January 31, 2004
RAISING A NATION OF UNPREPARED WEENIES
In an example of utter weenieness run amok, the Nashville school system has stopped posting honor rolls - because a few parents complained that "their children might be ridiculed for not making the list." I'm not even sure where to begin on this. This has to be the most asinine development in an American school since the Kansas Flat Earth Society tried to remove references to evolution from all textbooks. (See my friend Tim's blog today for proof that the Flat Earth folks have since moved to Georgia.)
The jackasses who run the school district are justifying this travesty with the logic that "if there are some children that always make it and others that always don't make it, there is a very subtle message that was sent." Oh really? No, there's a very overt message being sent, you moron: that some kids work their asses off, apply themselves, pay attention in class, take their classwork seriously, and have earned the recognition that comes with that effort. You want a subtle message? How about this one: those students who don't make it must redouble their efforts and apply themselves more effectively - and perhaps the next time they will make it. Since when did the concept of rewarding excellence become somehow "unfair?"
I can't say that I hold the school district the most responsible for this outrage. After all, America is now a litigious society - and one of these oh-so-concerned parents may well sue the district. And it's those parents who are the utter idiots - both for having stolen the right of other kids to receive recognition, and for denying their own children the lesson about what life really is. (Never mind that the parents who have spent time complaining about this could have better expended their efforts helping their kids with their homework, perhaps.)
There are winners and losers, in everything life has to offer. Someone wins, and other people lose. That's not even inherently unfair; not only is it impossible for everyone to win all the time, but the possibility of winning is the very motivation for most of what we do. Success and failure are part of life; we strive for one and learn from the other. And frankly, nothing makes success feel better than having previously failed - when you've been down, you appreciate it more when you're on top.
But being just the lessons of winning and losing with grace, there's another lesson that those moronic Nashville parents are robbing their children of - and this one's really going to hurt. The fear is about the message that some kids always making it while others don't? Guess what, folks - that's life. Deal with it.
Now, I decidedly do not subscribe to the social darwinism that makes up much of the conservative mantra. I am not saying that the have-nots deserve their fate, or that we should just accept or encourage our own version of a caste system. But the reality of the world is that there are those whose talents and abilities will carry them above others - and deservedly so. The world's neither a fair nor an equal place - nor should it be, necessarily. If someone is smarter than me, and can turn their smarts into fortune or prominence, good for them. The only problem comes when people are not given a fair and equal chance to rise to the level of their abilities. But on a level playing field, there are still going to be some who achieve more than others. It's a fact of life - not an unfair one, either - and one that kids on both sides of the honor roll need to understand as early as possible. All anyone is owed is a fair chance and an even playing field.
Unfortunately, kids in Nashville are being raised to believe that everyone gets to win, that excellence should not be rewarded, and that all ability levels are equal. Those poor kids are going to have a hard lesson when they graduate. Watch that last step, kids - it's a doozy.
January 29, 2004
NO WMD, NO SHOES, NO PROBLEM
Hey, kids! Have you started a war that largely benefits the friends who put you in power? Did you convince the world that you were justified by lying and saying that your nemesis possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction? Did you put intense pressure on your own intelligence community to produce information that supported your premise, and did you disregard all evidence that conflicted with what you wanted to hear? And are you now facing embarrassing questions because even your own inspector has quit and told the Congress that no WMD ever existed? Did he actually use the words, "we were almost all wrong?"
No problem! Not with new Blame-B-Gon! Our patented formula allows you to hypocritically blame the very intelligence agencies you pressured into giving you the bad intelligence in the first place! Better yet, with Blame-B-Gon , you can shamefully let the only world leader who you didn't permanently alienate take the fall for you - and never have to face the music at home! And when those pesky Democrats start trying to demand that an outside investigator - one whose first priority isn't making you look good - be appointed to determine just why you fouled things up so badly, you can refuse to allow an outside review - even when your own former chief inspector says that he thinks it's a good idea!
Other blame shifting products cost billions - and they never deliver quite what they promise. But all new Blame-B-Gon is guaranteed to work!
How much would you pay for a product that allows you to blatantly lie to the American people, thumb your nose at the United Nations, and turn most of the world against us in only two years - and still have the gall to ask for re-election? Billions? Trillions? Well, in this special limited time offer, you pay only $200 million! That's right, for just the cost of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign fund, you can have Blame-B-Gon work wonders for your public image. Lie, cheat, steal - and never pay the price!
And if you act now, we'll throw in this Halliburton price-gouging kit - a $61 million dollar value - ABSOLUTELY FREE! That's right - you get to hang George Tenet and Tony Blair out to dry with Blame-B-Gon, AND get to have your friends overcharge the US government, and not be held the slightest bit accountable! But act now - quantities of Blame-B-Gon are limited, and supplies are running out!
To order, send check or Iraq contract request to: Blame-B-Gon, c/o the Bush Ranch, Crawford Texas. Not valid in the northeast or California. Offer expires on November 2, 2004.
January 27, 2004
NEW HAMPSHIRE RESULTS
Okay. I feel better now. Whew!
I was starting to really worry about the deterioration of my political judgement. But - with 95% of the vote now in, the numbers are: Kerry 39%, Dean 26%, Clark 13%, Edwards 12%, Lieberman 9%, Kucinich 1%, Sharpton 0%. Now - take a look at the post below, from 12:24 Tuesday afternoon. Kerry: in first with 39%. Dean in second with 24%. Edwards 14%, Clark 11%, Lieberman 9%, Kucinich 1%, Sharpton less than 1%. I was dead on - to the number - on Kerry. Dean, I was within 2 points - a statistical anomaly. Clark and Edwards, I was virtually right on the numbers, just got the order mixed up... and since the difference between them is only about 700 votes, I'm claiming victory there too. Lieberman? Called him exactly right. Kucinich and Sharpton? Got them too. Man, I'm good. Russert, watch out!
All self-deluding bluster aside, here's some thoughts on the candidates tonight:
Kerry - did a great job, followed the script to a T, acted like the front runner he now is, aimed at the President and not the field... did exactly what a New Hampshire winner should. But, as one of the commentators said, "A New Englander won in New Hampshire. Big whup." Kerry needs a win next Tuesday - either in South Carolina or more tellingly Missouri - to cement himself as the front runner.
