Forget About Moynihan Station. The Deal Is Just About Dead.


The 1999 SOM rendering. It was beautiful then. It's meaningless now.

Back in 1999, the Clinton administration set-aside funding for the construction of a New Penn Station, to be designed by Skidmore Owings & Merrill. The new station would be named after the senator who spearheaded the effort - the late Patrick Moynihan. It was a grand and noble idea - to give New Yorkers a proper West Side train station to make-up for the loss of the original Penn Station in 1960. I don't want to re-tell the whole story, but since then, we have seen the following:

2000-2002: Penn Station receives some renovations. New waiting areas, and a new NJ Transit concourse are built. Also a new speckled floor and escalator tunnels for the Amtrak concourse are installed. (Woo!)

2002: The project to transform the Farley Post Office into Moynihan Station is re-started. The State of New York acquires the Farley Post Office from the Federal Government. A press conference is held (one of Moynihan's final public appearances) to announce that work would soon begin. It didn't.

2005: SOM looses the project, and it is reveled that HOK (the famous stadium builder) has done a re-design. The refreshed project is less technologically advanced than the SOM design, but by then, the estimated cost of opening the new station had surpassed the original $900 Million.

2006: The plan goes back to SOM. A third design is unveiled. We learn that commercial real estate giant Vornado wants to get involved, and include one or two office towers with the station. It didn't work with the basement Penn Station / MSG / One Penn Plaza back in 1964, so why not build another faiulre? The Dolan family (Cablevision) then gets involved (always a bad sign, right?). The Dolans want to leverage the plan to fit-in with their grand scheme to build a new Madison Square Garden on 11th Avenue, just west of the Farley Post Office. Vornado would build its new towers where One Penn Plaza and MSG now stand. Estimated price tag skyrockets.

2006: The project is dealt a huge blow. Amtrak announces that it won't be moving into its new home, because under the proposed arrangements, it would have to pay rent, which it wouldn't be able to afford (for obvious reasons). So now we're thinking about building a world-class train station just for New Jersey commuters? Travellers to and from southern New England will remain with the rats in the MSG basement? This is looking bad.

2007: The project, assumed dead, is briefly resurrected. The proposed towers get higher. How about 1,200 feet? That's about 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building two avenue blocks east. But how would this project, now estimated at $2 Billion, be funded?

Would now be a good time to mention that the $900 Million pledged by the Clinton Administration in 1999 was taken-back by the Republican Congress after The Day That Changed Everything? Yeah. It went to contractors in Iraq or got absorbed by tax cuts.

2008: The project is in its last throes. Time to call it, doctor?

I say, call it. It's a shame. But this is what happens when a project designed to improve the lives of New Yorkers becomes a giant urban planning project no one needs (except the developers and land owners), and then collapses under its own inflated budget and lack of justification for the tacked-on commercial space.

Also, keep in mind the project was intentionally delayed by NY House Speaker Sheldon Silver just to prevent Governor Petaki from ever seeing construction begin or to take any credit for the project while in-office. That just strengthens my argument for New York City to secede from the State and become the District of Gotham. But that's another post for another time.

JPL Captures Image Of Avalanche On Mars


And no, not evidence of an avalanche, or the aftermath of an avalanche, but an avalanche that was happening as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter passed over it on February 19th. The image shows dust and ice sliding down a 2,000-foot high cliff. Pretty darn cool. When a JPL probe captures a current event in our solar system, it is usually an active volcano (Io), or a giant storm (Saturn, Jupiter). But this image is a dramatic surprise, instantly recognizable as a quick event.

My Girl Was Right




My girl was correct about Wiki Media, Wikipedia, Wikia, and all things Wiki. She warned me not to trust it, and not to rely on it too much. I might continue to take a peek into Wiki world for a bit of information that can help me solve a crossword clue, determine the place of birth of a historical figure, or recap the past best-in-show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. But a general rule needs to ne followed - step away from the Wikipedia, and pick up a book or magazine. Or better still, write something original, and fact-check using other resources.

And I have to say that my dad was correct to warn me about Wikipedia, although not explicitly. He warned me not to get seduced by epistemology. I think he was trying to tell me that the philosophical study of human knowledge is worthy, and becoming a smart skeptic is noble. But actually believing that human knowledge can centralized and bottled is a dangerous idea. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Co-founder Jimbo Wales was pretty clear where he stands when he said:


Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.

