Democratic Primary Competition!

Workout notes 2 mile walk, 1 at 13:37, 1 at 15:00 (anticipated “go out” pace) this week, then yoga with Ms. Vickie. I actually held peacock feather for a few breaths; perhaps in a month I can move away from the wall.

Personal: I got asked the dreaded question that GIRRRRLLLLS ask “are these pants too tight”, “do these pants make my butt look big” (really: “does my butt look bigger than it already is?” )

But this time I was prepared with a digital camera and was able to answer: “what do you think”?

No, she probably doesn’t want feedback from others….tee hee hee heee

This sort of reminds me of this commercial:

(note: actually, I think the woman in this gold spandex dress is, well, HOT!!!!!!! If that is having a “big butt”, well, I am all for it!)

Religion/wooism When something is happening that you don’t like, what do you do? Well, you whine to your deity in hopes that it will make things better! Oh yes, if it is someone else doing it, it is called “magic” and “nonsense”. But if it is your magic maker, it is called prayer, and is viewed favorably by all too many:

What to do when the rain won’t come? If you’re Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, you pray.

The governor will host a prayer service next week to ask for relief from the drought gripping the Southeast.

“The only solution is rain, and the only place we get that is from a higher power,” Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley said on Wednesday.

Oooookkkkkaaaaaayyyyy. Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo!!!!!

Please understand, if he were using religious values to ask people to conserve water (and he has done that too), well, that is probably a good thing. But asking for some deity to make it rain? That is just plain woo-ism.

What is far less amusing to me is that a service academy is rapidly becoming a fundamentalist haven. I sure hope that is an exaggeration.

Democrats I’ve had a good deal of fun watching the Republicans go after each other. But the Democrats have started too.

Well, most of this started after Hillary Clinton’s less than stellar performance at the last Democratic debate. Basically, she waffled on a couple of questions, and let a big non-issue become an issue because she fumbled an answer.

Evidently, Senator Clinton had gotten used to audiences where she had plants to ask “softball” questions.

Hillary Clinton stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, last week to see alternative fuels in the making and to drive home the week’s campaign theme of her energy plan. After a tour, the candidate took questions from the crowd.

She called on a young woman. “As a young person,” said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, “I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

“Well, you should be worried,” Clinton replied. “You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming.”

There’s a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant, totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question.

Trouble is, the young woman told others, and her account showed up on the Grinnell website, including mention that the staffer signaled Clinton whom to call on.

As other campaigns chuckled and hypocritically spread the news far and wide (“That’s what George Bush does,” intoned John Edwards at the Iowa Farmers Union), a Clinton campaign spokesman sheepishly admitted the plant. “On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton’s energy plan at a forum. However, Sen. Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated.” [...]

(emphasis mine)

Then Barack Obama hit a home run at the Iowa State Democratic Party’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner where he get a speech that was well received by the pundits and the public alike.

Watch the speech here (about 20 minutes, but it goes by quickly)

So, the Clinton campaign is starting to hit back at her only real competition: Barack Obama.

Check out this post from the pro-Clinton blog Tennessee Guerilla Women (yes, I still like their blog):

Reasons not to vote for Barack Obama:

Obama supports the death penalty. [via Avedon at The Sideshow]

Obama promotes the rightwing Social Security crisis hysteria.

Obama’s suggestion that he can somehow put an end to the cultural/civil war in this divided nation suggests he is niave and inexperienced at best, or supremely arrogant, a possible Lieberman in the making, at worst. He might be all of that. [...]

Ok, let’s examine these (lame) claims:

Obama supports the death penalty? Ok, I wish that he had a zero tolerance for the death penalty; I am against it, period. And, perhaps we might even overlook that Hillary Clinton supports the death penalty!!!

Clinton has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty. Clinton cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 which became law in 2004 as part of the Justice for All Act. The bill provides funding for post-conviction DNA testing and establishes a DNA testing process for individuals sentenced to the death penalty under federal law. As first lady, she lobbied for President Clinton’s crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.

But back to Senator Obama: as a State Senator, he went against the wishes of much of the pro-law-and-order crowd to eliminate much of the error and injustice in the system:

Illinois was in crisis. Governor Ryan, a Republican, established an independent Commission on Capital Punishment in 2000, charged with the task of “study[ing] and review[ing] the administration of the capital punishment process in Illinois to determine why that process has failed in the past, resulting in the imposition of death sentences upon innocent people” and “to examine ways of providing safeguards and making improvements in the way law enforcement and the criminal justice system carry out their responsibilities in the death penalty process–from investigation through trial, judicial appeal and executive review.”

They filed this massive report with a list of eighty-five recommendations, but a report doesn’t become law on its own.

