No Fatties in Restauraunts and no Cell phone talking while walking across the street.

I’ll probably watch the Superbowl with my fellow Kossaks.

I’ll say it again: Patriots in a close one. The Giants have a strong pass rush, but the Patriots are more balanced overall. Note that this is their 5′th trip to the Superbowl; they have wins over the Eagles, Panthers and Rams (all close; 3 points each), one decisive loss to the Packers and one blowout loss to Da Bears.

Here are a couple of interesting articles if you enjoy the “nanny-state” meme:

Walking and talking on a cell phone

In Illinois, a bill was introduced to make it an offense to walk across the street while talking on a cell phone:

[...]In the ongoing effort to protect the stupid from themselves, we have a bill sponsored by Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, to ban pedestrians from using cell phones while crossing a road. Violators could be fined up to $25.

Many, if not most, cell phone users probably have mastered the task of looking for traffic before crossing a street. It’s a concept generally taught at an early age. Still, there apparently are some who get so wrapped up in their conversations that they walk out into traffic and get hit. Ergo, no one should talk on a phone while crossing the street.

Yeah, yeah, some cities and states ban people from using cell phones while driving. The difference is that a driver distracted by his cell phone conversation can do a whole lot of damage to innocent bystanders. [...]

One huge caveat: in theory, someone who isn’t paying attention can cross the street and force a vehicle to swerve thereby starting up a major accident. But it is all but impossible to legislate every conceivable possibility.

In Mississippi: keeping fat people out of restaurants.

From the Daily Kos:

Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

Go to the link to read the full article by Asinus Asinum Fricat. The diarist talks about obesity and poverty as well. The comments are also quite colorful.

By the way, I find this bill to be completely absurd. What are they going to do: a skin fold measurement for every potential patron?

You can find a link to a pdf copy of the bill here. From the bill itself:

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2008
By: Representatives Mayhall, Read, Shows

HOUSE BILL NO. 282

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: [...]

Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

This bill is bound to be the answer to a trivia question on game shows and on board games; that is about it.

Preworkout Notes 3 February

Almost off to the gym; there is still lots of snow on the ground.

Update: Workout note 3 x 5 mile; first one was 1:05 on the track, quick break, then 0:59 (one lap “quick turnover”, one lap “ultra pace”), then to the treadmill to do 1:05 (mild inclines). 15 total; reasonable quality (3:09).

I do need to get a couple of 20’s in the next two weeks; I am hoping for dry roads so I don’t get bored to death.

Non athletic stuff.

Obama picked up some endorsements: the Peoria Journal Star and The Austin American Statesman. I’ve posted those endorsements below.

One comment: McCain came to Illinois. There are photos of a McCain rally here. Check them out. Note how homogeneous the audience is; you can tell at a glance that isn’t a Democratic rally.

In all honesty, even if a Republican came along that had ideas that I might agree with, there is no way in hell I’d ever dream of supporting them; I just wouldn’t fit in with their supporters.

Endorsements

Here is what the Journal Star has to say:

No matter which way Democrats go in choosing their party’s nominee for the White House, it will be historic. Call it a Jackie Robinson moment or an Amelia Earhart one, the November ballot will be unprecedented in having either an African-American or a woman topping a national ticket.

We think that political first – eventually the other will come, as well – ought to belong to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the last viable candidate still standing next to Hillary Clinton, herself a native Illinoisan now representing New York in the U.S. Senate.

It’s remarkable how far Obama has come since first visiting the Journal Star some five years ago to introduce himself as a backbench state senator from Chicago who had grander political ambitions and wanted to learn a bit more about central Illinois before acting on them. Whether events have swept him along in a nation whose citizens crave change or he’s created his own wave is hard to tell, but what impressed then is what impresses now – the intellect, balance, seeming sincerity and self-confidence; the courage to invite challenges to his ideas, the desire to seek solutions no matter who gets the credit.

Obama as a Democrat can say that Republican Ronald Reagan was a transformational president, because in fact he was, for better and worse. You’re unlikely to hear any acknowledgement of Reagan’s impact coming from Clinton’s lips. Let us suggest that Obama’s willingness to read history honestly, free of self-serving constraints, is part of what makes his candidacy appealing to independents and young people who are fed up with government inertia.

Certainly Obama has a way of inspiring people, not just with words – though he is gifted in that regard, as evidenced by his coming-out speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and again following his victory in South Carolina last week – but because of who he is: a man of mixed race and modest upbringing who closes the gap between how we Americans like to think of ourselves and what we actually are. Race is this nation’s festering sore. Our enemies fuel the fires of their contempt with our contradictions. In America and abroad, Obama’s nomination would be no small thing on a symbolic level, which can have very real implications.

Of course, Clinton is an important symbol, too. She has broken through multiple glass ceilings. At 60, her government experience is longer, deeper. She has often bested the 46-year-old Obama in debates. She is detail-oriented – “both CEO and COO,” she says – more confident in her grasp of the issues.

