Star Wars: ROTS

Saw Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith last Thursday, and I figure I'll finally post my short review of it. Basically, I agree with the guy (can't recall who) who said the movie was especially great if you don't care about writing or acting. To be fair to the actors, most of the acting problems appear to originate with bad writing. Once again, romantic scenes with Anakin and Padmé are bad. Actually, just about anything with either character is bad, writing-wise (Anakin is involved in some nice fights). I'll avoid the plot for now, in deference to those who may not have seen it yet, but I'll probably have more to write on it later.

Also, for your enjoyment, I present the following:

Darth Vader's blog
A ROTS parody -- "Star Wars Episode III: A Lost Hope"

More Judicial Thoughts

Priscilla Owen was confirmed, a day later than I expected. The cloture vote on Tuesday was unexpectedly lopsided, 81-18. Apparently, a goodly amount of Democrats decided to give up on trying to obstruct, since they knew they wouldn't succeed. In fact, the vote was even more lopsided, but then several changed their votes from yeas to nays -- apparently because it would look bad to have filibustered for all this time and then have everyone give up on it. The final vote for confirmation was 56-43 (apparently "present, giving live pair" -- whatever that means -- counts as a yea). The oddest thing about that is that Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) both voted to confirm -- after working to filibuster her. That makes absolutely zero sense. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was a surprise voting no, as he was a democrat opposing the filibuster and had seemed to indicate he would vote for at least most of Bush's nominees. Chafee (R-RI) also voted no, which isn't completely shocking, but certainly disappointing. When I saw the vote total, I had presumed those four had voted the opposite of the way they did. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), one of the parties to the deal, did not participate in either vote for reasons I have not seen.

Update: Alright, I figured out what was up with the Ted Stevens (R-AK) vote. He had voted yea, then went back and had it changed to "present" because he remembered that he made an agreement with Daniel Inouye that since he wouldn't be there to vote nay, Stevens also wouldn't vote, as their votes would cancel out were both in attendence. This is an old Senate custom (I'm not sure that they commonly vote "present" though). I'd heard of the custom before, but seeing it designated "present, giving live pair" was new to me. Goes to show that it's always possible to learn new stuff, especially when it comes to odd Senate practices.

Judicial Thoughts

A compromise deal was reached by seven members of each party that put an end (for now) to the debate in the Senate over filibusters for judicial nominees. They had been going for six members of each party (as six Republicans were needed to prevent a rule change (only five Democrats were needed to stop a filibuster)), but they got an extra member from each party seemingly at the last minute, which resulted in there not being enough lines for all the signatures on the agreement, as can be seen in this pdf. I find it amusing that they couldn't print off another copy with two extra lines. Also, two of the senators have signatures which consist of printing their names in all caps, which is ... odd ....

Anyway, parties to the deal are Republicans John McCain (Arizona), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island), John Warner (Virginia), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Democrats Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Ken Salazar (Colorado), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii), and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut). Oddly enough, many news stories have not named all parties to the deal, and one I saw named all but Lieberman (especially odd as he probably has the highest name recognition of the bunch).

D.C. Circuit nominee Janice Rogers Brown, Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla R. Owen, and Eleventh Circuit nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. will finally receive votes. All three were originally nominated during Bush's first term. Sixth Circuit nominee Henry W. Saad and Ninth Circuit nominee William Gerry Myers III will continue to be blocked (Saad pretty much sealed his fate when an e-mail containing disparaging remarks about Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) became known (Saad is from Michigan, and Senate customs give various benefits to home-state senators)).

Although not part of the formal written deal, apparently three other nominees to the Sixth Circuit from Michigan will be allowed votes -- Richard Allen Griffin; David W. McKeague; and Susan Bieke Neilson (though a couple of sources only mentioned the first two). Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) had been trying to block all Sixth Circuit nominees from Michigan because one of Clinton's appointees who was his wife's cousin or cousin's wife or some such was not confirmed.

D.C. Circuit nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and Fourth Circuit nominee William James Haynes II were not mentioned in the deal, and their fate seems uncertain. Some liberal groups are saying that they'll continue to be filibustered, while some Republican senators say that wasn't part of the deal (though that's pretty obvious, because the deal didn't address them).

Overall, it doesn't seem like much of a success for Republicans. Three nominees withdrew their names after being filibustered during Bush's first term -- Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, and Charles Pickering. Another, Claude Allen, withdrew under threat of filibuster. Add Saad and Myers, and it looks like the Dems defeated six nominees, and the number could quite possibly reach eight (Kavanaugh and Haynes). Plus, there's no guarantee on future nominees, most notably future Supreme Court nominees. The deal allows Democrats to filibuster in whatever they deem to be "extraordinary circumstances" -- which is what conservatives have been complaining about. The Democrats already have labeled justices Owen and Brown "extreme" (despite winning reelection to their state supreme Courts with 84% in Texas and 76% in California, respectively), what's to stop them from claiming "extraordinary circumstances" whenever they please? The only good thing about the deal is that it looks like it would let the Republicans back out if they believe the Democrats aren't holding up their end in good faith. Which also means that this fight might not be over (though it's unlikely to comeback before the fall).