It takes lawmakers willing to lead. WaPo, earlier this year:

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty “does little to deter crime.” But he supports capital punishment in cases “so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”

In proposing changes, Obama met repeatedly with officials and advocates on all sides. He nudged and cajoled colleagues fearful of being branded soft on crime, as well as death-penalty opponents worried that any reform would weaken efforts to abolish capital punishment.

Obama’s signature effort was a push for mandatory taping of interrogations and confessions. It was opposed by prosecutors, police organizations and Ryan’s successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who said it would impede investigators.

Working under the belief that no innocent defendant should end up on death row and no guilty one should go free, Obama helped get the bill approved by the Senate on a 58 to 0 vote. When Blagojevich reversed his position and signed it, Illinois became the first state to require taping by statute.

“Obviously, we didn’t agree all the time, but he would always take suggestions when they were logical, and he was willing to listen to our point of view. And he offered his opinions in a lawyerly way,” said Carl Hawkinson, the retired Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “When he spoke on the floor of the Senate, he spoke out of conviction. You knew that, whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him.”

The Associated Press, today:

While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state’s notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded. …

“Without Barack’s energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place,” said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.

…Obama was at the center of the emotional debate.

Legislators and lobbyists who worked with him describe a lawmaker who was personally involved, refused to abandon some needed changes but also demanded compromises from both law enforcement and death penalty critics.

A proposal to require that police record interrogations of murder suspects was opposed by police, prosecutors and the Democratic governor and considered so touchy it was separated from other legislation. It also was the issue that garnered Obama’s special interest.

“I thought the prosecutors and law enforcement would kill it,” said Peter Baroni, who was then a Republican aide to the Illinois Senate’s judiciary committee. “He (Obama) was the one who kept people at the table.”

He kept them at the table, kept negotiating but he never abandoned his progressive principles [...]

Ok, what about the social security issue: Obama wants the current system preserved; he knows that some changes are required to keep it solvent. Raising the cap on payroll tax is a more than reasonable thing to do. What bothers Clinton about this so much that she can’t even answer?

She avoided saying what, if anything, she would do about Social Security taxes or benefits, saying a commission should study the system “if” it has problems, and saying that acting as though the troubled system is in “crisis” is “a Republican trap.”[...]

Throughout the debate Clinton resolutely avoided saying specifically what, if anything, she would do to shore up the finances of the Social Security system. She repeatedly called for “fiscal responsibility” and said she would appoint a bipartisan commission to study the system. And she made clear she was in no hurry to act:

Clinton: I think for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap.

In fact, the system is headed for nearly certain collapse unless some action is taken to increase taxes or at least slow down the projected rise of future benefits. And delay will only make the eventual corrections more painful, experts say.

Now, what about Obama wanting to bring people together; to end the “red-blue” divide?

For crying out loud, Clinton has gone on public record as wanting to build a “centerist coalition!

Her rhetoric has changed since she entered the nomination, as she aggressively courts the Democratic base. But in many ways, her positions have not. “Clinton’s pledge to ‘get out of Iraq’ is far from iron-clad,” the Washington Post reports today. “There are numerous conditions attached.” She offers a laundry list of reasons why the US might stay in Iraq for a very long time.

Moreover, in a separate interview with the Post today, she began to outline her general election strategy. “I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up,” she said.

In case you don’t remember, Hillary grew up a Goldwater girl.

Note: in HER BOOK, Living History, she says that she didn’t so much as leave the Republican party as it had left her.

In short: Hillary Clinton: George W. Bush in a skirt. If you love George W. Bush, vote for Hillary Clinton! NOT.

Here is one thing (out of many things) that she got right, and one thing that I hope that her supporters remember:

Addressing longstanding tensions between the party’s liberal and moderate wings, Clinton said Democrats need to stop airing their differences publicly. The war in Iraq has been a continuing source of party discord, and a series of comments Dean recently made have also exposed internal rifts.

‘‘Let’s acknowledge that what separates us on occasion is but a tiny sliver in comparison to the Grand Canyon gap between us and the Republican Party,” Clinton said. ”I think it’s high time for a cease-fire.”

Ok, maybe I don’t believe the last sentence; I believe in competition in a primary.

But of course, if she wins the nomination, I’ll support her. If you are progressive who doesn’t like her, ask yourself this: who do you want making SCOTUS appointments?

Flipping the Bird and Notre Dame-Duke

I am not totally sure why I’ve been so interested in this year’s Notre Dame team; I think it is because I am interested in how they have fallen so far, so quickly.