On that score, Obama is more inclined to exhaust diplomatic measures before firing shots and dropping bombs. From the get-go he took a stand against the war in Iraq, and stayed there even when it wasn’t popular. Clinton went along with the crowd. He’d bring the troops home faster. Beyond that they don’t differ much, from their embrace of universal health care to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to building a fence along the Mexican border.

If this were a vote to fill one of 100 U.S. Senate seats, Clinton would be the better choice.

But the presidency is about intangible leadership qualities – solid judgment, the ability to comfort Americans in times of crisis and motivate them in times of both prosperity and peril. It’s about vision – FDR’s “New Deal” and Eisenhower’s interstate highway system and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And it’s about articulating that direction, that road map, in a way that makes Americans rally to it.

On those measures, we think Obama is the right person at the right time – a risk, perhaps, but no more so than the status quo. The big-picture presidents who surrounded themselves with high-quality advisers have been the most effective.

There is one other thing: It may not be fair, but many Americans view Hillary Clinton through the prism of her husband, Bill, the nation’s 42nd president over two controversial terms. This powerful couple – and they are very much a team, as Bill is everywhere, not always appealing to Americans’ better natures – remain among the most polarizing political figures in America, running neck and neck with the Bushes. For a generation the Oval Office has been occupied by just two families. Many Americans simply want off that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton merry-go-round, because it hasn’t always been so merry.

This nation will never confront its chronic problems unless it bridges its divides and eliminates its petty and partisan distractions. BARACK OBAMA is best-suited to that calling. He is the Democrats’ best hope in November, and he is endorsed.

And the American Statesman:

Look closely at the two Democratic front-runners for president and you will see similarities in how they address challenging problems confronting the country.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois both talk about strengthening the middle class, expanding economic growth and lifting sagging wages. Both offer solutions for the crisis in our health care system and global warming and support ending the war in Iraq. So the key differences between the candidates are in their leadership styles and visions for the country.

Obama presents a view of governing that is inclusive and relies on Americans to work with their government to solve sobering problems at home and abroad. Obama’s familiar refrain on the campaign trail is, “Yes, we can.”

By contrast, Clinton promotes a self-centered governing style that drives home what she would do as president. She asks little of Americans and discourages opposing views. Clinton has moved from her position as first lady that it “takes a village” to solve problems to it takes only Hillary (and maybe Bill).

Those contrasts offer a clear choice: Barack Obama. His optimism, unifying vision and ability to inspire are the kind of healing balm the country needs at this moment in history.

In two days, on “Super Tuesday,” 22 states will hold Democratic primaries and caucuses. The outcome of those contests might determine a winner. If not, the battle moves to Texas on March 4. Obama is the best pick Democrats could make.

Resolving the big issues confronting the nation requires a leader who can attract support from independents and Republicans. Of the two front runners, only Obama has shown the ability to bring divergent interests together. He did that as a state senator in Illinois and as a U.S. senator in Washington. And he has staked his presidential campaign on doing that in the White House.

In endorsing Obama, the Chicago Tribune recently wrote this about his tenure in the Illinois Legislature: “In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade.”

Obama brought that style of leadership to Washington. He worked with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to sponsor and pass legislation that would assist taxpayers in tracking government spending – including earmarks and federal grants – with a Google-like search engine.

Obama showed courage in opposing the Iraq war in 2002 as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, years before that was the popular position. He backs aggressive diplomacy in dealing with America’s adversaries, including talking to our enemies.

But he isn’t against the use of military might and continues to support the war in Afghanistan. We also believe that Obama is more electable than Clinton, who would no doubt energize dispirited Republican voters. That makes Obama a stronger nominee for the Democrats going into November.

In another election, we might look for the kind of experience Clinton brings from her role as a U.S. senator and tenure as first lady. But these are different times. Abroad, the country is at war. The terrorism threat remains alarming. America’s moral standing has been diminished by Guantánamo and the Iraqi occupation.

At home, we’re divided into red and blue camps. Democrats and Republicans have stoked divisions to advance their party’s interests. Meanwhile, Washington is stumbling along with its red leg moving right and blue one lurching left.

Along the way, elected officials – and the public – have forgotten that those legs are part of the same body. It’s not surprising, therefore, that we’ve danced in place, failing to make progress on the big challenges that confront our country. Young people, disillusioned and disheartened with their government, have tuned out.

No other candidate except Obama offers a way out of that rut. He has articulated a vision that would allow the legs of government to again move fluidly in a natural motion that takes the country forward.

Young people hungry for purpose have flocked to Obama rallies in rock concert numbers. They’re not just cheering but volunteering. Older people, especially African Americans, send small donations and passages from Scripture as they look to him to fulfill America’s promise.

Like a veteran slugger on deck, Hillary Clinton has campaigned principally on the logic that it is her turn at bat. Democrats must resist the instinct to select the next in line and grab instead the best hitter on the bench. That is Barack Obama.

