more when I finish the book, (I am currently in his "happy ending" phase) but that is more or less what he says.

Anyway, that is how the neoconservatives think.

Football: LSU versus Notre Dame History

Notre Dame takes on LSU in the Sugar Bowl; the Tigers are currently a 8.5 point favorite and not many people are giving Notre Dame a chance.

I disagree; what people forget is that Notre Dame beat several good teams along the way to posting a 10-2 record, including bowl teams Navy (9-3), Purdue (8-5), Penn State (8-4), Georgia Tech (9-4) and UCLA (7-5). Where is is true that Notre Dame played some weak teams, LSU played some patsies as well, but they played most of them at the beginning of the season, whereas Notre Dame's schedule was mostly "front loaded".

Here is a brief history of football between the two schools; this is taken from my faulty memory and a couple of references. I welcome corrections and additions.

1969: ND plays a strong LSU team with a Cotton Bowl birth on the line. ND wins a hard hitting defensive battle 3-0 in South Bend with the field goal set up by a run by Joe Thiesman.

1970: This time the Tigers are better and rout the Irish 28-8 in Baton Rouge. LSU starts with a 14-0 lead. A key series of plays is a goal line stand where the LSU defense stuffs ND on 4'th and inches at the goal line.

Parsegian finishes 1-1 against LSU

1981: Faust takes over, the ND campus is completely out of control with unrealistic expectations. This is about the only time I was ashamed to be an Irish fan; ND hires a HIGH SCHOOL coach and people expect a string of national championships? (can you say "superstition"?)

Anyway, LSU comes to South Bend haven been blown out at home by Alabama. ND wins 27-9 and is elevated to no. 1. ND goes on to lose 4 of its next 5 on its way to a 5-6 season.

1984: ND comes in to Baton Rouge with a 3-4 record. Everyone is expecting no. 7 LSU to blow ND out and LSU starts with a 7-0 lead. ND turns to its ground game and outscores LSU 30-7 over the next 3 quarters or so and hangs on to win 30-22. LSU wore its purple jerseys at home.

1985. Faust announces his retirement after the game; ND loses 10-7 to no. 17 LSU in South Bend. The next week, ND goes on to "go through the motions" against a hungry Miami squad and gets blasted 58-7.

Faust finishes 2-1 against LSU.

1986. Holtz takes over and a winning season is in reach. But in Baton Rouge, ND fails to score in the red zone repreatedly and loses 21-19 to the no. 7 Tigers. Holtz gets a 15 yard pentalty for protesting some bad calls.

Holtz finishes 0-1 against LSU

1997: Davie takes over.
Davie takes in a team that has lost 5 of its first 8 games against the top 20 Tigers. The Irish play very well in Baton Rouge winning 24-6. Former ND standout guard Gerry DiNardo coaches LSU (he played on Parsegian's 1973 National Championship team)

1997: ND agrees to a rematch with LSU in the Independence Bowl. LSU shows up in retro uniforms (gold jerseys, white pants, white helmets) and it is close at the half (13-9) but LSU pulls away in the second half to win 27-9.

1998: ND hosts LSU in South Bend and brings a 8-1 record into the game. ND is up 39-34 and tries to take an intentional saftey at the end of the game. Jarius Jackson (ND quarterback) gets tackled in the end zone and gets hurt.

ND wins over struggling LSU 39-36, but then ND goes into the next game (against USC) and loses 10-0 with an offense that can't do anything with the no. 2 quarterback.

Davie finishes 2-1 against the Tigers.

In short, LSU brings in the better team against Notre Dame six times. Twice, they win in a blow-out. Twice they win in close games, and twice Notre Dame scores an upset.

Once, the teams are evenly matched: it is a close game with ND winning.

Twice, ND comes in with a better team, and once ND wins in a blow-out, and once ND wins a close game.

Peoria: reputation for incompetence is well earned

2006-12-06T18:56:00.000-08:00

Tuesday has almost come to and end, and our streets are still snow covered. That is, 4 days of no snow after a snow storm that put down about a foot of snow, we still don't have the streets cleared.

Something similar happened after our previous large snowstorm 6-7 years ago (I forget the exact date). Things haven't gotten any better.

Even worse, the person in charge of things says

"Most of what we did, I would do again," Van Winkle said. "I checked with other communities and our attack and strategy was precisely the same. . . . We're not Houdinis. We can only do what we can with the resources we have.
"I've said many times in the past, we are properly resourced for most events, but not for the exceptional."

Hmm, then why did other communities do so much better than we did?
Excuses abound:

"We got beat this weekend. I just want to know, was it a close game or a good, old-fashioned thumping?" 3rd District Councilman Bob Manning asked staff, noting the many calls from residents he received Sunday night who still hadn't had their streets plowed at all.
"I'm not pointing fingers, especially at the people working 12-hour shifts. But we can't just be in denial. Where did we fail so we can adjust our game plan?"
At-large Councilman John Morris agreed. "Either we had a snow plan that failed or we failed to implement the snow plan. This isn't about the guys who were up all night in a dangerous job. It seems it's about us, about the council, the management. I'm afraid we've got to ask ourselves some tough questions."
The questions were asked, but all the answers weren't there.
The reasons for the city's poor response varied, but staff mainly cited equipment failures and abandoned vehicles that blocked plows and packed the snow.
At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg balked at those.
"One of the major problems is not cars being stuck, but, as someone pointed out, playing your first game in the Super Bowl. We had inexperienced people out there who had never been in a snowstorm," Sandberg said.
"I didn't get an answer to the question, so I'm going to answer it for myself. It was 15 out of 27 drivers that had no experience. Those communities that were more successful (clearing roads) had a great deal more experience. It matters, folks. They have the desire, but I don't believe many of them had the experience."
Larry Mitchell, one of just a couple of residents who stayed through the two-hour council discussion, echoed Sandberg's concerns. Mitchell, who was recently laid off by the city, says he has four years experience plowing snow, with both the city and the state.
"I was told plowing snow is just a fraction of what (public works) does. That fraction shut this city down for three days. People who were brought in in October, who didn't have any experience or even a (proper) license, were out there fighting this storm," Mitchell said.

Anyway, some time ago, during the last election cycle, I made a couple of posts about Ray LaHood, our representative in congress, making a fool of himself at a national level.

See here and here.

Now it struck me: yes, he is an incompetent idiot. But, all that means is that we have appropriate representation as we Peroians are incompetent idiots!

Think about it: natives never had any reason to compete to get better, and those who come here from other places are largely mediocrities who couldn't make it in the "big time" of our professions.

I know that MIT and Harvard weren't exactly recruiting me to join their faculty.

Finals Start

2006-12-06T06:17:00.000-08:00

So blogging will be slower for a good long while.

Athletically, I am getting in some ok workouts; yesterday I failed with 205 in the bench press though 195 was easy; and I did enough squats to make myself sore. Today, I did another 5 mile run (hill treadmill workout) and 1 mile walk (about 13 minutes) plus yoga.

The injury continues to heal, though not as quickly as I'd like.

So, here are some things just for the heck of it:
(for the cartoons: click for a larger version)

Now, some You-Tube videos of the snow strom in Peoria (which took place last FRIDAY, and the roads STILL aren't clear). The Peoria Pundit posted these.

The first one only lasts 16 seconds, and it shows a road that was said to have been "cleared" by the manager of the snow removal program.

This one lasts a couple of minutes or so, and shows the snowstorm in progress and what it was like on Friday.

Here, someone speaks to one of my pet-peeves. Ok, this peeve of mine is one of those weird things that I don't like but that doesn't really concern me.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/120606/PHI_BBNS0V3M.035.shtml

Leading the charge for change is Avanti's Italian Restaurant. From there, perhaps decent people can turn the tide against the screaming scourge of society:
Ceaseless cell phones.
Certainly, cell phones are handy. I have one stuck in my ear much of the day, even when I shouldn't, like when my car is bobbling over the endless, ice-forged rumble strips that have become Peoria's new winter road system.
Still, I show enough civility to stop yakking and turn off my ringer when I walk into an eatery. Not that everyone feels so compelled toward courtesy. [...]
The other day, while dashing into the outpost near Northwoods Mall, I spotted two counter signs:
"No cell phones. Please respect your fellow customers. Thank you."
Zounds! A business that actually pushes respect? Maybe there's hope for society.
Carla Koenig, Avanti's human resource chief, says the signs were posted to improve take-out orders.
As odd as this might seem to normal people, some boobs typically would plod up to the counter, yammering into their cell phone. Then, because they obviously are very important people adept at the sophisticated art of multi-tasking, they'd continue to gab into the phone while ordering food.
As you might guess, such double conversations can confuse employees. Yet, if an order would turn out wrong, the customer would wail and moan - likely while still talking into the cell phone to someone else.
Yes, that seems nuts. But yes, it happened all the time.
"Some people are just that way," Koenig says diplomatically.
Avanti's, which at peak times serves a customer a minute, got tired of the cell-phone cacophony screwing up orders. So out came the new signs, which have quieted things down quite a bit.
Still, not all patrons bother to heed the simple warning.
"Sometimes they can get a bit rude," Koenig says.
At those times, employees try to gently point out the signs by saying, "In order to serve you better, we ask you to refrain from using your cell phone."
After that, most patrons comply - not all, but most.
"Nothing is that important (on a cell phone) that it can't wait 10 seconds," Koenig says.

Yeah, it appears to me that cell phones, while handy for emergencies, are one way in which unimportant, undistinguished people can be made to feel important.

But then again, what others do on their own time is none of my business; as one yogi on yoga.com said:

dhanurasana - 2006-12-01 4:25 PM

discipline for myself...
and understanding for others.

Wise words, indeed.

Finally, I'll post something political.

Of course, it is clear that I am a political liberal. But I don't always enjoy hanging around others who vote the way that I do. For example, consider this article from The Nation, by Katha Pollitt, who is someone that I often agree with:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/pollitt

Is it just my imagination or are women wreaking more evil than usual these days? We all know the reason boys don't read is that female teachers assign books about girls, and girls have cooties; and the reason half of all marriages end in divorce is that women have outrageous expectations, like that their husbands should talk to them; and the reason the Democrats lose elections is that they pander to female voters instead of being manly and tough. Oh, wait a minute, the Democrats won the last election. Women aren't just evil, they're powerful.

The article continues similarly. Basically, the format is this: Pollitt states some idiotic, sexist thing that an isolated male did, and then blasts it; it is almost as if Ms. Pollitt is collecting beads on a string.

For example:

Rape. I know, I know, it's an old charge, but Australia's top Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, has managed to make it new. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without cover, and the cats come to eat it...whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." Because veiled women are never raped, at least not as long as they stay in their rooms. Sheik al-Hilali later said his remarks were taken out of context--he was only talking about prostitutes.

Yes, Ms. Pollitt, what this guy said was offensive and idiotic. But guess what? The reason most of us who follow the news know about this is because this statement was all but universally condemned!!!!

She goes on to make a valid point about Pelosi receiving unwarranted attacks due to her sex, but those points were better made here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/27/18240/635

I commented on this article thusly:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/11/27/18240/635/75#75

occams hatchet...let me explain it to you (11+ / 0-)

female: "good"
male: "bad"

seriously, I think it is something like this: many pundits (mostly male) made remarks about Pelosi that they never would have made about an equally liberal male (stuff about her appearance, making points without shouting (emotional females, you know) etc.

Another example: remember that loser who ran against Hillary Clinton for the Senate? He said something about her being hideously ugly in the past..and this is some dude with a pock-marked face!

When has a male candidate ever called another male candidate "ugly"?

(ok, I call Hastert and Chenney all sorts of names, but I am not running for anything...)

Note: here, by "running", I meant "running for office".

Bowl Predictions

2006-12-05T10:22:00.000-08:00

Bowl	favorite	spread	underdog	pick-spread	pick-win
poinsettia, December 19	TCU	13	Northern Illinois	TCU	TCU
LasVegas, Dec. 21	BYU	5.5	Oregon	Oregon	Oregon
New Orleans, Dec. 22	Rice	7	Troy State	Troy	Troy
Papa Johns, Dec. 23	South Florida	4	East Carolina	USF	USF
New Mexico	New Mexico	5	San Jose State	San Jose	San Jose
Armed Forces	Utah	3	Tulsa	Tulsa	Tulsa
Hawaii, Dec. 24	Hawaii	8.5	Arizona State	Hawaii	Hawaii
Motor City, Dec. 26	Central Michigan	11.5	Middle Tennessee	Middle Tenn.	CMU
Emerald, Dec 27	UCLA	4.5	Florida State	UCLA	UCLA
Independence, Dec. 28	Oklahoma St.	3	Alabama	Alabama	Alabama
Texas	Rutgers	7	Kansas State	Rutgers	Rutgers
Holiday	California	5	Texas A&M	Cal.	Cal
Music City, Dec 29	Clemson	10	Kentucky	Clemson	Clemson
Sun	Oregon State	3.5	Missouri	OSU	OSU
Liberty	South Carolina	7	Houston	USC	USC
Champs Sports	Maryland	3.5	Purdue	Maryland	Maryland
Insight	Texas Tech	7	Minnesota	Tech	Tech
Meineke Care Care, Dec. 30	Boston College	7	Navy	BC	BC
Alamo	Texas	10.5	Iowa	TX	TX
Chick-Fil-A	Virginia Tech	2.5	Georgia	Georgia	Georgia
MPC Computers, Dec 31	Miami	3	Nevada	Miami	Miami
Cotton, Jan. 1	Auburn	3	Nebraska	Auburn	Auburn
Outback	Tennessee	4	Penn State	Tennessee	Tennessee
Capital One	Arkansas	1	Wisconsin	Wisconsin	Wisconsin
Gator	West Virginia	7	Georgia Tech	Tech	WVA
Rose	Michigan	1.5	USC	USC	USC
Fiesta	Oklahoma	8.5	Boise State	OU	OU
Orange, Jan. 2	Louisville	9.5	Wake Forest	Wake	Louisville
Sugar, Jan. 3	LSU	8.5	Notre Dame	ND	ND
International, Jan. 6	Cincinnati	8.5	Western Michigan	Cincinnati	Cin.
GMAC	Southern Miss.	6.5	Ohio	Southern	Southern
Championship	Ohio State	8	Florida	Florida	OSU

Turkey Trot Photos

2006-12-05T08:12:00.000-08:00

Well, at least I look slender. I sure as heck don't look fast because I am not.

Today, I lifted weights and got 1 hour on the stationary bike. In weights, I actually failed with 205 on the bar in the benchpress, though 195 was very easy?

Oh well, slow, weak, pathetic; I can only improve from here!

And speaking of weak and pathetic...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/5/73034/4985

Breaking : Cheney Joins Rumsfeld, Bolton in Resignation, Bush Announces Miers as First Woman VP

by Dood Abides [Subscribe]

Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 04:35:09 AM PST

Miers hopes to become first woman Vice President

Washington, DC (Rotters) - In a hurried press conference early this morning, a tearful and angry George Bush announced that he had late last night regretfully accepted the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney. He introduced his personal lawyer, and failed Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Myers as his selection to replace Mr. Cheney. Pending approval of Congress, Myers would become the first woman vice president in US history.

Cheney's resignation comes in a tumultuous week for the Bush administration on the heels of last month's resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and yesterday's resignation of United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, both long-standing touchstones of controversy for the president.

Dood Abides's diary :: ::

The White House refused to comment on the motivations for the vice president's resignation, stating only that the vice president felt that "the time was right" to do so. An anonymous White House spokesperson suggested that there would likely be a leaked memo from the vice president in the next few days that could possibly shed some light on the president's motivations.

Rumors immediately began circulating over the possible resignation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was reportedly enraged over the appointment of Miers, feeling that she should have gotten the nod as the new vice president.

President Bush again lashed out at what he said were a handful of "partisan Democratic senators" who constantly questioned and obstructed the vice president on implementation of his plans for Iraq. "Their stubborn obstructionism ill serves our fortunes in Iraq," stated Bush, "and their tactics will disrupt our cash flow at a sensitive and important time." Bush went on to praise Mr. Cheney for his service to America and said that he would continue to rely upon him during key policy considerations, stating that he had done a "fabulous job".

Bush then praised Miers as his selection to replace Cheney. "I never accepted the reality that she could not be confirmed," stated Bush, referring to his controversial failed nomination of Myers as Supreme Court Justice.

Myers then thanked the president for his faith in her and pledged her continued loyalty and service to the administration.

Some analysts viewed the vice president's departure as a symbolic tipping over of the chessboard, after having lost too many pieces within the last month. Some also interpreted Cheney's resignation as the departure of the historic neoconservative influence over the White House, while others viewed it as merely a retreat to an underground bunker at an undisclosed location.

Centurion USA Race

2006-12-05T03:44:00.000-08:00

First, a bit of humor. This is one footrace I might be able to stay in. Speaking of footraces, the Peoria Jingle Bell run is rescheduled for this Sunday (December 10'th) at 10 am; that is, provided our streets are STILL not all covered with ice and snow.

PEORIA - With Peoria's streets and roads still so treacherous that Peoria School District 150 canceled school today for the third straight school day, many wondered why other municipalities seemed able to remove the snow so quickly while many Peoria streets remain nearly impassable.
Two governmental entities, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the city of Peoria, are responsible for most streets in Peoria.
IDOT handles the interstates as well as state routes such as War Memorial, Knoxville north of War Memorial and Galena Road north of War Memorial.
Shawn Larson, IDOT operations manager in charge of snow plowing, blamed traffic on Friday for packing the snow and ice so it could not be removed, and drivers who ventured out then got stuck and blocked the snowplows.
"Accidents on I-74 held our trucks up and delayed our response, which created problems," he said. "It wasn't lack of effort."
People stuck on interstate ramps also stalled the operations, he said. "Until the city or state tows the cars we can't plow," he said.
"We had cars and semis stuck on ramps through Sunday morning. We're not in the towing business," he said.
Roads such as Grandview Drive, which was cleaned by Friday evening, don't have the traffic that War Memorial has, he said. "They can do their job without fighting traffic to do it."
Up to 15 percent of the trucks broke down and had to be repaired, he said.

I've talked about my trying to recover from an injury. So, no ultras for me this fall/winter.

I've found out that there will be a Centurion race next fall; so I need to devote full attention to getting well by the start of next summer (at which case I should be able to begin training)

I am posting what happened at the Centurion USA this year. Next year, the race is on the weekend prior to Thanksgiving. I want to be ready for it!

Anatomy of a Centurion Walk

Scott Demaree

For the third year in a row, the Ultracentric race organization hosted a 100 mile walk. Previously held on a track in Addisson, new management moved this year’s race to Meadowmere Park in Grapevine. The 2.4 mile certified “reverse keyhole” course on park roads is an excellent venue for the Ultracentric events, which include a 48-Hour, 24-Hour (and 100 mile walk), 12-Hour and 6-Hour. Additionally, the 24-Hour was designated the 2006 national championship.

As the walk director, I was privileged to help make the walk happen this year. Two years ago in Addisson, I finished my first 100-mile walk with Dave Gwyn in charge of judging. Last year, I was in charge with Dave helping. Dave could not help this year, and as it turned out, neither could anyone else. My potential work force consisted of local walkers, but when one went to the old race location (my fault for not warning him), and others simply did not show up as planned, it was left for me to judge the entire walk.

Because of the course layout and the small number of walkers, this was not as hard as it sounds. The course makes a long loop back on itself on the turn-around side and a quarter mile loop and a 120-degree turn on the starting line side. With the help of binoculars, I could position myself at a high point near the middle of the course and see walkers on both sides of the course quite well. I supplemented these long-distance observations by moving around the course when it became clear that both walkers were staying relatively close to each other. The course was not completely lighted, so after dark, I was required to move considerably more often to keep tabs on the darker areas. By intelligent use of the course layout, putting over 30 miles on my own legs and taking no sleep breaks, the walkers were rarely out of my sight.

Under optimum weather conditions, Dorit Attias and Eric Litt were the only walkers taking up the 100-mile challenge this year. Dorit moved ahead early by a couple of hundred meters and that gap remained for the first few hours. Both walkers were well grounded, employing good technique, but Dorit in particular used excellent racewalking form, which did not deteriorate as the race progressed. They completed most of the early laps in 28-30 minutes depending on breaks.

Dorit reached the marathon point in less than five and a half hours. By this time Eric was on an extended break that was to last until twilight. After a couple more hours of effort, he retired for the night (finishing with 31.2 miles). All this time Dorit was completing laps in steady 30-minute intervals. This continued past 50 miles, and it was only after 100-K that her lap times slipped beyond 30 minutes consistently.

Through the night she battled blisters and nausea and slowed further. By morning twilight, her overall pace had slipped dangerously close to the 14:24 per mile needed to finish 100 miles in 24 hours. Dawn had the expected effect of reviving her enthusiasm and pace, ensuring her finish.

Inside the last hour, the competitors were required to stay on the certified quarter mile loop at the starting area. Dorit entered that loop needing seven laps to surpass 100 miles. She reached her goal, completing the lap at 23:39:30. When 24 hours expired, Dorit had a total of 101.52 miles, finishing 10^th overall in the women’s 24-Hour field.

Her success with such good form was very impressive. Dorit had tried three previous times to become a Centurion, coming as close as 98 miles. Another goal she has is to qualify for the Paris to Colmar race.

The new race director of Ultracentric is committed to making this a major walking event. We need more walkers and more judges. Toward that end he is considering offering prize money for walkers (as was done this year for the 24-Hour runners) and bringing judges in from out-of-town. The only course deficiency this year was lighting, and that will be improved next year. It is a great course with some minor elevation changes, which I believe is a benefit in such long duration walks. Weather in this area is generally good this time of year. Next years event will take place Nov. 17, 2007, so start planning now.