Some liberals are holding out hope that in exchange for allowing votes on the three nominees, they got Republicans to agree to vote against at least one. I find this extremely unlikely. These were the big three in the fight, the three that Republicans were refusing to leave behind, and each has an outstanding record. The thing I'm most interested in seeing is what happens with Kavanaugh and Haynes. I'm sure they had to at least be mentioned during deliberations, and I wonder if there might be some sort of deal on them, too, which wasn't codified. Previous Democrat offers included letting the Republicans choose two of a given three nominees and the like, so it's possible that the Democrats agreed to let the Republicans have their choice of one of those two. I'm not saying that's likely, just a possibility.

Anyways, the vote on Owens should take place in a bit over five hours, which should end four years of waiting for her. I'm sure I'll update if anything else happens.

tsunami

Remember the tsunami several months back? It was in all the papers and all over the television for a couple weeks. Remember?

Well, if you remember that, you may recall complaints about the United States being "stingy" in its relief efforts. This despite actually having aid on the ground while the U.N. was still getting its act together (well, as much as the U.N. ever has its act together). Canada's prime minister pledged $425 million in aid and was held up as a shining example of how the rest of the world should act. Know how much Canada has ponied up so far? $50,000. Canadian. Some example there. Of course, that would make them fit right in with the U.N. crowd -- lofty words, pious tone, zero action (aside from a resolution condemning Israel every month or so).

Election 2008

It's become fashionable to look ahead towards 2008 and handicap the presidential election. Several people have already asked who I think will run, get the nomination, and win. I'll start here with a list of possible Republican contenders, offering some thoughts on each (or maybe just most). I'll address the other side of the aisle in a future post. Given my political leanings, I'm more interested in one side than the other.

First, a rundown of some names that have been thrown around:

Senators:
George Allen, Virginia (former governor)
Sam Brownback, Kansas
Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Majority Leader
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire (former governor)
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Jon Kyl, Arizona
John McCain, Arizona
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania

Governors:
Jeb Bush, Florida
Bob Ehrlich, Maryland
Ernie Fletcher, Tennessee
Bill Owens, Colorado
George Pataki, New York
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
Mitt Romney, Massachusetts
Mark Sanford, South Carolina

Others:
Dick Cheney
Rudy Giuliani
Condoleeza Rice
Tom Ridge

Blackjack. Er, I mean, that's enough for the names. This is not a completely exhaustive list, but, odds are, the nominee will be one of these 21. I can think of a few off the top of my head who might run that I've left out, but I'm not going to add them back in, at least not right now.

Before I begin the blurbs on each, or most, of them, I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, it is extremely difficult to pick a nominee this far out. Without an incumbent president, and presumably without an incumbent vice president, the field is wide open. Not many were jumping on the George W Bush bandwagon right after 1996, and likewise for John Kerry in 2000. Bob Dole would have been on the short list in 1992, but I don't think it was all that clear that he'd be the nominee (I'm old enough to remember the '92 election, but deeper political stuff from then is a bit beyond me, unless I've read about it more recently). Bill Clinton was not an obvious choice in 1988, nor Carter in 1972. Okay, perhaps Reagan in 1976 and Mondale in 1980. At any rate, it's not easy. Secondly, going along with the first point, the 2006 elections are immensely important. As you'll read, many of these guys are up for re-election then; a failed attempt at reelection, or a messy win can hurt a presidential hopeful, while a more impressive victory than expected can propel one. Immediately following the 1998 election, George W Bush looked like the nominee for 2000; Kerry was the frontrunner immediately following the 2002 midterms, but it was much murkier.

political positions held are very important. Elected positions beat out unelected ones. There is a hierarchy which descends president, vice-president, governor, senator, other. Discounting presidents and vice presidents, governors are far more successful running than other positions, both in the general election, and in the primaries. Starting with 1944 (because I'm too lazy to search back further), the Republicans nominated the following, according to highest position attained: 6 sitting presidents (56, 72, 76, 84, 92, 04), 3 vice presidents (60, 68, 88), 4 governors (44, 48, 80, 00), 2 senators (Goldwater in 64 and Dole in 96), and 1 Supreme Allied Commander (Eisenhower in 52, a position I'd rate higher, though it was unelected, but I listed last because it was only due to special circumstances (his role in WWII) that he was able to get the nomination; on a side note, isn't "Supreme Allied Commander" a way better job title than president, or almost anything else?). Sitting senators have only been elected president twice, Kennedy in 1960 and Harding in 1920 -- no other Senator has been elected president since at least Benjamin Harrison (elected 1888) without having also served as vice president or president first. So, it doesn't look good for senators (unless they're angling to become the vice presidential nominee).