Prediction Saturday: Super Tuesday, Super Bowl

Music Lovers will probably like this 4 minute Obama video; it is very “artsy”. I found it cute; Barbara was moved by it:

Predictions:

Superbowl: Patriots go 19-0, but it isn’t easy. The Giants cover the spread but the Pats pull it out 27-20.
Super Tuesday: on the Republican side, John McCain pulls away and almost wraps it up. Reason: more Republican states are “winner take all” in terms of delegates.

Democratic Side The issue is more complicated. Hillary Clinton should win more states and win the popular vote by somewhere between 5-8 points. But, because the Democratic primary votes are mostly on a proportional basis (i. e., by congressional district), the “pledged delegates” (the people you are voting for) break about 50-50, so the current state of the race won’t change much at all. Currently Obama has a small lead in pledged delegates, but Clinton being ahead due to the super delegates that we don’t vote for.

Example: in my district, there are 4 delegates and Obama has a lead. Clinton hits 15%: she gets 1 of the 4. If she hits 37.5 %, she splits the delegates evenly, even though she has gotten blown out.

So, I don’t look for the situation to change much; the race for delegates will pretty much remain even. As far as the states, here is my wild guess:

Obama States: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota.
Clinton States: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Okahoma, Tennessee.
Toss up: Connecticut.

This is from an Obama rally in Boise, Idaho. (larger image)

There are many arguments for Obama; here is one that Friendly Atheist links to.

Christian Democrats fear that by wearing their faith on their sleeves, they will be be painted by their fellow progressives with the same brush as the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world. This is, I believe, the real shame of our “big tent” of a party.

…

… only Senator Obama offers the possibility of an America which can put aside ideological differences from time to time and work for the common good. Most importantly, as a Progressive Christian, I believe Senator Obama, who is a devout member of the United Church of Christ, will be a President who has the ability and inspirational leadership to create an America where people of all faiths will really and truly be welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party.

For yet another summary with polls galore, see Election 2008.

They note on the Republican race:

Many prominent conservatives, including Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Toomey, have a visceral hatred of John McCain, which is going to be a big problem if he is the nominee (see also here and here). All of them hate Hillary Clinton, too, and probably could learn to hate Barack Obama if he is their opponent. One of the arguments that Republicans have been making about why they will win this year is how Hillary Clinton will unite their party like never before. Unless John McCain divides it like never before. Which hate is stronger? In any event, there is likely to be a lot of hate this year.

Yes, they are fighting with each other. Huckabee has gone after Romney

Mike Huckabee, frustrated with the argument brought by his rival Mitt Romney , and some conservative commentators, that a vote for Huckabee would split votes from Romney, and help front runner John McCain, fired back, hitting Romney’s record head on.

”Actually a vote for me is a vote for me. A vote for Mitt Romney may be a vote for Hillary Clinton, because the fact is I’ve got a far more conservative record than Mitt Romney ever dreamed of having,”Huckabee said.” Where people can come up with branding him a conservative is really, I think, tantamount to requiring an extraordinary amount of imagination.”

Follow the link to see the video.

What about Ron Paul? Read about a rather interesting source of his campaign funds: Fairfield, Iowa?

Today’s Washington Post has an interesting graphic in its dead-tree edition that, among other things, lists the top five ZIP Codes in terms of total Q4 donations to each of the presidential candidates. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, washingtonpost.com and the WaPo itself don’t seem to coordinate on content, and the graphic doesn’t appear to be accessible electronically. The raw data on Q4 donations is available on the Post site, but without the top five ZIP Code listings.

In any event, the graphic tells us that most of the candidates’ top two ZIP Codes are in very big or very rich cities — Dallas for Huckabee, Greenwich for McCain, Beverly Hills for Rudy — but Ron Paul’s number 2 ZIP was 52556 — tiny Fairfield, IA. Paul also won the caucus in Fairfield. There’s just one notable thing about Fairfield, a town of around 9,000 souls — it’s the home of the American operations of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, best known as the one-time spiritual guru of the Beatles.

Note: there used to be a fun ultra series in Fairfield Iowa called the Fairfield Trail runs. I’ve done the 50K twice. I wish this race would return.

Humor (yes, religious content)

Evidently “god” has taken sides:

As far as this upcoming primary election, I got a special message from my deity:

Hmmm, Obama seems to be doing better at the moment; I wonder what this says about the strengths of our respective deities?

Of course, cynics abound.

For more laughs, watch a replay of the last Republican Debate: (the sparks fly in part 1, 7 and

Part I. About 3 minutes into it, they get asked “are you better off now than 8 years ago?” Watch Romney and McCain’s answers. McCain answers 5:30 into it. He says we are better off. Huckabee’s answer is ok. Paul, is Paul. But watch the question right at the end…

Then watch the beginning of this one. See the contempt that McCain has for Romeny? That little laugh…

Now onto part III:

Part IV:

Part V.

Part 6:

Part 7: here we get to Iraq: early on, the sparks fly, especially 4 minutes into it!

Part 8. The sparks continue, McCain and Romney really go at it!

You can find the rest of them here.