It's not that Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information. Over 80% of the information in Wiki is accurate in the audits and studies I have seen. Its top-down, authoritarian style of site maintenance is not democratic, but a fascinating look at how people who devote large amounts of their time to the site gain political and editorial power. It's what Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales calls the 80-20 rule, 20% of Wikipedia's daily users control 80% of its content.

But in this post, I argue that Wikipedia is not all it is cracked-up to be. Case in point - who really benefits from Wiki? Cui bono? Is it you, or co-founder Jimbo Wales?

What's Wikipedia's real purpose? We can't be certain of its ultimate goal, but in just seven years, it has made Jimbo a millionaire and has gotten him laid more often.

Now it doesn't concern me who he is, or who he's boinking. But over the weekend, juicy news arrived that Mr. Wales' had a romantic relationship (however brief) with Rachel Marsden. Yes, THAT Rachel Marsden. The Canadian wingnut, Rachel Marsden, who stalked a former boyfriend, and briefly did a stint on a sexed-up Fox News late-night talk show called Red Eye. She was a co-host on the show, before her 'erratic behavior' got her fired last year. She was also the woman in the middle of the rather famous 1997 Simon Frasier University sexual harassment scandal, which revealed serious flaws in the University's harassment review process, ultimately forcing the University President to resign.

So what happened? This is how nutty our still-small Internet universe is:

Ms. Marsden contacted Jimbo Wales to complain that her biography on Wikipedia was constantly being attacked and defamed. Jimbo, being instantly enthralled that this right-wing babe was contacting him, struck-up a friendship. Phone calls and e-mails led to hot text messaging, which eventually led to a weekend of sex in a DC hotel. When they began to see each other is not confirmed, but seems to have happened soon after Mr. Wales and his wife separated (and his public statement emphasizes that). But interestingly, the story was broken by Valleywag, which is owned by Gawker media. Marsden told Gawker that she went out with Wales while in Georgetown (date unconfirmed). Both Marsden and Wales have spoken about their brief relationship, and apparently took little care to protect their AOL instant messages from the vacuum cleaner known as Google. But that didn't matter. When Jimbo publicly dumped Rachel last week, and used 'conflict of interest' as his justification, she leaked the IM's all over the net, and called him on his conflict-of-interest bullshit.

It's entertaining as hell. Where to begin? If you want to keep your sex life private, um, don't talk to the media about it, or dump your lover on a Wikipedia posting. But that's easy for me to say.

Let's see how the geeky administrators at Wikimedia talked about the relationship amongst themselves last fall. That's highly entertaining - seeing the volunteer serfs talking about their master's private life, since it intruded on their editing work and got the Rachel Marsden page locked in a bureaucratic, fact-checking review.

As Always, Sadly, No! and its commentators summarize it better than I ever could.

And Cliff aks the really big question: Why do men continue to fall for Rachel Marsden?

Why do guys still date Rachel Marsden, knowing the relationship will likely end in tears, court action and news stories where they're running to a car with their coat over their heads?

Figure it out guys, nobody, no matter how questionably hot, is worth waking up with a boiled bunny in your bed. At this point she has enough shell-shocked Ex's to form their own support group.


So to recap what I learned today:

1. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but like many free things, you get what you pay for. In this case, it is an almost secret society that holds onto editorial power and act as gatekeepers and bureaucrats inside a giant black box. Sean Percival is right. They might as well write the damn thing in doublespeak. The fact that Mr. Wales is a big Lost fan strengthens my point, as Doughty Pantload would say.

2. Wikipedia might be a dot-org, a non-profit foundation that accepts donations. But now the truth is coming out that Mr. Wales (and perhaps others) have been skimming the revenue. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of that story.

3. Rachel Marsden is one dangerous woman. Sure, getting seduced by her must be "volcanic" at first. But then it so quickly turns to tears. Just ask Mr. Wales. His IM's are all over the net. And Rachel is selling a t-shirt and a sweater he left behind on eBay. His credibility has been severely damaged.

There always was a Wikipedia backlash. Maybe the backlash is going mainstream? And be sure to hear more about Ms. Marsden. Considering her history, we will be receiving another story involving her in a few months. It could be sooner. Her last sighting before this was at last month's CPAC conference.

The Wire: It Ain't No Morality Play *Spoilers at all links*


Omar Little ('Omar'). Shotgun wielding, gay, 34-year old, robber of drug dealers. Local folk hero.


Felicia 'Snoop' Pearson. Cold blooded, spitting, cursing, fearless killer. Stephen King called her, "perhaps the most terrifying female villain to ever appear in a television series."