Now, on to the nominees, addressed in whatever order I feel like.

Vice President Dick Cheney -- has said he won't run, and I see no reason not to believe him. There is a "draft Cheney" movement, but I don't see it going anywhere. One special note here, though: if Cheney has to leave the vice presidency early for health reasons or some such, assuming he does so by early 2007 at the latest, his replacement becomes a potential frontrunner (though it's possible Bush would go for another VP with no further political ambition).

Governor Jeb Bush -- also has said he won't run, and I again see no reason to doubt. There's a similar draft movement, and he's wildly popular among conservatives (and Floridians), but there's that pesky business of his last name.

Secretary Condoleeza Rice -- unlikely to run. She has never sought elected office before, a major handicap in running for president. She's not as socially conservative as the base would like (though her social views are unknown to most people). She is wildly popular among Republicans, though. Possible 2010 candidate for governor or senator of/from California.

Rudy Giuliani -- finally someone I think will run. He's quite popular with the public at large, and is often listed as the frontrunner for the nomination. However, his social views are not widely known, and, once they are found out, would be very damaging to his candidacy, at least in a Republican presidential primary. He supports abortion (he's not even against partial-birth abortion), he favors gay marriage, and he favors gun control. Not the kind of stuff to endear him to the base. You can bet his primary opponents will bring this up early and often should he decide to run. Moreover, the "America's Mayor" stuff won't be as strong 6.5 years after 9/11 (6.5 years being the time to the primaries; 7 years to the general election). Plus, his last election will have been in 1997; that's a long time in politics (he was running for senate in 2000, but withdrew do to cancer and other issues). He's also twice-divorced, and had a messy, and very public, affair prior to his last one. I think he'd need an election win in 2006 to become a real contender -- either New York governor, or senator, which would be a race against Hillary Clinton (a win there would make many Republicans forgive his many shortcomings); while he's too liberal for the national Republicans, he's viewed more along the lines of the best they can hope for as far as New York goes. However, that creates a problem in that it would be better for him to serve at least one full term as either before running for president. In short, he looks formidable now, but it looks like he'll lose some luster in the next few years.

Tom Ridge -- former Pennsylvania governor, and former head of the Department of Homeland Security. Mentioned mostly as a potential VP in 2000, he looks unlikely to run in 2008. His geography is good (i.e., he could probably deliver Pennsylvania for the Republicans), but he has not built much of a following, and is not pro-life, which hurts any efforts to build a sudden, surging campaign.

George Pataki -- the New York governor is the longest-serving Republican governor today, having been first elected in 1994 (I forget if any democrats have served for longer). However, he's a definite northeast Republican and shaky on social issues (as well as other issues). He's up for reelection in 2006 and might not run. I've heard it summed up best as "the only person who believes George Pataki can win the nomination is George Pataki." He might run, but I don't expect him to break 5% in any primary/caucus/whatever.

Mitt Romney -- current governor of Massachusetts and formerly led the Olympic Committee for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. He faces an uphill battle for reelection in 2006, and pretty much needs to win to have any shot at 2008. That said, his stock has fallen among many Republicans. While he was being touted as possible 2008 material before the 2004 election, almost all of that has tailed off. He's still listed among the contenders, but isn't getting the support.

Ernie Fletcher -- haven't read as much about this guy, but the things I've heard are great. He runs into two problems: 1) he's not well known, and 2) he faces re-election in 2007 (Kentucky is one of the few states to hold an odd year election). Reelection in November and then Iowa and New Hampshire in January? Not likely. If the Republicans lose in 2008, though, he'd be in good position for a run in 2012 (retire after two terms; he'd have to campaign in 2011 while still in office, but he'd be out of office when things really swung into gear for the primary (and general) election schedule).

Tim Pawlenty -- another governor up for re-election in 2006. He has to win that first, of course. Minnesota is slowly drifting in a Republican direction, but isn't quite there yet; he could push it into the Republican column in 2008. Seems to have good social creds and doing a good job in Minnesota. His approval rating dropped from 60% in March to 50% in early May, though, according to the Star Tribune, due to contentious budget cutting and other issues. I think he's likely to win reelection, but it's a definite wait and see.

Bob Ehrlich -- won in definite democrat territory in Maryland, and up for a tough reelection bid in 2006. Can't say much about him, except that he needs to win reelection to have a shot.

Mark Sanford -- despite the South's (and perhaps especially South Carolina's) new reputation as solid Republican territory, Sanford had to defeat an incumbent Democrat to win the governorship. Beating incumbents always looks good. He has a very good reputation among the party's base -- or at least those who have heard of him (name recognition his one major shortcoming). Again, up for reelection in 2006.

