29.7.04
Politics: Obviously my Zuerst isn't the most important topic this fine evening. The Democratic convention in Boston is well under way (and about to wrap up). The War Criminal accepted the nomination of the Democrats to seek the Presidency. John-John Edwards accepted his party's nomination to seek the Vice Presidency. Now I, like Charles on the Imus in the Morning show, see why The W.C. picked John-John: he's omnipotent. He can fix any problem. With him in the second slot, Hope Is On The Way. He, I suppose, is the real uniter; not like that fake phony S.O.B. Dubya. He will help bring the Two Americas together. Never mind that his life story (not to mention that of soon-to-be U.S. Senator Obama's) contradicts his "two Americas" rhetorical bullshit. And not to mention that both his running mate and he are big parts of the "first America" or "upper America" or whatever phrase goes along with it. My favourite moments of the convention (or highlights, as I didn't view more than a few minutes live) were:
- Highlights of Barack Obama's speech, highlighting the similarities!!! of all Americans, whether liberal or conservative, regardless of race, colour or creed. To use a couple of Senator Obama's examples, here in the blue Commonwealth of Virginia, I do have gay friends. And, across the river in the red State of Maryland, a good friend worships an awesome God.
- Ted Kennedy's invocation of FDR: "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush". Between that line and various points made by the race-baiting, wrongly-accusing-cops Reverend Al, that is probably the best look the American public has had at the mindset of the average convention delegate. Angry and ready to be rid of George Bush.
- Descriptions of all the out-of-shape folks gyrating to various tunes. Makes me wish I had watched for more than 30 seconds at a time.
- Imus' interview with Senator Joe Lieberman, who said that he'd speak Friday after sundown, right before Sandy Berger.
My Personal Life: To be (more than) a bit self-indulgent for a second. Obviously Peter Angelos' angry remarks are less important than the Democrats' pep rally. However, even more important than the fate of the nation to me is the fact that I'm adopting a cat. My mother adopted her a few years ago, and Dot and I have always had a rapport. When mom first got her, she would hide behind the furnace from everyone. Except me. Since then, she's more inclined to say hey to me than the others in the family, although that is, at times rare (in other words, our relationship has regressed, but I'm working on it). We have a connection. I know that's cliched, and sounds like bullshit, but it's true. We're both a bit crazy in the head and we're both a bit more intelligent than the average within the species. So I think we understand each other better than others (like mom's other cat, Nikko, might). So I'm embarking on a journey. Starting this weekend.
Zuletzt: A few days ago, Peter Angelos, trial lawyer and owner of the Baltimore Orioles, said something which made the following points: Washington can't support a baseball team because Washington has no real baseball fans. Huh? I would be thrilled to support the Washington Senators (or whatever they wanted to call themselves). Moreover, back thirty years ago, the biggest impediment to a fan base in Washington was...the Senators. There's a reason that they said "first in war, first in peace, last in the American League". The Senators sucked. The All-Star game held in Griffith (now RFK) Stadium back about 35 years ago sold out. It was the All Star game in Baltimore in the late 60s or early 70s that didn't. Baltimore, before the new park was built, was the Atlanta on the Patapsco as far as sports (or baseball, anyhow) are concerned. No one gave a shit. Even if the organisation was doing things the right way - "the Oriole way" - by building perhaps the best farm system in the 60s and 70s in all of baseball.
And how does Angelos reconcile his recent statements with his claims that up to 40% of his fan base are Washingtonians? Moreover, if he believes his statements, then he should willingly let a team come here, so that it can fail and prove once and for all that baseball is insupportable in Washington. Not to mention that it would cut that particular drag from his regional market.
So I say bullshit, Peter Angelos. I call bullshit.
13.7.04
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: I realise that I'm about two (or two hundred) years late on this particular subject. The DMV in the District of Columbia started issuing licence plates which say "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" in place of the old "Celebrate & Discover". It sounds nice, and the platitudes about how the United States are hypocritical because their leaders extol democracy and the residents of their capital city cannot *sob* practice it at the national level. So here's my question. What should be done about it? Some folks are calling for statehood for the District (which, if it doesn't violate article I, section 8 of the constitution, at the least raises constitutional questions).