This is far premature for me to be writing about The Wire, since I haven't watched a second of Season 5, but I couldn't resist. For those who are following, the ongoing discussion at Slate.com is very good, even when it stretches its arguments (I still don't understand how the show is Neo-marxist).

According to fans, the last three episodes of The Wire (episodes 7, 8 and 9) have been absolutely amazing and devastating. Even a David Simon fan like myself, who is far behind on the series, couldn't avoid following the excitement that suddenly saved the fifth and final season. And happily, David Simon isn't out to stage a morality play ending. He is letting events play-out in the seedy world he created. David Plotz in Slate sums it up simply:

The lesson of The Wire has to be that the game never stops and that it always gets worse.

It's a very simple theme for what many believe is the greatest television series ever. It was truly a highbrow show about low-life, hardcore street crime. It was a fascinating mix, and a success story that a crime drama can still be compelling television without being pulpy (think The Sopranos). I just hope it wasn't critically acclaimed simply because it had more fully-developed Black characters than any TV show before it. White guilt should not the be cause for The Wire's success. It was far-superior writing and character development that made the show the very best, like Homicide before it.

Today Lads, We Win


We had better. We desperately need three points. I shouldn't say 'we'. I am not a Geordie. OK. So the Lads had better win.

The game is being shown at 16:30 today (Saturday) at Nevada Smiths. It will most likely be shown in the downstairs lounge, as the Spanish games are being shown upstairs. And some of my mates hope that the bird who roots for Blackburn will be there as well.

Howay The Lads! Let's bloody win for a change!

UPDATE: Well, the game was shown on the big screen upstairs. But Newcastle lost again. When will this misery end?

Barack Delivers A Smackdown. Excessive? Maybe. Deserved? Yes.

Hillary Clinton's campaign released a fear-mongering TV ad yesterday, sharply attacking Obama's lack of foreign policy experience:

Here is Barack Obama's devastating response. Like double-barrel devastating.


"We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.

"Well it won’t work this time. Because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is – what kind of judgment will you make when you answer? We’ve had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer.

"But I stood up and said that a war in Iraq would cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat we face – and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, and that’s the kind of judgment I’ll show when I answer that phone in the White House as President of the United States – the judgment to keep us safe, to go after our real enemies, and to provide the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States with the equipment they need when we do send them into battle, and the respect and care they have earned when they come home. And I’ll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally this country around our common enemies. That’s the judgment we need at 3am. And that’s the judgment that I am running for President to provide."

Game. Set. Match. That was one hell of a response. The politics of fear have to end (until they inevitably come back again)

Rewinding The Tape Of The William F. Buckley Death Commentary


Tombstone Generator image ripped from the folks at Sadly, No!

The Sadly No'ers noticed something in K-Lo's initial post announcing William F. Buckley Jr.'s death on Wednesday:

He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.

Doros62 appropriately asked:
Well, which is it? Did he die at work or at home?

Indeed! Of course, Mr. Buckley wrote his articles at home in Stamford, so we know what K-Lo meant. But I laughed really hard when I read that, and I think my girl thought I was nuts. It was late in the day. We were tired. And I was laughing uncontrollably as I was picking her up from her office.

Looking Into The Minds Of The Militant Hollywood Haters


Photo by Flickr user Vlastula, used here under a Creative Commons license

These examples are very interesting. And they are perhaps a little scary, since they remind me of gun-toting militia/patriot movement members from 15 years ago. In fact, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is a site founded by white supremacists, who were deemed a little too extreme for the the right-wing, mildly-racist blog, Little Green Footballs. At least some of them realize that if they watch a single primetime TV show or one of several cable TV channels, they are indirectly supporting either a Hollywood studio or the parent company of a Hollywood studio. So for the commenter who said he onlly watches television for NASCAR races and Fox News, that's two types of Fox programming. Fox television is owned by News Corporation, which owns 20th Century Fox. And Tim Graham, who thinks that no one in Hollywood likes 24, apparently didn't pause to remember which company produces the show.

Debbie Schlussel: [Almost] Never A Satisfied Movie Critic


Here's Debbie live-blogging this year's Oscars. Just read it for the unintentional comic brilliance.

There are way too many priceless gems in her angry rants. But I don't know what is more sad, her angry Oscars commentary fuelled by wine coolers, or the comments by her fans, who actually think she martyred herself by watching the broadcast for their entertainment. Like I said, go read it. There will be laughter.