Bill Owens -- quite possible had been the frontrunner. National Review had run a cover story calling him the nation's number one governor. Things kinda went downhill from there. Due to budget constraints partially caused by a peculiarity in Colorado law, he enacted some (small) tax increases that were not popular. He's had a messy separation from his wife (apparently, she kicked him out of the house). I hear that they're back together, trying to patch things up, but, well, we'll see. His seat is up for election in 2006, but he's term-limited (served two terms). If he can comeback from his problems, he could be a leading contender, but that's "if".

John McCain -- has a large following, especially in the media. Is more conservative than he is often portrayed, but his "maverick" status irks many among the Republican base. That, and he's a prima dona. He'll automatically get some following, probably even into the double digits, but won't win the nomination.

Chuck Hagel -- a friend of McCain, probably won't run if he does, probably will if he doesn't. Seems too easily influenced my the national media, not a real friend of the Republican base. No chance of winning the nomination.

Sam Brownback -- a popular conservative, at least among those who know his name. The fact that the Republicans gave another senator from Kansas the nomination in 1996 might hurt him. Still, a popular conservative.

Rick Santorum -- another popular conservative. Good geography, being from Pennsylvania. Won election twice, but looks to be in a tough reelection campaign for 2006. As usual, a win is a must. Has made some moves in the last year or so that have alienated him somewhat from the base, with his active support of (unpopular with the base) Sen. Arlen Specter, and a couple of his recent policy moves.

Jon Kyl -- not very likely to run, especially if McCain does. He is popular with the base. He's up for reelection in 2006, and being targeted, but the Democrats had made him their early number one target in 2000 and couldn't even find a candidate. Reelection should be fairly easy. Kyl has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by Bush, but that would be unlikely until after 2006, because Arizona's governor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement until the 2006 election (of course, he remains an unlikely nominee after that if the Republicans fail to unseat her in 2006).

Judd Gregg -- being a former governor is a plus, and he has a pretty good reputation with the base. That name recognition thing rears its head again, though (I haven't mentioned that for all the candidates that it's an issue for, btw, so don't feel lost if you didn't recognize all of their names). He comes from a battleground state (a plus), but only a small one. New Hampshire, by the way, is not a typical northeastern state and is, by far, the most favorable to Republicans.

Norm Coleman -- won in the Democrat (actually Democrat Farm Labor, in that state) dominated Minnesota, which is a plus (though, as I mentioned, Republicans are making gains there, especially in 2002). He faces reelection in 2008, which is a minus, as only serving a single term is bad, and having to choose between offices to run for is bad (John Edwards faced the same problem in 2004, for what it's worth). Former mayor of St. Paul, so there is some executive experience there, though mayor isn't close to governor. Popular with the base, but not a likely candidate.

Bill Frist -- the current Senate Majority Leader has decided not to seek reelection in 2006. It is widely believed that he will run in 2008. He had managed to become decently popular with the base, and was looking good for a shot at the nomination. He even has a gimmick, being a heart surgeon. However, the way he's handled some issues in the Senate has irritated the base, chief among these is not ending the Democrats' filibusters of judicial nominees. However, if he ends the filibusters (and a showdown on that is expected soon), his stock would shoot back up as all (well, maybe most) would be forgiven. He would also have the luxury of a year out of office to campaign before Iowa and New Hampshire. The next couple of weeks will be very important in determining his chances.

George Allen -- a former executive, which is a big plus. He faces a potentially tough reelection campaign against current Democrat governor Mark Warner (whose name resembles that of popular former (Republican) governor and current senator John Warner, which makes things harder for Allen). He was the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is in charge of electing and reelecting Republicans to the Senate, for the 2004 election cycle. As the Republicans did rather well in those races (maybe not as well as the very best that could have been reasonably hoped for, but close to it), he gets some of the credit. It may not sound like a lot to you, but to the party activists who disproportionately participate in the primaries, it means a lot. Even before that, he was fairly popular with the base. Assuming he wins reelection, I see him as a very strong darkhorse candidate (darkhorse to non-political junkies, at least). I think his term as governor (in Virginia, governors are limited to a single term, which is part of the reason that three are mentioned here) counts for enough to cancel out the negative of being a senator.

Update: I somehow forgot Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, who I've written more about here and here.

Chamberlain

Everyone needs reminders of Neville Chamberlain every now and again so that such fools are never again given positions of power (actually, it's too late for "never again" but perhaps "as rarely as possible").

For those who have forgotten their history or had lousy teachers for it in public high school, Neville Chamberlain was prime minister of Great Britain from 1937 to 1940. Most of you remember him as an appeaser of Hitler and for his "peace in our time" speech. He returned from Germany on September 30, 1938, after making an agreement with Hitler which surrendered the Sudetenland (a portion of Czechoslovakia bordering Germany, the population of which was predominantly ethnically German) to the Nazis, waved the paper with the agreement over his head, and stated "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

If that quote weren't bad enough (peace wasn't close, and there wasn't any semblance of honor), he committed several more fallacies.