Snow, Walking, Education, Mental Trauma from War

2006-12-04T17:59:00.000-08:00

Classes have ended at my University and finals will begin soon. Hence, I have a lull and can blog about some other things.

On a personal note: this recent "snow-out" has bitten into my workout routines, though I've gotten some activity. This morning, I had my longest "run/walk" since June: 6 miles. I warmed up with two slow running miles on the treadmill, did 3 more (hills) in 26:50, and then walked an 11 minute mile.

The walking mile was slightly painful.

The road back is a long one, and mine is paved in snow. Speaking of snow, the snowstorm was 4 days ago, and the roads are still bad. Needless to say, our city is incompetent when it comes to even basic things.

PEORIA - Though the snowfall has stopped, the accompanying problems continue to blanket the area.
Alleyways and major thoroughfares alike still carry a thick slab of compacted ice and snow, dividing lines and turn lanes are still obscured and drivers still crawl across Peoria's streets.
"It's still pretty slick," Adrienne Sarlos said Sunday night from her residence on West Richwoods Boulevard. "It's drivable, but it's really slippery."
For example, traffic on Allen Road was stopped for a time Sunday evening as a semi was pulled from the side of the road by a tow truck. Police said the truck had been stuck for hours after sliding off of the road, and was towed about 8 p.m. Traffic was at a standstill as the work progressed.
A native Californian and recent transplant from Rockford, Sarlos, who was snowed in both Friday and Saturday, finally ventured outside on North Sheridan Road Sunday only to hit upon heavy traffic and rough travel.
"We didn't have any snowstorms this size (in Rockford), but it seemed the response was better," she said.
Although the number of reported accidents has declined and most primary roads are passable, other Peoria-area residents echoed Sarlos' feelings.
"They weren't very good," said Peorian Matt Hendrickson of the city's streets. "They were drivable but that's about it. It was still really tough to know where the lanes were."
While city crews are making headway, officials said they realize drivers are frustrated and urged patience.
"We have had quite a bit of progress on the residential streets as far as (removing snow to the curb)," said David Haste, the city's head of the street and sewer department. "Eventually, with salting and warmer temperatures, we'll be plowing (remaining snow) for as long as we have to."
Haste said the initial sleet and lower temperatures allowed a solid coating of ice to form beneath the snow, out of reach from snowplow blades. As a result, driving on a paved city street felt akin to bouncing down a rocky dirt road.
"It just seems like the temperatures don't want to work with us. Usually, this time of year they break up," Haste said, referring to the covered streets. "It's something we have to work on, and we'll get done soon enough. We did a lot of pre-salting this year. But when it came down so hard and so fast, there was no way you could put enough salt down."
Plows continue to tackle residential streets by day and major routes by night.
In addition, mechanical breakdowns and stuck vehicles continue to plague Haste's fleet of about 25 trucks.
"Any breakdown on the trucks and that's one less truck on that route," he added.
Road conditions not only frustrated drivers, they also led to the closure of District 150 schools. Superintendent Ken Hinton said in a news release that all schools are closed "due to the severe road conditions remaining from the snowstorm."
"The conditions are just too bad for our buses," Hinton said Sunday night. The lack of cleared neighborhood sidewalks, he added, also contributed to his decision.

Of course the Peoria Pundit had a point:

And did it ever occur to the many critics of the city’s snow storm response that one of the reasons there are so many complaints is because so many idiots were out and about when they did not really need to be? My two cents: Anyone who reads this blog knows I’ll tear into government employees at the drop of the hat. But the explanations offered for the poor road conditions make sense to me — a heavy coating of sleet that froze and was covered by more than a foot of snow, coupled by heavy traffic that slowed the city’s response. And did it not occur to people that the time to stock up on groceries, snow shovels, rock salt and other supplied MIGHT have been the day before the anticipated snow storm hit?

(emphasis mine)

University Teaching: Judged by the Students

About school: today was the last regular class day, and so I gave my teaching evaluations. They went ok, I think; they usually do when it takes 10-15 minutes to do.

I think that the following is ironic: when I was in grade school, people with undergraduate degrees (a few with masters) evaluated me. When I was in college, I was evaluated primarily by Ph. D.s. As a graduate student, some of the best scholars in the world evaluated me.

Now I am evaluated by post-adolecents with no degree at all!

I suppose it has a purpose; I sometimes learn something from them. And, the students need an outlet, and I agree that we need to be held accountable. But, unfortunately, students don't know what a good course should be; they simply don't have the experience and their point of view is going to be too narrow.

The students can tell you things like: "I studied this much", "I learned more when you did this than when you did that" and they can tell you if they felt attacked; one has to be honest with the students but to do so in a way where the student doesn't recoil from the message that you are trying to get across. And many students are not as thick skinned as, say, football players or military types.

Still, I wish more of our teaching evaluation came from peer review, but there would be problems with this approach.

On this topic, there is an outfit called "rate my professor" and some time ago, a group of disgruntled students blasted me there. My wife read this and wondered if my feelings would be hurt; I in turn showed her all of my teaching evaluations from that same class. She was surprised; she said it didn't appear "as if they were talking about the same professor."

Here are some of my favorite remarks:

"huge nerd"
"He is a really smart professor, but a VERY strange one... When he explains, he goes off on explaining things that don't even deal with the class (for example he started talking about physics for no reason). Overall, he's ok but you will need to study on your own because he talks way to "intellectual" for calculus."
"He is a smart and nice guy but if you want an A you will have to put the work in - not as bad as some say he is - work hard and come to class and you should have no problem. Have to work to get a A or B though."
I don't have a direct quote, but one person called me "evil".

In all, I like this service, as it will pre-weeds out the slackers and the whiners.

Athletics: Elite Level

In the past, I posted about world class performance at the ultramarathon level and about the 50K walking record. Just a while ago, Robert Korzeniowski from Poland held the racewalking "world best" of 3:36.

Well, that is no longer the world's best.

http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=2/newsId=36938.html

Four-time Commonwealth Games gold medallist Nathan Deakes has broken the World record** for the 50km Race Walk in Geelong, Australia, this morning. Deakes recorded a time of 3:35:47.

Competing at the Telstra Australian 50km Road Walking Championships in blustery conditions, Deakes took 16 seconds off the World record previously set by Poland's World and Olympic champion Robert Korzeniowski at the 9th IAAF World Championships in Athletics, Paris, France in 2003 (3:36.03).

In a big day for Australia’ walkers, Duane Cousins set a personal best and World Championships a-qualifier of 3:53.19 to finish second, as did Victorian Jared Tallent who walked a time of 3:55.08 to finish in third place.

Deake’s smashed his previous best and Australian record of 3:39:43 which he set in Melbourne in 2003.

Overcome by tears, an emotional Deakes fell to the ground after crossing the finish line, his wife Annette and parents rushing in to congratulate him.

“It’s obviously quite a surprise. I didn’t think I was in that kind of shape. To break a World record is really special. To do at home is even nicer. The best prepared athletes walk fast anywhere,” explained Deakes after the race.

Of course, this was a road walk and therefore only qualified as a "world best"; "world records" have to be set on tracks. Still, you are talking an absurd 6:56.7 minutes per mile for 31 miles. Keep in mind that his marathon split would have been 3:02, and this is judged walking.

My (pathetic) best unjudged 50K is a mere 6:20; in my judged attempt I picked up a third "red card" for bent knee at 37 km (almost 23 miles).

Educational Issues

An important case is before the Supreme Court:

For the first time in a decade, the Supreme Court will revisit the legacy of a landmark: the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 that declared unconstitutional the racial segregation of public schools.

Separate schools for black and white children are "inherently unequal," Chief Justice Earl Warren said in an opinion that helped launch the civil rights movement.

State-enforced segregation laws are long gone, but for school officials today, a key question remains: Did the historic decision commit them to a policy of seeking integrated schools, or did it tell them not to assign students to a school based on their race?

Today, lawyers in a pair of integration cases will debate whether school boards may use racial guidelines to assign students. And both sides will rely on the Brown decision to make their case.

The outcome could affect hundreds of school systems across the nation [...]

In Seattle, the school board adopted a policy — now suspended — that gave "nonwhite" students an edge if they sought to enroll in a popular, mostly white high school. In Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville, the school district said the black student body at each elementary school should range from 15% to 50%.

In both cities, several white parents sued to have the plans declared unconstitutional after their children were barred from enrolling in the school of their choice because of their race. Though they lost in the lower courts, the Supreme Court voted in June to hear their appeals, leading many to predict the justices are poised to outlaw "racial balancing" in the public schools.

"At its core, the issue here is the promise made 52 years ago in Brown vs. Board of Education," said Theodore Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which won the ruling that struck down racial segregation in the South. "Mandatory desegregation is now a thing of the past. All that's left is voluntary desegregation, and now that is being challenged."

Shaw said school officials should be lauded for their efforts to achieve integration. He said he was particularly troubled by "the ideology that equates any race consciousness with racial discrimination."[...]

Bush administration lawyers, who joined the case on the side of the parents, say the Brown decision sought to move the nation toward a color-blind policy. They say school officials may not open or close the door to particular students solely because of their race. In short, race-based decisions are racial discrimination, even if the officials are pursing a laudable goal, they say.

"The promise of this court's landmark decision in Brown … was to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in his brief to the court. "Race-based school assignment does not advance that objective."

This is a tough one, as far as I am concerned. Learning to get along with others is a big part of being educated. And as Justice Ginsburg said: "how can one possibly achieve a race related goal (integration) without having some sort of of race criteria? On the other hand, one has to take care so as to not out and out bar someone from entering a school based on their race; in this case, race was used as a "tie breaker" in deciding if somone got into a school of choice or not.

Personally, I can sympathise with the intentions of the school district, but I don't want to see things like this happening:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15997066/site/newsweek/

Dec. 1, 2006 - Crystal Meredith had a simple wish: she wanted her son, Joshua, to attend an elementary school near their home in Louisville, Ky. But when Meredith went to enroll him in kindergarten in 2002, she bumped up against the schools’ voluntary integration policy. Designed to maintain racial balance in the once-segregated Louisville schools, the plan lets parents choose among schools in various clusters across the city. But the institutions all strive to keep the number of African-American students somewhere between 15 and 50 percent of the school population. If the number drops too low or grows too high, students of any race can be shunted to other schools.
When Meredith, who is white, tried to sign up Josh, he was assigned to an elementary school that required a long bus ride across town. “The bus didn’t come anywhere near our house, so I had to drive him,” Meredith tells NEWSWEEK. A single mom, she had to cut back her hours at work so she could serve as chauffeur. Meredith soon applied for a school transfer so that Josh could move to a closer school. But the request was denied: it would have thrown off the racial balance at the school across town. Meredith soon filed suit, losing twice in federal court. On Monday, she’s taking her case as far as it can go—to the U.S. Supreme Court. “I see this as a parent wanting what’s best for their child,” says Meredith, who insists her case is not about race or affirmative action. “That’s really all I see.”

I've heard of horror stories of students not getting home from school until 9 pm at night!

Secretary of Defense Hearings

Robert Gates, who was the first President Bush's CIA director has been nominated to replace Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense. There are some troubling signs here, when one looks at the old CIA confirmation hearings:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3645

[...]Gates Record

After Bush tapped Gates to replace Rumsfeld on Nov. 8, the Washington press corps quickly adopted a conventional wisdom that the Gates nomination represented a move by former President George H.W. Bush to impose some reason and discipline on his headstrong son.

The thinking went that Gates would guide the younger George Bush away from the neoconservative ideologues who were gung-ho for war in Iraq and back toward the so-called “realists” who held the upper hand under the elder George Bush – the likes of James Baker.

There was even a Newsweek cover illustrating this thesis with a large Poppy Bush in the foreground and a smaller Sonny Bush in the rear.

But the truth now appears to be different, with George W. Bush virtually spitting out his contempt for the “realists” during his press conference in Amman, declaring that the notion of a “graceful exit” had “no realism to it whatsoever.”

Given Bush’s petulance, it’s hard to conceive that he sat down with Gates just before the Nov. 7 elections and didn’t get assurances that Gates would fall into line behind Bush’s oft-stated determination to see the Iraq War through to what the President calls “victory.”

In other words, the smooth-talking Gates might be presenting himself to Senate Democrats and other Iraq War skeptics as their closet ally when, in truth, he is a closet ally of the neocons.

Throughout his career, the 63-year-old Gates often has acted the part of the mild-mannered moderate – the aw-shucks Eagle Scout from Wichita, Kansas – but then did the bidding of his hard-line bosses in the Executive Branch.

According to rank-and-file CIA officers who knew him well, Gates cloaked his fierce ambition in his boyish charm as he ingratiated himself to powerful mentors, such as the late CIA Director William J. Casey.

For instance, while head of the CIA’s analytical division and responsible for maintaining a clear line between intelligence and policymaking, Gates pushed dubious intelligence assessments on Nicaragua, the Soviet Union and Iran. Invariably, these intelligence judgments served the interests of Gates’s superiors.

In December 1984, Gates even veered off into policy prescriptions, sending a secret memo to CIA Director Casey that took extreme positions on the conflict in Nicaragua, including calls for air strikes and other actions to oust the “Marxist-Leninist” regime – just the kind of tough talk that Casey liked to hear.

Not only did Gates’s behavior violate the principle of separating intelligence from policymaking, but it turned out that his alarmist assessment of Nicaragua was completely wrong. Rather than becoming a permanent “Marxist-Leninist” regime on the American mainland, the ruling Sandinistas surrendered power when they lost an election in 1990.

To some at CIA, it was never clear whether Gates was a closet true-believer in right-wing policies or a skillful apple-polisher eager to please his bosses. But Gates’s bureaucratic maneuvering did serve his career well, as Casey elevated Gates in 1986 to be deputy CIA director. [For more on the Nicaragua memo, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Why Trust Robert Gates on Iraq?”]

However, after the Iran-Contra scandal broke in late 1986 – revealing widespread deception by the Reagan administration – Gates found himself in hot water. Members of Congress suspected that Gates had misled them and he was denied the top CIA job in 1987 after Casey’s death from brain cancer.

Gates salvaged his career with the help of the senior George Bush who took Gates on as deputy national security adviser in 1989. By 1991, after the Iran-Contra scandal had cooled, Bush nominated Gates again to be CIA director. [...]

This time, Gates’s nomination faced an extraordinary uprising among CIA analysts who went public to accuse Gates of politicizing the analytical division and shaping the intelligence to fit the desires of the Reagan-Bush political team.

One of the more famous cases is when Gates pushed to have the CIA come to the conclusion that the Soviets were behind the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2006/11/Gates%20Files.html

Nicaragua wasn’t the only place Gates wanted to take action. In 1985, sounding very much like one of today’s neoconservative hawks, the then head of intelligence analysis at the CIA drafted a plan for a joint U.S.-Egyptian military operation to invade Libya, overthrow Col. Muamar Ghaddafi, and “redraw the map of North Africa.” On the basis of this idea, CIA Director Casey, sometimes said to be the man who invented Gates, ordered up a list of Libyan targets and the National Security Council developed a plan to have Egypt attack Libya with U.S. air support and seize half the country. The Joint Chiefs drew up plans for a military operation involving 90,000 troops. Alarmed, the State Department subsequently succeeded in downsizing Gates proposal to “contingency” status.

According to Robert Parry, a reporter who has closely tracked this period in the CIA’s history, during this time the Reagan administration was “pressing the CIA to adopt an analysis that accepted right-wing media reports pinning European terrorism on the Soviets. The CIA analysts knew that these charges were false, in part because they were based on ‘black’ or false propaganda that the CIA itself had been planting in the European media. But the ‘politicization’ tide was strong.” And Gates, he writes, led an effort to implicate the Soviets in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. “In 1985, Gates closeted a special team to push through another pre-cooked paper arguing that the KGB was behind the 1981 wounding of Pope John Paul II. CIA analysts again knew that the charge was bogus, but could not block the paper from leaving CIA.”

Hmm, someone who wants to redraw maps, and someone who wants to slant intellegence to fit desired policy. Doesn't that sound familiar?

No wonder President Bush nominated him.

The Reality of Mental Health Care in the Military

Military rules and regulations are full of written things to make civilians feel better. For example, when I was in the Navy, one had the written option to not take the watch if one was, say, too sleepy to stand it properly. But if one tried to actually use that rule, one was told that one was supposed to "suck it up"; hey "everybody is tired."

I stood watch on a nuclear reactor while taking medicine which said "don't operate heavy machinery while taking this".

This reality is all the more true when there is combat.

Face it: combat is scarey and hellish; it is normal to want to not go. And so people try to make excuses or sometimes get worked up enough to where they think that they have mental illness when, in fact, they don't.

But on the other hand, enough horror and combat will break you; it is only a matter of time, and the time for each person is different.

So we get the following sad situation, all brought about by well intentioned people:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6576505

Army studies show that at least 20 percent to 25 percent of the soldiers who have served in Iraq display symptoms of serious mental-health problems, including depression, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Administration officials say there are extensive programs to heal soldiers both at home and in Iraq.
But an NPR investigation at Colorado's Ft. Carson has found that even those who feel desperate can have trouble getting the help they need. In fact, evidence suggests that officers at Ft. Carson punish soldiers who need help, and even kick them out of the Army.
Soldier Tyler Jennings says that when he came home from Iraq last year, he felt so depressed and desperate that he decided to kill himself. Late one night in the middle of May, his wife was out of town, and he felt more scared than he'd felt in gunfights in Iraq. Jennings says he opened the window, tied a noose around his neck and started drinking vodka, "trying to get drunk enough to either slip or just make that decision."

Five months before, Jennings had gone to the medical center at Ft. Carson, where a staff member typed up his symptoms: "Crying spells... hopelessness... helplessness... worthlessness." Jennings says that when the sergeants who ran his platoon found out he was having a breakdown and taking drugs, they started to haze him. He decided to attempt suicide when they said that they would eject him from the Army.

"You know, there were many times I've told my wife -- in just a state of panic, and just being so upset -- that I really wished I just died over there [in Iraq]," he said. "Cause if you just die over there, everyone writes you off as a hero." [...]

The Army boasts of having great programs to care for soldiers. The Pentagon has sent therapists to Iraq to work with soldiers in the field. And at Army bases in the United States, mental-health units offer individual and group therapy, and counseling for substance abuse. But soldiers say that in practice, the mental-health programs at Ft. Carson don’t work the way they should.

For instance, soldiers fill out questionnaires when they return from Iraq that are supposed to warn officials if they might be getting depressed, or suffering from PTSD, or abusing alcohol or drugs. But many soldiers at Ft. Carson say that even though they acknowledged on the questionnaires that they were having disturbing symptoms, nobody at the base followed up to make sure they got appropriate support. A study by the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, suggests it's a national problem: GAO found that about 80 percent of the soldiers who showed potential signs of PTSD were not referred for mental health follow-ups. The Pentagon disagrees with the GAO's findings.

Soldiers at Ft. Carson also say that even when they request support, the mental-health unit is so overwhelmed that they can't get the help they need. Corey Davis, who was a machine gunner in Iraq, says he began "freaking out" after he came back to Ft. Carson; he had constant nightmares and began using drugs. He says he finally got up the courage to go to the Army hospital to beg for help.

"They said I had to wait a month and a half before I'd be seen," Davis said. "I almost started crying right there."
Intimidated by Superiors

Almost all of the soldiers said that their worst problem is that their supervisors and friends turned them into pariahs when they learned that they were having an emotional crisis. Supervisors said it's true: They are giving some soldiers with problems a hard time, because they don't belong in the Army.

Jennings called a supervisor at Ft. Carson to say that he had almost killed himself, so he was going to skip formation to check into a psychiatric ward. The Defense Department's clinical guidelines say that when a soldier has been planning suicide, one of the main ways to help is to put him in the hospital. Instead, officers sent a team of soldiers to his house to put him in jail, saying that Jennings was AWOL for missing work.

"I had them pounding on my door out there. They're saying 'Jennings, you're AWOL. The police are going to come get you. You've got 10 seconds to open up this door,'" Jennings said. "I was really scared about it. But finally, I opened the door up for them, and I was like 'I'm going to the hospital.'"
[...]
Richard Travis, formerly the Army's senior prosecutor at Ft. Carson, is now in private practice. He says that the Army has to pay special mental-health benefits to soldiers discharged due to PTSD. But soldiers discharged for breaking the rules receive fewer or even no benefits, he says.

Alex Orum's medical records showed that he had PTSD, but his officers expelled him from the Army earlier this year for "patterns of misconduct," repeatedly citing him on disciplinary grounds. In Orum's case, he was cited for such infractions as showing up late to formation, coming to work unwashed, mishandling his personal finances and lying to supervisors -- behaviors which psychiatrists say are consistent with PTSD.

Sergeant Nathan Towsley told NPR, "When I'm dealing with Alex Orum's personal problems on a daily basis, I don't have time to train soldiers to fight in Iraq. I have to get rid of him, because he is a detriment to the rest of the soldiers."

[...]

A therapist diagnosed Tyler Jennings with PTSD in May, but the Army's records show he is being tossed out because he used drugs and missed formations. Files on other soldiers suggest the same pattern: Those who seek mental-health help are repeatedly cited for misconduct, then purged from the ranks.

War simply sucks on so many levels; it kills and wounds, and not all of the wounds are physical.

I am brilliant!