I say that she is 'almost' never satisfied with a movie, because there are recent films she has enjoyed. In the last year, she liked Spiderman 3, she "loved" Enchanted, and she liked Vantage Point. But really, she detests most contemporary films. She wanted Persepolis to win Best Animated Feature (so did I, but not because it is an anti-Shiite film, or so she says). Fine, it is a great animated film. But a wholesome, fun, critically acclaimed, American animated film won instead. Was she happy for the made-in-the-USA, family-friendly Ratatouille? Even though she put it on her year's best list, she was still left a little disappointed Sunday night.

For those who don't know Debbie, she spends her waking hours as a race-baiting lawyer while aspiring to be more irrational, unhinged, and controversial right-wing celebrity pundit than Ann Coulter ever was. She's among the nuttiest of wingnuts. Gavin at Sadly, No! described her best here. Only a wingnut would start a movie review with this line:

It's not exactly a newsflash that Hollywood sides with Islamic terrorists and is against the impotent War on Terror.

I mean, case closed, she's out of her fucking mind, right? (Gavin smartly argues that she is not out of her mind, but rather a true believer in what the Bush administration wants Americans to believe.) Because of her lengthy, angry rants, she's frequently entertaining, if repetitive. Sadly, No! has been ignoring her, so I'm picking-up the baton today.

Debbie doesn't like films in which there is senseless killing (No Country; most horror films), a smart-ass teenager (Juno), foreigners (La Vie En Rose), gays, Spanish speakers, positive Muslim characters (David & Layla), or any truth about our nation's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (No End In Sight and Taxi To The Dark Side, respectively). So what current movies does she like? Well, based on her running Oscar commentary.....I have to say almost none. She's not a happy camper. All of these highbrow movies don't feature bible reading or perfect happy endings. They reflect imperfect, unfair worlds, much like our own real world. She argues that movies should be positive, escapist entertainment, since we know there are no 'artists' in Hollywood.

You know, for a girl who wants all Muslims exterminated, I find her disgust of movie violence, regardless of genre, maturity, realism, or importance to the story, to be a bit odd (except in Vantage Point....Die Muslims, Die! You too, Matthew!1!!!). But we have seen this behavior before. For example, we have seen it in those who claim to defend life by advocating the murder of doctors. Also we have seen it in those who claim to support a 'Culture of Life' while supporting capital punishment. Debbie is far from alone. Her passion and anger on the issue of stopping Muslims from out-breeding us and enslaving us seems to be unique, however.

She regards herself as an expert on terrorism and Muslim imperialism. She doesn't know about me, however. I know more about the history of terrorism than she ever will, and I can lecture about the subject while wasting drug dealers and cops in Grand Theft Auto. I'm dangerous, man. But this isn't about me.

That's All Folks


From Marc Cooper in today's Huffington Post:


And after repeatedly ignoring pleas from moderator Brian Williams to curtail her health care harangue, after extending and re-extending her remarks, Clinton then portrayed herself as a hapless victim of media bias by comparing Williams' questioning to a satirical sketch that aired over the weekend. "Well, could I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don't mind," she said with a grimace. "You know, I'll be happy to field them but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

Rimshot!

Or was that a car crash?

Either way, time to bring in the mop-up crews. It's over.

In fairness to Senator Clinton, the panel at last night's debate (Tim Russert and Brian Williams) was almost hostile to her. They interrupted her quite a bit, and that brought on her sarcasm and bitterness in return. Tim Russert was also unfair to Obama. I also think that since the health care issue has been talked to death -as critical as it is- it was time to focus on key differences between the two candidates and for Clinton to re-phrase her case for why she should be elected. It didn't turn-out the way it should have. The gatekeepers and agenda-setters did the driving in this debate. Clinton and Obama could only hang-on and react for 2 hours.

Shorter Mark Steyn*


America's Shittiest Website: The Clintons are rock stars who are most successful when their pants are down, appealing to liberals' vices and pathologies. Hollywood stars and fags love them. But this time around, their baby-boomer base will not bail them out. The base has found a new, hot, rock star to follow. It's a pity we couldn't see the Clinton's taken-down more dramatically. Heh. Barf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Looking To Sweep Texas, Ohio, Vermont, And Rhode Island

It's game over for Senator Clinton. We have a clear front-runner. Chadwick Matlin at Slate.com:


After tens of thousands of handshakes, thousands of stump speeches, and hundreds of meet-and-greets, Democrats are tired. They want one candidate—and that candidate is going to be Barack Obama.