In March 1939, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain made some noise, but, in essence, did nothing. He then "guaranteed" Polish independence, but that was as much because of public outcry as because of anything else.

During the summer of 1939, Chamberlain was still offering diplomatic concessions and major industrial loans if Hitler agreed to behave.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Chamberlain's government declared war on Germany. Then, [moment of suspense building here] it did nothing. No major attacks on Germany. Not really any minor attacks. They did start a blockade. A group of two dozen bombers was sent to attack part of the German navy, but the ships were tied to the dock, where civilians might be, so they didn't bomb. German fighters shot down ten of the unescorted bombers.

On April 5, 1940, Chamberlain declared "Hitler has missed the bus." During that month, he also wrote to his sister, "The accumulation of evidence that an attack [in the west] is imminent is formidable ... and yet I cannot convince myself that it is coming."

On April 9, 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway.

On May 10, 1940, Germany launched its western campaign (against Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France). Chamberlain resigned as prime minister the same day.

There are those who say that Chamberlain only pursued appeasement because the British were not prepared for war. His delays in military preparement, his rhetoric to the people, and the evidence we have of his private thoughts all show what sheer poppycock that is, though.

There are still those in government today that suffer from the same mental disease that Chamberlain did. Those who think that toppling the Taliban and/or capturing Osama bin Laden would have been enough as far as the "war on terror" was concerned, those who view the terrorist threat as mostly a crime-fighting problem, and those who thought that we should have had no response to the attack of 9-11 all suffer from this intellectual impairment. Mostly, it affects members of a certain political party of the Left, though it also shows evidence of its presence in Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and certain others. Certain fights cannot be avoided; they must be joined and true leaders recognize that.

Stupidity in the schoolyard

I just came across this story: "School Suspends Boy for Talking to GI Mom in Iraq"

He was talking to his mom on his cell phone at school. I thought, okay, maybe he was talking during class. Nope, it was during his lunch break.

Here's the juicy portion of the story:

"They're not supposed to use them for conversing back and forth during school because if they were allowed to do that, they could be text messaging each other for test questions," said Alfred Parham, assistant principal at Spencer.

Francois said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

Parham said the teen's suspension was based on his reaction when he was asked to give up the cell phone.

"Kevin got defiant and disorderly," Parham said. "When a kid becomes out of control like that they can either be arrested or suspended for 10 days. Now being that his mother is in Iraq, we're not trying to cause her any undue hardship; he was suspended for 10 days."

Now, is that crazy or what? I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll go with the text messaging bit. First, it seems rather obvious that he was not text messaging, so why even bring that up? Second, yeah, they could do that, but, as it was lunch break, wouldn't it be easier to tell the other person the test questions directly? It would certainly seem so. If they're worried about students in class text messaging, well, then police that; why worry about them doing it at lunch? It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Second, he was "defiant and disorderly"? It looks like he was defiant, sure, but disorderly stretches it a bit; plus, we're talking about him speaking common sense to some mindless school officials. Are those the kind of people you really want teaching your children? Instead of worrying about teaching kids, they're worried about mindless restrictions. Yet another example of how bogus and corrupt the public schools have become, and why I support charter schools, vouchers, anything to get rid of the public schools' stranglehold over most children, and try to knock some sense into them.

A big grrr to Disney censorship

As I believe most people reading this already know, Disney (and Warner Brothers) have a number of old cartoons that they no longer show, or show only in an editted version. One of the most popular is the live-action/animated Disney movie Song of the South, which the Disney companies neither shows nor sells on vhs or dvd in the United States. I'm told that a vhs version is available in Canada (and I know someone who got a vhs version, presumably from there). They have entire ride -- one of their premier rides, and a newer one at that -- themed on the movie, and still won't show it. What's up with that? I have seen the movie, and the "offensive stereotypes" they're worried about in it aren't nearly as bad as I've seen in some others that are still shown.

Many cartoons from World War II are no longer shown. A lot of these are due to portrayal of Japanese characters. Some due to violence, too. However, I just learned that a Disney cartoon, Der Fuhrer's Face, is not shown anymore (and never was shown on the Disney Channel since it came into existence in 1983) because they consider it to insulting to Germans. What has the world come to? Since when can you not insult Nazis? A hat tip on this goes out to Catherine Seipp for this article. A huge list of editted Disney cartoons is available here. Warner Brothers has similarly refrained from showing several WWII cartoons focused on the European front. Cartoon Network had a special showing before, where they showed Russian Rhapsody (previously titled Gremlins from the Kremlin, which goes with the refrain the gremlins (from the Kremlin) sing -- "We're gremlins from the Kremlin" -- wasn't the best of cartoons, but I do have that refrain etched in my memory), I believe for the first time in many years.