2006-12-03T06:16:00.000-08:00

Ok, the Yahoo college football "pick-em" season is over. I participated in the picks by pointspread game; for those who don't understand it works this way:

Take the Army -Navy game. Navy was favored to win by 20 points. I took Army and the points. Navy won 26-14, but since Army had a 20 point handicap, I won my bet.

Had Navy won 27-6, I would have lost my bet.

In the Yahoo pick-em game, only the games involving top 20 teams were bet on.

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/college/25077/8

I finished with a score of 148 out of 252, which was good for

ollie


Overall Leaders

Rank: 419
Percentile: 99th
Rank Change: +584


Fans of Navy

Rank: 3
Percentile: 99th
Rank Change: +2


Fans from Illinois

Rank: 21
Percentile: 99th
Rank Change: +26

As you see here. But, during the season, there were 15 "off the board" games (e. g., Texas vs. Sam Houston State was "off of the board") meaning there was no pointspread on those games. Mostly, those games were complete mismatches, and so I will deduct those.

And there were 3 "push" games (ties), where the final matched the point spread perfectly.

So, my results (pointspread only) looked like:

133 wins, 101 losses, 3 ties or a winning percentage of 56.8%.

Did I statistically beat the coin-flip? Yes!
I was able to reject H0 in the following test

H0: p = .5
Ha: p > .5

with a p-value of .02
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~west/applets/binomialdemo.html

That is, flipping a coin would yield results as good as or better than mine only 2 percent of the time.

In a "bet 11 dollars to win 10 scheme" (place a bet of 11 dollars; if you win you get your 11 back plus 10 more, if you lose you lose your 11), and had I bet 11 dollars on each game, I would have finished the season $219.00 ahead!

Ok, no one is going to call me "Ollie the Greek".

Who should play Ohio State?

2006-12-02T19:02:00.000-08:00

Ok, Arkansas muffed a punt while down 31-28 and so fell 38-28. So, who should play Ohio State?

Update: take the poll here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/2/222847/944

Also, vote in the ESPN poll:
http://espn.go.com/

and see a map of where Michigan and where Florida gets support.

States voting for Florida:

Oregon, Idaho, Utah,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas
Ohio
West Virginia
Rhode Island
SEC/ACC states:
Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida.

Tied: Hawaii

Michigan: Alaska, Washington, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Deleware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusets (sp), Maine

Eyeball guess: Big Ten and Pac Ten fans want Michigan (save Oregon, Ohio). ACC and SEC fans want Florida; Big 12 and Big East fans are split.

Part of me says "who cares" as I think that Ohio State will whip anyone. But let's try to be objective:

Sat, Sep 2	Southern Miss	W 34-7	Audio
	Sat, Sep 9	UCF	W 42-0	Audio
	Sat, Sep 16	at (13) Tennessee	W 21-20	Audio
	Sat, Sep 23	Kentucky	W 26-7	Audio
	Sat, Sep 30	Alabama	W 28-13	Audio
	Sat, Oct 7	(9) LSU	W 23-10	Audio
	Sat, Oct 14	at (11) Auburn	L 17-27	Audio
	Sat, Oct 28	Georgia	W 21-14	Audio
	Sat, Nov 4	at Vanderbilt	W 25-19	Audio
	Sat, Nov 11	South Carolina	W 17-16	Audio
	Sat, Nov 18	Western Carolina	W 62-0	Audio
	Sat, Nov 25	at Florida State	W 21-14	Audio
	Sat, Dec 2	(8) Arkansas	W 38-28	Audio

Sat, Sep 2	Vanderbilt	W 27-7	--
	Sat, Sep 9	Central Michigan	W 41-17	--
	Sat, Sep 16	at (2) Notre Dame	W 47-21	--
	Sat, Sep 23	Wisconsin	W 27-13	--
	Sat, Sep 30	at Minnesota	W 28-14	--
	Sat, Oct 7	Michigan State	W 31-13	--
	Sat, Oct 14	at Penn State	W 17-10	--
	Sat, Oct 21	Iowa	W 20-6	--
	Sat, Oct 28	Northwestern	W 17-3	--
	Sat, Nov 4	Ball State	W 34-26	--
	Sat, Nov 11	at Indiana	W 34-3	--
	Sat, Nov 18	at (1) Ohio State	L 39-42

HOME ADVANTAGE=  2.69           RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 |  ELO_CHESS   |  PREDICTOR  
1  Ohio State           A  = 100.65   12   0   72.28(  36)    1   0  |    3   0  |  103.15    1 |   98.20    1
2  Southern California  A  =  97.25   10   1   80.67(   3)    2   0  |    6   1  |   98.45    3 |   95.60    2
3  Michigan             A  =  93.17   11   1   75.44(  13)    0   1  |    3   1  |   99.52    2 |   88.84    8
4  LSU                  A  =  92.36   10   2   73.75(  25)    2   1  |    2   2  |   94.08    5 |   90.30    5
5  Louisville           A  =  91.75   10   1   73.07(  31)    0   0  |    1   1  |   89.57   13 |   93.62    3
6  Florida              A  =  91.39   11   1   73.53(  27)    2   0  |    4   1  |   96.60    4 |   87.42   10
7  California           A  =  91.00    8   3   80.80(   2)    0   2  |    4   2  |   90.07   11 |   91.29    4
8  Arkansas             A  =  87.69   10   2   70.59(  49)    1   2  |    3   2  |   92.67    7 |   83.69   17
9  Tennessee            A  =  87.31    9   3   76.89(  10)    1   3  |    3   3  |   89.84   12 |   84.65   14
10  Boise State          A  =  87.28   12   0   64.09(  99)    0   0  |    2   0  |   92.95    6 |   82.95   18
College Football 2006 through games of November 25 Saturday           the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
HOME ADVANTAGE=  2.69           RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 |  ELO_CHESS   |  PREDICTOR  
11  Notre Dame           A  =  86.51   10   2   74.38(  19)    0   2  |    2   2  |   91.59    9 |   82.41   20
12  Auburn               A  =  86.46   10   2   73.24(  29)    2   1  |    3   2  |   91.65    8 |   82.31   22

Hmmm: USA Today gives Michigan a harder schedule, prior to the Arkansas game. Michigan has better wins (Notre Dame 10-2, Wisconsin, 11-1) as well as wins over Penn State 8-4.

One might count 6-6 Minnesota and 6-6 Iowa

On the other hand, Florida has wins over 10-3 Arkansas, 9-3 Tennessee, 10-2 LSU, 8-4 Southern Miss and then wins over some 7-5 teams; South Carolina, Kentucky and Georgia as well as 6-6 Alabama and Florida State.

Though I think that Michigan is better, they had their shot and so I'd go with Florida.

Still, it doesn't matter as Ohio State would whip either, in my opinion.

Now, who will we see in the Cotton Bowl? I'll know one team this evening (the Oklahoma, Nebraska loser; I call this the "lost to Texas bowl").

Snow and Football

2006-12-02T17:14:00.000-08:00

After cursing and getting all of the snow out of our rented dumpster, I ate some lunch and watched some football.

Of course, for me, the highlight was watching Navy beat Army 26-14. The game started with Navy turning the ball over on downs at the Army 30, only to watch the Black Knights drive it for a touchdown, which came on a reverse play.

Navy answered and it was 7-7 at the half.

Navy opened the second half with a long drive to take a 14-7 lead, and then the defense took over. Army missed a field goal and got the ball back. An interception gave Navy the ball near midfield and Navy cashed in with a field goal to go up 17-7.

Then Navy returned an interception for a touchdown to go up 24-7, and then added a saftey (quarterback sacked in the end zone) to go up 26-7.

The Black Knights didn't quit though, and scored on a pass with 2 seconds left in the game to give the final margin.

The total yards were close; Navy had a 275-253 edge, with 264 rushing yards. But the turnovers did Army in.

I then saw the USC-UCLA game. I saw USC take a 9-7 lead near the end of the first half; little did I dream that UCLA would pitch a shutout in the second half.

UCLA drove to the USC 5 but had to settle for a field goal, and ended up getting another one.

The fired up UCLA defense did the rest. I suppose that the Bruins got tired of hearing how USC was a lock for the BCS championship game.

I think back to the UCLA-Notre Dame game and I said at the time that I thought that UCLA and Notre Dame were more or less of equal ability. I say that win looks much better on Notre Dame's resume now.

On the other hand, playing Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA back to back got the better of USC. They could only get "up" so many times.

George Will: case of dishonest shilling...

2006-12-02T05:15:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I had addressed the incident where Senator Elect Webb and President Bush had a testy exchange.

Here is the exchange as it happened:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

Frankly, it is too bad that Mr. Webb didn't point out that while his boy was in Harm's Way in Iraq (and almost got killed), Bush's daughters were partying across South America. As Eleanor Cliff writes:

A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.

But I digress.

Here is how Mr Will wrote about it:

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy."

Source: http://www.tpmcafe.com.

See the difference?

But R. J. Eskow reports that this isn't the first time that Mr. Will has lied.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3569

Yesterday's mendacity was nothing for George F. Will, however. He has been a disgrace to his once-honorable profession for a long time. His sleazy behavior in years past helped pave the way for the debased media of today.

The Carter/Reagan debate, and Will's role in it, changed journalism forever. Will went on national television that year to comment live and "objectively" on Ronald Reagan's debate performance - without disclosing that he was working for the Reagan campaign and had helped Reagan prepare for that very debate - using stolen property.

This unethical behavior set a new low for journalistic ethics. What was equally ground-breaking was the fact that, once his behavior was made public, he paid absolutely no professional price for it. No censure, no widespread criticism, no loss of employment.

Here's what's known, and not in question, about Will's behavior in 1980:

He was an advisor to the Reagan campaign, and specifically coached Reagan on how to handle the one debate he held with Jimmy Carter.
He appeared on Nightline as part of a panel to review the debate the night after he coached Reagan.
Ted Koppel noted that Will "met with Reagan" the previous day, and said that Will was known to have "affection" for Reagan - but did not disclose he was working for the campaign in a professional capacity. (That's an enormous omission - and Koppel appears to have helped "spin" the "disclosure" in Will's favor.)
Will, Reagan, and the rest of the team used a Carter debate briefing book which was clearly stolen property. The result? Reagan's effective "there you go again, Mr. President" routine.
Will praised Reagan highly on Nightline, saying "his game plan worked well." (Viewers didn't know at the time that this "game plan" was Will's own creation.)

So you have it.

BEAT ARMY!!!!

2006-12-02T05:01:00.000-08:00

Today will have me digging out of the snow storm and perhaps a medium run on the treadmill. But then today is the day of some big football games, and the biggest for me is the Army-Navy game.

When one is a "plebe" at the Naval Academy, one has to yell things at certain times. For example, when one makes a right angle turn in a hallway, one has to stamp one's foot on a metal plate and make a "square corner". One typically yells "Beat Army, Sir". This is all school year long.

Hence, "Army Week" is a big deal; there are lots of spirit related activities on campus.

This is a real release from the pressure of the semester.

Both student bodies go to the game; so you have the Corps of Cadets and the Brigade of Midshipman. Both march on the field prior to the game; frankly Army looks much better during the march on.

Afterward, both student bodies stand at attention for each other's song; it is an atmosphere of mutual respect.

The game itself is spirited, even if the level of play is far from elite (by NCAA division I standards). Though there have been some upsets over the years, what usually happens is that both teams come in high and the better team ends up winning. This year, that is us.

Shoveling: near record snow

2006-12-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

I didn't need the news organizations to tell me that we got some heavy snow (by our standards):

http://www.week.com/Story.aspx?type=ln&NStoryID=55702

Dec 01, 2006 - There is no doubt that Central Illinois saw some of the worst this winter storm could bring. Some communities saw more than a foot of snow.

From right around the Illinois River to the west seems to be some of the larger totals. As of 9:00 a.m. Havana was reporting 14.6 inches and Canton recorded a total of 13.5 inches.

In the Twin Cities, areas to the West of Bloomington were socked with heavy snowfall, while points to the east saw much smaller amounts.

The National Weather Service says the winter storm dumped eight-point-one inches of snow on Peoria. Meteorologist Chris Miller says that tops the seven-point-one inches the city normally gets in December.

But the snowfall is short of topping Peoria's single-day record for the month. That was set when eight inches fell on December 11, 2000.

Miller says more than two inches of the storm's snow fell yesterday, the last day of November. He says it missed the record on a ``technicality.''

Miller says the storm piled up at least six inches of snow from the state's midsection to the Iowa border. He says storms that big generally pass through Illinois only about once a decade. Typically, snowfall amounts that large are confined to four or five counties.

Great. We got our whole month's worth on one day!

I am still cursing myself for not writing a better Ph. D. dissertation (thereby giving myself more employment options, which would have included warmer locations!)

You can read our whining about it here:
http://peoriapundit.com/blogpeoria/2006/12/01/snow/#comments

What kills me is that it hit 62 F TWO DAYS AGO!

Daily Summary for November 29, 2006

Temperature
Mean Temperature	49 °F / 9 °C	34 °F / 1 °C
Max Temperature	62 °F / 16 °C	42 °F / 5 °C	69 °F / 20 °C (1933)
Min Temperature	36 °F / 2 °C	26 °F / -3 °C	0 °F / -17 °C (1976)

Also, this is the kind of snow that is not only heavy and wet, but also sticks to your shovel.

The upside to this is that the Jingle Bell 5K race has been put off until next weekend; that gives me another week to get ready.

On another note, my daughter got her hair cut short and my sister sent me photos. Here is one.

Snowed out: Fun

2006-12-01T07:44:00.000-08:00

This is a view of the Field House from the window of an engineering professor's office. For another, much better view (real time), go here:

http://explore.bradley.edu/bucam/

This is the first time that Bradley has cancelled classes (that I remember) since 1991.

I made it to campus as I live only a 5 minute walk away, though it took me almost 15 minutes today. The snow level is about midway between the ankle and the calf.

Therefore, I have some time to do some work.

Here are some assorted odds and ends:

San Francisco Values (by Kos of the Daily Kos)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/28/15421/031

San Francisco Values

by kos

Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:03:52 PM PST

Did you hear that O'Reilly invented the slur "San Francisco values"? Yeah, he also thinks he invented sliced bread and fire.

But let's talk about "San Francisco values", you know -- tolerance, entrepreneurship, and creativity.

Since O'Reilly boycotts everything he hates, I look forward to his boycott of all Bay Area-origin products. Same with every conservative who bashes San Francisco and the Bay Area. So no iPods or anything Apple. No HP computers. No Google. No Yahoo. No eBay. Those conservative bloggers using Blogspot, MovableType, or TypePad? Sorry. Those products are Bay Area-based.

Also no Adobe or Macromedia products. No computers, either, since most run on AMD or Intel. No tax preparation using Intuit products. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Cancel your TiVo subscription. Remove your Network Associates or Symantec virus protection software from your computer. Unplug your Netgear wifi router.

Don't wear Levis (or any kind of jeans), Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, or buy your kids Gymboree. Avoid LeapFrog learning toys. Boycott Pixar movies. Boycott any movie using George Lucas' ILM special effects shop. Stay away from Treos and other Palm devices. Don't let Charles Schwab manage your portfolio. Don't bank at Wells Fargo.

Yeah, those "San Francisco values" sure are dragging the region down. Making it weak as it falls behind the rest of the country -- the parts that don't share "San Francisco values" -- economically and socially.

Or, maybe -- just maybe -- it's made the region a magnet for the world's smartest, most innovative, most entrepreneurial individuals and an incubator of the world's most dramatic technological advances.

----------------------

Senator Elect Jim Webb doesn't bow down to anyone:

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; A01
At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
Webb was narrowly elected to the U.S. Senate this month with a brash, unpolished style that helped win over independent voters in Virginia and earned him support from national party leaders. Now, his Democratic colleagues in the Senate are getting a close-up view of the former boxer, military officer and Republican who is joining their ranks.
If the exchange with Bush two weeks ago is any indication, Webb won't be a wallflower, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. And he won't stick to a script drafted by top Democrats.
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
In the days after the election, Webb's Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill went out of their way to make nice with Bush and be seen by his side. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sat down for a lunch and photo opportunity with Bush, as did Democratic leaders in the Senate.
Not Webb, who said he tried to avoid a confrontation with Bush at the White House reception but did not shy away from one when the president approached.
The White House declined to discuss the encounter. "As a general matter, we do not comment on private receptions hosted by the president at the White House," said White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino.
Webb said he has "strong ideas," but he also insisted that -- as a former Marine in Vietnam -- he knows how to work in a place such as the Senate, where being part of a team is important.
[...]
One senior Democratic staff member on Capitol Hill, who spoke on condition that he not be identified so he could speak freely about the new senator, said that Webb's lack of political polish was part of his charm as a candidate but could be a problem as a senator.
"I think he's going to be a total pain. He is going to do things his own way. That's a good thing and a bad thing," the staff member said. But he said that Webb's personality may be just what the Senate needs. "You need a little of everything. Some element of that personality is helpful."

This is funny (called "mystery fabric")

This is in very poor taste; yet I found myself laughing (yes, I know; the KKK would calle me a "mud race" person, yet I feel that this video lampoons them)

UPS: case study in business incompetence

2006-11-29T19:42:00.000-08:00

It started with a box on my porch when I got home.

I looked at it and thought "oh, my wife is buying yet more stuff" and picked it up and took it in. I looked at it: sure enough, the street address was correct, but the name on the address was not ours.

Hmmm, I decided to wait until my wife got home to see if she knew anything about it.

Sure enough, it wasn't for us; it was some outfit with a Peoria address but a South Carolina area code? (if that was indeed the number).

That is where the fun started.

I called the 1-800 number for UPS. Of course, I got one of those multi-layered menus, none of which had what I needed.

I gave up and called the local office.

They told me to call the 1-800 number and say "agent."

I did; it turns out that there was a long wait so I hung up and called the local office again.

They would not help me; they said that *I* could just wait on the 1-800 number or *drive* the package back to them! (no, I didn't)

All this because I got a mis addressed package that I didn't order?

So, now the box sits on the front porch. My guess is that the person who ordered the item (a bag for a lawn mower) will eventually inquire and trace the item.

The killer is tha the local UPS office did NOTHING; yes, if they were given the wrong address it wasn't their fault, but you'd think that they would care more for their customers (the business who sent the item, and the one the item was going to, but I guess not.

Personal: JUNK!!!!

2006-11-28T10:56:00.000-08:00

The city of Peoria twisted our arms into getting our garage fixed. Yeah, that is the kind of things that local governments and/or homeowner's associations should do. We were negligent.

This is a sort of a "before" photo: note the trim on the roof. The roof has been replaced; the sides and the doors are next.
This is the trash that was INSIDE of the garage, and there is probably a half of a load more to go! This has nothing to do with the work that has been done; this is simply some of the trash that we were keeping. Unbelievable.

So, what should a homeowner's association not do?

Try this:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3444

While the overwhelming Democratic victory in the midterm Congressional elections gives us huge reason for hope, we still receive signs on a daily basis showing just how much work we have to do in repairing our country. One piece of evidence today comes from Pagosa Springs, Colorado, where Lisa Jensen is in deep trouble with her homeowner's association for having the gall to hang a holiday wreath shaped like a peace sign on the side of her house.

"I just wanted to put a message of peace out there," said Jensen, who put the wreath up about one week ago, not intending it to be a statement against the Iraq war. "I was really trying to be in favor of something - peace." [...]
According to Bob Kearns, the association's president, three or four residents have complained and at least one believes Jensen's decoration is a symbol of Satan.

"The peace sign has a lot of negativity associated with it. It's also an anti-Christ sign. That's how it started," said Kearns. "Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up."

Hmmm. Not much more to add to this.

More remarks: (click to see a larger version)
This pretty much sums up my feelings about Thanksgiving dinners...

Oh yes, athletics. Yesterday, I had pain in the upper part of my right calf; almost behind the knee. It went away today; I think it was sympatheic pain for the right knee as we just had a weather change.

Still, I gave my knee the day off and swam 2600 yards and water ran for 20 minutes. I had a lane next to a tri-babe who was wearing a brief workout bikini.

No names mentioned (yeah, she is happily married and a mom, and not only is she an accomplished recreational athlete, she is also a professional engineer!)

Still, it was fun to swim next to her.

I am ashamed to say that my fastest 100 was only 1:37, and I had to push to do THAT (I was leaving on the 2:10). But, this semester I have been swimming 1 mile (1800 yards) three times a week, after lifting weights. Today, I swam "fresh".

And ok, I've been sort of down lately. Nothing is really wrong; I just have the blah's. I get these almost every year at about this time.

Yes, this series of injuries has frustrated me just a bit, but I brought it on myself by overracing the ultras and letting my walking technique slip.

So, to remind myself of what could lie ahead, I'll post some photos from athletically happier times:

Mrs. T's, in 1999. This was the last year I could swim a sub 16 minute 1000 yard race.

Finishing the 2000 Madison Half Marathon in 1:35. This was my last "good" half marathon, though I did manage a 1:37 in 2001.

Finally, a comment on a thread on yoga.com on yoga and lap dancing

one poster said this:

Well, to each his/her own. I think Cyndi's more on it with the competitive thing. Sensuality is a wonderful aspect of humanity that is good to cultivate, but getting tips/getting a promotion/ahead in the world based on the size of your cups is another thing. But, most of us women know how stupid men are when we shake our ta-tas in front of them and some of us (a lot of us) take advantage of that. Can't say that I haven't done that myself (not for money, though ).

The P*s*y Cat Dolls song "don't you wish your girlfriend was HOT like me?" sums it up.

To which I replied:

Ahh, but then you have no room to complain if you aren't taken seriously, or if another woman with better ta-tas comes by and makes you invisible.