We don’t have to look any further than Texas and Ohio to see the exhaustion firsthand. Rasmussen polls had him down by 16 points in Texas eight days ago (post-Potomac, pre-Wisconsin). Now he trails by only three points. The newest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that Texans like Clinton more than Obama on the issues that matter most—health care and the economy. Yet he’s in a statistical tie with her overall. Why? Because 47 percent of the state’s Democrats believe he has the best chance of getting elected president in November—thirty-six percent say that’s the case for Clinton. In Ohio, there’s an even larger disparity between whom Ohioans favor—Clinton—and whom they think can win in November-Obama.

Making A Better Case For Obama: Get The Facts Out


I'm sure Jonah Goldberg thinks this photo proves that like Hitler, Obama knows how to work the crowds.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a great post today highlighting Obama's notable accomplishments as Illinois State Senator and US Senator. He may not have written much legislation, but I see two key facts emerge from his record.

First, he seems committed to a short list of issues, such as ethics reform, prohibiting no-bid contracts, improving health care for veterans, halting nuclear proliferation, supporting human rights, technology, and dramatically improving government transparency. He actually wants the Senate to list all upcoming votes on the Internet, which would make it more difficult to sneak wasteful spending past the public. He wants a vastly improved, seamless Federal Intranet (why didn't CEO Bush think of that?). He has already built a database that tracks government contracts spending for all to see (who knew?). I knew none of this until I read Hilzoy's post, and I am all for it.

Second, when he does concentrate on an issue or bill, he has a track record of winning votes from the other side of the isle. In one of the most remarkable state government achievements in recent memory, he got the Illinois state senate to approve a bill requiring every police interrogation to be videotaped. The bill passed 35-0. How 'bout that? He got every Republican in his chamber to support a human rights law.

Some may look at that and think, 'he must be Jeebus!' I look at that and think, 'maybe this guy will be an excellent President.' Maybe.

Katherine at Obsidian Wings has gotten aboard the bandwagon, too. When you see where Obama stands on human rights, he is closer to the young Hillary than today's Hillary.

Obama Is No Great Candidate, Either


Close, but no cigar, Senator Obama. I have strong reservations about you, too.

1. The ancient Greeks had a point when they viewed hope as a deadly sin. I agree. I can't stand it. Hope is not action. Hope is not courage. Hope is not fighting for what's yours. Hope is just a feeling. It can inspire great works of art and make us aspire to be better people. But hope has to be followed by specific actions to bring about results. If not, then hope is actually our enemy, and distracts us. I'm afraid, Senator Obama, that you haven't gotten past the Hope stage. You don't really have a plan. Not yet. Perhaps you will once you see the mess Bush is leaving in the White House. That's my hope, er, I mean wish!

2. Michelle Obama. Someone needs to sedate her. Every word out of her mouth is rubbish and is used against her husband. Everything she says brings him down a notch. It's a shame that a candidate's law-abiding spouse can be an asset or liability. I personally prefer the MO of Howard Dean's wife, who in 2003, stayed in Vermont, practiced medicine and never once commented on her husband's campaign. But smart people like that are rare nowadays. Hence, we have Michelle. Now it is not her fault that right-wingers are portraying her as a wacko. But then again, if she would only shut her mouth....

3. He still voted in favor of bankruptcy reform which heavily favors banks over people up to their eyeballs in debt. And he also continues to vote in favor of funding the occupation of Iraq. Why does he vote against the values of his base from time to time?

Those are my three big beefs about Obama at this moment. The others are more obvious, and the same as Hillary's. He wants to be President at one of the worst periods in American history. He wants to be President because it will look good on his resume. He, like Hillary, has a short list of slogans to help him get elected. Et cetera.

Three Reasons Hillary Didn't Win My Vote


1. She never explained why she should be my president, aside from the fact that she was an excellent first lady who lived in the White House for 8 years. I remember a born-again peanut farmer from Georgia who explained why he was running in the aftermath of a national disgrace. We have a similar situation and Hillary could have done the same.

2. She spoke of having 35 years of experience. While her career got off to an amazing start, the last decade has not impressed me. Clinton isn't as pro-active or courageous as some of her colleagues in the Senate. When I think about my favorite senators in office, I list names like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel (R), Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Chris Dodd, and Bob Menendez. Hillary is not one of them. To paraphrase David Mamet, she's white bread.