My philosophy is rather simpler: Retrocede the vast majority of D.C. back to Maryland, keeping various spots as the "federal district": the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the National Mall and the government buildings thereon, etc. Cede the rest to Maryland and give Maryland an extra vote in the House of Representatives until the next census is taken.
Here in Virginia, we acknowledge that we've paid the personal property tax on our cars with little stickers issued by the various localities. Fairfax County (my locality) back, from 1987 to 1991, celebrated the bicentennial of the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by proclaiming on its property tax stickers that it is the home of the Bill of Rights (which was written by a citizen of Fairfax County, George Mason).
My point is that, on the stickers of Arlington County, you don't see "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". That's because, back in 1844, the vast majority of land ceded back to the Commonwealth was the entirity of modern-day Arlington (the remainder being part of what is now the City of Alexandria).
I don't call for statehood (which, thinking about it, could resolve the constitutional issues similarly as retrocession) for another reason: why should a chunk of land with as few (or fewer) people than Wyoming and which is smaller by far than Rhode Island become a state? Why should it not simply be part of one, as it was until two centuries ago? You could make a stronger case that the land which comprises Fairfax and Arlington Counties and the Cities of Fairfax, Falls Church and Alexandria should become a new state by seceding from the Commonwealth.
And I think that the compromise ("retrocession lite", I've heard it called) which keeps the entirity of Washington as the federal district yet shares Maryland's congressmen with Washingtonians poses the biggest constitutional challenges of all. The fact that a state would share its Senators with another political division runs anathema to the intent of the framers as regards the upper house of Congress: for each state to have an equal number of representatives to look out for that state's good. Could the State of Maryland petition for a redress of grievances should, say, Marion Barry occupy one of that state's seats, thus losing one representative to look out for the good of that state? And if Washingtonians cannot run for Maryland's Congressional seats, then what good is that partial representation other than a "traveshamockery", to use the Miller man's word - or an exercise in politics?
Zuletzt: Firstly, I have to give warning about the Zuerst. It's about 4 megs, so if you're on dialup you'll end up waiting a long time to download it. But it has been, by far, the funniest thing I've seen all week. Both times I've seen it I have laughed out loud; the first, I was crying because I laughed so hard. And, after I had seen it, I heard part of it on the radio, but it wasn't the same without the animation. It was still funny, but not as funny.
More later.
9.7.04
Politics: John Edwards was picked by John Kerry to be his running mate in this election. I can't say as I see why. Edwards and Kerry are, in many ways, the same person. Kerry and Edwards both supported the resolution authorising the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime, but both voted against the $87bn to fund it. Both are multimillionaires, one through sugar mamas and one through bad science. Both, as multimillionaires, suggest that the tax burden on the rich is low. Both assert that they are champions of the common man. And both think that the only way to remedy many, if not all, social ills of this land is through the Imperial Federal Government (thanks to Neal Boortz for the moniker).
I still am baffled by the Edwards pick. Of course, the 2nd spot in the Kerry campaign would have been a consolation prize; John McCain repeatedly turned it down. However, in this day and age I fail to see why someone else wasn't picked. Sure, John Kerry is a war hero (or a self proclaimed war criminal), but as a policymaker, he has repeatedly voted against any and all new defence systems. He has voted against many pro-military bills. And, of course, he voted to fund the Iraq conflict before he voted against funding it. So I fail to see how he has a lot of credibility on national security. In this post 9/11 age (cliched, I know, but there's something to be said for it; people think more of security threats than they did before), John Edwards has little to no credibility with national defence and security issues. Did he serve? Not of which I'm aware. He represents military communities in Fayetteville, Jacksonville, Cherry Point and Goldsboro, but as a first-term senator, what experience does he have with military issues?
Why not pick Wes Clark (who has experience running a modern war in the Balkans)? Why not pick Bob Kerrey (Medal of Honor winner as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam, and U.S. Senator who, if memory serves, was on the Armed Services committee)? Why not go for a bipartisan nod and pick John McCain (whoops...never mind)?