And another yogi posted:

Ah, a nice, serious topic among yogis.

Going into the last week of November

2006-11-26T12:53:00.000-08:00

This post will be a bit more rambling than normal.

Today, I ran 5 miles slowly (9:30 pace) and then did 1 hour of indoor cycling. Then I hiked about 2 miles with my wife; I did have some hip ache that I was able to fight off with some sitting and stretching.

As I said, I got back from Austin recently; one of the things I did was to celebrate some birthdays. The birthday girls can be seen here.

The three "girls" are Krystal, Olivia (the one with the glasses, my daughter) and Lauren. We clowned around with yoga a bit as all have had lessons; Krystal (the one with the star on her sweatshirt) can do the backbend (Urdhva Dhanurasana) from standing. Personally, I need to push up to it, or to use a wall.

On the way home I stopped at O'Hare airport (Chicago) for a 3 hour layover. O'Hare is named for Butch O'Hare, who was a naval ace during World War II and won the medal of honor for taking on a formation of 8 Japanese bombers at once.

When I stopped to see the exhibit, I was surprised to find that he was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, class of 1937. I saw the Lucky Bag (year book) open to his page, and I noticed that Midshipmen wrote the same sort of things about each other as they did when I graduated 44 years later. I suppose that some things are universal.

Social/Political

I read the following article by Leonard Pitts today, which was written in response to this incident and the public's response to it:

Richard's Rant Leaves no Doubt that He is a Racist.

[...]a pointed question is now being debated: Is Michael Richards a racist? Let me save us all a lot of time: Yes. It seems obvious that Seinfeld's Kramer, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, has no use for, as he put it in his rambling, disjointed, and painful-to-watch apology on Letterman, ``Afro Americans.''
I have a reader who would disagree on that. She sent an e-mail hoping to preempt my calling Richards racist. She asked that I consider the possibility he's no bigot but simply a man who, in anger, reached instinctively for the most hurtful language he could find. We've all been there, right?

HE MEANT IT

Well, no. Richards' rant, according to the video of it online, lasted a good 2 ½ minutes. You might angrily snap that somebody is a ''fat so-and-so'' without really meaning it. You don't spend 2 ½ minutes calling them fat unless fat is exactly what you mean.

What bothers me most about my reader's explanation is that she felt compelled to postulate an alternate reason for Richards' behavior. Evidently she found the likeliest reason too hard to accept. Nor is she alone. TMZ.com, the website that obtained the video, polled its users with this question: Is Richards a racist? Forty percent of the respondents said no. [...]

Granted, the survey is not scientific, but it is instructive. And no, it makes no difference to me that some black people freely use the same word Richards did. I consider them just as hateful as I do him, except with them, it's hatred of self.
But frankly, Richards is not the point here. [...]
But if so many of my white countrymen refuse to recognize racism when it is this blatant and unmistakable, what expectation can we have that they will do so when it is subtle and covert? In other words, when it is what it usually is.

Modern bigotry usually isn't some nitwit screaming the N-word. It is jobs you don't get and loans you don't get and apartments you don't get and healthcare you don't get and justice you don't get, for reasons you get all too clearly, even though no one ever quite speaks them. [...]

These are complaints African Americans have sought for years to drive home only to be met largely by indifference, the defensive apathy of those who are free to ignore or diminish any claim on conscience that makes them uncomfortable. At the risk of metaphor abuse, the response to this debacle makes clear that you can't explain Advanced Racism to those who haven't passed Racism 101.

And, with all due respect to my correspondent, that need to make excuses gets old. The man spent 2 ½ minutes screaming racial insults. You say that's not racism?

Then, pray tell, what is?

Here is a youtube of what Pitts is talking about.

So, what? What do you think?

It Pitts (one of my favorite columnists) overreacting?

Probably not from the point of view of most African Americans. Seriously, think of it this way: blatant, state sponsored racial discrimination last occured before many of today's younger adults were born (and please, don't even try to compare affirmative action to what went on before; those things aren't even in the same universe even if you feel that race based affirmative action is unjust).

From the point of view of many non-African Americans, this was just some shock-comic saying shocking things. And one thing that Mr. Pitts probably doesn't want to admit is that there is a big "cry wolf" syndrome at work here.

I've seen it repeatedly: someone fails, and then they try to play the race card, if it is available to them (in EITHER DIRECTION, that is, a minority claims "discrimination" and the non-minortiy claims that they would have made it if affirmative action were working for them). Many people (regardless of race) are quick to make excuses for their own failures.

Nevertheless, I see his point: if this outburst, which I admit is blatantly obvious, isn't seen as racist, then how in the heck are the rest of us going to take the more subtle forms of racism seriously?

So, this is one reason I will continue to support affirmative action, especially for African Americans, even with its problems. I just don't trust our society to truly be color-blind; we (as a society) need some guidance. We're not ready to kick up the training wheels as yet.

When the Jewish Bible talks about the "sins of the fathers" affecting many subsequent generations, this was the kind of thing that was being talked about, in my opinion.

And please don't tell me that certain classes of people (mostly white) don't have built in advantages. Would George W. Bush have been president had he not been a "Bush"?

On another angle: I'd ask Mr. Pitts to consider how people reacted to Senator Allen's "macaca" incident.

Frankly, that bothered me much more as this came from a sitting United States Senator. Even worse was the "welcome to America" remark; it is as if only white people are real Americans.

Then, on a lesser level, there was the remarks made by Michael Irvin about the Dallas Cowboy quarterback Tony Romo.

Romo was having a good game against the Tampa Bay Bucs. In fact, he played so well that Irvin joked that Romo must have had African ancestors somewhere (the implication that a white couldn't be that good of an athlete):

IRVING, Texas - Don't tell Bill Parcells, but Tony Romo is currently the NFL's best quarterback.

Don't tell Michael Irvin, but it's not because Romo has black ancestors.

And whatever you do, don't tell ESPN that Irvin has no business pretending to be Charles Darwin.

If you're a little confused, bear with me. We came to Dallas to cover a Tampa Bay game. We got one of the biggest stories of the NFL season, along with one of the most under-reported.[...]

The biggest continues to be Romo. The Bucs made him look like Roger Staubach. Or he made the Bucs look like Chernobyl High. Either way, five touchdown passes added up to a Thanksgiving Day Massacre. [...]
How did a fourth-year nobody from Eastern Illinois become a pro sensation?
"I just try to execute," he said.

That's the kind of nice, modest explanation you've heard countless times. Then there is Irvin's explanation, which you probably haven't heard once.

"Somewhere there are some brothers. . . . (Maybe) his great, great, great, great Grandma ran over in the hood or something went down."

That's what Irvin said Monday on the Dan Patrick radio show. The host then asked Irvin if having black ancestry was the only way to be a great athlete.

"No, that's not the only way, but it's certainly one way. Great, great, great, great Grandma pulled one of them studs up outta the barn."

It should be noted that Irvin was cackling throughout. It should also be noted that doesn't matter.

Some things you just can't joke about in this day and age. At least you can't if you're, let's be honest here, the color of Romo's great, great, great, great Grandma.

Of course, Irvin was a hall-of-fame caliber player with those Cowboys, and he caught his passes from Troy Aikman, who, if anything, looks like one of those old Nordic gods.

But even those who have felt the pain of racism sometimes slip up, though Irvin's "botched joke" was nothing like the incident that Pitts wrote about.

Yuck!!! Bad weekend for spectator sports...

2006-11-25T21:06:00.000-08:00

Oh well, ND fell 44-24, with USC getting their last touchdown when they returned an onside kick for a touchdown. I had called it 34-21 here.

I had a split TV going while I watched Illinois beat Bradley 75-71; Bradley had a lead but was depending too much on 3-point shooting.

As far as the ND-USC game: USC had too much team speed, and ND couldn't take advantage of a series in the second quarter where ND got two interceptions in a row. At the time, USC lead 21-10.

The total net yards weren't that different (407-402 in USC's favor, with both rushing and passing being close) but it appeared if ND was always playing catch up.

ND ended up turning the ball over on downs a great deal.

So, we'll see how the bowl situation turns out; USC still has their rivals (UCLA) to play, and ND can still take solace that they beat teams who are currently 9-3, 9-3, 8-4 and 8-4 along the way to a 10-2 regular season.

But this was a weekend to forget, spectator sports wise.

Back in Peoria, Thanksgiving 2006

2006-11-25T12:56:00.000-08:00

I am back in town again, and have taken today off from exercise. My butt hurts a bit from the trip, so I'll do some yoga this afternoon just before dinner.

I've been told that I look better than I did this summer. Part of the reason is that I've been faithful with lifting, yoga, swimming and well as cycling. Running is coming along oh-so-slowly (and of course, my racing has been slow too).

Weightlifting wise, my big exercises have been pull ups, lat pull downs, and squats (I've also used the hip machine, and done a couple of sets of bench presses).

I don't get the depth that this powerlifter Zhanna Ivanova (Ukraine) gets; mind you she has 456 pounds (207.5 kg) on the bar! Nor does my form look nearly as good. I'll have to keep at it.

I've been reading The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett; I am on the last 150 pages or so. I'll write a review afterwards; let's just say that the actions of the Bush administration makes more sense to me now, though I continue to despise them as much as ever.

Oh well; back to the grind; I'll be busy with school this week, starting tomorrow.

ARGHHH!!!!!!!

2006-11-24T12:41:00.000-08:00

The Aggies whipped my Longhorns 12-7 in a game that wasn't as close as the score would indicate. Yeah, A&M went up with 2:30 or so to go after a long drive, but UT's only score came off of a fumble recovery.

Basically, UT couldn't move the ball (their quarterback appeared as if he hadn't recovered from his injury two weeks ago) and they had a hard time stopping A&M's option attack, especially when they were moving with the wind at their backs.

On a personal note, I got in a 4.2 mile run (37:30 this time), and some pull-ups at Town Lake, and then went shopping with Olivia (my daughter) and my mom.

What Famous Liberal Said this:

2006-11-23T17:17:00.000-08:00

I have some quotes. One person said all of this.

Who?

“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

“When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.”

“War settles nothing.”

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Man, what an unpatriotic, bleeding heart, liberal pinko commie!
Click here to see who it was! (yep, it was a famous Republican!) Hat tip to Flint at a popular website.

Turkey Trot: can't fake a 5 mile race.

2006-11-23T09:19:00.000-08:00

I attempted to run the Thundercloud Turkey Trot in Austin; distance was 5 miles (8.1 km).

The course was a hilly loop that circled around the capitol, the campus of the University of Texas, and some of my old neighborhoods (when I was a grad student at UT).

There were 8000 people there, along with the usual problems of slow walkers lining up in front, 12-13 minute a mile joggers lining up at the 6 minute a mile spot, etc.

But I should have been focused on my own lack of running conditioning. The first mile took me a bit over 8 minutes to complete as I had a slow start; but I was already feeling a bit winded. The second mile came about 7:30 later; that was too fast for me today.

I was already starting to hurt; I ended up walking 2-3 times (up the hills, which I wasn't ready for). Mile 3 came at 25 minutes; I was completely whipped.

We went past Memorial Stadium and around the Super Drum (basketball arena). I was suffering though I was barely doing sub 9 minute miles at this point.

We made the second to the last turn to face a stiff but short uphill; I walked a few more steps.

My final time was 43:08, which was about 5 minutes slower than 3 years ago, but what I should have expected given that 5 miles had been my longest run (9 minute pace) and most of my runs were 2-3 miles.

The hard truth: I can "fake" an ok 5K race (say, at 30 seconds a mile off of my race pace) by just showing up in half way decent aerobic shape (via bicycling, swimming, etc.). But anything longer: if I am to race, I need to be in running shape.

But I had fun, saw lots of cute spandex and got a wonderful tempo workout. And I am one workout closer to being in running shape.

Update: Political Commentary.
There is one thing that did bother me a bit. Before the race, they sang the National Anthem. Ok, we overuse this around here, but I've come to accept that this is part of our culture. So, I respectfully stood at attention.

However, there is one runner who stayed down to stretch. And, of course, some busy body had to go and try to get onto the guy for not standing up. The runner held is ground and more or less politely told the busybody to mind his own business.

THAT is the kind of phony patriotism that I dislike; it is really none of anyone's business who stands and who doesn't during the National Anthem. We are supposed to be free and attention that is coerced is not sincere.

Enchanted Rock State Park Hike with Daughter

2006-11-22T15:19:00.000-08:00

Today, I skipped working out and drove to Enchanted Rock State Park to hike with my daughter.

From the park site:

History: Enchanted Rock State Natural Area consists of 1643.5 acres on Big
Sandy Creek, north of Fredericksburg, on the border between Gillespie and Llano
Counties. It was acquired by warranty deed in 1978 by the Nature Conservancy of
Texas, Inc., from the Moss family. The state acquired it in 1984, added
facilities, and reopened the park in March 1984, but humans have visited here
for over 11,000 years. Enchanted Rock was designated a National Natural Landmark
in 1970 and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984. The
Rock is a huge, pink granite exfoliation dome, that rises 425 feet above ground,
1825 feet above sea level, and covers 640 acres. It is one of the largest
batholiths (underground rock formation uncovered by erosion) in the United
States.
Tonkawa Indians believed ghost fires flickered at the top, and they
heard weird creaking and groaning, which geologists now say resulted from the
rock's heating by day and contracting in the cool night. A conquistador captured
by the Tonkawa described how he escaped by losing himself in the rock area,
giving rise to an Indian legend of a "pale man swallowed by a rock and reborn as
one of their own." The Indians believed he wove enchantments on the area, but he
explained that the rock wove the spells. "When I was swallowed by the rock, I
joined the many spirits who enchant this place." The first well-documented
explorations of this area did not begin until 1723 when the Spanish intensified
their efforts to colonize Texas. During the mid-1700s, the Spaniards made
several trips to the north and northwest of San Antonio, establishing a mission
and presidio on the San Saba River and carrying out limited mining on Honey
Creek near the Llano River.

The following are some of the photos that I took:

This is from the summit of the smaller of the two peaks.
We then went dong the small peak to the larger, more popular one. Here is Olivia trudging up the side. The hill is made of granite.
Here Olivia is at the very summit of the taller peak; she is reading the metal geological medalion that is placed there.
Here she is between two of the larger rocks.
Another one, about midway up the smaller peak. You can see where the rainwater runs during wet weather.
Here she is at the start; the smaller peak is behind her.

A couple of thoughts: first, I noticed that almost everyone at the top of the peak was slender. That isn't true 100% of the time; but most of the hikers we saw looked like the folks that I see at running races and bike rides.

Next: there was this guy from Scotland who was cycling across Central Texas. He was taking a world tour and is headed to South America (by plane); he was in Japan a couple of weeks ago.

Finally: this trip was significant for me for a couple of reasons. First, it was my daughter that told me about this park; it was her idea to go there two years ago. Secondly: my hip/piriforims/gluteals didn't bother me at all. I had a couple of "after the fact" tingles in my lower leg; that was about it. In fact, I mostly forgot about the leg entirely.

No, the climb was no big deal, but it was EXACTLY the kind of activity that would have had me in a great deal of pain this summer. So I have indeed made progress, though I am still a good ways from being able to do full blow ultramarathon training.

Can't make myself do it..

2006-11-22T05:50:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about swimming today, but it is in the 40's outside and Barton Springs Pool is closed.

So, that means trying to get a lane at Stacey's. Brrr...

I want to take Olivia to Enchanted Rock State Park and hike up the rock:

That we will probably do.

Then of course, this weekend, I am looking forward to the USC-Notre Dame football game. I still think that USC will win, though I'll be cheering for the Irish.

Of course, the USC quarterback is named "Booty" which leads to stuff like this:

I hope to see stuff like this:

or like this:

Or even like this:

Or perhaps like this:

Yes, You-tube has replays of the end of last year's game as well, but you can find your own clips on those.

Austin, Texas

2006-11-21T08:30:00.000-08:00

I arrived in Austin, Texas late last night. The flight from Chicago to Austin started off ok; when I sat down the plane was half empty.

But a connecting flight had yet to land; and of course the plane was packed; in fact, double booked in some seats.

So, the days of empty seats on (most) flights are long gone; of course that is why my plane ticket costs roughly the same as it would have in the late 1970's (about$285.00 for a round trip). In those days, the planes were often half empty, but in real dollars, the tickets were more expensive.

Another change is that it is almost impossible to escape people on cell phones in the airport. I dread the day when they allow for them to be used on planes.

This morning I "ran" 4.25 miles on the Hike and Bike (one mini loop from South First under the Mo-Pac bridge and along the north side) in 37:00; it was too much of an effort for such a slow time. The first mile (9:15) was by far the slowest; I averaged 8:20-8:30 after that.

No way I could do a marathon at that pace; at least at any time in the near future.

Off to Austin

2006-11-20T14:54:00.000-08:00

Well, I am almost off to Austin.

Politics: There is a flap about Representative Rangel introducing a bill to reinstate the draft. Personally, I like the idea as it will give a loud "put up or shut up" message to all of those who claim to "support the war" but don't want to fight it themselves.

Hey, people like Senator McCain are saying that we need more troops. So where are these troops going to come from? Put up or shut up. Thank you Mr. Rangel.

(Congressman Rangle )(D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.
"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."
Rangel has drawn modest support for his draft proposal in recent years and it has been unclear whether its prospects might improve in the 110th Congress.

And frankly, if you enjoy the benefits of this country, you should be willing to give something back.

Now to other matters: this weekend, USC plays Notre Dame in football. It should be interesting.

This is the USC (Cheerleader? Song Girl?) squad that they always show on television. Click for a larger version.

Notice: they all kind of look alike, though from the television view I thought that they were all blonde. In fact, only 5 of the 12 are.

Grade Inflation and Yoga-Lap Dancing?

2006-11-19T16:55:00.000-08:00

Ah, the Thanksgiving holidays are once again upon us. Frankly, I don't like this holiday.

In the past couple of years, I had the Ultracentric 24 hour race to look forward to. This year, it is a week earlier, and I was too injured to enter anyway.

Basically, there is no way to get around the fact that I'll be around people who will be stuffing themselves; that is, eating the way that I used to.

But, I'll have some time to spend "one on one" with those I love, including my daughter, mother and sister. And I'll get to watch Texas whip Texas A&M on a big screen television, as well as run in the Thundercloud Subs Austin Turkey Trot (5 miles).

Grade Inflation in the High Schools

"oh, but we used a college book in my high school calculus class, and I got an "A"" is a common lament from those who struggle and fail in their college calculus classes. So, what is going on here? Answer: grade inflation.

Many students are getting very good grades. So many, in fact, it is getting harder and harder for colleges to use grades as a measuring stick for applicants.
Extra credit for AP courses, parental lobbying and genuine hard work by the most competitive students have combined to shatter any semblance of a Bell curve, one in which 'A's are reserved only for the very best. For example, of the 47,317 applications the University of California, Los Angeles, received for this fall's freshman class, nearly 21,000 had GPAs of 4.0 or above.

That's also making it harder for the most selective colleges — who often call grades the single most important factor in admissions — to join in a growing movement to lessen the influence of standardized tests.

"We're seeing 30, 40 valedictorians at a high school because they don't want to create these distinctions between students," said Jess Lord, dean of admission and financial aid at Haverford College in Pennsylvania. "If we don't have enough information, there's a chance we'll become more heavily reliant on test scores, and that's a real negative to me."

Standardized tests have endured a heap of bad publicity lately, with the SAT raising anger about its expanded length and recent scoring problems. A number of schools have stopped requiring tests scores, to much fanfare.

But lost in the developments is the fact that none of the most selective colleges have dropped the tests. In fact, a national survey shows overall reliance on test scores is higher in admissions than it was a decade ago.

"It's the only thing we have to evaluate students that will help us" tell how they compare to each other, said Lee Stetson, dean of admissions at the University of Pennsylvania.

Grade inflation is hard to measure, and experts caution numbers are often misleading because standards and scales vary so widely. Different practices of "weighting" GPAs for AP work also play havoc. Still, the trend seems to be showing itself in a variety of ways.

The average high school GPA increased from 2.68 to 2.94 between 1990 and 2000, according to a federal study. Almost 23 percent of college freshmen in 2005 reported their average grade in high school was an A or better, according to a national survey by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute. In 1975, the percentage was about half that.

GPAs reported by students on surveys when they take the SAT and ACT exams have also risen — and faster than their scores on those tests. That suggests their classroom grades aren't rising just because students are getting smarter. Not surprisingly, the test-owners say grade inflation shows why testing should be kept: It gives all students an equal chance to shine.

The problems associated with grade inflation aren't limited to elite college applicants.
[...]
More than 70 percent of schools and districts analyzed by an education audit company called SchoolMatch had average GPAs significantly higher than they should have been based on their standardized test scores — including the school systems in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Denver, San Bernardino, Calif., and Columbus, Ohio. That raises concerns about students graduating from those schools unprepared for college.
"They get mixed in with students from more rigorous schools and they just get blown away," said SchoolMatch CEO William Bainbridge.
[...]
But the colleges most popular with Edina students already know how strong the school is: Students' median verbal and math SAT scores are 1170 out of 1600.
Hicks isn't willing to blame the concentration of grades at the top on spineless teachers, or on grade-grubbing by parents and students. Expectations are high, and grades are based on student mastery of the material, not a curve. Wherever teachers place the bar for an A, the students clear it.
"Everyone here is, like, 'if I can get an 98 why would I get a 93?'" said Lavanya Srinivasan, who was ranked third in her Edina class last year. Far from being pushovers, she says, Edina teachers are tougher than those in a course she took at Harvard last summer.
Zalasky agrees the students work hard for their high grades.
"The mentality of this school is, if you're not getting straight A's you're not doing well," he said. "There's just so much pressure on us day in and day out to get straight A's that everybody does."

