Friday afternoon media blitz...

1. Today's NYT features a long op-ed on immigration from the Editorial Board. The op-ed comes to the same conclusion that any intelligent being does when discussing this topic:

But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?

2. So, President Bush wants to help the economy with government intervention. Isn't it funny how the free-market crowd runs when the debts come due. Of note, is the fact that Bush didn't draw his proverbial "line in the sand" with regards to making his tax cuts permanent -- which shows the fear in the administration of this recession. Of course, it is possible (a big IF here) that he woke up and took the advice of economists on how to fuel the economy:

Most economists agree that tax rebates are one of the fastest ways to lift consumer spending. They also agree that stimulus measures are most efficient when aimed at low-income or middle-income people, because they are more likely than affluent people to spend any extra money rather than save it.

According to estimates several years ago by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, the measures that produced the biggest “bang for the buck” were increases in unemployment benefits, which produced about $1.73 in additional demand for every dollar spent. Tax rebates to all citizens generated about $1.19 for every dollar spent, while reductions in tax rates produced only 59 cents per dollar.

3. From the mongering fear in the minds of liberals department, it seems some Conservatives kind of like Obama. Or was this just a well placed Clinton media connection?

4. The obituary of the week goes to... no, not Rudy's campaign... but Bobby Fischer the crazy as a loon Anti-Semite chessmaster.

5. In the, Economist's are quirky and perverted department -- studies are being done on the business of sex.

Although all speakers at the session were careful not to draw very strong conclusions from preliminary findings, a few broad themes nevertheless emerged. In many respects, the paid-sex industry is much like any other business.

No kidding! The first profession knows about bidness!

6. Don't get me wrong, I've done stupid things while drinking in my life, but not this stupid. I know, I should be showing lots of sympathy and all, but come on -- How hard is to not tease a tiger when drunk and stoned?

7. In local news here in Madison, we are bracing for a freezing weekend, crowned by what should be a sub-zero NFC title game in Green Bay. Go Pack!

Colbert makes it to the Smithsonian...

If there is one thing I miss about not having cable, it's comedy central and the Stewart / Colbert duo. I would really be interested to see how Colbert pulled this off. Colbert's unique blend of comedy is seldom lost with me.

Colbert:

I don't mean to brag, but as it contains three portraits, my portrait has more portraits than any other portrait in the National Portrait Gallery," he said, adding, "All employees must wash hands before returning to work."

Stephen: Now, I’ve never been a fan of amphibians. Not only do the strengthen the argument for evolution, they are nature’s fence sitters. Come on, amphibians. Which is it? Water or land? Pick one, we’re at war.

Bitter Beer Face

So hops are in short supply and it is really hitting the local brewers here in Southern Wisconsin. I have not followed up nationally, but I know I heard a piece on this on NPR in the past few weeks as well. For all of my fellow beer friends, this is definately bad news...

What does the shortage mean for local beer drinkers? Look for a jump in the price of Wisconsin-made microbrew this year, from 50 cents to $2 more per six-pack. Also affecting the price is the rising cost of bottles and grains, including malted barley, which has fermentable sugars that are turned into bubbles and alcohol. "I'm already paying over 20% more for malt and bottles," says Porter.

I am fortunate enough to have enough disposable income to absorb this cost (a big reason is the significant reduction in consumption over the past few years), so it isn't as scary now as it once was. I am, however, concerned about what this will do to the types of beers that are being produced. I enjoy a variety of styles of brew, but my old faves are IPA's, APA's, and other hop monsters. With the current shortage, it is likely we will see less fun experimentation on this front in the near term.

What happens in Vegas...

Or, at this point what doesn't happen in Vegas. Some Clinton supporters are attacking the idea of worker's caucusing at the special casino caucuses. I don't normally dwell on the minutiae of campaign bickering, but I found this quote from former Prez Clinton interesting:

"I think the rules ought to be the same for everybody," the former president told more than 550 senior students at Green Valley High School near Las Vegas. "I would question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and say only the people that work there, i.e., the people that we know are going to vote in a certain way or we think they will, (are) able to caucus."