Most of these cartoons (except the war ones) are editted to remove scenes of smoking, drunkenness, or violence. In Donald's Penguin, for instance, they edit out Donald spanking the penguin. I certainly have not seen that, and, actually, that brief description amuses me and makes me want to see the full, uneditted version. As for drunkenness, it certainly doesn't seem to me that they really glamorize it. The smoking is not always shown positively (characters getting sick trying to smoke, the bad guys smoking as opposed to the good guys). As for violence, well, there's nothing wrong with some good, healthy violence. At any rate, good (or even decent) parenting should be able to take care of any perceived vices that Disney or Warner Brothers leave in their cartoons.

Unrelated note, but I've heard of some parents not letting their kids watch Disney because Mickey and Minnie had kids and they weren't married. They were his nephews, not their kids, as I recall, much like Donald's more famous nephews.

On an even more unrealted note, whatever happened to all those McDonaldland characters? We all know Ronald McDonald, Hamburglar, Birdie, and Grimace, I'm sure, but do you remember Mayor McCheese, Sheriff Big Mac, the Professor (but nobody else from Gilligan's band of castaways), Captain Crook, McNugget buddies, Fry Kids, CosMc, and the non-McDonaldland (but still McDonald's character) Mac Tonight (basically, a guy with a quarter moon for a head)? Apparently, most of these (not Ronald, of course, or a couple of the others) were plagiarized from H.R. Pufnstuf, a cartoon series by Sid and Marty Krofft, who successfully sued McDonald's for $50,000. A history of the characters is here. Did you know that Grimace used to be evil, stealing milkshakes from kids (which might explain his size and shape)? And he had more arms, too. Pictures of old toys here.

If you have time to waste, check out some old '80's commercials here. Included are Jay Leno for Cool Ranch Doritos, Jason Alexander (George on Seinfeld) singing of his love for McDonald's McD.L.T., guys rapping about Zelda, and much more. I remember a few of these commercials (perhaps that has something to do with them being on video tapes from when my family recorded television specials). They also have movie trailers and other stuff.

More Social Security Reform

I'm going to keep writing about it until it's reformed, so if you're sick of hearing about it, tell Congress to get to work!

One of the proposals being tossed about recently (actually, it's been tossed around for much longer than recently, but I digress) is raising the income cap on Social Security taxes, or doing away with it completely. Some want to use this in conjunction with other reforms, and some claim this would solve all the problems on its own.

First, some basic background. Currently, you pay 6.2% of your income to Social Security (historical tax rates here). This shows up on your W-2's, pay stubs, and the like. Your employer matches that amount. A short digression, though -- while your employer officially pays that amount, it comes out of money that they budgetted for your hiring and continued employment -- basically, it comes out of money that they'd otherwise be paying you. When Medicare's 1.45% tax on both you and your employer is figured in, Social Security taxes just over 11.5% of your income. Getting back on the main track, the Social Security tax is currently capped (for both you and your employer) at $90,000 of income ($5580 in taxes from each). This increases every year (historical caps can be found here). Since I mentioned Medicare a bit ago, I should add that there is no cap on taxable income for Medicare. I should also add that Social Security taxes are done on an individual basis; whereas the income tax bracket cap doubles when you go from single to married filing jointly, it does not for Social Security -- if one spouse makes $120k annually and the other makes $30k annually, the first spouse still only has $90k subject to Social Security taxation.

There are a couple of areas in which plans variate: taxable income and benefits. On taxable income, some people propose starkly raising the cap ($140k is a number the AARP supports), some people support eliminating the cap altogether, and some people support something of a grace window (for instance, the first $90k would be taxed, the next $90k would not be taxed, and then everything above that would be taxed). On benefits, one variant would provide benefits for the extra taxes paid (I should add that Social Security is somewhat progressive -- you get a better return (though it's still a lousy rate of return) on lower-wage jobs than you do on jobs that approach the cap, so a person paying taxes on $300k in income would not be getting ten times the benefits as someone paying taxes on $30k of income), and the other would not provide any benefits for the additional amount paid in.

First, to address the taxes. It would be a rather drastic tax increase, and would adversely affect the economy. For one thing, businesses would now need to pay "their" 6.2% on the additional income. Despite what some people think, businesses aren't awash in money because they're lounging around screwing the little guy. They need to raise that money and a likely way of doing that would be cutting jobs (and it won't be the CEO with a seven-figure salary getting the ax). Alternately, they could raise prices, which hurts you as the consumer. So you either have an increase in unemployment or an increase in prices (inflation), neither of which strike me as a good option. Aside from the economic problems this creates, you're giving Congress extra money to play with, which we all know is a bad thing. Since Social Security currently brings in more money than it puts out, Congress is free to spend the extra money on whatever it pleases, and, historically, it does. That's why the trust fund is non-existent, as I've talked about already.