Dean - can't consider this a good night by any stretch; he got beat by double digits. He's clearly lost momentum. However, I will give him his props - his speech tonight was the best one I have heard him make... and while it sounded Edwardian, if he's appropriating some of Edwards' themes that hurt the Republicans, well, it will not hurt the party to have the top three candidates singing from the same music.
Clark - seems to have eked out 3rd, but 12-13% of the vote in a state where you had two virtually unchallenged months is just not promising. Clark needs a win or 2nd place in South Carolina next week to have any shot. By the way, why did he come out for his speech at the exact same moment that Kerry did? Considering Kerry just won, don't you think that everyone would be covering his speech? Which means, no one could cover Clark's speech? Yeah, good advice, Lehane.
Edwards - I have to admit, this is the second week in a row that Edwards' election night speech has impressed me. But he's now officially lost his post-Iowa momentum... and since many folks are already conceding him South Carolina, he's going to need at least one more win next week to maintain buzz and stay viable. Look for him to push hardest in Missouri, South Carolina, and maybe New Mexico or Oklahoma.
Lieberman - What planet was he on tonight? Rallying the troops and saying that the people of New Hampshire put him back on the map? Joe, they put you in fifth place! In single digits! Saying that this is proof that you have momentum? Sure - if your end goal is to beat Kucinich and Sharpton! I feel bad for Joe in a way... Gore sold him out for a wild-eyed doctor who's going to lose... and even someone like me who doesn't really like his politics has to admit that he's been a dedicated and admirable public servant. It's got to be hard to give up the big dream. But Joe? You're done. I'm sorry.
One last note - I have been stunned to realize that the most objective, insightful, and articulate analyses I've seen from any of the MSNBC commentators (get the sense that they're my network of choice?) has been from Joe Scarborough - the former Congressman from Florida and a staunch conservative who makes Orrin Hatch look positively Kennedyesque. I have refused to watch Scarborough's show, expecting it to be one more conservative talk show blowhard spewing dogma and pretending it's a spin on the news. But last week in Iowa and again tonight, he's been a thoughtful and insightful analyst who in my opinion deserves credit for covering this primary season extremely well. He's bottled the invective I know must be boiling inside him when he hears these guys rip on Bush... and he's delivered accurate and prescient insight into the trends, events, and meanings behind the results.
Maybe his show is still an excuse for promulgating conservative thought - I don't know. But Joe Scarbrough's been a pretty good analyst so far, and he's earned my viewership for at least one show. Good job, Joe.
NEW HAMPSHIRE PREDICTIONS
Okay, it's 12:30 pm EST, and I guess I need to get my predictions in on the New Hampshire primary. I'm feeling a lot of pressure; I was decidedly inaccurate in my pre-caucus Iowa predictions - I got first and fourth positions right, but beyond that I was a Tiger, not a Red Sox. If I want to seize my destiny as Tim Russert's eventual succesor on Meet the Press, I have to redeem myself in New Hampshire. No pressure or anything. So here they are...
First, the order of finish and the numbers: 1. Kerry 39%; 2. Dean 24%; 3. Edwards 14%; 4. Clark 11%; 5. Lieberman 10%, Kucinich 1%, Sharpton <1%.
Undecideds are largely breaking to Kerry, from everything I have read; as soon as Dean went negative on Kerry, he began raising doubts once again in voters' minds about his temprement and electability. Kerry, meanwhile, seems poised to take the geographic advantage; while Dean too is from a neighboring state, most of NH's population gets its media from Boston - and that's had to help Kerry. As for 3rd, Edwards' positive message may not carry him as far here as it did in Iowa, but with Kerry and Dean swiping at each other over the last weekend, and Clark belittling Kerry for only being a junior officer, I am going to predict that enough voters will buy into the positive thing to give Edwards a third place finish - and put him in a very intriguing spot heading into next week's southern contests.
Clark... while he's my second choice personally, I think he's stumbled. The Kerry win in Iowa took a lot of his wind from him... I think he finishes 4th behind a late-breaking Edwards bump. By the way, if you're ever interested in losing a campaign that seems yours to win, call Chris Lehane. Gore in 2000, atop the best economy in a generation and with the advantage of incumbency... hired Lehane, and he lost. Kerry, the prohibitive front runner in spring 2003... hired Lehane, and virtually became an afterthought by the fall, rebounding only after firing Lehane... Clark was the darling of the media when he first jumped in, was a popular choice for anti-Dean Democrats to rally around, and commanded respect from the entire field for the potential explosiveness of his numbers... hired Lehane, and is about to limp to a 4th place finish in New Hampshire, even after spending two straight months campaigning there. Lesson learned: Chris Lehane is probably the least succesful and least credible political strategist in modern memory. You'd have to go back to whoever told Dukakis to sit in that tank to find counsel this inadvisable.
Lieberman... he does have geography in his favor, and there is the fact that conservative Democrats don't really have anywhere else to go. But let's face it: watching the water in the tray freeze into ice cubes is more exciting than Joe Lieberman on the stump. Plus, there's that whole really being a Republican thing. The last numbers I saw said that only 5% of those undecided but leaning to one candidate were leaning to Lieberman... I don't think that's going to be enough of a late break toward him to lift him out of 5th.
We'll see in about 9 hours just how accurate I can be this time. Until then, mi amigos... (now THAT's a question for a new poll: what should I call the denizens of this little corner of the Web? Parrotheads is taken... so what are we? Grumps? Oscars? I'm open to suggestion.)
January 26, 2004
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT WHOLE BALANCED BUDGET THING?
Remember when there was a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, and the Republicans made such a huge deal out of the Balanced Budget Amendment? They believed in fiscal responsibility so much back then, that they made it the very first law they promised to bring forward in their Contract on America (oops, I mean, Contract WITH America, silly me.) That's not me making it up or being partisan; they still have that Contract posted on the House Web site. See for yourself.
Now, less than a decade later, and they're in charge. And suddenly, balanced budgets don't mean so much to them. In fact, under their control, we've run up the greatest budget deficit in American history - $477 billion. Worse yet, thanks to Dumya's tax cuts for the rich, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that by 2014, we could owe as much as $3.5 trillion. Now, before the Republicans start whining about biased numbers, remember that a) the CBO is non-partisan; and b) even if it were partisan, the Republicans control the Congress right now - it's their own body reporting the numbers!