Now you can read as little or lot into this as you like, but coming on the heals of the Culinary Union's endorsement of Obama -- I take this to be a late attempt by the Clinton camp to disrupt the plans of likely Obama supporters. I'm not sure how the rules were drawn up for these special sessions, but I know there were some restrictions along the lines of the individual having to work within 2.5 miles of the strip and being able to caucus from 11-1. This is definately a "special" event in the game of caucuses, but I don't see how this would be considered overly burdensome on other possible caucus attendees. Don't read too much into it, but I just think O might make a run at Nevada.

If X happens, I'm moving to Canada...

The popular liberal line of "If X (something related to Bushism) happens, I'm moving to Canada" should be taking a hit among truly liberal minded folks with the current over zealous application of hate speech laws. Greenwald at Salon has a nice post on this issue, of which I found the following paragraph most pertinent.

Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take -- though it is that -- it's also the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure. Worse, it converts its advocates into martyrs -- as one sees from the hero-worship now surrounding people like Levant and Steyn, who now become self-glorifying symbols of individual liberty rather than what they are: hateful purveyors of a bitter, destructive, authoritarian ideology.

There is an inherent need in society to place some restriction on speech, but the current line in the sand being applied by the Alberta Human Rights Commission seems to me to be about four beaches over from where it should be. It is my opinion that by silencing these views, a martyr is made. Also, by denying free expression we take away the biggest buffer against ignorant and insensitive statements -- letting the proponent of such a statement open his or her mouth and prove the idiocracy underlying the viewpoint.

Sign of the Times....

The odds are good...

but the goods are odd...

Betting odds... with a cushion for the house.

DEMOCRATS
Clinton 3/2
Obama 5/3
Edwards 16/1
Kuci 100/1

REPUBLICANS
McCain 8/3
Guiliani 8/3
Huckabee 7/2
Romney 8/1
Thompson 15/1
Paul 25/1

On the Dems side, I give a slight edge to Clinton as she has been polling well in Nevada up to this point. I recognize the polling data is being called to question currently, but she also has a nice backdrop of a default win in Michigan (since Obama and Edwards) aren't on the ballot and very likely a default in Florida as well. Those delegates may just end up mattering. Hell Wisconsin's primary may end up mattering as the top two have the resources to keep a dog in this fight.

On the GOP side, I give an even odds favorite status to McCain who is hot and Rudy, who is not -- but he has a big war chest and "national appeal." If he can weather losing Michigan and South Carolina (especially if Romney then Huckabee win) he could come back to roost in Florida. Huckabee has potential, but I don't think his campaign has evolved to the level of some of the others. Thompson may still end up the default nominee if everyone else keeps falling down and he stays asleep at the wheel (which may be the most ingenious strategy yet). Romney MUST WIN in Michigan or he is done. Paul... well if he can mobilize his new found net roots libertarian movement (and keep them from seeing his not so libertarian stances on social issues), he may make some noise... but I doubt it.

Friday afternoon media center...

Did you ever wonder if twins separated at birth could end up married to each other? Apparently they can in England, but unfortunately the article doesn't offer the detail and pertinent subject interviews one would expect from the title.

For all of my completely unreformed communist friends, a bit of bad news on thebusiness front, which you may have missed. This of course is being followed by campaigns going into "It's the economy stupid" overdrive.

In the International department, we have Kenya on the verge of meltdown. Let's hope Kofi can cool this situation down. But with three days of planned protests, Kibaki and his police force are promising a crackdown on these "illegal meetings." I guess Kenya couldn't tolerate the idea that Pakistan was taking all of the international unrest headlines.

In the cheese state, we are concentrating on the big Packers game tomorrow and the possibility/debate as to whether Brett will be back next year.