Now, on to benefits. Under the proposal where benefits would increase, actuaries estimate the trust fund would run out in 2075. As we've said, the trust fund doesn't exist, so we're looking at something more like 2050. It would definitely be a short-term solution. If benefits did not increase, it would remain solvent for longer, but not indefinitely. However, it would involve some people not only getting the normal miniscule return from Social Security, but actually getting a negative return. Plus, Social Security has for years been touted as a retirement savings program; this would expose that lie (even more than it already is) and show Social Security as the glorified welfare program that it is. That is something the Democrats should worry about.

Anyways, I need to be going now. More on Social Security to come.

Hurray for me, again

My readership has expanded to three continents. Well, technically, I only had one visit from Australia, and I doubt they'll ever be back, but still, it happened. Also, I might have a visit from Asia coming up, so I could reach four. That would be sweet. Now, if I could only build a decent fan base that would do my bidding -- er, regularly come back, then I'd be set.

Talkin' Baseball

We're about a month into the season, which is enough for some evaluation. First off, I must agree with Jayson Stark -- April matters. Of course, it's not a perfect predictor of the rest of the season, but it is something to go by, and much better than some preseason predictions (I'll even talk about mine later -- they aren't all going that well). Stark looked at playoff teams back to 1982 and looks at where they stood after April; because I don't get paid to write about baseball like him -- and because I'm lazy -- I'll use some of his research. Out of 128 playoff teams in that period, only four were more than three games under .500 at the end of April ('87 Tigers, '89 Blue Jays, '95 Reds (who only played five games, so including them is kinda iffy), and '01 A's) and only three finished more than 4.5 games out of first place (those Tigers and A's, plus the 2002 Angels). In that same timespan, 108 teams finished first in their division; 60 led at the end of April, and another 30 were within 2.5 games -- so, historically speaking, you're looking at one of this year's division winners being more than 2.5 back (though probably less than 5), two who are almost leading, and three who are leading.

Some surprising starts for several teams. First, several who were considered contenders for division crowns finished the month below .500: Yankees, Phillies, A's, Mets, Padres, Astros, and Rangers were all teams that I heard getting some consideration for their division titles or wild cards. In addition, Boston barely escaped finishing the month going under .500, with a 12-11 record, and the Giants won their last three games of the month to finish at 11-11. If any team is equipped to overcome such a poor start and go against the grain of history, it would be the Yankees, but it's still a difficult task. April is a psychologically important month, and a losing record in it can affect a team's psyche more than one in, say, June. A veteran team used to winning like the Yankees can overcome that, while a team like the Phillies, who have lately become known more for failing to live up to expectations, is less likely to overcome their bad start.

Conversely, several clubs had unexpectedly great starts, most especially the Orioles and White Sox, but the Diamondbacks as well, to a lesser degree. The White Sox currently have the best record in the majors, and the Orioles are leading the tough American League East (where the Red Sox and Yankees are a surprising third and fourth, respectively). The Diamondbacks spent some time atop the standings in the National League West, but have slipped behind the Dodgers.

On to player news, which I, for one, think of as less indicative of season performance than how the teams have performed. Certainly it plays some role -- a person with 8 or 9 homeruns is unlikely to finish below 30 (barring injury), or a situtation like Derek Jeter having an average around .150 in mid-May (which led to his season average being sub-.300 despite having a .330ish average the rest of the way) -- but it does not necessarily say much about how the player will perform for the whole season (Ichiro Suzuki got off to a slow start last year, but still set a record for most hits in a season, thanks in part to finishing one at-bat short of the single-season record).

Rockies rookie Clint Barnes has been an amazing surprise, currently tied for the major league lead with a .416 batting average. That figures to come down once pitchers figure him out better, but he's certainly making an early case for rookie of the year. Brian Roberts of the Orioles, who was a rather blah player the last two seasons, has busted out with April stats of 8 HR, 26 RBI, 21 R, 10 SB, .379 BA, .459 OBP, and .726 SLG; definitely the AL's April MVP, narrowly ahead of his teammate Miguel Tejada (8 HR, 31 RBI, 18 R, .347/.388/.684), which mostly sums up why the Orioles are doing ridiculously well. Conversely, struggling players include Jim Thome (1 HR in 79 AB, .203 BA), Ken Griffey, Jr. (no HR until around 75 AB, still sub-.250), Aaron Boone (4 HR in 73 AB, but a .123 BA), Eric Chavez (2 HR, 9 RBI, 8 R, hitting right at the Mendoza line), Adrian Beltre (.238), Jermaine Dye (.175), and Rafael Palmeiro (1 HR, 7 RBI, .232). Back to a positive note, Derrek Lee of the Cubs is doing quite well, the NL's April MVP at 7 HR, 28 RBI, 20 R, .419/.490/.767 on the month.