We have to keep in mind that it is a mix of legal and political experience. She is not saying that she has been preparing to be President for 35 years. In fact, I think the idea of becoming president only occurred to her in 1999 when her husband was impeached. (Barack probably decided to run after Gore conceded in 2000. He had to hope that Kerry would lose so he would get his chance.)

Senator Clinton's career is nothing to scoff at. She is a graduate of Yale Law School. During her time as a doctorate student, she volunteered at a hospital, worked on child abuse cases, advocated for migrant workers, and became involved in a new 'child rights' movement which gave children more power in the courtroom to fight for what's theirs. She even declined Bill Clinton's first marriage proposal. She was liberal, ambitious, and had characteristics I greatly admire. She was the breadwinner in the family from 1977-1992, earning and investing more than Bill did. She was the leader in that family, which might explain her impulse to defend Bill and restore her family name through her own election to the Presidency. All well and good. Her US Senate seat was supposed to springboard her into the white house. But her conservative track record in the Senate has done nothing to impress me. Yes, I think it would be good for the Clinton family to get a shot back at the Bushes. I can root for a little revenge. But do the Clinton's need this victory? Do they need to hit back, Corleone style? Why should I root for a family that went into the White House slightly more affluent than me, and came out as millionaires and heroes?

3. Most important is Senator Clinton's refusal to admit that she made a mistake by voting AYE on Joint Resolution 114, the authorization to invade Iraq. All she has to do is admit she made a mistake, and she has my vote. Really. That's all she has to do. I want a woman in the White House in my lifetime. Hillary is not perfect, but she's a fine choice for that historic role. What a shame she won't admit her mistake.

21 Democratic senators, including the late Paul Wellstone, voted against the Iraq use-of-force resolution. Every Democratic senator I list above as my favorites voted against it, except those who weren't in office at the time (Menendez and Whitehouse). Hillary could have stood with them. She refused. What leadership is that? Would JFK call that a profile in courage? I think not.

Now I know the most Clinton or Obama can ever give me is two or three moderate Supreme Court justices. But I think Clinton gives me an extra special nothing on the side.

As for Obama...I didn't ask or even want him to run. I didn't ask for a movie star smile. I didn't ask for a deep, strong voice. I didn't ask for an athletic, black president of a white, overweight country. But the more I think about it, the more I realize it would make me happy to see Obama take the helm. And after all, if only selfish people run for that office, I want a selfish reason to see them win. I haven't felt good about my country since......since.....President Clinton was acquitted by the Seante? Wow. That was February 12th, 1999. I remembered what Alexander Hamilton said 200 years ago. He said, "Here, Sir, the People govern." On that day, the People won.

What might an Obama victory do? It might make me feel good about the USA for 50 days. So this is what we've come to - incredibly low expectations for our country. I have many other reasons to smile in my life. Life is good! But when it comes to my country, this has been a most depressed decade. We've been losing, people. Losing a lot.

What would Lincoln say? Where's the freedom in a culture now dominated by fear (and celebrity news)?

Sure, I know, I shouldn't think this way. This is irrational. I should shut-up and order that chicken caesar salad and vodka drink with a twist. But I don't want a caesar salad. I don't want another vodka drink right now. I want to try a rye. I want a president with a Muslim name just to make the wingnuts shit themselves for four years (can you imagine what Ann and Pam would do? Kill themselves, I hope). I want to see Barack Hussein Obama be the president to bag Osama bin Laden. It could happen. I want Obama to be the political equivalent of my Red Sox. I want to see him win. Why not him? Why the hell not?

Hillary didn't explain why she should be president. Neither did Obama. But since life is unfair, one of them had to lose my vote. They both have huge egos. They are both insane to want this job. They both refuse to reverse any of the serious changes Bush brought to this country (Homeland Security, the imprisonment of Lindh and Padilla, The Patriot Act, the spread of torture and domestic spying). But Hillary's vote for Joint Res 114 was the tie-breaker. Game over. We have a winner, who won by screwing-up less.

A Risky Plan


This seems like a crazy idea, but then again, it is the solution "preferred by the Bush administration." The Pentagon is going to attempt to 'shoot down' its disabled, experimental spy sattelite, which is due to re-enter Earth's atmosphere in March. Rather than let the odds play out and let it come down to an unpopulated area or ocean, we're going to blow it up into fragments of dangerous orbital debris / space junk. Bravo!

China proved that it can be done in January 2007, and they successfully made a lot of dangerous orbital debris, which of course, can damage other satellites, spacecraft, and possibly the International Space Station.

I'd love to see the missle miss its target. Let's see how this clever idea plays out...