So, next week, Notre Dame faces Duke in a “pillow fight” (game between teams with poor records):

Statistically, the teams are all but even (from the Yahoo NCAA football stats)

Sat, Sep 1 Connecticut L 14-45 –
Sat, Sep 8 at Virginia L 13-24 –
Sat, Sep 15 at Northwestern W 20-14 * Audio
Sat, Sep 22 at Navy L 43-46 * Audio
Sat, Sep 29 at Miami (FL) L 14-24 * Audio
Sat, Oct 6 Wake Forest L 36-41 * Audio
Sat, Oct 13 (12) Virginia Tech L 14-43 * Audio
Sat, Oct 27 at Florida State L 6-25 * Audio
Sat, Nov 3 (25) Clemson L 10-47 * Audio
Sat, Nov 10 Georgia Tech L 24-41 * Audio

TD Yard Pass Rush
Offense 24 266.1 213.2 52.9
Defense 38 442.9 266.0 176.9

Sat, Sep 1 Georgia Tech L 3-33 –
Sat, Sep 8 at (14) Penn State L 10-31 –
Sat, Sep 15 at Michigan L 0-38 –
Sat, Sep 22 Michigan State L 14-31 –
Sat, Sep 29 at Purdue L 19-33 –
Sat, Oct 6 at UCLA W 20-6 –
Sat, Oct 13 (4) Boston College L 14-27 –
Sat, Oct 20 (13) USC L 0-38 –
Sat, Nov 3 Navy L 44-46 –
Sat, Nov 10 Air Force L 24-41

TD Yard Pass Rush
Offense 16 218.0 161.4 56.6
Defense 36 372.5 164.9 207.6

Not a lot of difference. So, who is going to win? My call: 24-20, Blue Devils. Why?

• Notre Dame is playing in front of a hostile crowd: its own home fans. Seriously, often times, an underachieving team plays better on the road.
• The Blue Devils are probably looking forward to the game (“hey, we can win this one”) whereas ND is probably dreading it.
• Duke loses games because its players simply aren’t as good as their opponents. But they know what to do. Notre Dame loses games because its players are often out of position; they still don’t know what to do. Yes, they hit hard, but are often not in a position to make the necessary plays.

Of course, I also thought that ND would give LSU a good game in the Sugar Bowl; I was right for all of one half.

Update: there is ESPN’s Bottom Ten, and the Los Angeles Times version:

At the Pentagon, several prominent generals demanded a Congressional investigation to determine why Air Force and Navy got to play helpless Notre Dame (1-9) this year but not Army.

Representatives of the Coast Guard Academy, the Citadel and the Harvard-Westlake prep school raised the same question.

Elsewhere, officials announced that the Orange Bowl was being torn down — a harsh measure but something that had to be done to remove the memories of the home teams, No. 2 Florida International (0-9) and No. 20 Miami (5-5).

Meanwhile, the mysterious SMUs (1-9) advanced to No. 5, while University of Texas at El Deflected Paso (4-6) took over No. 10 after a 19-34 drubbing by previously inoffensive Tulane. And outnumbered James Madison held off both Bill & Mary, 55-34.
Wreck Record Last Loss Next Loss
1. Notre Dame (1-9) 24-41, Air Force Duke
2. Florida Int’l (0-9) Idle Louisiana ( Laf.)
3. Utah State (0-10) 0-52, Boise State New Mexico State
4. Minnehaha (1-10) 16-21, Iowa Wisconsin
5. SMU (1-9) 42-43, Rice Central Florida
6. Duke (1-9) 24-41, Georgia Tech Notre Dame
7. Idaho* (1-9) Idle Boise State
8. Syracuse (2-8) 10-41, South Florida Connecticut
9. North Texas (1-8) 62-74, Navy
10 UTEP (4-6) 19-34, Tulane Southern Miss
11.Cranky Ole Miss (3-7); 12. Baylor (3-8) 13. Temple (2-7); 14. North Carolina (3-7); 15-16. Bill & Mary (4-6); 17 Alabama (Birmingham) (2-8); 18. Columbia (1-9); 19. On semester break; 20. Miami (Fla.) (5-5).

*Vandals everywhere say the wimpy team is giving them a bad name.

Crummy Game of the Week: Notre Dame (1-9) vs. Duke (1-9) (a rare chance to see two teams coming off 24-41 losses!).

Rout of the Week: Boise State (9-1) vs. Idaho (1-9).

Revenge and Birds:

I had talked about Utah’s 50-0 wipeout of Wyoming, after the Cowboy coach had guaranteed a victory. Tammy remarked that the coach also gave the Utes a “half of a peace sign” when the Utes went for an onside kick with a 43-0 lead!

SALT LAKE CITY – Julius Stinson said so much without really saying anything.

When asked what he thought about Utah coach Kyle Whittingham’s decision to attempt an onside kick with his team leading Wyoming 43-0 in the third quarter Saturday, the senior gave a stern and dismissive “no comment.”

That moment was the fourth where the Utes looked like they were attempting to run the score up in a 50-0 win over UW at Rice-Eccles Stadium.