So, what is going on?

Basically, I think that the answer is this: too many people associate "hard work" with quantity. And too many are afraid to make assignments/exam problems that require cleverness and ability to do.

In other words, in a properly designed exam, not everyone will be able to get an A, no matter how hard they try.

But that stikes some as being "unfair".

Perhaps this is why I am so drawn toward athletics. When the gun goes off, you start running (or walking, or swimming, or cycling), and the winners are clear cut. When two teams play, the result is clear.

I wish it were more so in academia, at least at the lower divisions.

Yoga and Lap Dancing

I often visit the yoga.com message boards. I was a bit surprised to find the following thread there:

http://www.yoga.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22961&posts=20

Good Lord- what do you all think of this -

I found another yoga center in the town next to me, went to check it out, they have the usual yoga, pilates blah blah - but they also have a "learn how to be a stripper/lap dance" class - not just a one time "seminar", but a weekly thing.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am NOT a prude, I was a stripper myself for 13 years...but lap dancing being taught at a yoga center?? Is it just me or is that kind of against the whole...the whole...I don't know, the whole scheme of things. It just turned me off.

There were the usual "oh, I want to see that!" type of posts (I made one) and some "that isn't compatible with the spiritual aspects of yoga" posts as well.

The original poster made an interesting comment:

Ok, as a former stripper, let me say that strippers as a whole are lost souls - yes, there are always those that are "paying their way thru college" or saving up to "start their own business" but let me tell you from experience, those types are few and far between. The lifestyle is rampant with drugs, alcohol, and low self esteem. As far as it being an ego boost to have all those men lusting at you, I wish every stripper had ears good enough to hear from the stage what these men are actually saying about them. - it is neither flattering or positive in any way. It is degrading. I found this out when I stopped dancing and just started bartending in gogo bars, and could overhear most of the conversation amoung the customers.

In order to do that kind of work and do it well and survive emotionally at the same time, you MUST be able to turn yourself off and become a sort of robot. This is not a healthy way to be. Maybe some of you will argue that alot of jobs or situations in life could be that way, but when you are selling sex or even just your sexuality, it is different. I met a few women in the business who had no problem at all with the work, who didn't need to seperate themselves from it, who didn't need 3 shots of Cuervo and a few beers to look like they were actually enjoying themselves, and let me tell you - those women were scary!!

I think that it is my feelings about the ugliness I saw and experienced in that business that made me have such a strong reaction to seeing this class offered at this particular studio. I also understand it is my choice not to go there. The classes being offered are not for strippers but for housewives or women who otherwise want to be more entertaining in the bedroom. And I have no problem with that - you have to keep sex interesting, and men are visual creatures - plus, the stripping etc can be fun for the female too, so I say go for it....but NOT in a yoga center. Not sure who mentioned in an earlier post about purity, but that word hits it right on the head with me. I want to go to my yoga classes, walk in the door and take a deep breath of all that yoga is to me now, and immerse myself in it. I feel anything outside of that would be a distraction to me in such a place.

Well said. I admit that when I visited the red light district of Amsterdam (a quick walk through), I felt no joy. Instead I felt pain for the ladies.

I admit that I have a somewhat negative reaction.

Of course, I like seeing physically fit women doing stretches. But this type of stuff strikes me as a "hey, look at how enlightened I am; I can take an erotic dancing class".

There is nothing wrong with that, but it isn't the kind of place where I would go to learn yoga. I would rather any sexual thoughts that pop into my head be a very small, subtle part of the experience rather than the focus of it.

But, a quick google search produced many such places:

http://www.coursejunction.com/course_detail.cfm/id/12618

ourse Cost:	$89.00
Course Name:	Stripping Workouts/Striptease Lessons & Lap Dancing Classes Exotic dancing is much more than dancing sexy. Come gain the confidence to express your authentic self. This class is about you finding you. It’s learning how to reach deep within yourself to find your inner beauty and grace and combine these into sensual movements that only you can express. The non-intimidating style of the class helps you to overcome inhibitions and fosters your confidence and self-expression. All of our instructors are trained to create an environment that is supportive, not competitive. This class will empower you to: -Experience the benefits of a confident walk -Create an immediate impression as you enter a room -Project your intentions through body language. -Send and receive nonverbal messages through eye contact -Explore your self expression and be more spontaneous -Attract others to you -Overcome inhibitions and feel beautiful -Feel powerful and free Dress comfortably in workout gear as your basic outfit and bring an oversized button down shirt and a pair of heels. There is no nudity in any of our classes. The Art of Exotic Dancing Workout is Four 1 hour classes. $80 The Core Workshop I is three hours in length. $89.00 The Core Workshop II is 2 hours in length. $89 Chair Moves is 2 hours in length. $89 Due to the sellout nature of our classes, pre-registration is required. Change and cancellation fees may apply. “By taking the class, I realized what I had was exceptional. I learned whatever I am or have isn’t right or wrong…it’s mine and is to be celebrated and cherished. No matter what we look like, what we do or how long we’ve been on this Earth, we are extraordinary women with great things to offer the world. We learned to hold our heads high, walk with confidence and with that people would watch us in a new way. Seduction, through dance, was amazingly fun, but we learned the power of our confidence was far more seductive.” - Molly, Age 41 Mother of 4, Wife
Instructor(s):	Karen Cooper, Laura Klekar, Clarissa Pierro, Rachel Sand AOED Instructors are Everyday Women Rachel Sand, Dallas hails from Philadelphia. She was the star instructor in the Northeast and brings her enthusiam to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Rachel is in the corporate sector working in downtown Dallas. She previously was a recruiter for a catholic college in Philadelphia. Laura Klekar, Ft. Worth-Laura is a scientist who has made a huge impact in the Ft. Worth area. She has been an inpiration to many of her friends and now the dance community. Karen Cooper, Irving/Southlake – AOED Instructor, 20+ yrs ballet experience, Leader in the Dallas dance community, Entrepreneur Clarissa Pierro, Dallas/Rockwall – AOED Master Instructor, Art of Exotic Dancing Licensee, Motivational Speaker, Entrepreneur
Course Provider:	The Art of Exotic Dancing for Everyday Women In 1998, two dozen women took the first AOED class and a phenomenon was launched. In just a few short years, tens of thousands of women have taken the course, purchased the video and read the book. Our class attracts women of all ages, shapes, sizes and ethnicities – the commonality is that each is seeking to unlock a realm inside. We are always happy to share our story and introduce you to the women who have taken the class. The instructors and students, diverse in ethnicity, age, size, shape, and local, are part of the vibrant community of women that are attending transformative workshops, Bachelorette parties, private retreats, private lessons, and other special events. The classes and workshops happen every month in each city, since 1998 and continue to explode throughout the U.S. and U.K. Run by Everyday Women for Everyday Women.

Football...

2006-11-18T18:35:00.000-08:00

Today saw me watch the start of the Notre Dame-Army game and then watch the Ohio State vs. Michigan game.

I taped the rest of the Notre Dame game but it ended 41-9. Army actually led 3-0 after one quarter. Then it was all Notre Dame. The Irish wore green jerseys in honor of their senior class.
Navy went to 8-3 with an easy 42-6 win over Temple. Navy lead 35-0 at the half. BEAT ARMY!!!
And the game I watched: Ohio State threw one interception (off of a batted ball) and fumbled twice (0nce on a bad center snap) and still won 42-39. I had the impression that Michigan was more or less hanging on; at no time did it appear to me that Ohio State was in trouble. OSU lead 28-14 at the half and had pulled to 42-31 before Michigan closed in the final minute.

So who should play in the BCS championship game? It is too early to tell. If USC wins out, they deserve the shot (they would have beaten Notre Dame, Arkansas and Nebraska out of conference, as well as Oregon and California in conference). If Rutgers wins out, they would have beaten Lousiville and West Virginia (as well as now 8-3 Navy). But if either of these teams stumble, then perhaps a rematch is in order.

Update: Rutgers got whipped by Cincinnati and therefore dropped out of the picture. As someone said recently on the Notre Dame fan messageboards, it is tough for a team to carry around expectations. USC had an impressive 4'th quarter to whip California 23-9.

As much as I like Notre Dame, they are simply not a number 1 contender this year, even if they pull off the upset at USC. Frankly, I don't see them beating USC.

On a Down Note

As a Naval Academy graduate, a fan, and as a college professor, the following bothers me. I sure hope that there is more there than meets the eye.

Naval Academy Players Caught Using Steroids, but Drug Testing Delayed by Academy Officials.

BALTIMORE (AP) -- U.S. Naval Academy officials waited more than two months to give urine tests to five football players who acknowledged early last year that they had used steroids, a disclosure prompting lawmakers to call for a congressional probe into the matter, The Sun reported Saturday.
Experts told the newspaper that the delay acknowledged Friday by academy officials would have allowed any trace of the banned drugs to disappear.
"I think it's very important that we know who made the decision to test these young folks two months after we had good cause for suspecting illegal drug use," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. told the newspaper. Cummings is on the academy's Board of Visitors, a civilian oversight panel.
"I want to know who made the decision, why that decision was made, and I think that whatever answer that is provided should be one that every single member of the board should be very much interested in knowing."
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., also called for a probe of the academy's handling of steroid use.
"The Naval Academy and its students occupy a unique place as American role models, and as such they must adhere to the highest possible standards," Waxman said.
Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt, the academy superintendent, and Col. David Fuquea, who handled internal disciplinary proceedings for the players and is now the assistant athletic director, declined to comment through a spokesman. The players also declined to comment.

Weekend: mostly personal

2006-11-18T08:06:00.000-08:00

This is the last Saturday before Thanksgiving. Of course, the big football game of the day is Ohio State versus Michigan (though I am partial to the Notre Dame-Army game myself).

My thoughts: Ohio State wins 28-24 based on having more big play capability. Yes, I know that the former Michigan coach died (Bo Schembechler), but I think that the current Michigan coach (Lloyd Carr) is much better. His teams play better in big games, in large part, I think, to his "no excuses" attitude. On the other hand, Schembechler's teams didn't play well in big games, going 5-12 in bowl games. And when his teams lost, he often whined and made excuses.

But, I doubt that his death will have much effect on the players, as most of them were toddlers the last time that he coached. Young people of today are quite busy and focused on the here and now. It is the older crowd (fans, coaches) that will be most affected.

My favorite teams are Navy (where I went), Texas (my graduate school and hometown school) and Notre Dame (followed them most of my life). But I have soft spots for Illinois and Michigan; the latter due to their current coach.

Athletics

My injury continues to improve. I managed to "run" my 5.2-5.3 mile (flat) course in 46:50, which is almost a 5 minute improvement from this past Tuesday. Then I went to yoga class, which was rather mediocre. The teacher did ok, but the class consisted of mostly the elderly and the out of shape.

I'd love it if there was a yoga class for those who were already physically fit.

Social

DarkSyde of the Daily Kos has a nice diary on the current right wing assaults on science and public health policy. Personally, I have something in common with the creationists.

The evidence for my deity is there to be seen, for those who are open minded enough to look for it.

And woe to those who deny my deity!

Host of unrelated topics

2006-11-17T19:10:00.000-08:00

Today's post will deal with political and personal topics. I'll start with personal ones; those interested in the political issues can scroll downward.

Personal

Celiac Disease in the Family

Barbara (my wife) was home most of the day with nausea and stomach cramps. She has gluten intolerance (aka "celiac disease") and evidently ingested some gluten from some egg nogg. Basically, she can't have wheat products; even the slightest bit can cause her a great deal of misery.

For the longest time she didn't know that she had it; but she kept getting frequent cases of severe intestional distress. Finally, her doctor did a blood test and was able to diagnose it.

She has felt much better every since, save the few episodes when she unintentionally eats or drinks something that has some wheat product in it.

I am basically clueless

On another note, it has become increasingly clear to me that I do not see the world in the way that most people see it. Time and time again, I am surprised at what offends most people.

Example: last weekend, I went to see the film The Fog of War on our campus. The film is about Robert McManara, who was Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. The film itself had some lessons to offer, not in the least of which was that we ought to strive to see the world as others see it.

For example, we saw Vietnam in terms of communist expansion (e . g., they were headed to become some sort of puppet of the Communist Chinese or of the Soviet Union). The Vietnamese saw us as the natural follow on to the French Colonalists. In fact, Vietnam had no special love for the Chinese; in fact, their history shows frequent conflict with China; in fact, these two countries fought a war in 1979. And we had no interest in enslaving them.

That is, a good understanding of how we saw each other could have prevented much of the war!

But I digress.

At the film, someone had a collection of bumper stickers that he was handing out, free of charge. He had removed some that he thought might be offensive to people and one of these was this one:

I admit that I didn't understand. But surely enough, my wife did; she thought that many would be offended by it! That surprised me, as I would have chuckled had "Republican" been replaced by "Democrat."

Another episode: a couple of days ago, I went to my morning yoga class with Vickie. The class is taught in a room that has lots of mirrors. So after the class, I spent some time flexing; I really like what my light weight workout sessions have done for me.

Well, Vickie came up to me and kicked me in the butt! She did so playfully, but you could tell that my light flexing bothered her. And, every woman that I talked to said that they would have been repulsed by my doing that! I am not sure as to why; I wasn't hurting anyone.

Don't get me wrong; I am not that muscled:

This is more or less how I look, though the pace I ran at this half marathon (2000) is a bit faster than my current 5K running pace. Getting old sucks.

But my point was that I was clueless about how women would have been so turned off. Though, I also wonder about Vickie's reaction: if a female turned me off by what she did, I would have merely ignored it.

Football

This upcoming football weekend reminds me of my own football days. My high school football career saw me hit it all, as my teams went 3-2, 8-0, 0-7-1 and 4-6.
This requires some explanation. I played one year of junior varsity and one year of varsity at Yokota High School in Japan and started both years. In my junior year at Travis High School in Austin, Texas, I started one year of junior varsity and then sat the bench on the varsity during my senior year.

Total record: 15-15-1; perfect mediocrity! I got to be perfect, and winless.

This shows me during a varsity game during my sophomore season, where I started all 8 games at offesnive tackle.

At the time, I just knew that I was headed to professional football, blissfully unaware that the professional teams wanted their players to be fast, quick, strong and agile (and I was none of those things).

But my endless hours of working out in the off season to get ready for football weren't wasted: I got in the habit of training and I love recreational sports to this day. Since my high school days, I have competed in wrestling, powerlifting, weight lifting, judo, racewalking, running, swimming and cycling events (all unsuccessfully).

I've also learned that wanting to do something doesn't mean that you can do something; there is that ugly word called "talent".

I still follow football today, and have one bit of success to share: this year, my predictions as to how the college games will go (against the point spread) have gone reasonably well. In fact, this past week saw me move into a three way tie for first place in the "Fans of Navy" fan club, as well as into the 99'th percentile among all fans:

My Rank
Rank	Team	Points	+/-
1	ollie	124	+5
Top 50
Rank	Team	Points	+/-
1	GoldenHawk	124	0
1	ollie	124	+5
1	MIDS	124	+5
4	Rockford Bigfoots	123	-1
4	Be A Hero	123	+2
4	jorjemonsalv	123	+2

So, I want this to be remembered!

Oh yes, I am picking Ohio State to beat Michigan 28-24, though this means that I am taking Michigan and the 6.5 points.

Politics

Democratic Infighting

Much to my surprise, I found myself being linked on this blog:
http://donkeydigest.com/

Just a reminder: The Democratic party won 29 House seats to win control of the House. 15 of them, over half, have joined the DLC. 9 joined the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. How are the netroots reacting to this? Well, they’re in denial.

The DLC has never been a more dead commodity than it is today. - Booman Tribune
There’s a reason that the DLC has lost just about all influence in DC. It’s because they have no natural constituency other than their corporate masters. - DailyKOS

The Democratic Party, stuck in DC with the likes of the DLC whispering in its ear, had lost touch with the rest of the country. - Blueollie

It’s over for the DLC, and they refuse to face that fact as stubbornly as Bush refuses to face the fact that his war is lost… - Brilliant at Breakfast

…the DC DLC crowd showed that they’re not really in touch with voters. - twin city sidewalks

You get the picture, right? A dead commodity. It’s over for the DLC. Blah blah blah. Yet, back in the real world, the DLC wins over half the seats the Democrats picked up. Makes you wonder what meds the netroots are taking.

To the author's credit, he acknowledged my point was that in my blog article, I was merely trying to record the infighting that was going on among the newly elected Democrats, though he pointed out that I had posted lots of shots at the DLC . In fact, I have, and I have made it no secret that I am firmly in the left wing of the party.

But in replying to one of my comments, he brought up a typical "centerist" (and Republican) talking point:

I believe Jim Webb won in spite of DailyKOS, and that that online community hurt more than helped. I say this, not based on any statistical evidence, but rather because of KOS’s prior electoral track record.

I responded that Jim Webb indeed had a Daily Kos diary and had frequently used it. What I'll add here (and didn't say in the comments) is that Kos's prior electoral track record is easy to explain. Kos tended to back underdog, underfunded progressive candidates who were long shots to begin with.

Sure, we could have padded our record by, say, backing Ted Kennedy, but what would have been the point? The point was to give folks a shot that might not have otherwise had one. Sure, many have lost in the past, and some (e. g., Duckworth and Seals in the Illinois congressional races) lost in 2006.

But we helped them out, and caused the Republicans to work hard to defend what should have been "safe" seats for them.

We Spin, You Decide: Faux News

I think that this story speaks for itself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750535/

One of the most ingenious aspects of the false charge of an intentional liberal bias in the news media is the unstated inference that if there is a liberal bias there by necessity cannot be an intentional conservative bias.
A new piece of hard evidence that there indeed a conservative bias in at least one quarter of the media, a Rosetta Stone of jaundiced journalism.
It’s apparently a printout of a channel's daily editorial memo, marching orders e-mailed to key staffers on how and where to slant the news. And how to adjust the facts to match the political conclusions and not the other way around.
Dated November 9th, the morning after Democrats secured control of both houses, obtained by the huffingtonpost.com, it states:
“The elections and Rumsfeld’s resignations were a major event but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption.”
Then it brings out the old, a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists chestnut:
“Let’s be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress.”

Straight GOP talking points.

Then, there is CNN asking a newly elected Democrat if "we" can be sure that he will represent United States interests rather than the interests of "the terrorists".

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150004

On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

This is more or less the way I felt about this person's question:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/11/16/13527/257/19#19

well, I'll go on record and say... (12+ / 0-)

you know, some of my best friends are conservative @sshole Republicans...and I know and love conservative @sshole Republicans...

but I am sorry, but this is just the way that I feel:

you have to prove to me that you are loyal to the American people and just not out to make a buck for yourself.

You have to prove to me that you love your country and those in it.

You have to prove to me that you love this country enough to actually go and FIGHT in a war, if you think that the war is necessary....

you have to prove you aren't a traitor.

---------------------------------

Note that Beck is a Mormon; e. g., a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints.

I could have responded this way:

"ok, I've been to Salt Lake City. I've shared an office with a BYU grad and deeply respect some of the BYU mathematicians. I've been to a Mormon service and visited Nauvoo.

Even one of my favorite Senators is a practicing Mormon.

But there is something that I need to ask: can you tell me that you really don't have five or six wives? Yeah, I know that your church gave up "plural marriage" in 1890, at least officially. But I feel that perhaps your religion has been hijacked by fundamentalists that don't accept this. Can you assure me that you follow our laws?"

To Conservatives: A pledge from Michael Moore

2006-11-14T15:06:00.000-08:00

First, to my Liberal and Democratic Friends: if you like this pledge, I'll provide a link to where you can sign it.

Link to sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/mmflint/petition.html

Hat tip to Granny Doc from the Daily Kos for alerting us to it.

To: Conservatives and Republicans

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

just not feeling right

2006-11-14T07:29:00.000-08:00

I probably have a low grade bug of some sort.

Update: I am merely a doofus. I made "decaf" coffee this morning (by mistake) instead of regular. Moral: look for the simple reason.

I "ran" 5.3 miles this morning; 51:18. I just was "out of synch" and was all day yesterday as well.

Afterwards, 1 hour on the indoor cycle doing 4 on, 4 off.

I've been interested in the post-election fall out. As predicted, the Democrats are fighting among themselves.

On the other hand, many of the Republicans "just don't get it".

Examples:

Some think that the trouble in Iraq trumped a "good economy". That is, because the stock market is doing well, the economy is doing well!

Washington (The Daily Standard) - THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of
Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else.

Of course, Mr. Barnes isn't wrong about everything:

What should worry Republicans most, however, is erosion of its strength in the West and in two states in particular: Colorado and Arizona. Fours years ago, Colorado was solidly Republican. Since then, Democrats have won a Senate seat, two House seats, the governorship, and both houses of the state legislature. At the state level, that's realignment.

In Arizona, Republicans dropped two House seats and Republican Senator John Kyl got a mild scare. Kyl, by the way, may be finest and most able senator in Washington. He's certainly in the top five. Meanwhile, Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano cruised to victory.

The bottom line is this: Colorado and Arizona may not be there for Republicans in the 2008 presidential race. Of course, everything depends on the actual candidates, but these two states start out as presidential swing states. This is a new development.