Guess it's a good thing for the Republicans that they haven't delivered on their 1994 promises despite being in charge for 9 years now, huh?
SHOUT OUT TO A NEW FRIEND
Just wanted to give a shout out to Marine's Girl at Across the River. Stop by and pay her a visit - and thank her for the sacrifices she, her Marine, and all our armed forces and their families have made in order to serve.
PATRIOT ACT RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The best part of the State of the Union was when the Democrats applauded when Bush mentioned that parts of the Patriot Act were going to expire next year - which visibly preturbed GeeDub. Well, the Patriot Act might disappear a little faster than that. You see, Ass-croft and Bush seem to have forgotten about a pesky little thing called the Constitution. Thankfully, this federal judge remembered it.
HOW THE GERMANS SEE US NOW, THANKS TO DUMYA
You'd think that a president who sees the world in terms of "us or them" would be more intent on making sure there's more of "us" in the world - shoring up our alliances and making sure that we had friends who wanted to stick with us through thick and thin. However, this is GeeDub we're talking about, so the MO is rather that we try to piss away our credibility and alienate everyone who might otherwise be inclined to support us.
Thought I'd share the thoughts of Christian Hingst, who works as a speechwriter for Germany’s health minister, as quoted by Michael Moran on MSNBC. "Many of us don't accept the American way of doing this, that you ask the world's opinion and when you get an answer you don't like, you say 'to hell with the world.' I think we trust America less now."
Thanks, Dumya.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY NON-POLITICAL
"The Manchurian Candidate" was on TV the other night - one of the ten best movies ever made. Outstanding film. Sinatra was never better, Laurence Harvey gives a great performance, and Angela Lansbury is a great villian. Then I read that they're making a remake out later this year, starring Denzel Washington. You know... I like Denzel, but man - can't they leave anything alone? Is there no creativity left in Hollywood? I'm writing Fortune 500 boring business speeches for a living, but the hacks out there who get paid twice what I do to write their own stuff can't even come up with their own material? They're an insult to writers.
You never want to see anyone get hurt... but as a Sox fan, I have to think that a little Instant Karma struck today. Aaron Freaking Boone, the guy who took his place along Bucky Dent in Boston sports lore, today ripped up his knee while playing basketball - in violation of his contract. He's out for 2004 - which leaves the Yankees without a starting third baseman. Right now, the Opening Day 3B for New York is Drew Henson. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched about 10 minutes of a new show today, and it is the singularly least funny thing ever aired on television. "The Jon Henson Project" is so freaking stupid, even the footage of Lawrence Taylor snapping Joe Theismann's leg like a twig gets bigger laughs.
We have more snow and cold forecast for tomorrow and Wednesday... which makes it official: winter sucks. I miss Florida more with each storm.
Tomorrow: before 5:00 EST, I'll post my New Hampshire predictions, and we'll see if I can get a little closer to accurate than I was in Iowa.
Posted by Christopher at 11:36 PM | Comments (0)January 25, 2004
ISN'T IT IRONIC? DON'TCHA THINK?
What was the line in that god-awful Alanis Morrisette song? You know the one - the one where she throughly - if unintentionally - demonstrates the true meaning of "irony" by writing a hit song about irony, then peppering it with examples that are not ironic at all, but are merely a collection of bummers? She had that one line about the guy who "won the lottery... and died the next day." Well, in Indiana this week, Alanis was proven a seer. A man named Carl D. Atwood won $57,000 - and a chance to come back three weeks later for a crack at $1M - in a televised lottery game. Just a couple hours later, he was hit by a car.
Now, if a black fly lands in my chardonnay, or if I get a free ride when I've already paid, I'm getting seriously creeped out. Who would've thought? It figures.
BETTER LIVING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
Let it never be said that I do not recognize the benefits of technology and its potential to improve lives - though I do find it ironic (god, what is this, Alanis Morrisette Theme Day?) that the usually repressed Brits thought of this one first. Purring kitties, indeed.
I think my next move is to buy stock in any company that manufactures cell phone batteries and sells them in Britain.
OOPS! OUR BAD!
First, the weapons inspector the US itself appointed, David Kay, told the world that there were no WMD in Iraq - and he ought to know, since he's spent an awful lot of time there in the last year, trying to find them. Then Secretary of State Powell admitted publicly that Saddam Hussein may not have had WMD after all. Oops, world! Our bad! How freakin' embarrassing.
Meanwhile, the head of the Texas oil gang, Dick Cheney, continues to assert that the WMDs are really there. In an interview with National Public Radio, Cheney said,"It's going to take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that. It doesn't take a large storage space to store deadly toxins, or even just the capacity to produce it." Hmm.... so Dick Cheney hasn't been on the ground in Iraq, and lots of trained experts have. The trained experts - both international and American - all say there's nothing there... but Dick Cheney is convinced there is. The question is, then: What does Dick Cheney know that a whole bunch of trained experts who've been looking for eight months don't know?
Say... there's lots of Halliburton people, and other folks from the business world with connections to Cheney, on the ground in Iraq. You don't suppose they might arrange for the UN to "find" something, do you? Naaaah - Cheney, Bush, and the neocons would never stoop to planting evidence or falsifying the truth in order to support the version of reality that they want, would they? They're not that unethical - they would never do anything like that!
Uh huh. And if you believe that... I've got some yellowcake uranium I want to sell you. Cheap.
SPEAKING OF UNETHICAL BASTARDS, PART II
It turns out that staffers for Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have been hacking the computer files of Democratic senators, accessing internal memos and exchanges on the Democrats' strategy for opposing Republican nominees to the federal courts. Those memos were then leaked to conservative media outlets.
And when they were caught, those Republican staffers - one working for Orrin Hatch, another for Senate Majority Leader Bill First - actually had the gall to blame the victim. Manuel Miranda, the Frist staffer, told the Boston Globe, "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document,"he said. "These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."