The first two came with less than 44 seconds to play in the first half when Utah (7-3 overall, 4-2 Mountain West Conference) called a pair of timeouts and threw the ball four times with a 40-0 lead. That drive ended when Stinson picked off a pass in the end zone.

Utah also attempted a third-quarter flee flicker where senior quarterback Brian Johnson handed the ball to running back Darrell Mack. Mack handed the ball to wide receiver Marquis Wilson on an apparent reverse before Wilson pitched the ball back to Johnson who threw an incomplete pass in Mack’s direction.

Louie Sakoda capped that drive with a 41-yard field goal and then attempted the onside kick. Fifth-year UW coach Joe Glenn could be seen angrily gesturing and shouting towards the Utah sideline following the onside kick.

“He can only coach his own,” Glenn said in reference to Whittingham. “It is what it is. It’s football and they were making a statement.”

Cameras from CSTV – which televised the game nationally – caught Glenn making what appeared to be an obscene gesture directed toward Utah’s sideline. Glenn deflected questions about that gesture afterward.

“I don’t remember that,” he said. “I know I got a little emotional. I don’t even know how to respond to that. Honestly, I don’t.”

Glenn added he didn’t want to speculate if some of the trick plays were a result of him guaranteeing a UW victory during a weekly luncheon with students in the Wyoming Union on campus. He did, however, admit the guarantee was ill-advised and wouldn’t happen again.

Note: the Wyoming coach has since apologized.

Just a thought
Maybe this is why Kansas is winning games? A player runs for a 77 yard TD, gets a 15 yard penalty for hot-dogging, and gets a chewing out. The coach yells “you did it ALL on your own, did you?” reminding this young man that it is the TEAM that scores a touchdown, not one player.

No Football

Workout notes rest, and some yoga.

No, no football in this post; I’ll save that for the next post.

Local: Remember the remark that one of our local Republican candidates for congress made? It hasn’t gone unnoticed.

The hullabaloo over state Rep. Aaron Schock’s proposal to offer nuclear arms to Taiwan if China doesn’t go along with U.S. policy toward Iran isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

In fact, the issue – which both his Republican primary opponents and even the Democratic opponent were quick to chime in on their two cents last week – likely will catapult as election season continues to gear up.

Many are calling the issue a huge gaffe for Schock, R-Peoria, who’s essentially hinging his political career on this congressional campaign.

Republican opponent Jim McConoughey said the proposal oozes of the 26-year-old’s inexperience and immaturity about what a nuclear threat could do to the United States.

McConoughey held a press conference on Thursday about Schock’s statements – spurred by a column in the Springfield State Journal-Register based on Schock’s nearly 30-page announcement speech.

Had he not, would the issue have died? Likely no. Schock said he took positions on issues because he wants voters to know where he stands. He also gave specifics on education, immigration, the economy and energy.

Politicians have a fine line they have to walk. When they give voters what they want – detail and specifics – they risk being attacked. Schock didn’t back down.

That last line says it all; in fact I submit that the voters really don’t want detail; we tend to vote for people who tell us what we want to hear, though we never admit this.

Hat tip to the Peoria Pundit.

For those who don’t get the reference:

From The film Dr. Strangelove.

Science/technology:
About those letters that you sometimes have to type in to enter comments on someone’s blog: do you know that this technology came from an attempt to scan books and other typeset documents into a computer? It turns out that the computers still struggle to recognize certain numbers and letters, especially when they are typeset in a particular way, whereas humans have no trouble. Cosmic Variance talks about this here. It is a short but delightful post.

Science Avenger talks a bit more about the scientist that wrote a bogus article in hopes that the so called “climate change skeptics” would pick it up. The author wasn’t disappointed.

Republicans

I got the following message from the Mike Huckabee campaign:

I’m writing you personally because I understand we share common convictions regarding the upcoming Republican Presidential Primary.

Faith, Family and Freedom are the 3 cornerstones of my campaign. If they are important to you as well, I ask you to read this note carefully and/or visit my campaign website and give me your immediate support. While other campaigns are running away from and stumbling through answers regarding where they really stand on these key principles, our campaign embraces the importance of them as a necessary thread that should run through those who lead our nation.

Our campaign is surging thanks to a hugely successful e-campaign last month as people start paying attention to our ideas and message. They are responding to a hard-working consistent conservative with the most executive experience of running a government than anyone in the presidential race and the only candidate who has successfully run against the Clinton political machine not once, but 4 times in Arkansas.

Note: “Faith, Family and Freedom”. Hmmm, he means freedom to think just like him? And note his crack about running against the Clinton “political machine”. Actually, when I visited the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Bill Clinton was indeed in town, to attend to Huckabee’s inauguration!