From the Hitchens Web an interesting interview final copy from black republican. Though I'm not sure I picked up this conflict from Hitchens in October...

and finally, yet another story in the main stream media about a woman teacher having sexual relations with a male student. I admittedly have no data in front of me, but doesn't it seem like we hear about the women teachers doing this much more than the men who do? I'm not sure if this is sexism, sensationalism, or whatever (jealousy by middle aged newsmen?) -- but I'm just not convinced that the rates of incidence are even close between male and female teachers committing sexual assualts on students... I should probably look into this before spouting off --- but hey it's Friday and I think this is just plain ridiculous. (maybe not as much so as the TO CATCH A PREDATOR Dateline specials).

Have a good weekend.

My newest addiction...

Mel-Anon has turned me onto a very addictive geography quiz game, which I highly recommend. As Mr. Anon points out, there isn't a lot of replayability, due to the limited number of cities in the database -- but give it a shot. I would also recommend studying Oceania, and more importantly Australian cities prior to beginning.

My stats after ten Go's at it...

Average Aggregate Score: 520,281
Max Aggregate Score: 577,949
Average "Traveller IQ": 127
Max "Traveller IQ": 133
Average Level Finished: 11.1
Max Level Finished: 12
Average Level 11 (Diabolical) score: 47,739
Max Level 11 Score: 58,955 (I have no clue how I did that).

Have fun, and let me know how you fair.

Special Reports of Note - from the Economist...

My subscription to the Economist has nearly bankrupted my reading time balance each week, but with special reports like this on immigration and this on religion it is probably worth it.

I have long been confused by the "no by-line" motif of the weekly mag, but I have to say after reading cover to cover everything over the past three weeks... I haven't found substantial reason to doubt the writing ability of the staff (the one complaint I always levy on these publications is the lack of thorough criticism, but hey not everyone can be The Atlantic.) A bit pricey, but a distinct and thoughtful viewpoint on a weekly basis -- acts as a solid supplement to the NYT/NPR/CNN/BBC normal newsflow.

New Hampshire's done...

The results are in from the Granite State (or at least 96% of them) and I admit my failed punditry in picking Obama over Clinton.

I honestly thought it would be close, but I didn't think Edwards, Richardson, and Kuci would take home a quarter of the votes. I'm not arguing that any of these candidates should have not been a part of the contest, but if you are an Obama backer you are surely feeling that way today. Of the 65K votes received by these three candidates plus the Dodd, Biden, Gravel votes, Obama only needed to win 55-56% to take the cake. I would postulate that he would come very close to this level of advantage if those other votes would have been forced into a dichotomous choice. Alas, it's on to the true gamble of Michigan.

On the GOP side, my superfecta went well, but it wasn't hard to pick the order. The more interesting thing to me is how close Rudy came to getting Huck for third and the fact that Romney took a closer than I anticipated second. If Mitt can come up with a victory in Michigan (where he is leading) he may crawl back into the race.

I think Nevada and South Carolina could really be a turning point on the Dems side, as Richardson will need to finish second in Nevada to maintain even remote viability and Edwards is very possibly in a must win in South Carolina.

Thinking about viability, who are the likely options for GOP VP? I have my finger on a few Dems, but the Elephants have me confused... This is of course, not unusual.

New Hampshire says....

Obama, Clinton, Edwards

McCain, Romney, Huck, Rudy

should be interesting.

The Audacity of Hope...

So we actually have some votes (more than 200K on the Dems side) upon which to base our future political prognostication. Soon we will even have a one person one vote basis on the Dems side in New Hampshire.* With Obama and Huckabee pulling out clear victories, we now have the potential match up of the author of The Audacity of Hope and the Baptist minister from Hope. Well, I guess Hope does spring enternal.

Huckabee may have won by enough to actually garner some additional resource support, but with the MSM still dogging him as a fluke winner - it will be an uphill battle. Though as Mel-Anon points out South Carolina awaits. He is polling very well nationally and if he can survive New Hampshire he may just cause the GOP to take a truly introspective account of what is going on inside the party.