Virginia is now worrisome for Republicans, even if Senator George Allen wins reelection via recount. It has become more a middle Atlantic than a Southern state, as University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato notes. (Sabato, by the way, picked the outcome in the House and Senate almost perfectly.) Republicans have lost the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia, which have grown into a third of the state's vote. And Representative Thelma Drake almost lost her House seat in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area, a Republican stronghold heavily populated with active duty and retired military.

Already the wails of the immigration restrictionists are rising, insisting Republicans lost because they weren't tough on keeping illegal border-crossers out. Not true. The test was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats. Graf lost in a seat along the Mexican border, where illegal immigrants flock.

and he concludes:

What happens in a bad Republican year is that good Republican candidates lose. There were many of them: House challengers David McSweeney in Illinois and Van Taylor in Texas, lieutenant governor candidate Luther Strange in Alabama and Tom McClintock in California, and House incumbents Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Jim Ryun of Kansas, and Clay Shaw of Florida.

But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. The media, however, is exaggerating the number of these unconventional Democrats. They are a handful, and the pattern of moderate and conservative Democrats when they get to Washington is to pipe down. Or, as losing Republican Congressman Chris Chocola said of his victorious opponent Joe Donnelly, they become "Nancy Pelosi."

Conservatives won't want to hear this, but the Republican who maneuvered his way into the most impressive victory of the election was California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Okay, he's sui generis. But he won a landslide victory after moving to the center, while holding onto conservatives by not hiking taxes. Just think if he were eligible for the White House in 2008. Even (some) conservatives would be clamoring for him to run.

So, in all, the above article is a good read.

But don't think that the real right wing nut jobs have gone away. You have some crying "woe is us, the terrorists have won!"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2006/11/14/the_biggest_winners

The biggest winners in last week's election were the enemies of the United States, who see the results as confirmation of one of their doctrines: the United States is weak and does not have the commitment to fight a protracted war.
There is no talk of a new strategy on their side. They don't hold elections to replace their leadership with people who will negotiate and compromise with the United States, or the elected Iraqi government. Their media do not carry voices calling for a new approach to the war.
America's enemies are gloating more than Democrats. But unlike Democrats, their intentions are evil. If the terrorists are to be believed (and who can credibly doubt them?), the U.S. election will encourage them to fight on and kill more of our soldiers.

The rest of his column is filled with similar nonsense and ends with a rant:

Both a novelist and a realist could write the following scenario: In an effort to take Iraq off the table as an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Bush administration adopts most of the provisions of the Iraq Study Group. In a modern version of the Paris Peace Talks, which allowed the United States to have "peace with honor" and withdraw from Vietnam (resulting in the deaths, imprisonment and "re-education" of unknown numbers of Vietnamese who wanted to be free), the administration then orders a "redeployment" of forces after "negotiations" with Syria and Iran (recommended by Blair). This allows just enough time for American troops to leave before al-Qaeda murders the elected leadership and takes over Iraq.
Meanwhile in the United States, mosques and Islamic schools paid for by the extremist Wahhabi sect, multiply like fast-food franchises. Terrorists are imported and recruited from prisons. Al-Qaeda announces that weapons of mass destruction have been placed in key American and European cities. They demand that the United States withdraw its protection of Israel. If we refuse, they threaten to detonate their weapons, killing millions of people. What president, or prime minister, will reject that demand? After capitulating on the installment plan, who will have the political or moral capital (or military capacity) to stop Armageddon?

Ok, so Mr. Thomas' side lost in this election. But, I'll take a few lines to try to reason with those who are drawn to such writing.

Fact: the Iraqi Insurgency, for the most part, has little to do with the type of terrorist that is a danger to the United States. Yes, Al Qeda is there. But they are only a small part of those who are doing the fighting. Most of the fighters are a collection of common criminals, religious types who want to fight each others (Sunnis and Shi'ites) and Iraqis who plain just don't want us there:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

Almost a year on, with kidnappings and beheadings by Islamic militants, large cities still not under the control of coalition forces months away from planned elections, and with security problems requiring the diversion of funds from reconstruction projects, assumptions were being reconsidered and estimates revised. The New York Times reported on 22 October 2004 that senior American officials believed that “hard-core resistance” comprised between 8,000 and 12,000 people, with the number jumping above 20,000 when “active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included.” Moreover, officials believed around 50 militant cells were drawing on “unlimited money” through underground networks supplied by people connected with the former regime, as well as wealthy Saudis and Islamic charities. Though some groups had the ability to carry out attacks in regions other than their own, and there may be some degree of cooperation between regions, it is believed that insurgent activities are organized regionally and that no national insurgent network exists.
In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter. Shahwani said the resistance enjoyed wide backing in the Sunni provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim. Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.
A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.
Still, the New York Times article also references military data suggesting roughly 80 percent of violent attacks in Iraq were simply criminal in nature –e.g., ransom kidnappings and hijacking convoys- and without political motivation. This figure lends credence to those who cited the CPA’s disbanding of the Iraqi army as an error likely to create a pool of unemployed and discontented young males ripe for absorption into the insurgency. Further, this statistic highlights the importance of reconstruction, and the revitalization of an economy in Iraq that can provide traditional employment opportunities. Of the remaining 20 percent of violent attacks –those with political motivation- four-fifths are believed attributable to native insurgents as opposed to foreigners.

In other words, Mr. Thomas, if we get our soldiers out of there, they won't be killed and wounded. The people we are fighting in Iraq have little to do with the terrorism that threatens us.

Windy Ride

2006-11-12T11:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, the above photo has nothing to do with this post, but it is, uh, yoga related.

This cartoon (click for a larger version): I've always been in favor of 20-20 "hindsight".
And today's ride: 30 miles on the Rock Island Trail. Yep, I started at about 9 am and went due north. That is right; I started with a 5 mile per hour wind at my back. At around 10:30-10:45 I truned around, only to face a 15-20 mile per hour wind in my face!

Also, given that the trail was still soft in spots and that there were 5 blown down trees (two of which were too heavy for me to move off of the trail by myself); well...next time I start by going south and finishing with the wind at my back.

Also not helping was that the farms along side the trail (near Princeville) were sprayed with some foul smelling chemicals.

You'd think that this would be prime windmill country, but the problem is that it is windy during off peak months (in terms of electricity use).

Oh, Those Upsets and other oddities in College Football

2006-11-11T20:56:00.000-08:00

I had a bit of a football feast with my wife being out of town. Of course, I got my workout in this morning (4 mile run, 12 miles of cycling) and did some yoga during the Notre Dame-Air Force game.

The first game I watched was the Illinois-Purdue game. Illinois actually lead 23-14 before a blown option coverage allowed the Purdue quarterback to run 42 yards for a score; he was so alone he actually had a "where in the heck is everyone else" look.

After that, Illinois made four turnovers in a row: interception, a fumble, a fumble on a kick-off and yet another fumble. That lead to three more touchdowns in a very brief span and a 42-31 Purdue victory.

Next Notre Dame beat Air Force 39-17. Notre Dame started off with two quick strikes to lead 14-0 with over 12 minutes left in the first quarter.

Notre Dame lead 20-3 going into the second quarter. Then Air Force kept the ball for 14 minutes; and fell behind 27-3 when Notre Dame returned a blocked field goal attempt for a touchdown.

The teams traded two touchdowns in the second half, with Notre Dame having all sorts of problems with extra points.

The Falcons were valiant in defeat, racking up over 400 yards of offense, though many of the yards came when Notre Dame was already up 33-3.

After getting back from a campus film, I watched the Texas-Kansas State game, picking it up when it was tied 21-21. Kansas State got two fumbles and a blocked kick to make it 42-21. But Texas rallied behind their second string quarterback to pull within 7 points.

Kansas State then made a 51 yard field goal (on a fourth and 1 yard; I thought that the K-State coach was crazy to try it). Texas pulled to 45-42 but couldn't recover the onside kick and K-State made one first down to run out the clock.

In all, this week saw top ten teams Louisville, Auburn, Texas and California lose. It also saw me go 12-6-1 so far on Yahoo pick-em (against the spread); the "gimmies" were Notre Dame only favored by 11 over Air Force and Wake Forest an underdog to an overrated Florida State squad.

But Kansas State beating Texas? (I did pick K-State to cover the spread). K-State lost to Baylor 17-3 and needed a missed two point conversion to beat I-AA Illinois State 24-23.

Of course, Navy won it's 7'th game of the season by beating Eastern Michigan 49-21. Navy has lost 3 games; one on a missed extra point to Tulsa, and then to undefeated Rutgers and to top 10 ranked Notre Dame. Not too shabby!!!

Taking Shots at Secularists: Why?

2006-11-11T12:48:00.000-08:00

It seems fashionable for Democrats to take shots at secularists.

I've included some examples at the end of my rant.

My question is: WHY?

My goodness; we secularists control absolutely NOTHING.

Can you imagine an openly atheistic politician ever getting elected at anything above, say, a city level position?

Is it our numbers? We make up, what, 10% of the population, at best?

So why do people on the left insist on taking shots at us?

My cynical guess: this is a Sister Souljha Moment for many progressives; they want to show Joe Six-Pack that they can stand up to us.

Big friggin deal; we have no power whatsoever.

So knock yourselves out.

Here is the evidence:

One of the best known examples of this comes from emerging political superstar Barack Obama:

But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years. [...]

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith. [...]

magine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.[...]

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration. [...]

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems. [...]

We see this at the Smirking Chimp:

The conflict between religion and science is "a debate that long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience"(1).

Actually, the conflict is a debate that predates even formal Old Testament Roman religion by nearly a millennium. In historical and evolutionary terms, the "anti-religion" position of science is actually an anti-supernatural (i.e., anti-magic) position.

Magic is not real and that truth is as old as science itself. Anti-supernaturalism has always been virtually a prerequisite for entry into the realm of creative thought in science. If a magical god causes everything, then there is no need to look around for earthly causes, there is only the need to start praying. [...]

Ok fair enough, but look where he ends up:

In historical fact, the conflict between religion and science was largely resolved two centuries ago by Jefferson and his Deist collaborators. The only human approach is to separate nascent Christian human rights from religion and to place them back where they belong, along side the values of science and natural philosophy, all providing the values of Jefferson's democracy.

Religion is, by definition, apart from reason. It is, therefore, apart from science, natural philosophy, and democracy. As recognized by Jefferson better than anyone, religion is also, therefore, apart from nascent Christianity and human rights. Nascent Christian values are unrelated to religious thought. They belong at the core of a scientific American democracy.

Jefferson knew that Old Testament Roman religion had never seen the Christ as a human role model to be emulated in action. Rome saw the Christ as a supernatural spook unattainable in life. Rome also recognized that if one claimed to be Christian in belief, one could justify conquest and control over both those who were "christian" and those who were not. By Jefferson's day, Old Testament Roman religion had driven imperialism for a millennium and it had driven colonialism for centuries. It had been employed by the British right up until the Declaration was signed.

In America, where we claim the right to a quality public education, it is entirely permissible to say that this right is God-given. It was given by Jefferson and friends in the name of Jefferson's God, located in the "head and heart" of every person, manifest in "the will of the people, substantially declared."(8). It would be a challenge to be a better Christian than Thomas Jefferson because he saw the first Christian as being entirely human with an enlightened human message.

As for God, Jacob Bronowski has described Einstein's scientific relationships with God better than anyone. "Sometimes Einstein treated God as if God were his uncle ... and sometimes Einstein treated God as if he were God's uncle." This is precisely the nature of the relationship God needs to have with all people in order that they know themselves to be alive and well. We call it "getting to know oneself," "keeping in touch with oneself."

Everyone needs to deal with God as if God were the creative source of the physical world because God (as material information) is the source of the physical world. Everyone needs to deal with God as if God were the creative source of the biological world because God (as genomic information) is the source of the biological world. Everyone needs to deal with God as if God were the creative source of the cultural world because God (as ideologic information) is the source of the cultural world.

Everyone needs to deal with God as if God were of our own making because God is of our own making. Everyone needs to deal with God as if God is One, like the Earth and the People.

And even The Nation piles it on as well (and yes, Eyal Press' article is excellent as it makes many, many good points; too many to highlight here. Among the points he makes is that not many poor evangelicals voted Republican (even in 2004) , that much Republican opposition to enviromental matters comes from the pro-business wing and not from the evangelical wing; (see, also, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/index.html ) and that many evangelicals share many social values with secular progressives)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/press

On November 4, 2004, two days after George W. Bush was narrowly re-elected President, the New York Times published a gloomy op-ed by historian Garry Wills titled "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out." The United States, observed Wills, was "a product of Enlightenment values--critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences." But, as the election results showed, these principles had given way to something new--"fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity." Wills was hardly alone in this reading. "The reelection of a president such as George W. Bush," declared Michael Tomasky of The American Prospect, "is a culminating event in the political retreat of modernity, a condition of existence whose fundamental tenet was the triumph of scientific skepticism over what used to be called 'blind' faith."

Who exactly upheld this tenet Tomasky didn't say. Certainly not the nine in ten Americans who have said they've never doubted the existence of God. Or the eight in ten who believe the Lord works miracles. Or the same number who are certain they will be called to answer for their sins on Judgment Day. Or the tens of millions who attend church every week--more, in a typical seven-day span, than those who turn out for all sporting events combined. These figures are drawn from the 1990 book Under God, by Garry Wills. As Wills pointed out at the time, the idea that urbanization, scientific progress and rising living standards would gradually transform America into a secular society has long appealed to journalists and intellectuals. Talk about blind faith. In reality, noted Wills, "nothing has been more stable in our history, nothing less budgeable, than religious belief and practice."

The source of this stability is not, as some right-wing demagogues now insist, that the Founding Fathers were devout evangelicals who viewed America as a Christian nation and who would have sided with conservatives in today's culture wars. As Brooke Allen points out in Moral Minority, most of the Founders were deists and Unitarians who rejected doctrines like the Incarnation. Thomas Jefferson dismissed the Trinity as "incomprehensible jargon." He and other Founders made no mention of God in the Constitution, and took pains not to establish an official church on US soil. And yet, as various scholars have noted, disestablishment grew out of respect, not disdain, for religion, which, James Madison observed, "flourishes in greater purity without [rather] than with the aid of government." He was right. The level of religious observance in America has long dwarfed that in various European countries where official churches still exist. It has remained exceptionally robust despite periodic predictions of its imminent decline. In the 1960s, for example, falling church membership stirred much excited talk about the so-called "death of God." Somebody forgot to inform the American people, an overwhelming majority of whom told pollsters they were believers. When, a decade later, a Baptist deacon named Jimmy Carter was elected President, the media discovered that tens of millions of Americans considered themselves born-again, which had been true for some time but had managed to escape most commentators' notice. [...]

There are, of course, millions of Americans who would rejoice if Roe were reversed, just as there are many who think the separation of church and state is a myth, that mandatory school prayer should be reinstated and that sex between two consenting adults of the same gender should be a punishable crime. It is perfectly fair for Americans who disagree with such views to say so--the louder the better. It is nevertheless a mistake to dismiss those who hold them either as victims of false consciousness or as fools, the way Sam Harris does in his slender, entertaining but misleadingly titled new book, Letter to a Christian Nation, which is actually addressed to people like himself who want to get a good laugh at the expense of those silly enough to believe in God. Harris's unabashed disdain for all forms of religion is in some ways bracing--he has as little patience for moderate believers as for biblical literalists. And much in his letter will likely prove amusing to atheists and agnostics fed up with hearing pastors insist that only the churched are capable of viewing the world through a moral prism. "According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy," he writes,

Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ.

One can practically hear Upper West Side liberals chuckling to themselves, aghast at the irrationality of the heartland. But one wonders if they'll nod approvingly as Harris turns his attention to Muslims. "It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside," he observes. "But it is important to recognize why this is so--it is so because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith."

Harris belongs to a group that Timothy Garton Ash recently described as "secular fundamentalists." He is an engaging writer, and the popularity of his book suggests that many people think it is about time the faith community received its comeuppance. But by his standard, many African-Americans who took part in the civil rights movement were also deranged. So were others who gathered in church basements during the 1980s to stop the Reagan Administration from arming death squads in Central America (among whose victims were many nuns and priests who preached liberation theology). So was William Jennings Bryan, the populist orator and born-again Christian who for several decades served as the voice the excluded in America, supporting everything from legalizing strikes to progressive taxation, and whose passion and appeal Michael Kazin convincingly demonstrates in a new biography, A Godly Hero, were inextricably related to his biblical faith. So was the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, perhaps the greatest moral agitator of the nineteenth century, whose abhorrence of slavery, according to his biographer Henry Mayer, "cannot be understood outside the context of the Christianity that was its inspiration." "Nothing but extensive revivals of pure religion can save our country," wrote Garrison in 1831, the year he began publishing The Liberator, a statement that might have led the secularists of his era to brand him a fanatic, which is indeed how many of his less devout contemporaries saw him. "Radical popular religion helped eradicate an evil with which socially liberal theological opinion had learned to coexist," notes Mayer.

The same religious conviction that has propelled many conservatives to support George W. Bush in recent years also motivates many progressive people of faith to volunteer at homeless shelters and turn out for antiwar rallies. Churches have played a major role in the recent wave of demonstrations on behalf of undocumented immigrants' rights. They have been active for decades in assisting the needy, not least because, as Randall Balmer notes, the Bible contains roughly 2,000 references to the poor (compared with zero explicit mentions of abortion). If faith in God helps explain why Bush has been such a terrible President, it also explains why Jimmy Carter has been such an admirable former one. In his latest book, Our Endangered Values, a scathing critique of the religious right's misplaced priorities, Carter, a devout Baptist, admits that he never prayed more frequently than during his four years in the White House. He also eloquently articulates why, in his view, religion should foster compassion and humility, not the arrogance and intolerance that many of his Bush-supporting fellow Baptists project these days.

People's Front of Judea! No, the People's Judean Front! Why we Democrats won't stay in power for long.

2006-11-11T09:26:00.000-08:00

Personal: today, I have the televison to myself as my wife is out of town. Hence it will be a football feast for me. I already got in 1 hour of cycling and 4 miles of running.

My hilly 4.2 mile "moderate effort" run took 38:05; back in my "run a sub 20 minute 5K days" this course took me 33-34 minutes. But this is as fast as I've gone over the past 2 years or so; the weight training and cycling is paying off.

Now, some comedy. This You-Tube video of a yogi taking on a couple of karate types is funny. It is in French and lasts 9 and a half minutes. But it is still a lot of fun:

------------

Politics: Democrats are already Fighting with Each Other

Well, I was hoping that our infighting would wait until our new congress was sworn in. Silly me.

It has already started; conservatives and liberals are already fighting over who deserves "credit" for this recent election. And, of course, some of our allied interest groups want to join in the fun.

To my Republican Friends: remember that there is only one thing that makes a Democrat more miserable than losing an election. It is winning one. Enjoy!

Memo to Every Democrat Hotlist
by kos
Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:06:06 PM PST

Dear Everyone Who Thinks They Singled-Handedly Won the Last Election,

The DNC and Howard Dean couldn't have won this by themselves.
They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The DCCC and Rahm Emanuel couldn't have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The DSCC and Chuck Schumer couldn't have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The netroots and grassroots couldn't have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The 527s and unions and allied organizations couldn't have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.

The big dollar donors couldn't have won this by themselves. They are not the source of all good in the world. Or all evil.They were all part of a glorious puzzle. And working together, even if not always harmoniously, led to great, great things.

Hugs and kisses.

kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/1766/5834
----------------------------------------------------

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/135814/54

Carville wants a war Hotlist
by kos
Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:58:14 AM PST

It looks like Carville and his DC-elite buddies in DC want a war:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

Dean was elected. If Carville has a master plan to stage a coup against Dean, I'd love to see it. But I doubt the state party chairs who provided Dean's margin of victory are going to get too torn up about the fact that Dean is helping fund their resurgence.

Carville needs to shut the fuck up. If he wants a war, we'll give him one.

And it won't be a war that DC can win.

There's more of us than there are of them.
Source of the quotes:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56467

What about Ford anyway? Well, evidently, liberals who worked for him felt unappreciated and event attacked:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/10/202240/63

Having been fairly active in Tennessee politics, I have been following Ford's Senate bid since he'd announced. I've even been volunteering on his campaign since he won the primary and am familiar with both his field and press operations. I would
categorize myself as a liberal Democrat, though one that understands the ideological obstacles that Southern Democrats have to negotiate to get elected. I've also witnessed firsthand successful Tennessee Democrats like Phil Bredesen
thread the needle of pleasing the liberal Democratic base while simultaneously appearing conservative on key issues that matter to Tennesseans.

Let me cut to the chase and lay out some of what happened to the Ford campaign as it unfolded. For a long time, liberals like myself all over the state had to force themselves to stomach Harold Ford. Not necessarily because of his conservative stance on the issues that matter to us, but because he - like Joe Lieberman - was the Democrat of choice for Fox News and other right wing pundits when they wanted to
attack the left. Ford, like Lieberman, helped provide legitimacy to the Cons' attacks on progressives and constantly undercut the Democratic message, whether it was on the War or domestic policy issues. But after the Senate primary race, when it was obvious that it was "Ford's turn" and that Bob Corker might be beatable, even liberal Democrats sucked it in, held their nose, and took one for the team to help elect Junior (apologies for the mixed metaphor). Kossacks who live in the South know the drill - it happens nearly every election cycle. For Tennessee progressives, having to deal with Ford's conservatism, his corrupt family, his arrogance, and even his public attacks on what I would consider the Democratic Party base, was nothing unusual. We were used to being hit by Ford - not just on television and radio, but here at home, including at a DFA Meetup, a Music Row Democrats gathering in
2004, and even at College Democrat meetings across the state.