Or considering the "red state/blue state" divide, why would you pick a running mate that is (a) from a solidly blue state and (b) not particularly popular in his own state? Wes Clark could, with his connection to the Clintons, possibly win his home state of Arkansas. Bob Graham could, very possibly, counter George Bush's advantage (namely governor and brother Jeb) in Florida. Dick Gephardt might even help Kerry win Missouri without illegally keeping the polls open in St. Louis for several hours after closing time. But Edwards won't win his home state of North Carolina. He'll do less in his birth state of South Carolina. And Bill Richardson (...whoops...he declined the invitation too...moving on...)
As near as I can tell, Edwards may help gain more women for the Kerry camp with his good looks (he does look better than Vice President Cheney; this is, quite possibly, the only advantage he has). But, when some reporter asked about Edwards, listing positive adjectives related to his looks, Bush spoke of Cheney's difference from Edwards thusly: "He can be president. Next."
College Football: So here's my question: will Mike Williams of USC be reinstated to the Trojans before Marcus Vick is reinstated to the Hokies? I don't know. I haven't been following Williams' case too closely. Personally, had he not hired an agent, I would let him in if I had the power to do so. But here's the thing. He did hire an agent, and one assumes that he was well aware of the consequences of such an action, and one assumes that he was also aware of the fact that his eligibility to enter the NFL draft was being contested by the NFL and the players' union. In other words, go pull a Tamarack Vanover and play in Canada until you're eligible.
Which takes me to addressing the Zuerst. Marcus Vick is a dumbass. I would have thought that his brother and cousin would have better prepared him for what stardom in college is like. And I thought that his coach would have prepared him better, too, considering what a good job he did preparing his brother and cousin. But then he goes to a party where he apparently serves some 14 or 15 year old chick booze. And then, allegedly has sex with her. The commonwealth's attorney never proved the sex charge, but he was convicted of serving to a minor. So he was suspended for 3 games. On the same day as his suspension was announced, he was caught driving recklessly down I-64 east of Richmond (I don't know this for certain, but I think it was not too far from Allen Iverson was stopped a few years ago) and, when while stopped, the arresting officer found some weed in his car! Dumbass. Tommy Reamon (the aforementioned coach) says he feels like his heart is shattered. Considering his potential, I can understand. I can't imagine how brother Michael and cousin Aaron Brooks feel. Or Frank Beamer (the college coach, unmentioned to this point). They certainly don't feel too good about it, I reckon. I, as a rather distant party, sure don't. And were someone to say that that was because of hit that the team took by losing him for 3 games (and certainly more with this incident), I would have to concede that that is a reason, but considering that Marcus was Bryan Randall's backup, it wasn't the primary one.
4.7.04
Happy Independence Day: I didn't actually get out to see any fireworks, but was driving from point to point earlier this eveing. I happened to be driving home from Mount Vernon when I heard Lee Greenwood's "Proud To Be an American". As the song started, I saw fireworks from Ft. Belvoir in the distance. It gave me chills, and I thought that my eyes would water up. Thinking about it a few hours later still gives me chills. Those two events, as well as driving through Old Town Alexandria (where much history was made in the 1770s) gave me some sense of what our nation's independence means, and what the freedom of her people means.
It means that I'm free not to view fireworks from a stationery point (as many people were doing, both in Alexandria - it's not a bad view of the sky above the National Mall - and further south, at Fort Belvoir). It means that I'm free to drive around.
More fundamentally, it means that I'm free to speak my mind whenever I think my fellow citizens are wrong about an issue - something for which I give George Mason, whose Gunston Hall is closer to where I grew up than is Mount Vernon, a plurality of the credit.
It means that I am free to defend myself physically, and to defend my beliefs (as well as to act on them, provided they rob no one else of their fundamental liberties).
It means that I am secure against unwarranted searches, that I am secure against self-incrimination, that I am secure from torture, that I am secure from open-ended litigation, and that the federal government shall not become Imperial (ignored though this last provision has been over the last century...)
It means that I am part of the body politic, part of that no longer small and yet ever-expanding group of people on this planet who exercise self-determination. It means, more broadly, that we carry the torch of liberty, on that "shining city on a hill".
It means that I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men
who died who gave that right to me.
And I'll gladly stand up
next to you and defend her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land;
God bless the U.S.A.
Happy Independence Day.
Hopefully the two hundred twenty-ninth year of this wonderful experiment in freedom will be as great as the first two hundred twenty-eight.