As far as the Obama campaign goes, the Iowa win was huge. Though I'm not quite convinced we should call it a "defining moment in history" as Obama said in his speech last night.** It is definitely an historic event, but we will have to wait and see if we remember it as a discrete event or as an actual change in direction. The win definitely puts the heat on his opponents, but it also now puts Obama under pressure to keep up with expectations in each successive primary. As any loss to Clinton now will come with a "he has lost momentum" tag line.

As we look forward to the Granite State's primary next week, there are some interesting story lines emerging. Can Clinton recover and pull out a win? Will Edwards hang around for South Carolina, even if he finishes a distant third? Can Rudy keep up the "I don't care about this state" routine for much longer? Will Romney finishing second sink his ship? Can a McCain win push him into the front runner status? When will Thompson go away? Will Ron Paul beat Rudy in New Hampshire too? All very interesting questions, which thanks to the concentrated primary calender we will not have to wait too long to see what happens.

I failed to make a post as to my predictions for Iowa, but I promise my predictions were Obama-Edwards-Clinton and Huckabee-Romney-McCain... which means I only missed the two trifectas by a few votes that Thompson somehow held off from McCain. It is early, but I'll throw in my two cents for New Hampshire as McCain-Romney-Huckabee (with Huckabee closing in on Romney) and Obama-Clinton-Edwards (with the top two taking the lion's share and in a dead heat with around 40% each). The worst I can be is horribly wrong, which is likely.

*What is it with this delegate share stuff in Iowa? I was amazed to see that on a CNN online poll 32% of the respondents stated that they understood the Iowa caucus... They are either way smarter than I (a very real possibility), political organizers in Iowa, unaware of their lack of understanding or drunk. The Democratic process is exceedingly convoluted and confusing. Remarkably, also fairly undemocratic. Oh well, Iowa is old hat now.

** I watched this speech live and I must admit that Obama is a very good public speaker. There were some interesting statements in this speech and I would strongly recommend reading the text. It depends on perspective, but some of the statements, though admittedly politically normal, were a little disquieting (must be the Orwell biography I'm reading). My favorite gem/barb was this: "They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose." A "common purpose" sounds good in some ways and absolutely terrifying in another.

What's the difference...

An interesting post from my comrade Mel-Anon set my political mind in motion. Mel-Anon discusses the recent assualt on the Edwards campaign's populism by Greenspan, Buckley and The Drudge Report. Mel-Anon draws a corrallary between the current battle for the White House and the types of economic policies/punishments used by the global concentrated capitalists in post-apartheid South Africa. This is highligted with a nice selection from Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which is on my must read list. Overall, Mel-Anon concludes that:

The increased viability of the populist candidates Edwards and Huckabee may explain why the wheels are starting to turn faster on Michael Bloombeg's Unity08 run, more truthfully titled the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan. This group certainly fears Edwards more than Huckabee, since the former has the much better chance at winning the general election, and I suspect that, once he has been disposed of by the Corporate Dems, Bloomberg's backers will magically dissolve into the ether. (It's certainly hard to see where Bloomberg fits in a race that includes Hillary Clinton, who's basically pulling the same roots.)

I can see how this conclusion can be drawn, but I tend to see the Unity08/Bloomberg third party run as less of a bail out from potential populists than as a naive belief (somewhat shared in the Obama camp) in a post partisanship position being available in America. I will admit that the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan concept does ring a little true when considering an Edwards v. Huckabee matchup.

It is the parenthetical that really got me thinking and I don't believe I can agree with the underlying assertion that Clinton is Bloomberg is the "normal middle of the road pack mule for corporate capital." I won't argue that Clinton makes the ideal progressive liberal candidate, but I also don't believe putting her (or Obama) in the same boat as the GOP pack or a Bloomberg is correct either. I also won't offer a defense of Clinton saying she isn't intertwined with corporate interests and money, but I find it either overly idealistic or incrediably naive to not recognize that a good deal of this money has went the Dems way due to corporations knowing which way the wind blows. I would be quite suprised to see anything revolutionary out of the Clinton or Obama camps, but I do believe that either is a significant improvement over the current administration and a better selection for America's next four years than any of the GOP candidates or a Bloomberg third party run. That being said, however, I do not want to fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap that is often used in modern two-party politics. Let us hope that whoever the nominees for both (or more) parties, that they are able to clearly articulate a plan for recovering from the many difficulties left at their stoop by the current administration's attempt at completely discrediting and dismantling government through a whirlwind of ineffectual management, underfunded services and agencies, tax cuts without spending cuts and complete a lack of accountability.

*** Wouldn't it be a little strange though, if Rudy, Bloomberg and Clinton were all in the race against each other? I agree that the thought of that does smack of candidate selection bias.

(over)Consuming can be (un)sustainable...

A quaint little wake the hell up op-ed appears in today's NYT. (This should probably appear at DBT, but hey AM Donkey is in need of some copy). Diamond, who in unrelated news speaks 12 languages, pulls few punches in criticizing the West (i.e. Europe and America) for it's development policies that are shortsighted and fail to recognize a need for a new sustainable direction. In both relative and absolute terms, Americans (and other westerners) consume a lot of stuff (according to Diamond an average of 32 times as much per capita as the developing world). Diamond seems to indicate that the American model is worse due primarily to the overconsumption and wasteful use of oil.*

Not surprisingly, the developing world wants to be able to have the lifestyle achieved in the developed world. Unfortunately, these countries are following the American (and to some extent European) development model. The problem here is that both of these models worked primarily due to two factors that are (barring a scientific breakthrough in one and hopefully in the other) not likely to be repeated: Manifest Destiny in America - with infinite land and resources for a relatively small population, and colonialism in Europe. The problem is that the West has failed to realize that it didn't make it to where it is from these unsustainable methods -- and has taken to proselytizing it's methods through the IMF, WorldBank and WTO. So what's the problem? Well to bring out a little of the old "swamp" metaphor...

People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.

It seems that at some point the developed world will have to realize the implications of the overconsumption of Earth's resources and consider how to reign these patterns in, but of course we could just continue to decry the global ruination that is being cause primarily by China and India**...

*So speaking of consumption, let's see if the symbology of oil hitting a bill a barrel will do anything to change our consumption practices... doubtful. A more likely wake up call will be the $4/Gallon costs that are very possible if the continued rise in demand is maintained into next year... this is more likely given the growth of oil consumption in Asia.

** This is not to discount the problems being created by the overly lax policies in developing countries, which are often exceptionally shortsighted and should be seriously reconsidered. An excellent article on China is available at Mother Jones

Who's on third...

With the Iowa caucuses just around the corner, the polls are indicating Huckabee holding a significant lead over Romney. I forsee Huckabee taking this one down, as Romney has been pumping his campaign in Iowa for quite some time and making little headway. This race for first is obviously important, but perhaps the bigger question is who will finish third?



This graph from pollster shows tight three way race for third between Freddy T, Johnny Mac, and Da Rudy. I think Thompson (and his parabolic polling numbers) is a cooked goose, but this may be his chance for a rebound. Rudy would love to solidify his campaign with an expectations game win by finishing third, which could buoy his campaign through a poor finish in New Hampshire. Johnny Mac could get the biggest bounce with a third place finish, considering he is polling well in New Hampshire. A third here for McCain could very possibly give enough bounce to move ahead of the "loser" between Huckabee and Romney.

Additionally, it looks like Huckabee is in a dead heat nationally with Rudy G. I think this means that if the Huck wins Iowa and finishes above Rudy in New Hampshire -- Florida becomes a MUST WIN for the Rudy camp. Oh how much fun this time of year is....

It's all so complicated...

The Bhutto assassination undoubtedly throws some uncertainty into the Pakistani situation and my comrade Mel-Anon hits home with a great post on the situation.

It is difficult to decipher what this will mean for Pakistan in the long term, but the likely short term implications are Sharif and the opposition parties boycott the January 8th elections -- leading to a status quo government ran by Musharraf. With the US pushing for the election to stay on track to keep the "bad guys" from winning -- we will probably see an "election" that changes little other than giving a new rallying cry for unrest. Overall winner -- whoever likes a destabilized nuclear power situated between Iran, Afghanistan, India and China.

I saw Charlie Wilson's War over the weekend, and have to say that it is pertinent to this topic. Understanding the Soviet-Afghan experience is a must for understanding the current geopolitical situation in Southern/Central Asia.

As apolitical as it gets...

Former Pakistani Prime Minister and current opposition leader Benazir Bhutto
was assassinated on Thursday in Rawalpindi. It is disheartening to see such apolitical actions in a situation that is in desperate need of politics. Somewhere today, Bernard Crick weeps... As do all of us who hold out hope for conciliation, compromise and relatively peaceful transitions of power. I hope that this isn't the spark that sets off an already combustible situation.

A powerful "O"...

In the previous post, I mentioned how the mainstream media is discounting Oprah's influence... now they are reporting that she has angered and alienated her fans. Somehow I doubt that most of these comments left on her site were from many of her true fans. It also bothers me that those who rely on the free market idea are often the first to jump all over a celebrity for a political endorsement. It is my belief that the basic civic duty of political participation isn't checked at the door when you become a celebrity. If one just throws endorsements around and angers their audience too much... the market will let that person know.

My personal favorite comment on the CNN site:

Obama will loose to the Republican's if he is elected. The only person capable of beating the right-wing machine is Hillary Clinton. You may not like everything about her but we can't afford the Republican party keeping control of this country for another 4-8 years. Come on DEMS!! Don't shoot your own feet off by nominating Obama. He will be eaten alive!!!!!!

Posted By john, Euless, TX : December 13, 2007 7:50 pm

Damn straight john from Euless (or is it Hillary from Chicago via New England via Arkansas via DC via New York???) -- he will surely loose if elected... Wait if he is elected, wouldn't that mean.... Oh well, I'm confused.

The following comment may offer more insight, but definitely less entertainment (and isn't that what CNN is all about anyway?).

Reading too much into things. I really don't think a few comments on Oprah's website is indicative of any type of "backlash". As for her comments, it's obvious a few people are overreacting and seeing a racialized message I seriously doubt is there. I've never cared much for Oprah but I don't think she should be forced to live in a race and politically free bubble just because her fans expect her to. I haven't seen any other celebrities coming under fire for supporting the politicians of their choice. Personally I think this ticker is CNN trying to give attention to an "issue" that isn't an "issue" to begin with.

Posted By Edwin, Chicago IL : December 13, 2007 8:27 pm

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that other celebs don't take heat as well for their political stands (think Dixie Chicks), but overall some valuable points. I definitely agree with the point on CNN trying to create a story because of some comments on Oprah's website. If this is "news," maybe I could start a group of Internet muckrakers who don't report the news... but make it.

The Evolution of Huckabee...

From a back of the pack longshot (I got him at 15 to 1) just a few months ago, he has come on strong and appears to be making headway nationally as well as in Iowa. It appears that it's not just Hawkeyes for Huck anymore...



*You can catch an overview of the recent CNN/Opinion Research national poll(which is the last included in the above graph) at pollster.com. The highlight of the poll is the close proximity of Huckabee to Rudy G. for the national lead. I think the story of the next month (on the GOP side) will be not only how Romney and Huck battle in Iowa, but how Rudy goes after Huck to stave off any momemtum he may gain from (likely?) winning in Iowa. The veracity of Rudy's attacks in the next few weeks could be a tell-tale sign of how much of a threat he sees in Huckabee. I think that with a win in Iowa and a second place finish in New Hampshire, he would make a formidable foe. Of course, with Cali and NY looming early in February - this still may turn out to be a flash in the pan.

** Of additional note on the graph --
1. How about that parabolic curve for Freddy T, where the focus is near the point of announcing his candidancy.
2. Rudy G's noticably fallen off in recent weeks. I haven't seen much in the media about him and it seems his campaign is taking a wait and see attitude with respect to the nomination process -- as in "wait and see how badly we underperform in Iowa and New Hampshire before we do something about it."
3. Romney's failure to climb in the national polls. I was excusing it since it was the "common knowledge" that his national numbers were hurting since he was concentration on the early primary states. After Huck's ascendency, however, I am convinced that Romney cannot win the GOP nomination.
4. Another thought, if Huckabee takes out Romney, but Rudy looks more favorable to win in NY or Cali than Huck... who do the social conservatives move towards? Freddy T. is cooked... so is it back to Johnny Mac? A darkhorse that you just can't count out yet.
5. Ron Paul is interesting, but he has no hope of the GOP nomination.


*** On the Dems side, if you didn't hear already... ok you did... Barack had campaign events with Oprah in three states over the weekend. I was suprised to see the media and the "experts" dismissing this as just another celebrity endorsement that doesn't translate into votes. I'm not going to say that Oprah can win an election on her own, but I definately think her voice carries more weight than Warren Beatty or Bruce Springsteen. Don't get me wrong, I love THE BOSS, but he didn't have access to a daily television audience (cult??) that have created an entire lifestlye via options and choices provided by "O". Seriously, not recognizing the difference of Oprah in comparision to the other celeb endorsements is either a serious miscalculation, intentional attempt to derail her influence or stupidity.

Homeward Bound...

I am heading off to Southern Indiana for the weekend. I hope to catch up with some old friends during this visit and hopefully avoid snow on the roads.

Things to do:
* Eat at Grandma's [check]- and I enjoyed it more than ever
* Drink a Bud Light [check]- but i didn't enjoy it like I used to.
* See the old gang [half check]

Things not to do:
* Discuss the intricacies of religion [check]- though this was hard.
* Fail to bow at the throne of the high school basketball gods [check] - though i did laugh on the inside about the consternation a 1-2 start was causing
* Order a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale at the local bar - [uncheck]- I asked for a Sierra without thinking about it, and got a really strange look from the Barkeep
* Cajole the old gang into repeating our old shenanigans. [check]- this was mostly safe, since I didn't see the group together.

Have a good weekend. Stay warm and involved.

localvore, locatarian, or locavore...

The Oxford American dictionary has announced it's 2007 word of the year is locavore. This is one, and the preferred iteration by me, of the numerous terms used to describe the movement towards local sustainable and organic food stuffs. The movement is comprised of a variety of groups such as, environmentalists, hippies, gastronomes, yuppies and me [I may fit into none, some or all of these categories].

This is one of those issues that I feel the need to shamelessly plug from time to time. I hope this publicity will bring some more people into a state of awareness of what wonderful food is being grown and provided for right in your region. There are numerous depressing facts and rationales for partaking in local foodstuffs whenever possible, but to me it started with the quality/taste of the food. If the movement focuses on this and works on spreading the environmental message as a bonus point - it just might work out. The economics argument is also becoming more of an argument as gas prices remain high.

I honestly believe, that with a slight alteration of expectation - as in recognizing that most products are seasonal in nature - and a slight increase in time spent handling and cooking food the concept of being a locavore may be able to actually put a dent in the farming-industrial complex created by our federal government's policies. Of course, I do fear the self righteous amongst us will invariably become frustrated by the folks like me who want to make this a legitimate option for all and not merely an elitist "I feel better" activity. More info available here, from a group that doesn't seem to be too militant.

-- Though I am intimately involved in this local food lifestyle, my choice for word/phrase of the year would have been: "An aura of invincibility" - Definition: The term invented by the Clinton campaign/media/Karl Rove to describe the hope/dream that nobody can possibly contest Hillary for the Democratic nomination.