But we took it. We had to get the Senate.

Then, there came a turning point. It started with the "Memphis Meltdown" where every progressive (and independent) I know stared in revulsion at Ford's petulance as he crashed Bob Corker's press conference. It got worse as Ford continued to

bash Corker for "attacking my family" - even though Corker hadn't. And Ford's ads got worse. Each one proclaimed even LOUDER than the last one that he was anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-abortion. Ford was
overcompensating, once again trying the famous (failed) tactic
of DLC Democrats - to out-Republican the Republican. After
weeks of these ads, progressives felt weary.

It didn't help, either, that Junior refused to support liberal firebrand Steve Cohen, who was running to fill Ford's vacated seat. Ford put his pathetic family over the greater good of keeping the seat in the Party's hands and many of us wondered
if Ford was holding back on supporting Cohen because his brother Jake wanted the seat or because Cohen was liberal. We still don't really know, though in any case, Cohen trounced Jake with over 60% of the vote - the one good thing that happened in Tennessee on Election Night.

As Election Day drew nearer, the repeated gay- and immigrant-bashing ads, the Cohen snub, and the Memphis Meltdown had finally taken a toll on many liberals that I am good friends with. These good soldiers, self-described "yellow dogs" who had taken one for team had finally been worn down by Ford's arrogance. I personally talked to over a dozen people who said they would not - could not - vote for Ford because of his disrespect for liberal values. Not disagreement with our values, but an outright disrespect bordering on hostility.

It was this combination of hostility, immaturity, and poor character that I believe cost Ford a significant amount of votes from liberals - and therefore the election. Considering that Corker only won with a margin of less than 50,000 votes, that breaks down to about 21 votes per precinct.

Now I know there are naysayers out there who would have you believe that all of Ford's conservative positions and his attacks on liberals and progressive values helped him more than it hurt him in a "red state" like Tennessee. To those
people I have two things to say. First, don't confuse having a conservative position with leading the charge against progressive positions. Being a pro-life Democrat is quite different from being the Democrat that leads the charge
against choice. Second, why is it that Bob Casey, who is also anti-choice and against gay marriage, was able to pound the snot out of Rick Santorum. Do you believe that Pennsylvania is more liberal than Tennessee on those issues? Trust me, it's not. Casey (and Jim Webb for that matter) knew how to "thread the needle" of being conservative on several key issues while still maintaining support from the liberal wing of the Party. Harold Ford Jr. not only couldn't do that, he wouldn't. And hence the loss.

In a 50/50 divided nation, when elections are won or lost within two to four points, a candidate has to know how to stitch together a broad coalition of interests and ideologies to make up a winning majority. All of the other Senate candidates who won on Tuesday were able to do that - even in "red" states like Montana, Ohio, and Virginia. But not Junior. By overemphasizing his conservative credentials,
Harold Ford Jr. lost his left flank - and therefore the election.

----------------
And there is, of course, a counter diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/11/121438/14

First:
Exactly 1,782,165 vote were cast for Bredesen (D) and Bryson (R) combined in the governor's race. Exactly 1,805,059 votes were cast for Corker and Ford combined. There's no undervoting the Senate race! So where are the missing Democratic voters who allegedly just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Ford? Did they refuse to vote for Bredesen too? That's hard to imagine since 1) turnout was amazingly high and 2) dedicated liberals hopefully showed up to vote "no" on the gay marriage ban if nothing else.
1,741,951 were cast in the gay marriage vote. 81% (ugh!) voted "yes" to give you a clue about the state's demographics.
R o o k's diary :: ::

Second:
In Tuesday's election, white evangelical Christians made up 51% of the voting public. And one-third of them voted for Harold Ford, Jr. (Source: The Tennessean)
One third of those 51% is equal to 17% of voters on Tuesday.
What percentage of Tennessee voters identify themselves as liberal? 17%. So, for Crusader's theory to be correct, Ford would have had to have scared off almost every single liberal in the state to cancel out the white evangelicals he was able to win over.
Third:
Ford outperformed all previous Democrats except Phil Bredesen for the past 10 years. That includes Al Gore in 2000. And he did it despite his infamous family name, his hometown of Memphis, his skin color, and a record-breaking $16 million spent against him.

There is more there; I have to admit that I don't like Ford's views, but he wasn't running to represent me either. Sometimes I am really greatful that I live in Illinois, cold weather and bad college football and all.
--------------------------

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/9/184657/653

Quick Notes From Planet Earth Hotlist
by Hunter
Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 03:46:57 PM PST

So, the new and Very Serious talking points going around

America today include:

1) The notion among "analyst" pundits that this sweeping
Democratic victory was the result of the Democrats appealing
to the middle. Well, no freakin' kidding. That used to be
common knowledge, and lesson-one-page-one of political game
theory -- you win elections by appealing to more folks than
the other guy. Well, there you go, I'm glad after ten or
fifteen years of "screw everyone but the base", you all
flipped open your textbooks and figured that one out again.

But here's a thought, coming off the fiasco of this campaign
season -- maybe next year, you could "analyze" what the
positions of the candidates are in advance of the elections,
so Americans wouldn't have to decipher those positions via the
Internet, political mailings, and voodoo. Just, you know, as a
change of pace from the last half-dozen or so election seasons.

2) The notion among supposedly moderate pundits that the
Democratic victory was a great victory for moderate pundits,
because moderate pundits are so moderate. You know what? I'm
willing to buy that the Democrats were the "moderate" ones --
we've been saying that for a long while, now. But I do have a
question -- if "not being indicted", "not screwing up every
single strategic aspect of an unpopular war", "not creating
deficits that could block out the sun", "not botching basic
functions of government", "not being linked to yet another
indicted guy" -- if those are the winning, moderate positions,
what, exactly, does that make you, who have been shilling
vigorously for the past few years on the supposed moderation
of these other folks who just got their asses kicked roundly
over all those issues?

3) The notion among DLC Democrats that this sweeping
Democratic victory was a great victory for the DLC Democrats,
because they really showed those uncivilized Democratic voters
and their own Democratic grassroots what-for. Never mind that
they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even a
semblence of support for the 50-state strategy. Never mind
that against candidates like the execrable Richard Pombo, the
grassroots had to fight tooth and nail to get their now-victorious candidates the slightest specks of support from
parts of the Democratic infrastructure that initially wanted
nothing to do with them, and mocked their very candidacies.

4) The notion among hardcore, far-right conservatives that
this sweeping Democratic victory was a great victory for
hardcore, far-right conservatives because the Democrats who
won are really conservatives too. Not that there's the
slightest bit of evidence of conservatism, for all but a
handful of these people -- no, it's just that "conservative"
means whatever the hell hardcore far-right conservatives
consider popular, at the moment. There's no actual tenets
involved, mind you, which is a lucky thing, because the same
conservatives just spent months declaring that these same
Democrats were hopelessly, unimaginably liberal, and were
going to make you marry your dog or something.

5) The completely contradictory notion among other hardcore,
far-right conservatives that this sweeping Democratic victory
was a great victory for hardcore, far-right conservatives,
because all the folks in power right now aren't real
conservatives, real conservatives would have made it all work.
And just you wait, America, we'll be back with real
conservatism next time, and you'll see, it'll really work!

Yeah, that's it!

Yes, that's right. You're all winners, in my book!
Seriously, guys? Stop it. Just stop it. There's punditry,
there's wankery, there's bullshitting, and then there's
whatever the hell you call that. Take a few days off and get
some tattered shreds of your own dignity back -- right now,
you're all so transparent that we can see what you had for
lunch today.

-------------
Good thing we didn't listen to the DLC Hotlist
by kos
Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:17:32 PM PST

There's a reason that the DLC has lost just about all influence in DC. It's because they have no natural constituency other than their corporate masters. It's because
they were so wrong about everything and everyone knew it. And it's because this election, above all else, has exposed their utter lack of understanding of the nation's pulse.

Early on, anyone who suggested that Dems shouldn't be afraid to call for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or to oppose President Bush on wiretapping or torture was subjected to a steady stream of withering scorn from allegedly in-the-know pundits. Those who backed Ned Lamont's antiwar candidacy were dismissed by David Broder and others in the D.C. opinionmakers guild as crazy, extreme, beneath contempt.

In one typical example last February, Marshall Wittman charged that opposition to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program showed that "the Democratic Party is increasingly under the
influence of modern day McGovernites," warning: "Let's get serious."

It's a good thing indeed that Dems didn't heed the advice from Wittman and others that they get "serious," now isn't it.

In the face of this kind of contempt, some -- bloggers, a few columnists, etc. -- argued that the better course for Dems politically, and the right one morally, was to fearlessly stand up and articulate opposition to warrantless wiretapping and torture, and try to win arguments on these questions, rather than shying away from them. Dem party leaders began to do the same, although later in the game, hitting Bush hard on wiretapping and torture and demanding a "change of course" in Iraq. While Dem leaders' stance on Iraq generally stopped short of setting a specific date for withdrawal, it reflected a belated Dem recognition that the electorate wanted to hear more than criticism of the Bush administration's execution of the war in Iraq, and that it would respond to a call for a change of course, which, while vague, represented a tougher,
more confrontational position.

By August the election's storyline had visibly changed. The news orgs began trumpeting the Dems' new confrontational stance on national security questions and started pointing to polls showing that the electorate was no longer giving the GOP the automatic benefit of the doubt on them. This shift in conventional wisdom was critical to the ultimate outcome. It further stiffened the Dem spine. And it was a blow to the morale of the GOP, which had grown accustomed to being granted unquestioned superiority -- by pundits and voters alike -- on these issues.

Let that sink in -- we were supposed to be the new McGovernites. Typical to form, the DLC and its allies were still stuck in 1972, apparently unable to comprehend that the calendar had moved forward an entire generation.

What of Lieberman? The Wittmanites, predictably, are trying to spin Lieberman's victory as a sign that the mainstream prevailed over the extremes. But this isn't what happened at all. A key reason Lieberman won was because he successfully confused the electorate about his actual foreign positions, which are well to the right of majority opinion, while successfully mischaracterizing Lamont's as extreme, when it fact Lamont's were the ones genuinely in tune with those of the majority. And even if Lieberman did win in the end, let's remember that Lieberman predicted a Lamont primary win would mean doom for the Dems. Exactly the opposite happened -- it galvanized Dem candidates across the country and inspired the GOP to tie itself even more tightly to its "stay the course versus cut and run" strategy.

We did good.

The Democratic Party, stuck in DC with the likes of the DLC whispering in its ear, had lost touch with the rest of the country. The "centrist" position in Iraq, if by "center" you mean "where the majority of the American public lives", is to get the frak out. We knew that because, unlike the jokers in DC, we live in that "rest of the country".

It might be an unfair advantage, but it's an advantage nonetheless.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/9/151732/740

----------------------

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=254099

Yesterday's results indicate a broad and deep Democratic win, from the takeover of the House and strong Senate gains, to a significant shift in governorships and state legislatures. They also obviously represent a striking repudiation of a Bush administration and Republican Party that has so often subordinated problem solving to power seeking, competence to ideology, honesty and integrity to corruption and cronyism, and the politics of national unity to the politics of polarization. The administration's failed Iraq policies became central to the election in no small part because they illustrated all these Republican failures.

This is a victory for the vital center of American politics over the extremes. In pursuing the Bush-Rove formula over the last six years, Republicans have deliberately abandoned the political center, and invited Democrats to occupy it. If you look at the victorious Democratic candidates in "red" and "purple" states and districts, it's clear that they did. And while Democrats benefited from an energized party base, the key to the victory was in the contested center of the electorate, among moderates, independents, middle-class voters, and suburbanites. These voters could represent an expanded Democratic base, and an enduring progressive majority, if Democrats use their new power wisely.

That is why Democrats should view this election as a beginning, not as an end. They must now show they can meet the big national challenges Republicans botched, and provide the American people with the kind of responsible, problem solving government, and ethical, unifying politics, the electorate clearly craves.

The big political test will come almost immediately, in the ability of Democrats to offer a compelling progressive agenda for the country, and in a 2008 presidential contest that will be about the future more than the past. If Democrats act as problem solvers, not polarizers, that future will be very bright.

That last point was underscored by Joe Lieberman's re-election victory in Connecticut, which helps solidify the Democratic Party's credentials as a broad, inclusive coalition able to compete for the vital center of American politics.

--------------------

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/8/12431/0402

These new Dems sure are conservative!

by kos

Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 09:43:01 AM PST

One of the most moronic media lines last night, and continuing through today, is how "conservative" these newly elected Democrats are.

Except, that they're not. In the Senate:

Bernie Sanders, VT: So conservative that he's a "socialist". His National Journal "liberal" rating is 89.7 (out of 100).

Sherrod Brown, OH: NJ liberal rating is 84.2. For comparison's sake, Harold Ford -- a real conservative Democrat -- had a 58.3 rating.

Sheldon Whitehouse, RI: An unabashed liberal in every definition of the word. I mean, he defeated a liberal Republican.

Claire McCaskill, MO: She's a progressive on every major issue. In fact, it was one of the GOP's lines of attacks against her. As the conservative Real Clear Politics wrote in its race summary:

State Auditor Claire McCaskill lost a close governor's race two years ago to Gov. Matt Blunt 51% - 48% and thus starts out of the gate with a high level of name recognition and a solid base of support. However, McCaskill lost 90 out of 97 counties statewide and has a problem of being perceived as too liberal outside of metro St. Louis and Kansas City. Missouri is a relatively, culturally conservative state that President Bush won by 3% in 2000 and 7% in 2004 and running the standard Republican playbook hitting McCaskill as too liberal on judges, the war, and taxes should be enough for Talent to carry the day.

Amy Klobuchar, MN: There's nothing "conservative" about our newest senator from one of the bluest states in the union.

Jon Tester, MT: One of the people accused of being a "conservative" Dem, yet he's against flag burning amendment, against an amendment banning gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, and against the war. He's an economic populist, social libertarian, pro-choice Democrat. He may be one of the very few senators who actually lives paycheck to paycheck. He's an organic farmer.

He's not Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, but a "conservative" Dem? Ridiculous.

Jim Webb, VA: Politically very similar to Tester. He's libertarian on social issues, an economic populist. He wants out of Iraq and he has a personal stake in the war -- his son is actually deployed to Iraq. Sure, he served in the Reagan Administration, and sure, he can be classified as a "moderate" (whatever that means), but he's no "conservative".

In the House:

Yarmuth in KY-03? An unabashed liberal. The kind, in fact, that Rahm said couldn't win in the South.

We picked up two seats in blue country in Connecticut, four in Pennsylvania (two in blue territory, and the other two not "conservative" by any real definition of the word). KS-02? Boyda is no conservative. The two Florida seats (16, 22)? Not conservative. The three New York seats? Not conservatives. The two in New Hampshire? True progressives.

I mean, going down the list, the only Democrats out of 28 officially confirmed
victories that could be called "conservative" are Shuler in NC-08, Lampson in TX-22, and the three Indiana Dems,

That's it.

Are there moderates? Yes. Is the country moving to the center? Of course. The Democrats will push it there from the far right. If you define the "center" by where the American people reside, we are the center party.

But the notion that it's "conservative" Democrats who won last night is utter hogwash, a desperate gambit by Republicans to try and spin something good from the election.

But they're wrong. What we saw last night is that despite the institutional advantages the GOP had -- more money, incumbency, redistricting, the VRWC, and the bully pulpit of the White House, the Speaker's Gavel, and the Senate Majority Leader's office -- Republicans still suffered epic loses.

This was a progressive victory.

Update: Ezra Klein has more:

The ideological spectrum is a tricky thing. Take Heath Schuler, exhibit A in the rightwing Democrats meme. He's a cultural conservative, no doubt. But however far right he drifts on those issues -- which, under a Democratic Congress, he won't be voting on because they won't be brought to floor -- he's notably left on economic issues. Today, for instance, he's giving a press conference under the auspices of the United Steelworkers with Great Liberal Hope Sherrod Brown, where they'll discuss the need for new trade policies and their success in making active opposition to NAFTA a winning issue. That's not centrist Democrat. It's not moderate liberal. That's populism, kids, and it's leftier than polite company has allowed for quite some time.
So is Shuler right-wing? Seems like a tough case to me. Sherrod Brown? Liberal as they come. Defeating South Dakota's abortion ban initiative? Passing Missouri's stem cell initiative? All those progressives who toppled liberal Republicans in the Northeast? Somebody think they won in the blue bastions with roaring conservatism? Meanwhile, the most conservative of the serious Democratic challengers this cycle, Harold Ford, went down to defeat. Bravely fought race, tough environs, etc. But with an out-and-out liberal winning Ohio and a right-of-center Democrat losing Tennessee, we're really going to call this election for conservatism?

Update II: And let's not forget that during the campaign, every single one of these Democrats was accused by their Republican opponents of being "too liberal". Every single one of them.

So now they're going to turn around and claim that they didn't mean all of that? Idiots.

And not just the Republicans who spin those lines, but the reporters and media blowhards repeating that mantra.

-------------
Of course, no collection of laments would be complete without a complaint from the feminist camp. Here is a pro-Hillary Clinton post from The Nation:
If this doesn't surprise you, be advised that Hillary Clinton is absolutely despised by many liberals, including female liberals.

Case in point is here:

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12272

I am not comfortable calling myself a progressive, so I don't do it; I am a liberal. But most of the people I've met who call themselves "progressives" seem to be pretty average liberals -- just like me -- adhering to a pretty reasonable, rational and average liberal belief system, but willing to vote for a Democrat they don't like and who isn't liberal, when that Democrat the only viable option on the ballot running against a Republican. Let's face it -- there are DAMNED few circumstances when even the worst, most "conservative," practically Republican (DINO) Democrat isn't a damned sight better a candidate -- as far as being of service to liberal ideals -- than the most liberal, practically Democratic (RINO) Republican.
A RINO may vote our way on a few of our key issues, but when push comes to shove, especially in a political climate like the one that's developed over the past 20 years, partisanship seems almost ALWAYS to take precedence over ideals and practical benefits. Which means we might get this hypothetical RINO's vote (let's call her Olympia, for our purposes) on a couple of issues (say, reproductive rights and minimum wage), when it comes to those votes when it would REALLY matter, goddamn if she won't throw her lot in with her party over her principles -- Every. Motherfucking. Time.
So, yeah, I'll probably vote for the Democrat, virtually every time. He may be a slimy, appeasing, conservative, Republican-ass kissing dickweed (Let's call him ~~Joe~~ ~~Ben~~ um, Evan, for our purposes, shall we?), but at least I can count on his vote when it... Oops. Well, you know what I mean.
I'll vote for the Democrat on a ballot in almost any case, except when that Democrat is a sure loser. If it's a foregone conclusion the Democrat will lose, then I just might step outside the box and vote for someone else on the ballot -- or a write-in.
For instance: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2008 for the Democratic Party, then I will vote for someone else. I am absolutely convinced she will lose in a major landslide if nominated, and since I believe that to be the case -- and since I live in California, where it really won't matter HOW I vote -- I will NOT throw away my vote on a compromise that makes me physically ill to contemplate.
But that's not the only circumstance under which I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
Even if she DOES have a chance of winning and even if my vote WOULD count in California... I will not vote for her. I cannot vote for her. Voting for Hillary Clinton would go against every fucking principle I have.
I will vote for a socialist, a third party candidate with leftist leanings, or write in my own name before I vote for that appeasing, centrist, unscrupulous, vanity-riddled asshole.
That's right, you heard it here: Maryscott O'Connor will not vote for Hillary Clinton even if she is the Democratic candidate on the 2008 presidential ballot -- EVEN IF THE POLLS HAVE HER NECK AND NECK WITH THE REPUBLICAN. I hate her, I hate her, I hate her -- and I WILL NOT fucking vote for her.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/pollitt

HRC: Can't Get No Respect

[from the November 20, 2006 issue]

If people keep making sexist attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton, I may just have to vote for her. That means you, Elizabeth Edwards! As tabloid readers know, the wife of John Edwards told guests assembled at a luncheon hosted by Ladies' Home Journal that she felt her "choices" had made her "happier" and more "joyful" than HRC. Translation: I've parked my legal career on the shelf to mind the kids, support my husband's political ambitions and tend our wonderful marriage, unlike Hillary, a bitter ambitious career woman with a philandering husband. Well, isn't that special! Isn't she the fulfilled woman of the year! Why are we talking about whether or not a woman senator who, maybe, wants to run for President is less joyful than a (former) senator's wife who, maybe, hopes to be First Lady? Nobody would dream of measuring a male presidential hopeful on the happiness scale. If they had, Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. It is sad to think that Ms. Edwards would play the happy-homemaker card to help her lightweight husband best a woman with about ten times as much political experience. We all know Edwards did such a great job running for Vice President--the man was everywhere!--and made such a fantastic impression in his debate with Dick Cheney. Still, I might have gone for him in the 2008 primary, because every now and then he pops up out of nowhere and says poverty is bad. Now I dunno. We bitter ambitious career women have to stick together.

No sooner had Elizabeth Edwards apologized for remarks she claimed were taken totally out of context than John Spencer, HRC's Republican opponent in the Senate race, jumped in. Hillary, he told a reporter, is ugly. "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew!" He went on, "I don't know why Bill married her." Spencer claimed she had had "millions of dollars" of plastic surgery and now "she looks good." Or maybe not: Photos of HRC looking old and tired are a Drudge Report constant. Well, to hell with you, Mr. Spencer. I've had it with the endless monitoring of women's beauty, age, weight and hotness. You've just given me another reason to vote for her. President Hillary! The anti-Paris Hilton.