As for team stats, the Giants have surprised a lot of people, as they are currently second in the NL in team batting average (behind the Rockies, which is like being first) and first in runs per game despite the lack of Barry Bonds in the lineup. The giants are routinely underestimated -- just because they don't have any other big names in the lineup, people dismiss them. However, they have a lot of good players who are capable of getting the job done, and that's all you really need. I don't think they'll stay quite this good without Bonds, but other teams underestimate them at their own risk.

Now, on to an update of my predictions:

The Yankees, Cubs, and Giants are ranked 4, 2, and 3 in their divisions, respectively. The Yankees will eventually climb, the Cubs have their work cut out for them, and the Giants are two games out of first and hot (plus a half game out of second with another game against the D-backs (who are in second) tonight). I'm not one for abandoning my predictions so readily, but not many people would be going with the first two at this point.

Looks like I was wrong on Barry, mid-June seems more likely. I'll go with a 25 HR season. Pedro has certainly not been a bust so far. Troy Glaus has done as well as anyone could reasonably expect, and even a bit better (though his last two seasons combine for 149 games played, which I had in mind when making my prediction -- if he only plays half the year, that would fulfill my prediction). Vazquez and Ortiz both have ERA's over 5.00, and have win-loss records of 3-2 and 2-1, respectively; the ERA is bad enough for my prediction, but they're both winning so far (though Ortiz was lucky to escape without a loss last night). Sammy Sosa is a bit of a mixed bag; most of his numbers are somewhat down, though he's been getting non-HR hits more frequently, so his average is up from last year, at about what it was in 2003. Craig Biggio has been beaned three times so far, leaving him eight behind Don Baylor's modern record, another five behind Tommy Tucker for second all time, and fifteen beyond that is Hughie Jennings's all time record.

So far, Ken Griffey, Jr. is the only player to pass Babe Ruth on the all time strikeout list. However, there's a cluster of players closing in. Here's a list of some players and the number of strikeouts they need to tie Ruth:

Player Strikeouts
Tim Salmon 14
Rafael Palmeiro 16
Jose Hernandez 32
Jim Edmonds 37
Juan Gonzales 57
Benito Santiago 60
Carlos Delgado 65
Jeff Kent 66
Manny Ramirez 79
Brett Boone 85
Marquis Grissom 96
Jeremy Burnitz 117

That should be everyone with a legitimate chance.

Okay, that's way long enough and I need to be going anyways. So long for now.

Ugh

Well, the latest in bashing the Christian Right is here -- we're all "Dominionists" apparently. According to this theory, we're secretly trying to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft, fornication, heresy, and other offenses, real and imagined. Additionally, we want to bring back slavery and degrade women to the status of property (first of their fathers, then of their husbands). We want to establish a real theocracy in America.

Needless to say, this is all completely bogus. I certainly don't favor any of those proposals and you'd be hard-pressed to find any American who did (oh, I'm sure there are a few crazy people out there like that, and the "dominionists" are apparently a real group which believes in several of those things (though apparently not all), but that's far from being anything approaching a sizeable portion of the population, especially one that would have any kind of political power to enact such a thing. Of course, the theory says I would deny that. I'd want to cover up my own dominionist beliefs and may not even be aware of all of them myself. All the typical, run-of-the-mill, conspiracy stuff.

Normally, I wouldn't even bother bringing this up, but apparently, at least some of this is gaining credibility on the Left (portions of the Left, I should say). Recently, Harper's Magazine ran a cover story on the matter, and it's a "respectable" semi-mainstream media magazine (that is, of course, mainstream as far as the media goes, not as far as America goes). Additionally, there was a conference recently, "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right" which brought up this theory. Now, I'm sure the title of the conference alone would make most of you roll your eyes, dismiss it out of hand as a bigoted offering of the Left, or some such reaction. However, sponsors included the National Council of Churches, People for the American Way, The Nation, The Village Voice, and United Americans for Separation of Church and State; these all, while being on the Left of the political spectrum, are frequently used by the media (or are leftist media outlets themselves). I must concede that the first two did a good job of naming themselves, making them seem more mainstream, or even right of center.

Stanley Kurtz wrote up a couple of articles on the matter for National Review, here and here.

Now, the Democrats made a lot of noise about "reaching out" to Christians after the last election. As far as I can tell, they're failing miserably at it. The scare tactics that they're using aren't exactly endearing them to any Christian I've come across. Perhaps they're just grasping for scare tactics now that their Social Security ones are failing so miserably. Environmental ones, too. To be sure, each of those have some of their kool-aid drinkers riled up, but as they become further divorced from fact, the democrats seem to be losing hold. But back to my point, in addition to these scare tactics, they've attacked the new Pope, and have just had a generally nasty approach to all things Christian. In addition to, if anything, alienating more Christians, is this really going to help them with non-Christians? Somehow, I doubt it. The whole thing seems very much like a net-loss issue for them.