Oh, man. Where to freakin' begin? No property right to a government document? Then why was Daniel Ellsberg prosecuted for the Pentagon Papers? The Democrats' staff is negligent? In what way? Because their computer security was weak enough that you were able to hack in? WHAT WERE YOU DOING HACKING IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT'S ILLEGAL! Isn't that argument - that it's really the victim's fault for not having proper defenses - pretty much like a burglar saying that the house owner deserved it because he didn't lock his door? Or a rapist saying that the woman had it coming because she wasn't carrying Mace?
Isn't this how Watergate got started? Republican operatives breaking into Democrats' files? And these are the people who want us to trust them with the sweeping powers to spy on us granted them by the Patriot Act? And by the way, why is this guy only being suspended from his job? Why is he not being prosecuted by the Ashcroft Justice Department for breaking into a federal government computer system? Only in George Bush's America, kids.
January 24, 2004
RANDOM 80s IMAGE FLASHBACK REFERENCE #1
Remember the video for "Safety Dance?" What the hell was that all about? Medieval garb and midgets dancing around a maypole? Huh?
ANOTHER COUNTRY HEARD FROM
I just heard from an old buddy whom I haven't talked to in a few months... Steve Johnson is one of my closest and oldest friends; I met him back in 1992, when he was press secretary for the Congressman I was working to re-elect. Steve's got a real sharp political mind, is a damn good communications professional, and is one of the people with whom I have war stories from the old days in the political trenches. I owe him a lot - back in the day, when I was just a 24 year old pup who wanted to make his whole career in political campaigning, Steve took a liking to me and told me that I might be pretty good at this communications thing. He then spent the next couple of years, even after we'd lost the election, teaching me some of what he knew about how to be a communicator and not just a campaigner. So to all of you who work with me, you pretty much have Steve to either thank or blame for me doing what I do.
Steve's other contribution is to have been the one who introduced me to cigars and scotch. Some of the best memories I have of DC are of sitting with Steve and my friend Jay at the National Press Club, the Capitol Grille on Pennsylvania Avenue, or at Maggiano's, practicing our punditry, trying to objectively assess the political landscape, smoking cigars, drinking 12 year old scotch and thinking we were a whole lot smarter than we were. We lost touch a little when he returned home to Minnesota, but his return salvo was classic: responding to a mass e-mail I'd sent to friends, Steve fired back by channeling Howard Dean, deivering a fantastic, timely, and apropos shot at me about the infamous Jeopardy loss. It was classic Steve. Glad to hear from you again, buddy.
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS... DUCT TAPE!
This is almost like out of some Mel Brooks farce or something... maybe Dr. Strangelove. There's only one facility in the US for dismantling nuclear weapons. Makes you kind of nervous that there's no "I'll take my business elsewhere" option in case you're not happy with them. Especially in light of the revelation that when they're in mid-dismantle and something breaks, workers there simply use tape to put the pieces of explosive back together again. That procedure risked an explosion - with the old plutonium warheads still attached... and only about, oh, 250,000 people live within 50 miles of this plant near Amarillo, Texas.
It'd be too easy to rip on the lack of Texan intelligence - if the president's not proof enough for you, how 'bout those geniuses who decided to duct tape the nuclear warhead? And think of the changes that country singers would have to make it their repitoire! George Strait, for example, would have to sing, "Amarillo by morning... Amarillo won't be there."
MESSING WITH A GOOD THING
I'm kind of ticked at Evanescence. Why? Why would I waste my energy being mad at a band? Well, for starters let's remember that I waste my energy getting mad at lots of people and things. That's why "curmudgeon" fits me so well. But what this particular little fit boils down to is the way the band (or its label) has screwed with a good thing in the radio version of their new single, "My Immortal."
On their album, the song is a haunting piano ballad, from beginning to end. The tone fits the lyrics, which are all about the haunted, painful feelings one gets when going through a breakup where the other person is the one who wanted out. It very nearly made me cry the first time I listened to it, and I wasn't even going through a breakup. I identified it then as a possible sleeper single - not traditional teen radio fare, but like Jewel's "Foolish Game" a few years ago, even slow and sad songs can sometimes still capture popular imagination.
So a year later, it's been released as a single. And lo and behold... the piano melody lasts only till the bridge, at which point heavy guitars, drums, and a speeded up tempo have been added, apparently to make the song more palatable for the ClearChannel monolith and the teenage sheep who follow it. They've succeeded in taking a really beautiful song that stood out, and turning it into just another power ballad. It's too bad... this could have been a unique single in today's market, instead of the cookie-cutter version that it is now.
YOU KNEW IT WAS COMING
You knew it was only a matter of time before Kobe's slimeball lawyers resorted to this. Apparently, not only is Kobe innocent, but he is a victim of a larger conspiracy by white women.
Using the race card (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, the recent death of Nathaniel Jones while in the custody of the Cincinnati police, OJ Simpson, etc.), is often a disgustingly cheap copout by attorneys. What, your legal skills are so poor, and your case so weak, that you can't just face the judge and jury with the evidence and win? If Kobe's so blatantly innocent, shouldn't the evidence bear that out in open court? Worse yet, this kind of cheap pandering desensitizes many white people to the legitimate occurances of racism and police targeting that still do happen in this country. By engaging the race play as some sort of default "get out of jail free" card, attorneys like Cochran and now this Pamela Mackey play right into the hands of the outright racists or those who are inclined to racism. It becomes easier for them to make the cynical joke that no black man is ever guilty of anything.
Look, if Kobe's innocent, then the evidence should show that - and with a case that's this high profile, you know that the evidence is going to be highly scrutinized. If Kobe didn't rape that girl, people are going to know it by the review of the evidence. But if he is innocent, then his attorneys are doing him, themselves, and society a disservice by adopting such a cowardly and cynical strategy. And if he's guilty, then this Cry Wolf line of defense is even more reprehensible.
THE STORY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The headlines this morning are about how the post-Iowa bounce may have run it's course, and the race between Kerry and Dean is tightening again. I agree that this is worthy of attention, but I think the far more interesting story right now is the loss of momentum suffered by Wesley Clark.
My friends who've been talking with me all week can vouch for this: even before Iowa, I was saying that the worst-case scenario for Clark was for Kerry to win strong there. Clark's hopes in New Hampshire seemed to revolve around being the last anti-Dean candidate standing, and if Kerry were somehow to rise from the dead in Iowa, Clark would face stiff competition for the same voters - and the other guy would have the momentum. So I'll take credit for identifying the dynamic before it happened.
But what is just stunning me is the wholeness, the completeness of the shift to Kerry. I figured that the anti-Dean vote might break 50-50 between Kerry and Clark, maybe even 2-1 to Kerry due to the post-Iowa publicity. But Clark has remained stagnant in just about every poll, now a distant third and even in outside danger of losing the 3 slot to a gaining Edwards. Kerry has seemingly been the sole beneficiary of Dean's self-immolation. He's not splitting the anti-Dean vote with Clark - he just went out and took them all. That doesn't bode well for Clark, since he skipped Iowa to focus solely on New Hampshire.
It's too bad. I like Wes Clark, and I love the fact that his presence on the ticket would innoculate us against Republican insinuations that Democrats are somehow less patriotic or weaker on defense. For all his missteps and even as he's had to learn on the fly how to be a politician, I think Clark brought something positive to the Democratic table. It's too early to write his campaign epitaph, of course, but if he doesn't do something in the next couple of days to re-energize his campaign, he's in serious trouble.
Mark it down: Clark is mortally wounded if he doesn't finish top 2 in New Hampshire. A 3rd place finish is less immediately devastating than if Edwards passes him and Clark finishes fourth, but even third place is going to be enough to inflict a fatal wound upon his campaign. He'll do all right in the southern contests coming up, but if Edwards passes him in New Hampshire, then it will be Edwards who becomes the south's regional son of choice. If Clark finishes fourth in New Hampshire, I say he'll be out of the race by Valentine's Day. If he finishes third, he may get enough momentum to limp through the south and hang in a while longer. But if he can sneak up and re-take second, then the dynamic shifts yet again as the campaign heads south... 2nd place for Clark in New Hampshire makes him a formidable and still very viable candidate for the nomination. Stay tuned.
Posted by Christopher at 10:54 AM | Comments (0)January 23, 2004
REPUBLICAN JUSTICE
Let's say you have a repeat offender, someone who has had multiple driving violations - who had even boasted publicly of his bad driving record... now, let's say that this person drives recklessly yet again, speeds, runs a stop sign... and kills someboday. If you're the Republicans, this seems custom made to be one of your famous "example" cases about how we need to get tougher on crime. The hallmarks are all there... repeat offender, someone who boasts of his run-ins with the law, an innocent dead victim...
Except, in this case, the perpetrator is a hard core conservative Republican politician, South Dakota's Bill Janklow... so you throw 100 days at him and hope it all gets buried on page 16 below the fold. Let's see - Martha Stewart, the Democratic contributor, fudges about when she sells some stock, and the Republican government goes after her lock, stock and barrel... Clinton tries to hide an affair, and they throw the country into Constitutional crisis... a prominent Republican kills a man, and he gets 100 days.
Yeah, that's fair.
Or how about this? You've got a judge who is going to hear a very important upcoming case - one whose outcome is critical to the defendant. A lower court has already ruled against the defendant, but the case has been appealed to this court. Now, let's say that this judge accepts an invitation from the defendant to go to dinner at his home. Six weeks later, the defendent invites the judge to go on vacation with him - and the judge immediately says yes, and the defendant hosts the judge who will hear his case, and the two of them go hunting.
If you're a Republican, how do you respond? This is a clear case of the judicial system run amok, right? A case where the judge is acting so inappropriately, and his impartiality has been called so deeply into question, that he could not possibly stay involved in the case... it must be those lily livered Democrats and their weak views on justice that allow this judge to still preside... right?
Except, in this case, the judge is Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court - the man whose decision placed George Bush and Dick Cheney in power. Coincidentally, the defendant in this case is Vice President Cheney himself, currently under court order to reveal the members of his energy task force - which he's refused to do. (What on earth could he have to hide? Why is Dick Cheney so afraid to let you know who he's taking energy advice from?) So instead, you defend the Vice President's right to host whomever he wants at dinner, and say that anyone who questions Scalia's impartiality is casting aspersions on the integrity of the Court.
Yeah, that's fair.
Does anyone else besides me get the distinct impression that "fair" plays no part whatsoever in Republican justice? That what it's really all about it just the acquisition and maintenance of power by conservatives and those loyal to the cause? That there are two standards in Republican justice - one for fellow Republicans, and one for everybody else? Or that the infractions that provoke Republican outrage when they have political gain to reap from them are the ones that Republicans dismiss as unimportant when they commit them?
Yeah. That's fair.
GEORGE W. BUSH BY THE NUMBERS
With full acknowledgement to Independent Digital (UK) Ltd, who originated this list, and to Common Dreams, which posted it... Here's some of George W. Bush by the numbers, for those of you still deciding for whom you will cast your vote in November.
There have been 366 American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 (when Bush declared the war over) and January 2004 (a total of 505 American servicemen have died since the beginning of the war). By comparison, there were 0 American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945.
Speaking of zero, that's precisely the number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed. Zero is also the number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq. Perhaps he's been too busy. After all, 100 is the number of fund-raisers attended by George Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003.
As you can see by the countdown clock below the tagboard, $100 billion is the estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of January 2004.
When George Bush was installed as President in January 2001, the US budget surplus was $127 billion. In fiscal year 2003, the US budget deficit was $374 billion -- the biggest deficit in United States history, and a reversal of more than half a trillion dollars in only three years. The US national debt increases by $1.58 billion each day; for some perspective as to what that means to you, here's another number: $23,920, which is the amount of each US citizen's share of the national debt as of January 19, 2004.
For some perspective on where the priorities lie for this administration, $113 million total was raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history; $130 million is the amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far, and $200 million is the amount that the Bush-Cheney campaign expects to raise in 2004.
2.4 million is the number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration; this administration is on its way to becoming the first since 1929 (Herbert Hoover) to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office. 9 million US workers were unemployed in September 2003. 43.6 million Americans had no health insurance in 2002; that's more than 15% of the population. But don't you worry about our leaders... they're just fine. The average net wealth of Bush's original 16 person Cabinet was $10.9 million.
88% of American citizens will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of the 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes; by comparison, $42,000 is the amount of the average savings that members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. By the way, $42,228 was the median household income in the US in 2001... in case you're wondering. $116,000 is the amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year from the Bush tax cuts. Meanwhile, +6% is the percentage increase since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty.
Looking at the numbers... not rhetoric, and not impassioned politicizing... just the pure, unspinnable numbers... the Bush Admininstration is the single greatest failure in American history. Furthermore, their obsession with retaining the power that they assumed under shady circumstances three years ago - even as they make millions of Americans poorer while enriching themselves - is a disgrace. 100 fund-raisers in 2003, but not one funeral... and this is the party that claims to support our troops?
In the words of the bumper sticker that's soon to be on my car: "If you're not completely appalled, you haven't been paying attention."
January 22, 2004
MARS ROVER NOW OVER
I suppose I could gloat over this - that the Spirit rover seems to have stopped transmitting. I've never been a believer in the space program much anyway (quick: anyone, name me an actual benefit, beyond Velcro and Tang, that came from the moon program?!)... and since Bush wants to throw billions more at the Red Planet - despite already having run up a record deficit! - it would be easy for me to seize on this as an opportunity to lambaste two of my favorite targets.
But my overriding reaction (beyond the giddy temptation to gloat) is just that this is a bummer. Hell, we already spent the money... might as well get something for our investment beyond static and white noise. I could be angry at the yahoos at NASA who wasted billions of dollars.... I could belittle the fact that we can't even get a golf cart to work there, and yet GeeDubya wants to send people there.
Okay, I guess I'm gloating after all. Never mind.
CHILD DIES IN EXORCISM GONE WRONG
Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for this conversation. "Hey, honey... I think little Jane's been possessed by the devil!!" "Oh no, dear! That's horrible! What should we do?!" "I know!! Let's strip her naked, break her back, strangle her, and stab her!" "Oh, honey, what a great idea! That's sure to remove the life form from her!"
Friggin' idiots. It says that a church was putting them up in that motel and helping the family live... I know I can't bash religion over this or blame the church for the actual though process, because insane people just are in a different category. However, I do have to wonder what those church folk were thinking. This couple had several small children with them... and anyone crazy enough to think that brutally murdering a child is a valid form of exorcism, well, they were probably displaying other signs of mental illness. Yet no one said anything? No one questioned whether those kids were safe? No one thought to alert authorities? If it were me prosecuting, I'd be looking at the folks who funded the couple almost as closely as the couple themselves.
THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED ...
Buried deep in the stories about Kodak slashing its work force was a truly interesting stat: that digital cameras have begun outselling film cameras for the first time.
I don't know how I feel about that. I don't own a digital camera yet, though I want one. I've seen my friends' digital cameras, and I certainly see the benefits and cool things that you can't do with film cameras. But there's something that I think will be lost when film cameras go the way of the 8 track tape, the icebox, the vinyl record, the Atari 2600, and other once-ubiquitous technology that history has since cast aside. (Don't look now, but VHS tapes are also going the way of the dodo.)
There's something about opening up an old photo album or a shoebox full of photos that is sort of comforting... the yellowing of the pages, and the fading and brittling of the photographs, just seem to help convey the passage of time. Who hasn't held an old photo of their parents as a 7 year old, or their grandmother as a 19 year old bathing beauty being wooed by their strapping soon-to-be 21 year old grandfather at the shore... and somehow felt that physical connection to the people in the picture as they hold it in their hands? The physical element of photography could be lost as film cameras slowly fade into history.
I'm not saying digital photography is bad; while I am a notorious Luddite, I actually like the idea of digital cameras. I just think that as they advance and film cameras are used less and less, we'll lose an undervalued sensory experience of photography: touch.
SEX DOESN'T SELL ANYMORE?
A recent article in Billboard, carried by MSNBC, suggests that in the post-9/11 world, music buyers are just not as interested anymore in artists who substitute T&A for talent. The author posits that "... the public just doesn't seem to be in the mood for it, and the recent mediocre album sales by (Britney) Spears, Pink and similar artists may reflect a classic case of mismarketing." The article continues on to assert that female artists with more introspective lyrics and more subtle uses of their libidos are now finding greater market acceptance.
An open letter to the author of this article: Dear Sir... SHUT UP! What are you trying to do to us? Britney hasn't taken it all off yet - though we can all sense that it's coming very soon... unless you go and screw it up for us with tripe like this! What's going to happen if Britney starts thinking that to sell albums, she needs better writing and toned down presentation? She's going to put her clothes back on, that's what's going to happen!! Do any of us really want that to happen?? I didn't think so! So shut your damn mouth - at least until the Britney issue of Playboy is on the shelves! Sincerely, Christopher.
P.S. If this trend applies to Ruben Studdard, however, I'm all for it. He should definitely keep his clothes on.
January 21, 2004
MARKETING IDIOCY
Further proof that marketing people are the stupidest people in the world.
THE PATRIOTS DEFENSE: AMONG THE BEST EVER?
I was asked in a comment Monday whether I thought the New England defense ranked with the 2002 Bucs or 2000 Ravens. Well... I am a fan of Boston sports, which means that by nature I dread any comment about my team being great or the favorite... it's just tempting fate, and fate doesn't like us much to begin with. So I was prepared to just avoid the question out of sheer fear of karma.
But I was intrigued, and re-looked at the statistics. The Pats' D gave up only 238 points in the regular season - only 68 points their 8 home games! -- and gave up 4,666 yards. The 2002 Bucs gave up 196 points, 4,339 yards, and won a championship; the 2000 Ravens gave up 165 points and 4,165 yards (less than 1,000 of them on the ground... how just incredibly sick is that?); the 85 Bears gave up 198 points -- including NONE in the playoffs -- and 4,618 yards. So, statistically, they rank behind each of these great defenses, and the 2003 Patriots have yet to win a championship... so for now, I would say that they don't yet rank among the best of all time.
However - if they win a title, they get closer. And to me, the truest test may be to see how they do next year. We all know what happened to Tampa Bay last year; the 2001 Ravens fared a little better, still ranking #4 in the NFL in defense and winning the first round of the playoffs before bowing out... but the 86 Bears went 14-2 - that's only losing 3 games in 2 years! - ranked #1 again in defense, and only gave up 4.633 yards that year. I think consistency is required to prove that great years aren't just the result of good defense and some lucky breaks. If the Pats win it all and then play great D next year, they'll move up past the Bucs and Ravens. For now, I still have to say that the 85-86 Bears were the greatest defense ever.
THE RECORDING INDUSTRY SHOWS ITS GREED AGAIN
So they're suing 532 more people... wonder how many grandmothers and 10 year olds will be in this bunch? As I have said before, time and time again, in memo after memo to the recording industry: Stand up to ClearChannel, fight the genericization of radio that results in pre-porgrammed playlists and cookie cutter, paint-by-numbers formats in every market... that's your real enemy. The fact is, if people heard more that was interesting and fresh on the radio, they might not be so desperate to look for it and swap it online. The ClearChannel monolith is killing music in this country, and until you realize that and do something about it, people will keep rejecting radio and looking for something better on the Net - and getting it by whatever means necessary.
DEAN HAUNTED BY POST-IOWA RANT
For the record, I blogged that this would be a problem not two minutes after he'd given it. But as Dean continues to free-fall in New Hampshire, at least two pundits (as reported on MSNBC.com) have cited that bizarre rant and the blood-curdling war cry that ended it as a factor in his decline.
Pollster Dick Bennett of the American Research Group of Manchester said the latest tracking polls in New Hampshire indicated that voters were taken aback by Dean's speech. "That thing has legs," he said. Andrew Smith, a political scientist and pollster at the University of New Hampshire, said: "I think it crystallized a lot of the concerns voters in Iowa had, as well as voters in New Hampshire had, about Dean's potential temperament as a president. My sense is that this will go down with Edmund Muskie supposedly crying in front of the [Manchester] Union Leader [in 1972] and Bob Dole telling George Bush to 'stop lying about my record' [in 1988]."
Lesson learned: when running for President, keep the primal screams to a minimum.
(And for the record, Mike, I wasn't defending Dean the other day... just saying I knew what he was trying to do. He exercised not only bad judgement, but a frightening lack of emotional control... and I am closer and closer to thinking he may be done. Even so, I still maintain that he was trying only to energize and rally his dis-spirited troops on Monday.)
January 20, 2004
STATE OF THE UNION: PART TWO
One more thing... if you're not smart enough to pronounce the world "NUCLEAR", you're not smart enough to be president. (It's not "nook-yuh-lear," you moron!)
MORE ON IOWA
Is it just me? Did anyone else make the connection in their minds between Howard Dean's bizarre speech last night, and the infamous "Dance Monkey Boy" video of Microsoft honcho Steve Ballmer?
I feel sorry for Dean in a way. I know what he was trying to do. He'd just lost a race he was supposed to win, and there were a lot of crushed hopes and heavy hearts in that room. I've been there; I know how drained and let down and miserable you feel when you pour your whole soul into an election and lose anyway. The last time I cried in public was the night my boss lost in 1992 and he was giving his concession speech. You can't help it - you have given everything for this night, and it's gone horribly wrong... and you're watching what is likely the end of the career of someone you cared enough to bleed for. So I know that Dean was probably just trying to raise the spirits and pump up the hopes of some very crushed people in front of him. I give him credit for that. But jeez, man! You're running for President of the United States! You have got to show some more decorum and professionalism up there. I think Dean did himself no favors last night, no matter how noble his intentions.
Meanwhile, the polls are now coming in from New Hampshire; one taken Monday just before Iowa and released today by WHDH-TV in Boston (which is the main TV market for NH) has Dean leading still, with 23%... but Kerry is now within striking distance in second place with 20%, and with Clark also in range in 3rd with 15%. Edwards is polling 4th, with 6%. A separate poll has Dean at 28%, Kerry at 20%, Clark at 19%, and Edwards at 8%. The question now is whether Kerry's Iowa bounce can spill over into New Hampshire.
In one sense he has the benefit of geography going for him now, but he also faces an uphill climb, in that the anti-Dean forces in New Hampshire had been coalescing around Wesley Clark, who's spent 2 straight uniterrupted months building his New Hampshire presence. Even if Dean is wounded, it is now a very real possibility that Kerry and Clark will split the anti-Dean, "we need a veteran who can counter Bush's attempts to make us look unpatriotic" vote... allowing Dean to sneak and eke by with a win. Or, if Kerry's momentum does carry over, the once promising Clark campaign could be out of steam before it even begins.
The wild card is Edwards. He has admittedly little organization in New Hampshire, and is polling in the single digits... but ten days ago, that was the case in Iowa too. There are a number of southern primaries coming up, and Edwards will likely show well in them - especially if he appears a strong, viable candidate heading in. Right now, you'd have to say that the top three in New Hampshire will be Dean, Kerry, and Clark, in some order. But if Edwards manages a second stunner and can displace one of those three, whether to win, place or show... it's a whole new ballgame. Surprising support in two states where he had no organization is a huge story, and he'll be the media darling coming out of New Hampshire - and heading into southern states where he holds an advantage. That might not win it for him, but it would make John Edwards a viable contender well into the spring. Keep watching.
BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION TONIGHT: LIES, DAMN LIES, AND STATISTICS
I wasn't even going to watch tonight; I usually can't stomach seeing the _resident or hearing his deceptions and lies. But then I saw Jo Fish link to a great game: the State of the Union Challenge! While I have to admit that I think it would be more fun to drink along with the speech (look at the rules... you'd be hammered and on the way to the hospital if you drank along!), I have to be at the dentist's in the morning - so I will go along with the popular alternative. I'll pledge $1 to my charity of choice -- Best Friends animal shelter -- for every time GeeDubya uses one of the catch phrases listed - with a $10 bonus thrown in if he combines "tax relief" with "middle class" for the biggest lie yet.
Okay... I promise, no more political blogs until the weekend... all politics and no play makes mine a dull blog. (Not that political blogs are dull by nature, I just can only be insightful for so long before becoming more annoying than intelligent.)
BASEBALL: THE DAMAGE DONE BY A GREEDY AGENT
Great column here by NBC Sports' Tony DeMarco on the damage being done by greedy -- and notorious hardball playing -- Uber-Agent Scott Boras to his clients' well being. Look, I'm all for players making their fair share of the pie they help create with their on-field play. But Boras seems to be the only agent left in the game who doesn't understand that salaries can't escalate forever, that most teams can't afford to pay the salaries he demands, and even those that can afford it will often balk at his chafing, uncompromising attitude. The list of players unwittingly being screwed by Boras includes three future Hall of Famers: Ivan Rodriguez, Greg Maddux, and Alex Rodriguez. Hopefully, one of these high visibility players will come to his senses and publicly fire Boras -- bringing us all a little closer, perhaps, to the end of the over-greedy era in baseball.
January 19, 2004
IOWA RESULTS
Wow. Okay, so I called Kerry in first, and Gephardt last - but could I have been more wrong about everything else?
I am at a loss to explain what happened to Gephardt. I expected him to finish 4th, but with half the votes that the polls said he was going to get? Man - labor endorsements don't mean what they used to. This has got to be a surprise to the Teamsters - and a shock - that they can't turn out voters anymore. Gephardt is out... and I'll bet Kucinich is gone after New Hampshire. And then there were six...
Dean... I guess the temptation will be for people to write him off now, which I was about to say is a little premature. But - he's got to lay off the caffiene before the speeches; he sounded like a junior high school teacher leading a pep rally tonight. He needs more decorum on the stump if he wants to appeal to people. I really, honestly think that he could survive 3rd place in Iowa - but tonight's speech is going to come back to haunt him. Guaranteed.
Kerry - I've been a Kerry guy from Day One, even tried to go to work for him. I was shocked that he managed to roar back to the level he has... but it gives me hope that he can yet resurrect what had until two weeks ago been a lackluster campaign. Congratulations to the Kerry campaign - I thought they could win, but not this big.
Edwards - I have to admit, while I had given Edwards some consideration as to his chances in this race, I'd never really paid attention to his style or what he had to say, because I was behind Kerry from early on. (All that grad school in Boston seems to have predisposed me to all things Massachusetts.) But I watched Edwards' speech tonight, and I must say I found it highly inspiring. He talked like I haven't heard a candidate talk in a long time - and as dorkyt as it sounds, I was reminded of the idealistic reasons I'd gone into politics in the first place way back in the day. I'm not going to just shift allegiances because Edwards showed well in Iowa, but I'll be watching him more closely now. And - like Wesley Clark - if he were to win instead of Kerry, I could live with it.
A very, very interesting night. It's going to be an even more interesting week.
January 12, 2004
THE LAS VEGAS WORK TRIP FROM HELL
So I'm in Las Vegas right now, a city I have never been a fan of - despite the beauty of the mountains around it, the idea of an entire city deciding that it wants to be Times Square is more than a little revolting. Worse still, I'm here for work, which is never a good thing. So far, it's been the trip from hell that I knew it would be. Let me count the ways...
1) I was in my office Saturday night until 2:00 am - needed to be in the office because I needed to print the speech my boss is giving, and since he was already in Vegas and was three hours ahead, when he wanted to work on it at 10 pm his time, it was 1 am my time. Couldn't leave till I printed the speeech, and couldn't print until he was finished editing. This would have been fine except for that I needed to be up at 6:00 am to get ready & drive to JFK.
2) The plane was jammed. I got an aisle seat, which was good. The man sitting in the middle seat between me and the window was a large man. This was not good. See, I myself am larger than I should be, and if you put two 250 pound men next to each other in seats designed for 160 pound men, and then make them fly 5 hours straight together, they are both going to be uncomfortable.
3) If this guy was merely big boned, I would have had less problem. But you know how, since the airlines are not serving food anymore, some people bring their own? This guy brought a damn buffet. Worse yet, he struck my rawest nerve... he was a grown man who did not know how to close his mouth while eating. The whole flight, I was serenaded with a chorus of lip smacks, sucked teeth, inhaling while scarfing something down, and my pet peeve, chewing with his damn mouth open. I have never understood how someone gets to even be 12 without learning how to eat properly. And of course, I had to sit next to the pork chop for five hours, with his eating in my ear. I swear I may have crumbs in my hair from this moron.
4) We get off the plane, and there's this woman holding up a sign and looking for someone; clearly she is a driver. It's also clear that driving is her second occupation; her first is in the adult entertainment industry, because she had implants the size of planets in her chest. I am not exaggerating - they made Dolly Parton's breasts look like Kate Moss. I swear, I have no idea how she walked or even stood; the laws of gravity and distribution of weight should dictate that she fall flat on her face without ever making it wholly upright. I'm not talking naturally big - I am talking GG's, at least. The elephant man's bride didn't look like this. And yet somehow, she did that to herself and feels attractive; and clearly, somewhere there are men who think so too, since she still has 'em. She must make a living somewhere. Then again, she was driving a limo too...
5) The lunch they had set up was one of those ridiculous deals where they force you to just sit at the first open spot at the next open table - whether you know anyone there or not. The intent, I suppose, is to encourage mingling - but all it does is guarantee that total strangers end up staring at one another in awkward silence as they eat.
6) For the "main event," the big sales rally, the company hired Michael Buffer to come in and MC. You know, that guy has an amazing gig. People pay him ridiculous amounts of money to show up someplace for 30 minutes and yell, "LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLE!" I mean, he's in his late 50s - what else was he going to be doing on a Sunday afternoon? Extreme mountain biking? No, this guy gets paid more in one night than I am in a month to get out of the boring house, put on a tux, stride to the ring, utter 30 seconds worth of catch phrases ("so now... for the thousands in attendance... and the MILLIONS watching at home..."), collect his check and go home. Must be rough, huh?
7) Tonight, after my last meeting adjourned at 11, I had to take a brain break, so I walked around the MGM Grand for 20 minutes before returning to my room. The other cruel trick they play on you is randomly assigning you roommates to share rooms and drop the hotel costs to the corporation. As always when they do this... I am stuck with a snorer. I am not joking, there are tidal waves threatening the Australian coast because of this guy. I never thought I'd meet anyone who made my friend Jay sound quiet... this guy, however, makes Jay seem a regular churchmouse. What did I do to deserve this?
8) FInally, the worst part of this trip... wait for it... is that it's only Day One! I get to do this all again tomorrow! Yipppeee!!!