Unattractive and not-so-joyful are the least of it, though. How about "cold," "flat" and "unwomanly" (National Review's John Podhoretz); "robotic" (the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan) "angry" (Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman); a lesbian who conceived Chelsea after being raped by Bill (biographer Ed Klein); "Nurse Ratched," "a castrating female persona" (Orlando Sentinel columnist Kathleen Parker on The Chris Matthews Show); "that buck-tooth witch, Satan," "worse" than Osama bin Laden (Don Imus). Put "Hillary" into a search engine with "Lady Macbeth," "dragon lady," "ice queen," "bitch" or "hag" and up come hundreds of thousands of hits. Oooh, an ambitious woman! A woman who isn't thinking, every minute of every day, about how to make men feel big and strong! I just might vote for her to give these pathetic misogynists what for, and so might the rest of my coven.

Well, actually, they might not, if they're like Code Pink, the women's peace group, which "bird-dogs" HRC around the country because of her support for the Iraq War. When I asked Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the group, why they focused on Clinton, she said it was primarily because the senator is "important and influential" but also because of her sex: "You expect more of a woman." Zillah Eisenstein, whose essay "Hillary's War" is posted on Code Pink's listenhillary.org, wrote me in an e-mail, "Yes, it is because she's female." It's as if Code Pink were some kind of ladies' auxiliary to the antiwar movement.

In her essay Eisenstein argues that HRC is a "female decoy" whose election would harm women because it would put a pink pseudo-feminist gloss on militarism and neoliberalism. There's something in this, but it comes close to holding Senator Clinton's femaleness against her: Logically, a man with the same positions would be less bad, because he couldn't use feminism (or female stereotypes of caring and nurturing) to disguise them. But since anyone with a realistic hope of becoming President will necessarily have made all sorts of unsavory bargains with the status quo, this amounts to saying we'll never have a woman in the White House. We'll continue on as now: "expecting more" of women and tacitly expecting less of men.

Well, count me out. The contemporary women's movement is almost forty years old, and after all that time exactly one woman has managed to reach the point where she can make a credible run for the White House. And I don't see another one around the corner, do you? Polls consistently show the castrating satanic robot way ahead of her potential primary rivals. In general election match-ups she trumps every Republican but Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Maybe Barack Obama will alter the dynamics, which would be amusing, since I'll bet few of his fans can name even three positions he holds. But right now, if HRC were a man, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But then, if she were a man, she wouldn't be almost universally perceived as unelectable.

I'm not saying I'd vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary--although by 2008 I expect she'll have come around on the war. I'd like a lefter candidate. But I want respect for women--and power is what gets you that. "It's natural," Medea Benjamin told me, "to want the people who are like you to be especially good." Actually, the history of politics in America demonstrates the opposite: Suppressed ethnicities and communities have put up with everything from drunkenness to corruption to outright criminality in their politicians, as long as those politicians delivered--even just a little--back home. Maybe women should forget about being angels and start being more like Italians, Irish or blacks. Let me put it this way: Any candidate who wants me to vote for him instead of her had better have a whole long list of reasons, beginning with what he will do for women that Hillary Clinton wouldn't do.

Florida Senate Race: Justice is served

2006-11-09T06:33:00.000-08:00

Well, my good buddy Katherine Harris didn't do herself or her party any favors. She got blown out in her Senate race 60-38 (I wonder if that is her God's will? I think it was my God's will!) But even better: she is the Representative from Florida's 13'th district, and she would have been a shoo-in for reelection.

But she chose to not run for reelection to run for the Senate, against the wishes of her party. The result: her seat was hotly contested and ended in a 50-50 deadlock. Currently the Republican candidate is all of 370 votes ahead, but....that's right, a recount looms.

And, well, some 18,000 votes are missing!!! Read the rest:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15965769.htm

SARASOTA - The latest Florida election whodunit, replete with a razor-thin vote margin and a looming recount, played out here Wednesday as state and county officials were at a loss to explain why 18,382 votes weren't cast or recorded in the nationally watched congressional race to replace Katherine Harris.

Already, the specter of the botched 2000 elections has gripped the area, owing to the mere mention of Harris, the former Florida secretary of state, as well as partisan battle cries, with Republican Vernon Buchanan saying it's time to move on after he claimed a 368-vote victory near 1 a.m. Wednesday.

Democrat Christine Jennings said voters were ''victimized'' because the ''staggering number'' of so-called ''undervotes'' were disproportionately higher here compared with the other four counties in House District 13 and other races. More votes were recorded for the Hospital Board Southern District.

Hanging in the balance: voter faith in the ATM-style touch-screen voting machines -- the same type used in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. By chance, Sarasota voters were the first in Florida to amend their county's charter Tuesday to call for a paper-trail ballot system.

''These numbers are strange, fishy,'' said Douglas Jones, a University of Iowa vote-machine expert who reviewed Miami-Dade's system in 2002. ``There's really not a good reason that there were so many undervotes. The number is just too high.''

Sarasota's election supervisor, Kathy Dent -- who days before the election acknowledged the race's ballot layout troubled some voters -- insisted Wednesday she oversaw a ''good election'' and that there was ''no equipment failure.'' Still, Dent, a Republican elected in 2000, couldn't explain why there were so many undervotes. She speculated the day before that voters might have been turned off by the nasty campaign.

With touch-screen machines, undervotes can't really be counted because they're not recorded, which will hurt Jennings when the two-day recount starts Monday. Jennings has hired Miami lawyer Kendall Coffey, a leading Democratic 2000 recount lawyer.

The House District 13 undervote rate was more than 10 times higher than the two elections that bookended it: the governor's race and the U.S. Senate race Harris lost. The undervotes in Sarasota also stick out next to those from comparable Manatee County, where the no-vote rate was about 3 percent. Manatee uses fill-in-the-blank, optical-scan machines, as does Sarasota for absentee voters.

But on Election Day on touch-screen machines, voters had a 14 percent undervote rate and 18 percent undervote rate in the early-voting week before, when complaints surfaced.

Dr. Richard Malkin said he and his wife voted early and realized their votes in the congressional race weren't recorded just before electronically casting their ballots. So they re-voted. ''The lady right next to us had the same problem. So many people said the same thing,'' said Malkin, a Democrat who sits on a SunTrust bank board with Buchanan. ``It's like 2000 all over again.''

This is how the vote currently stands:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/FL/H/13/

Buchanan (Republican): 119,102
Jennings (Democrat): 118, 729

This is a 373 vote difference, as of 9 November!

Even if we don't win this one, think of how much money the Republicans had to waste to hold what should have been a "safe" seat.

Thank you, Katherine Harris!

So, in tribute:

Just the Facts

2006-11-08T03:26:00.000-08:00

Election Update (yeah, I get sleepy early)

Local Races/State Races

http://www.week.com/election/results.aspx#1

http://peoriapundit.com/blogpeoria/2006/11/08/about-my-predictions-well/#comments

Blago wins 49-40
*Koehler wins big 58-42; I want to see what Willy Nilly says about this!
*Spears loses 59-41 (dang!)
*Wright wins 53-47 (3'rd appelate court)
*Madigan wins 72-25
*Waterworth comes up short 67-33 (ok, I kind of knew this...)

The *'s indicate those candidates that we had yard signs for, so we went 3-2. I gave money and time to the Spears campaign, and I made calls for the "generic Democrat".

National

As of 5:30 central time, we had picked up 28 House seats for a 231-204 advantage. The Senate is still up in the air as it stands: Republicans 49, Democrats 47, Independents 2. Montana (Tester vs. Burns "aka: the moron") and Virginia (Webb vs. George "Macaca" Allen) are still too close to call, with the good guys (the Democrats) with a narrow lead, but recounts on the way.

Both of these look promising for us.

Anyway, the only "fly in the ointment" for me is the Spears-Schock race, and Schock ran a very effective campaign. And let's face it, the guy is telegenic.

IL-Governor: Blagojevich to win easily

2006-11-07T15:08:00.000-08:00

This is from tradesports; right now Blagojevich is rated at a 95% chance to win. If you think Topinka will win, then go tradesports and make tons of money!!!

I worked for three hours at a phone bank.

The good news: high turnout, good weather.
There were a few glitches; we passed out incorrect polling locations to a few voters (and we were calling registered Democrats)

The people at the Democratic headquarters said that we were on track to get full phone coverage; people to work were plentiful.

What was really cool is that our pool of workers was a very diverse bunch: many ages, from many walks of life, both sexes and many races.

Other data from tradesports: Republicans retaining control of the Senate was rated at 68 (but dropping), Republicans retaining contol of the House was rated at 15 (and dropping!)

Watch and Enjoy

2006-11-07T06:27:00.000-08:00

Yoga class, 4 mile run, now off to work on a campaign!

Here is a treat: I sure miss this guy.

Republicans Say and Do the Darndest Things

2006-11-06T19:37:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, I will work a few hours at a local campaign; our fight is uphill but winning is still possible.
But the Republicans are on a roll.

Local Level

State Level (Illinois Governor's Race): Judy Baar-Topinka says that Blagojevich should help the Cubs since they "are losers and need help." She gets booed at her own rally!

Hat tip to the Peoria Pundit.

National Level: Republicans post instructions on how to make an atomic bomb on a website!

No, this is not a spoof. Why did they do it? They were still trying to justify the Iraq invasion to the public; in other words, they did it for political gain.

The U.S. government has shut down a Web site it set up in March containing documents captured during the Iraq war after experts raised concerns it offered a guide to building an atom bomb, the New York Times reported.

It said the Bush administration started the site under pressure from congressional Republicans who hoped to use the Internet to find new evidence of dangers posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

In recent weeks, according to the Times, the site posted documents that weapons experts said contained detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Gulf War that one diplomat called "a cookbook" for building an atom bomb.

On Wednesday night, after the Times informed the government about the concerns, it said the government suspended the site. It quoted a spokesman for the director of national intelligence as saying the site was withdrawn "pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing."

A diplomat affiliated with the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency told Reuters IAEA inspectors were "shocked by the explicitness of the content" on the Web page and a senior agency official conveyed the concerns to U.S. diplomats in Vienna.

But Matthew Boland, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the Vienna-based IAEA, said on Friday: "Ambassador (Gregory) Schulte did not receive any protest or expression of concern from the IAEA on this issue."

Known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal," the Web site contained about a dozen documents with charts, diagrams, equations and long narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts told the Times went beyond what was available on the Internet and in other public forums.

The New York Times said the documents provided information on building nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
[...]
Bush cited concerns about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a major cause for the Iraq invasion.

No such weapons have been found.

Elections: Republicans call likely Democratic voters and lie about poll locations being changed; they also make fake robo-calls which pretend to be from the Democratic candidate:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/6/1717/68014

VA-Sen: Voter suppression in Virginia

by kos

Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 02:01:07 PM PST

Republicans are so afraid to run on their merits that they continue to resort to dirty tricks.

Listen to this robocall (.WAV) being sent to Virginia voters:

Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, he will be arrested. A recording of his voicemail can be found online at: www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav
The transcript from his voicemail reads:
"This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged criminally."
Daly has been registered to vote in Virginia since 1998, and he has voted for the last several cycles with no problem. He has filed a criminal complaint with the Commonwealth's attorney in Arlington.

More from the Webb campaign (from an email):

Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling Voters that their Polling Location has Changed.
A couple of examples:
a. Norman Cox has been registered to vote in the same location in Arlington since 1972. Someone from a 406 number (in Montana) called to tell him that his polling place has changed. [Note: The Webb Campaign is NOT making any such phone calls.] Cox said he believed that he was being mislead and the caller hung up.
b. Peter Baumann in Cape Charles, VA (North Hampton) got a similar call from a "Webb volunteer" saying his polling location had changed. He said: No, I'm a poll worker and I know where I vote. The girl--who was calling from California--hung up.
The Secretary of the State Board of Elections Jean Jensen has logged dozens of similar calls, finding heavy trends in Accomack County (middle peninsula) and Essex County (outer peninsula) [as reported by the counties' registrars].
3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION... (and then in smaller print): Don't Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win."
4) Voter Machine Problems.
a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim's name is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb.
b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim's name split on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next.
c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

Maryland Senate Race: Republican Candidate Pretends to be a Democrat
(Click the photos to see the larger version)
The problem with this flyer: Steele is a Republican (see the fine print) and those in the photos have not endorsed him.
This is the back side
And all of the checked boxes, except for Steele's, are Democrats!

"Party of Principle", indeed.

What will happen: here is my call:

Governor: Blago 45, Topinka 38, Whitney 12, Other: 5.
92'nd State: Schock: 53 Spears 47
46'th State Senate: Koehler 55, Russell 45
IL-18'th (U. S. House): LaHood 59, Waterworth 41

U. S. House: Democrats: 218, Republicans 217
U. S. Senate: Republicans 50, Democrats 48, Independents 2

By the way, this is based on nothing more than my musing over a cup of coffee, and my reading the polls and being skeptical of my party's ability to close the deal.
----------------------
But the following is interesting and is more optimistic than I am:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/6/15542/7383

This one's for fun. It's helpful (always) to read the material that comes from R Blogistan and especially helpful to put yourselves in the other guy's shoes. When the non-partisan Hotline provides it, so much the better. This "lay of the land" article from GOP pollster Steve Lombardo is a good read: [...]
We inventoried all of the pundit predictions we could get our hands and averaged those. The average Dem gain based on an analysis of 31 pundits was a 25.2 seat gain. When the pundit provided a spread (e.g. 20-30, we took the mid-point -- i.e., 25).
We are inclined to go a bit lower and are projecting that the Democrats take the House with a net gain of 21 seats...making the new makeup 223 Democrats and 212 Republicans).
We are projecting that the Republicans hold the Senate and actually perform better than expected.
Here is how we see the individual races:
Allen will beat Webb in Virginia. The data over the last 7 days has showed Allen's vote start to solidify. He did everything possible to give this one away but it may not be enough. VA is a Republican hold.
Burns will come from behind and win in a very close race in Montana. MT is a GOP hold.
Corker will beat Ford in Tennessee. This has been trending the Republican's way since early last week. TN is a GOP hold.
Democrats will hold Maryland and New Jersey.
Democrats will pick up Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio.
In the closest election in the country...and one in which making a projection is really down to a hunch....we now believe that McCaskill will narrowly defeat Jim Talent. The result: Democrats pick up 4 and fall two short of winning the Senate. The new Senate makeup will be 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats.

I am picking Tester to beat Burns but for (no)Talent to edge McCaskill. Webb is a toss up; Allen looks desperate.

One more final take:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/2692

I talked yesterday about the 20 races (of 33) for the United States Senate that have really already been decided, many of which were over before they even started. When you add the expected results from these races to the 67 seats that were not contested in 2006, we stand at 47 seats for the Republicans and 40 for Democrats, with 13 races outstanding.
The conventional wisdom for many months has been that Democrats would need to run the table of all toss-up races to have a net gain of six seats and take control of the Senate.

That's exactly what's going to happen -- here's how:

He then goes on to pick the key races:
Webb, McCaskill, and Tester for a 51-49 Democratic advantage. I hope that he is right...

My Worst Fears

Nice summary of these here by Steven Pizzo:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/2700
[...]

At this writing, a day before the deed is to be done, I have no clue whether Republicans will be successful in suckering enough dimwits into voting for them again. What I am sure of though is that Democrats will continue displaying the only talent they seem to share among themselves - an uncanny talent for losing un-losable races - usually at the last moment.

Watching Democrats run in races like this one is like watching an underdog leading in a marathon, only to see them trip over their own shoelaces ten feet from the finish.

With that in mind I am stocking up on disappointment juice and expecting the worst. But even if Democrats do win the House the tension will continue. In that case I will spend the next two years screaming at them to double-tie their goddamn shoe laces, for fear they will create a giant Democrat pile up just before the 2008 Presidential finish line.

The bottom line is that to be a Democrat is to worry. We're like Red Socks fans. We also share a nagging subliminal fear with Jews and African Americans - that no matter how well things might be going right now, it won't last. Trouble - big trouble - is just a lip-slip away. With the presidency up for grabs just 24 months after this election we Democrats will hold our collective breath each time we notice John Kerry eyeballing a network microphone. (Don't John... just don't. Keep it to yourself. Or write an well-thought out, well-edited op-ed piece. But stay away from the friggin microphone!")
[...]
Polls one day before the election show the Democrats peaked about two nanoseconds before John Kerry put his feet in his mouth. It's been down hill ever since. Republicans, on the other hand are rising in those polls. Democrats still have an advantage, but it's narrowing as they approach the finish-- shoe laces flying loose.

So here we are: Republicans, running things singlehandedly for over six years, have made more a mess in the nation and beyond than Katrina made of New Orleans. They may not be able to do anything right, but the they have a gift -- the gift of blarney. Like Davy Crockett, they can sweet talk even scared voters out of their trees, into the voting booth and convince them the other guys are somehow worse.

Why is that? How do they get away with it?

Here's a clue. Democrats like John Kerry remind Red State voters of the smart kid in grammar school who'd raise his hand during tests too announce, "Miss Nelson, Dennis is looking at my answers." Johnny is told keep his eyes on his own test paper. Later, at recess, Dennis would beat the living crap out of Johnny, to the delight a disturbing number of his classmates.

Would Johnny grow up to be a better, smarter and more honest leader than Dennis? Sure he would. Trouble is Americans seem to like the Dennis' better than the Johnny's. Johnny can be a real bore. He's smart for sure. But smart guys tend to make the increasing number of under-educated Americans nervous. Smart people refer to "stuff" fewer and fewer American's understand, or even care about, like history. That makes a lot of voters feel they are being "talked down to." And that makes the uneasy about themselves, which makes them hate Johnny.

If Dennis is anything he's not boring. Dennis is a Dukes of Hazard kinda guy. Damn the facts, it's peddle to the metal. Dennis knows better than to talk down to voters. He talks "with them" rather than "at them." Dennis talks to them in their own language of fractured logic, a language characterized by a tone of unembarrassed, even smug, ignorance.

Dennis knows better than to confuse voters with nuance. He tells his voters what he knows they already believe ... like that that gays are trying to convince school children that gays are just like everyone else. Dennis wants voters to know he ain't buying it either. He wants voters to know that he knows that most people are not gay, And that he knows what that means... that if God wanted gays to be like everyone else He would made them like everyone else. And since He didn't... well, Dennis just wants them to know, he's with God on that one. No nuance about it.

Dennis knows that a voter base comprised of so many folks who can be meszmerized captivated for hours at a time by automobiles racing in a circle, are not the kind of folks you want to burden with too many facts. You don't want to even think about trying to explain the far-reaching geopolitical implications of America's war in Iraq. Instead Dennis asks them the important questions, like, "Do you love the American flag? Do you think people should be allowed to burn the American flag?" Dennis wants you to know that he thinks NOT! Dennis wants voters to know he, like them, believes that allowing flag burning is a slippery slope that, if allowed would result in .... in.... something really bad. And Dennis wants you to know he's foresquare again' all things really bad.

The Johnny v. Dennis dynamic explains why the polls are narrowing. Dennis is out there talkin' turkey with the sheep, and graining ground. His kind of voters tend to put off paying attention to such matters until the bill comes due. Only then do they tune in. Karl, another kid who cheated in school, knows that best. Which explains is why Karl has been smiling like a Chesser cat through dismal polls over the past few week. Karl knows his Dennis' are out there de-nuancing issues like Iraq and the economy in the final days of this race and pointing his voters towards the real issues, like gay marriage, flag burning, stem cell research and who is or isn't measuring drapes in Congress.
[...]
Yeah, I know. There are folks in the Democratic Party who believe they must learn how to talk to Dennis voters in moron-speak too. And that progressives need to avoid saying things that make the Dennis voters feel "dumb." In other words, let's not educate them, let's just herd them, like Dennis does. Valueless Democrat analysts point to the 60 million American's who describe themselves as evangelical Christians, and say Democrats need to convince them that progressives share and respect their nonsensical metaphysical views of reality.

Personally I would rather see America fade into history in a dignified way than to just hand it over to Dennis and his base of lower-common denominators. If that makes me a Johnny-smart-ass, so be it. But, damn it, they have been cheating. And, should they win again, they will continue lying, cheating and beating the crap out of anyone that rats on them.

I'm sorry, but I've already spent six years aboard that ship-of-fools, and I want off. If things don't change Nov. 7 just put me in a lifeboat and set me adrift. How much worse could that be?
I can't be entirely sure that Karl and Dennis will succeed again. But if they do that will say something too disturbing about Americans for me to explain - or bear.

Vote Democratic!

2006-11-06T10:02:00.000-08:00

The Best Reason to Vote Republican

But why you should vote Democratic anyway:

From the Conservatives:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html

Next week Americans will vote for candidates who have spent much of their campaigns addressing state and local issues. But no future historian will linger over the ideas put forth for improving schools or directing funds to highway projects.

The meaning of this election will be interpreted in one of two ways: the American people endorsed the Bush presidency or they did what they could to repudiate it. Such an interpretation will be simplistic, even unfairly so. Nevertheless, the fact that will matter is the raw number of Republicans and Democrats elected to the House and Senate.

It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. [...]

Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. [...]

The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.

And from my deity:

What would the Flying Spaghetti Monster Do? He'd vote Democratic!!!

From His Holy Noodeledness, via my Corn Chex this morning:

"Vote Democratic. If you don't vote Democratic tomorrow, I am going to, well, do nothing. But you'll be somewhat better off with the opposition party at least controlling one chamber of congress. Republicans are ok, but Bush is an idiot."

As far as voting Green, listen to Bucky-katt: