Democracy

I want to expand a bit on my comments yesterday. I don't want to give the impression that I am against democracy, and democracy in the Arab world in particular. Quite the opposite. The problem, though, is a much more complex one than simply "have a vote." Which means, of course, that neocons absolutely can't begin to grasp it.

A functioning democracy requires certain preconditions. Without moving to a sort of pre-democratic state, democracy fails. Neocons, being shortsighted and not the first in line when it came to handing out brain cells and work ethics, can't see this. They think of Germany and Japan as totalitarian states that transformed quite nicely to democracies, without realizing that in both cases pre-democratic conditions already existed.

States that are not ready for democracy in certain vital ways are bound to fail. South Vietnam is a good case, because it was no more prepared to be a democracy in the 1960's than Iraq is today. And with the sort of ham-handed idiocy that Americans are applying to Iraq, there is simply no chance at all of a real democracy taking hold.

One of the primary requirements of a real democracy is that the people must have a common belief in their own liberty. That means the rich and poor must agree that their own freedom is important. Secret Police and terror organizations thrive in a pseudo democracy because government and elites allow them to.

In a real democracy, the rich understand that it's important to keep the poor and middle class relatively free and well-informed. Their belief is such that they won't allow the weaponry of the state to be pointed at its people. When that starts to happen, democracy falls away. Once information and control is in the hands of the regular mechanisms of the state, the will of the people quickly falls away and the state dominates.

That's what happened in Weimar Germany in the 1920-s and 30's. Germans did not believe that all members of the state should be free and equal. That led to the dominance of the government by extreme rightists, who in turn became the state. It wasn't until after the war, when West Germany was forced to accept their own culpability and the role that extreme racism played in it that they accepted broad freedom as the basis for their democracy.

If you look at various failed and fake democracies, they have that element in common: no broad consensus on freedom, and therefore an inevitable over-extension of state authority. South Vietnam. Pre-Castro Cuba and other Caribbean attempts (like the Haiti and the DR). Mexico (and Japan to an extent) is a one-party democracy where the elites work like a political machine, handing out enough largesse to voters and officially crippling and fragmenting the opposition to maintain power a all costs.

Generally, democracy fails when the upper economic classes refuse to respect the freedom and support the causes of those less fortunate than them. Russian democracy is in jeopardy - if it hasn't outright failed - because the ruling elites refuse to share power. The average citizens grew up with the weight of totalitarian pressure keeping them down, and they are not capable of grasping what should be theirs. And the elites have made the shortsighted mistake of refusing to champion others.

Because, in the end, it's only self-serving of the well-off to champion the poor. They only way to preserve their own freedom from the oppression of rightist fascism or leftist communist dictatorship is to keep everyone in the game. When the jackboots come out, nobody's happy - not even the rich.

Which brings us back to the failed democracies of the Arab world. Okay, the one democracy they've been forced to set up and how it's failed the Palestinians. There is no belief in universal liberty among Palestinians. They believe they are better than all Jews, and that all Jews must die. Further, they believe that they are powerless to stop their own elites from taking the crust off the table. The result is the election of extremists who, if allowed to by democratic processes, will cancel democracy and invade their neighbor. Sound familiar, Herr Fuhrer?

The solution is nation-building. It is to develop economic success for all walks of life, along with progressive education that makes the case for freedom. All levels of government need to be brought into the nation-building plan to create the preconditions for true democracy. Without that, all you have is a vote. And they used to hold votes in the Soviet Union - they just didn't mean anything.

As far as the shortsighted US Junta is concerned, all bets are off for the poor and middle class. The power grab by the wealthy elite has already started morphing, inexorably, into fascism. Tax cuts for the rich have transformed, in only a few short years, into warrant-less phone taps.

Did rich people really want their calls and emails recorded without a warrant? No. But they haven't understood that the price of their liberty is the liberty - and prosperity - of all. The Junta has paid off their greed with the currency of their freedom.

Democracy

This is it, Georgie. This is democracy in the Middle East. You wanted it, you got it. Hey, we don't need these countries to develop a non-theocratic educational system. We don't need them to realize that women are actual humans. We don't need them to create an economy outside of the served-up-on-a-platter petro dollars that are hoarded by those who can their filthy hands on them. Nothing like that. It - like all other aspects of the neocon universe - is both simple and simplistic: just give them a ballot and watch them fly!

But do you really want to know what they believe? Do you really want to see 'free' elections? If you let them freely express themselves in most Arab countries, you get what you just got in pseudo-Palestine: an expression of murderous hatred.

Make you feel better, Little George?

Hamas is their choice. Of course it is. To believe anything else is to live under the self-deluded pall of neoconservatism. Look: as long as they weren't actually given a voice in their political process (like under Arafat) you could stick a guy like Abbas in the president's chair and pretend that Palestinians weren't genocidal sociopaths.

Not now. And there's suddenly a great deal of hand-wringing about it. "Oh, should we cut off funding? Their society will collapse!" Of course it will: Palestinians live off the kindness of strangers like nobody else ever has. They eat UN and international support dollars and barf it back up as terror.

Oh, sorry: you can't call it 'terror' when it's aimed at Israeli innocents. If bad Jewish babies are targeted, it's not "terror." Don't take my word for it: read the articles in the American press. Hamas "attacks inside Israel."

So, while nobody wants to deal with the Hamas government, they're still going to give cash to the PA as long as Abass is there. Convenient.

Here's a thought: why don't they make the Palestinians earn a living like everyone else? Maybe if they were out driving a bus all day they'd be less inclined to spend the whole night plotting to blow one up.

The bottom line is this: nothing has changed. This is what Palestinians always wanted. They don't want peace talks and thoughts of a compromise win to a struggle they lost 58 years ago. They want it all, the way they've been promised by their leadership their entire lives.

The solution? Draw unilateral boundaries. Build the wall and defend it. And then if the UN or Europe or whoever wants to maintain some illusion by funding the guys on the other side, let them. But cut out the make-pretend "negotiations." Please.

Killers

The only surprise I have about Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections is that there is so much surprise in so many quarters around the world. Of course Palestinians voted for Hamas. Who else truly represents their culture of hatred, violence and murder?

While the late and un-lamented Yasser Arafat was able to hold power as an old-school terror sheik, without his terror cred, Fatah just doesn't have the body count to keep up with Hamas.

It's another chapter in the same old story: the Palestinian Arabs are kept poor and stupid by a leadership who wants them hungry and violent. They are raised on hatred and religion, and promised that some day all the Jews will be slaughtered and the land of Israel stolen for them.

Arafat always made it clear that 'negotiations' with Israel and the US were just another means of getting closer to the blood-bath that they all want so desperately. His political remnants in the Fatah political/terror business just can't keep up the necessary duplicity of appearing moderate to the West (especially anti-Semitic Europe) and still whooping up the base.

The only question about Hamas is whether they would join the political process long enough to win. They are unrepentant baby-killing terrorists and they don't care who knows it. Perfect representatives of their constituency.

The only question remaining is whether holding all this money and power will truly moderate them. They are no longer insane genocidal outsiders; they are an insane genocidal government. Will the responsibility of government put their feet on the ground? From now on, they have to meet payroll and pave the streets and levy taxes and deal with business and economic development. The baby killing may have to fall by the wayside for a while.

For Israel, the only way forward is by more Sharon unilateralism. There truly and clearly is nobody to negotiate with now. That's somewhat a good thing - even Europeans can't pretend that there are two parties to talk peace now. The illusion has been dispelled, not just by Hamas but by the average Palestinian voter: this is what they want. Fine.

Israel should continue building the wall and formalizing their borders. They should decide exactly what their country's borders will be and what a future independent Palestinian country's borders will be.

Then, one day in the far future when someone on the Arab side of the wall wants to talk, they can listen.

Super Bowl

I've been waffling and vacillating over which team will be the NFL champion after the Super Bowl. While the game has made itself somewhat irrelevant by not including the real champion New England Patriots, it's still worth a moment's pause to consider.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are a 3.5 point favorite, and certainly have a lot going for them. Their offense is dangerous because they are well balanced. When "Big" Ben Roethlisberger is playing, they have an effective passing attack. Which means that a defense that loads up to stop their running game will pay a price. Teams that play too much coverage risk getting run over by the Bus or run around by Fast Willie Parker. The OL is excellent and can block well in both phases of the game.

But defense is what Pittsburgh is known for. As predicted on this very site, the Steeler blitz was able to rattle Peyton Manning and Jake Plummer in successive weeks. They play a 3-4 that has good blitzers across the LB corps and blocks of granite on the DL. And they're not new to the scheme - the 3-4 has been the defense there for the decade that "Coach Chin" has been the head guy.

They can rush the passer, they can stone the run, and when all else fails they can cover. SS Troy Palumalu is having a great post-season, hitting everything that moves and actually covering a few guys as well. His enthusiasm is obviously contagious, and the whole defense has played better with his emergence as a physical and vocal leader.

That's all well and good, but Bill "Coach Chin" Cowher worries me. He's now 2-4 in championship games and comes into this Super Bowl with an 0-1 mark in the big show. Can he coach at this level? Or is he more in the Marty Schottenheimer/Tony Dungy class of guys who can beat up on the wusses in the regular season but can get their team to play up to a championship level?

Just by reaching his second Super Bowl, he's out-done that group (actually, he did that in 1995 with his first trip). Cowher has a propensity to pull out all the stops when he's losing, which has not caused any drop in his lack of success on the larger stages. He's a good front runner, and his team will do well if they're playing with a lead.

But his opponent is a guy who's actually won one of these things. Mike Holmgren led Green Bay to its sole Favre-quarterbacked championship (and, the next season, lost the championship to Denver). He started fresh with an under-achieving group in Seattle and through patience and his force of will pushed them to the highest level.

I remember thinking, when re-alignment put Seattle in the NFC: "they're not going to get a sniff of success now. They'll never make the playoffs in the NFC." How times have changed.

He took Green Bay cast-off Matt Hasselback and turned him into the starting Pro Bowl QB. He pushed RB Shaun Alexander to league MVP status. The defense improved along with the offense, to the point that they are a confident unit that led the league in sacks this season.

The AFC is a much stronger conference, and the Pittsburgh team has played tougher opposition throughout the season and in the playoffs. Playing the Patriots and Broncos and Colts is great practice - the Seahawks receivers will seem plodding and sloppy after facing the Colts and Broncos WR's. The Steelers are up for a fight.

But football is a coaches game, and I like the 'Hawks staff better. Mike Holmgren was a Super Bowl winner as an assistant in San Francisco and as head guy in Green Bay. His players will be better prepared. As an 'X's and O's" coach, he's miles ahead of the Chin. He will have some surprises on offense that the Steelers won't have seen before.

The teams are close enough in talent for that to make a difference. Holmgren will do his best to jump to an early lead, knowing that Cowher doesn't handle trailing very well. Look for early mid-range to deep passing with a lot of shifting and different formations. They'll try to use Palumalu's aggressiveness against him and get him to jump some routes shallow and then throw behind him.

Chin is a lot like me when I play Madden on the Xbox. When I trail or give up a bad TD, I tend to over-reach and chuck it too much. That leads to more picks and 3-and-outs as I put it up for grabs or throw low-percentage passes instead of doing what I do best - the methodical run-pass balanced offense.

Like Bill Belichick's baiting of Mike Martz in Super Bowl 36 ("you can beat my pass defense - don't wuss out and start running your NFL MVP Marshall Faulk..."), Holmgren will have Cowher pressing and getting away from his game plan early.

To sum up: Seattle, 31-24.

Continue to Circle

It's really tough to know where to begin today. I'm still anticipating the beginning of the end of Canadian civilization, while watching cascading failures and malfeasance bring down the once mighty American nation. Canadian Conservatives, thankfully, have only a minority government.

That means if they try to do any of the horrific things they really want to do, they can be stopped. The downside of this is that their forced reasonableness may make them palatable enough for voters to give them a majority. If that happens, look out.

Because in a parliamentary democracy, there are no checks and balances. A majority in parliament rules like great carnivorous dinosaur in a poultry farm. The opposition can squawk, but nothing can stop the great majority. Brian Mulroney was passing hatefully wrong legislation when he was down to a 7% approval rating. 7% pretty much means your own family is against you, and the dog won't come when you call.

But 'back-benchers' answered with their machine votes. By the time the people were able to vote the scoundrels out (but not Brian who'd already ratted off the sinking ship), their 250+ seats became 2. And yet, here is Steven Harper with his shiny new government. Twelve years later and the lunacy starts all over again.

The irony is that the American republic was meant to avoid the problems of the kingly prime minister. America was supposed to have checks and balances. But there is none of that any more. Congress has completely given up its oversight responsibility. Georgie's boys refuse even the most simple requests for information. Anything that could seem at all negative is covered up. Congress is a whipped dog that has lost the ability to even whimper.

The imperial presidency of Little George has become a tyranny. But Little George is a tyrant who knows who to pay off. He makes sure that the cave-dwelling rightists who've propped him up stay fat and rich. Whereas congress once did the people's business, it now serves the people's bosses.

Congress now uses 'conference committees' to re-write legislation that's already been passed. A few Republicans get together and - despite what was voted on in their respective chambers - change bills before they're signed. So let's say an insurance bill contains $22 billion or so in charges the industry want to not pay. Let's say the bill passes anyway. The insurance people can get to the conference members and get them to mark out that $22 billion. Couldn't happen, right? Not with these guys.

Or take the case of Georgie's deadly mismanagement of hurricane Katrina. Sure, his own party is doing the investigating, but that still doesn't mean he'll hand over any papers. They only represent - who? The American people? Forget it - Halliburton pays more. So, even though new information shows that the White House was warned of the magnitude of the impending disaster two days before the storm hit - and they did nothing - they don't have to answer any questions or provide any papers.

What about the mines? After all, people have died recently in mines in the US. And, clearly, it takes a few bodies to get any attention from the media. So what about it? Turns out, the Junta's been cutting mine inspectors. Why bother? Mining will police itself by killing innocent men every few years until a Democrat (or a democrat) hires some mine inspectors to clean up the industry. It's just part of the cycle!

Then there's the two top Junta mining officials who walked out on the gentle questioning of Arlen Spectre's committee. No sense wasting time in congress - just get Abramoff for somebody to give them a few thousand more for their re-election campaigns - they'll shut up. That's how it works now - politics is strictly a cash-and-carry proposition.

Too much, too much. And that doesn't scratch the surface of the incredible self-inflicted disaster of the drug plan. The fix for that will be whatever the Little Guy proposes for a Health Spending Account in his next assault - I mean speech. See, with a health spending account, see, you can save money while you're healthy and then immediately go bankrupt when you get sick, while rich people buy health insurance and laugh at you.

Stay tuned!

Conservatives

To all the Canadians out there who voted Conservative yesterday and put Steven Harper in the Prime Minister's chair: you are a complete idiot. Your thirst for change after 13 years of prosperity and relative quiet pushed you to believe a group of power-hungry politicos who are bound and guaranteed to sell you down the river the first chance they get.

Canadian Conservative party lunacy tracks American rightist "compassionate conservatism" quite well. Both movements were out to reassure voters that they were mainstream, with only slightly less progressive ideas than the other guy. Both have proven to be absolute psychotic wild-eyed zealots. In Canada, it was the Mike Harris 'Common Sense Revolution.' Sounded good, until people realized that 'common sense' somehow morphed into cuts to schools and health and taxes on the wealthy.

And who ever wants that? Just the wealthy. So conservatives lie about it. And Canadians, who just barely lived through Brian Mulroney's kamikaze conservatism, bought into it. Stupid. You know this will end badly, right? Right?

A chunk of blame has to go to Jack Layton and the NDP. The party of "we're lefter than you" forced the election back in December. But since nobody was in the mood for politics over the Christian holidays, the election happened over three weeks in January - the year's deepest doldrums.

Layton's forced election was the only chance for Harper to gain power. It was a short enough cycle that his recent popularity spike - which was dropping - was enough to give him the win.

And what did old Jack get out of it? A couple more seats. That's it. He'd rather give Conservatives the power to dismantle the Canadian social fabric and have a couple more NDP seats than let the Liberals rule and keep cutting budget deals with them. Pathetic.

For Canada, we can look forward to our budget surplus draining out in tax cuts to the wealthy. Defense spending will increase dramatically, including Canadian dollars burned on Little George's missile defense boondoggle. Say goodbye to quality public health as a two-tier system is imposed.

And watch for a strangling of information. One of the hallmarks of the new conservatism is to hide untidy realities from the world. When a report shows a negative trend, you cut the report. It's like hangman's noose - always tightening, never loosening, until you're dead.

Nice job, Canada. You morons.

Warrantless

Here's the question that Little George and Darth Rove want you to answer: what are you more afraid of? What keeps you up at night - bearded heathen Osama bin Laden, or friendly, bumbling, jocular apocalypse-cowboy Little Georgie Bush?

Because, for the past three election, fear of people other than Junior has pushed his star right to the top. He's been able to sell the case that even though others might say he's the most dangerous incompetent ever to walk the planet, he's your dangerous psycho with a gun shooting almost at random.

But now we have warrantless wiretaps. Spying on Americans without a court order seems scary and creepy. Yosemite Sam might chase that 'varmint' all over creation, but he's not going to read Bugs Bunny's email and listen to his phone calls, right? That would be clearly a sign that Warner Brothers had gone well past their mandate to entertain.

Democrats are running hard with this one. Already, Al Gore and John Kerry have made very strong statements about it, both calling the president a law-breaker (and providing the only funny sketch in an otherwise bland Saturday Night Live last Saturday).

It's going to be Little George and Darth Rove against the world. Junior is not going to up and run from this. He did that once when he was caught eating straight out of the caviar jar by Poppy and got his ears boxed by a particularly menacing servant. No upping and no running.

That leaves 'explaining,' which is really not much of his strong suit either. But 'splaining and scaring' is right up his street. It makes you wonder - in a "they didn't really go the moon" sort of way - whether the Junta has a collection of bin Laden tapes that they splice together every time they need some extra domestic scaring. Like now for example.

I mean, how are you going to impeach Little George for a little harmless fun and email reading when Osama is plotting attacks! Hell, he just said so on al Jazzera!

The really sad part is that this guy is so far into the credibility negatives that I'd have no trouble believing that at all.

Osama

Does it seem otherworldly that in 2006 we are still - still! - getting threatening messages from Osama bin Laden? The man most responsible for the death and destruction of September 11 is still walking the earth and breathing free air. I want that air back.

It's just one of the deep and unforgivable failures of the "unitary presidency." Under this would-be constitutional dictatorship, bin Laden is still an actor on the world stage for two reasons.

First, because his presence helps the Junta. They thrive on the creation and maintenance of fear. In a sense, they are the master terrorists because they use terror to frighten the electorate into supporting them at the polls. If there was no bin Laden to frighten people with the prospect of attacks, the Junta would have to go and invent another one. Nixon had the NVA and Reagan had the Soviets - Bush needs his al Qaeda.

Of course, Little George helps his Saudi friend, too. Bin Laden himself pointed out that Iraq is a magnet and training ground for his terror cadres. Why break a deal that has allowed the Little Guy to have his neocon occupation of Iraq and fast-tracks his war profiteer buddies accumulation of public wealth? The defense industry, without a Soviet Union, needed bin Laden as much as Little George did.

The other reason is more plain: they just can't get him. The Junta is based on an overwhelming mass of incompetence. You can see it in everything they do domestically and internationally. They are the bungler who always drops things, falls over, drives his car into a crowd of pedestrians, gets bilked for millions, and shouts: I meant to do that!"

As Al Gore pointed out in his memorable speech recently, incompetence and failure is not a side issue to the "unitary executive." The president who works in secret, not bound by law or ethics is bound to fail. But the failure is used as justification for more power grabs. Little George fails to stop the 9-11 attacks, which become a justification for the Patriot Act and various invasions, kidnappings, and torture. Those acts create further failures, which prompt more power grabs, secrecy, and illegal immoral acts.

The Katrina response disaster (which is separate from the Katrina disaster itself) was indicative of the grotesque and deadly incompetence of the administration. And their answer is to give more contracts to Halliburton.

Bin Laden has nothing to fear as long as Little George occupies the White House. He is as important to the Junta as Dick Cheney.

I hope Canadians are watching. Their Little George is poised to become Prime Minister on Monday.

Canada

This is a note to any of my Canadian brethren who are considering voting Conservative in the federal election on Monday: are you on anti-psychotic medication or are you just psychotic? I've pointed out more than once what has happened to the "compassionate conservative" leadership in the US. Conservative Party leader Steven Harper is running on a similar platform - 'hey - we're mainstream! Don't sweat it, guy!"

Right.

But aside from comparisons with the American Junta, what have Canadians seen from conservatives in power? Brian Mulroney's PC party ruled for over a decade, until they were run out of town like a cat out of a pit bull farm. More recently, the Harris Tories got the push out of Ontario by a grateful and relieved public.

In both cases - and there are other like the widely-reviled Conservative Premier Hamm in Nova Scotia - the results were the same: policy choices pushed on the public that helped only the party's wealthy supporters. In Mulroney's case, his approval rating hit 7% - a historic low - while he was still pushing major legislation with his parliamentary majority.

Conservative governments in Canada have gutted spending on health and education while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Is that what Canadians believe in? It's certainly not what Harper is running on. His platform centers on the Liberal's misuse of funds to help their party. Which is bad. But we ain't seen nothing yet if the US model teaches us anything (and yes, it does).

Health care in Canada is a blessing. It's under-funded and needs some work, but it still costs far less per capita than the bloated for-profit American system. Harper wants rich people to be able to use their own health clinics, to the detriment of the rest of us. When the best doctors go to their clinics, and the political powers-that-be see their wealthy contributors happy in their private clinics, we can kiss health system improvements a sweet goodbye.

A recent Supreme Court decision opened the door to private health clinics - but only on the foundation that the public system wasn't effectively providing fast and complete care. The answer is not to chuck out the public system, but to properly fund it and be sure it works.

In education, the Harris people absolutely emaciated the Ontario school system, to the point where entire programs like music were being eliminated and after-school programs chopped off.
Teachers were bringing their own supplies to class because the schools couldn't pay for essentials. When the Toronto School Board refused to make the draconian cuts being demanded, the Tory government appointed a receiver to run the board - instead of the elected members.

Is that the sort of thing Canadians want? Hardly. But like their American cousins, Canadian Conservatives know that their agenda is wildly unpopular and anti-democratic. That's why they won't talk about it. I had hoped that Canadian voters were hip enough to see through that, but, sadly, modern electioneering devices are all too effective in pushing a candidate over an agenda.

Just yesterday, Harper let slip a hint of what awaits us under a Tory Junta. From today's Globe and Mail:

Stephen Harper says some judges appointed by the federal Liberals are activists
working to promote their own social agendas, statements that drew heavily from
his tenure in the old Reform and Canadian Alliance parties.

The Reform - later renamed Canadian Alliance - party was an extreme right wing party that had no chance at national election. They got pathetically under-brained Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay to sell out his PC party in a merger, and now the Alliance yahoos are on the cusp of forming a government. For all the mainstream talk, they are at heart a far-right Junta in waiting.

It's a sad time when two great nations fall for the same greedy anti-democratic garbage. I hope Canadians wise up over the weekend and see that they are on the verge of voting in an end to their own greatness.

Go Gore!

Please take the time to go read Al Gore's speech on the constitution. It's an extremely important statement on the state of the republic and the crimes of the Junta currently governing. It's one thing for a crackpot blogger like me to sit here and tell you that the executive is out of control and is jackhammering the foundation of democracy. It's another thing to read a major establishment political figure - the man who won the presidency in 2000 - call a crime a crime.

Here's a snippet:

"At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.
(APPLAUSE)

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
(APPLAUSE)

Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not
men.
(APPLAUSE)

They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.

As John Adams said, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.
(APPLAUSE)

In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
(APPLAUSE)

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on "Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase,
"the law is king." Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation
ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law.
(APPLAUSE)

And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested,
studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error.

GORE: And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power.

A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make. Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information. And we now know that the decision by
Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information.
(APPLAUSE)

Now, the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.

(APPLAUSE)
The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from
terrorism is all too real.

There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the
wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting
our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law
or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from
terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more
vulnerable."

Thank you, President Gore. It's no surprise that this sort of anti-constitutional over-reaching has been accompanied by historic incompetence from the governing Junta. It goes together like peanut butter and jelly. Anyone who would force a radical anti-democratic take-over of America is necessarily an incompetent. Government done in the dark with only a handful of opinions counting will be wrong far more than it is right.

It makes us less safe in every aspect of the word. We are more vulnerable to terror, not less. The Department of Homeland Security is so highly politicized and incompetent that its presence makes us radically more exposed to terror, natural disaster, industrial accidents - everything. Our foreign policy is so radically idiotic that we've created a terrorist recruiting and training camp in Iraq that never existed before, we've allowed Iran and North Korea to do whatever their bad intentions lead them to do.

As we've become less secure, the executive has consolidated power behind a prodigious wall of lies. The chances of voting them out grow smaller each year as they put their own voting machines in districts, hoard dirty political money to fuel their campaigns, and use massive disinformation campaigns to hoodwink voters.

America has made such blunders in blindly following these people that future generation may look back on us and say we are the 'Worst Generation.' Where we rightly look back on the heroic generation of the 1940's who fought for freedom and defeated some of the most powerful forces of evil in the history of the world - and beat the Great Depression at the same time - as the 'Greatest Generation,' our current batch are an embarrassment.

No leadership from Congress; where Harry Truman investigated defense profiteering while his own party was in power, the pathetic milksop war profiteers in our current congress won't call their president to task for actual crimes he's actually admitted to. It's the sort of deep shameful failure that will be the end of the great republic.

Please, go read Al Gore.

Once and Future Champs

The defending Super Bowl champion New Enland Patriots were defeated on Saturday eight by the one group of players capable of beating the: themselves. It wasn't the Broncos - who were more than happy to receive the Patriot's largesse - but the extremely uncharacteristic miscues by the champs that did them in, with the help of some terrible calls by the inept referees.

Since the team has been on such a winning streak for the past five years, complaints about the refs have come from the winning side - so not a big deal. On Saturday night, their calls took the game from us - admittedly a game we were bust giving away at the time.

Two calls come ti mind: first, a pass interference in the end zone where the offensive player clearly pushed off. There were two correct referee decisions possible: either no call at all, as the contact could be considered incidental, or else an offensive pass interference, as the receiver pushed the defender.

Nope. Defensive pass interference, a free seven points for the home team.

The other was on the fumbled interception return. A fumble through the end zone by an offensive player (even a defender returning a pick) is a safety for the other team. The ball was clearly fumbled out the side of the end zone by the returner after a hard hit by TE Ben Watson. That was a nine-point swing - the seven they got and the two taken from us.

Then there was the motion on the Denver field goal that was not called. Add those three points to the total, and the referees gave them 19 points. Yes, the Pats played the worst game of the Belichick era, but those 19 points did decide the game. And no, there were not corresponding calls that went the Patriots way.

For the rest of it, the Patriots fumbled and picked the game away. When Troy Brown muffed a punt return - down by four with the game starting to break our way - I thought the world was going to end. I mean, if you'd asked me to choose one person in all of football to catch that punt, I would have taken Troy Brown. If that had happened on Xbox, I would have hit reset on the basis that it's just not possible.

This is where not having an offensive coordinator hurt the team. When the offense started coming apart and things looked grim, there was no strong coordinator's voice to take charge. Belichick has proven to be a great leader as a coach, but more was needed to right the ship. I hope he hires and offensive coordinator for net year, and that he's able to keep young Eric Mangini as defensive coordinator.

The sad part is that they were looking good in a quest for the third straight Super Bowl - and when will they be in that position again? Will they win two straight again to set up another run like that?

It's a sad ending to a bumpy season. But I still celebrate the team and its accomplishments. Pats fans have no cause to complain. Some days, the breaks beat the boys. I'm just happy it didn't happen before.

Are You Ready...

It's a divisional playoff weekend. This is normally the weekend when the well-rested home teams, sitting out last week with a bye, clean up on their over-worked opponents. And sure, since this playoff format began, the home team in this round wins by a 5-1 margin. And since there are only four games in the round, less than a single visiting team should win. So perhaps just the Washington defense will advance, leaving their pathetic offense in Seattle.

The "however" is this: however, I like three visiting teams to win. Let's have a look:

SEATTLE (-9.5) over Washington: Okay, this is the home team I like. Apparently there needs to be at least one big walrus-looking head coach to go deep into the playoffs. For the last five years, it's been Andy Reid of the Eagles, but before Andy it was his former boss, Mike Holmgren, walrus-coaching the Packers.

The Washington football team is well-coached and no doubt well-motivated. They beat Seattle in Washington this season, but that was the usual Seattle bizarro road performance where they just flat refuse to win under any circumstances.

This time, they face a Washington team that just flat out could not move the ball against Tampa last week. The defense beat the Bucs all by themselves, but that won't be enough this week. I do think the Washington offense will get on the plane this week and show for a bit. Seattle's defense is not Tampa's - but it's not bad, either.

Look for a close first half, but Seattle's superior offense will make some plays and pull ahead. Their walrus won't let them play too loose and give Washington the turnovers it would need to pull off the upset. The Seattle ground game is good enough to start fast and finish slow, so they should keep it on the ground from start to finish. Even though QB Matt Hasselbeck has proven to be a top guy over the last couple of years, the smart thing would be to let NFL MVP Shaun Alexander win this one for them.

Carolina over CHICAGO (-3): here we go with the road dogs. As we all know by now, a three-point home line indicates that the teams are even - the home team takes three for sleeping in their own beds the night before the game. It's the 'bed bonus.' Chicago is a great defense attached to a garbage offense (see: "Washington" above). You can't advance in the playoffs with only half a team. Pretenders like these Bears get the hook pretty quick.

The Panthers are anything but pretenders. They are a playoff-savvy team that's been to the Holy Land before. They are mentally tough and extremely well-coached. The biggest difference between defensive-minded Lovey Smith and John Fox is that Fox actually accomplished something before getting the head coaching gig - he coached the Giants defense to a Super Bowl. Lovey had success by association with the Tampa pedigree of defensive coaching - Tony Dungy, Herm Edwards - but never created a top defense or coached a defense to a Super Bowl.

The Panthers are tenacious and play all phases of the game. The caveat is that QB Jake Delhomme is starting to show a bit of Peyton. That is, when he made his improbable Super Bowl run two years ago, he seems like a young Tom Brady - up from nowhere (NFL Europe), hardworking, smart fiery - but in his current incarnation, he seems to be flopping around the field like it's Days of our Lives. He's calling penalties. He's flapping audibles. He's 'working' the refs. He's visibly upset with his team-mates when errors happen. He is, in short, morphing into a poor man's Manning rather than a poor man's Tom Brady.

And which pauper would you rather have?

PITTSBURGH over Indianapolis (-9.5): Yes, the Steelers are going on the road to beat the Colts. That is, they win outright, not just gain the pyrrhic victory of covering the nine and a half points. I like the Steelers because they're a character team. Their coach, Bill Cowher, might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he can get his guys fired up - and that's what it's going to take to win this.

This will be a contest of intensity, and the soft and character-less Colts won't be able to bring enough to match the Steelers. Pittsburgh is one of the better blitzing teams and will be able to get to Manning early and often. They will be in the Colts' faces all day - can the Colts respond? No.

For Indy's part, they are the team that peaked too early. They went 13-0 and absorbed all the accolades. I remember quite clearly the day they went 13-0 and tied (or set) some regular-season record, Peyton tried to downplay it in his own way by saying: "we have the hats and the tee-shirts, now we have to get past it…" Hats? Tee-shirts? The Pats went 21 straight for an all-time record that meant something, and none of them would talk about it. It was acknowledged in about three words.

Hats and tees? For a 13 game win streak that got them no Lombardi? These guys are lightweights. They've already won as much as they care to this year. Sure, they have lots of talent, but they are a soft team that has failed every gut-check they've been faced with. Since going 13-1 and missing the perfect record, they've shut down. They haven played a game that meant anything since November.

And in that first loss, San Diego pounded Manning mercilessly. Rookie OLB Shawn Merriman took his lunch money and gave him a swirly (head in the toilet bowl, ker-flush). Other members of the Chargers front seven pantsed him and gave him various forms of the classic "wedgie."
Bill Cowher has reviewed that tape. The Steelers will be coming.

On offense, QB Ben Roethlisberger has more poise and experience. The running game should be effective.

Since the Colts have several prepared excuses and did win a lot in the regular season, they will be satisfied with getting this far. Look for Manning to get the MVP in the Pro Bowl game again.

Patriots over BRONCOS (-3): Tom Brady vs. Jake Plummer. Anything more need be said?
At the time they played this season, the Pats were both hurt and ineffective. They were utterly depleted in the secondary. And the front seven was only a pale shadow of itself. They were playing without Richard Seymour. No Rodney Harrison, no Tedy Bruschi. The two inside linebackers - the key to the 3-4 run defense - were Money Beisel and Chad Brown. Both were new to the system. Both were ineffective. On offense, there was no Corey Dillon, no Kevin Faulk, no Matt Light.

Light and Harrison are gone for the year, but their replacements have had time to learn the system - the plays and the attitude. Seymour is back. The DB's have developed. The ILB's are Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi - with the now-more-experienced Beisel and Brown coming in relief. In short, Belichick and DC Eric Mangini have re-trained an entirely new (except for Eugene Wilson) defensive secondary. They moved Vrabel inside and have Bruschi and Seymour on the field. This is a very different and very dangerous defense.

On offense, Brady is no longer the only thing. While Dillon wasn't reminding anyone of Jim Brown last week, the running game was effective enough to keep the defense from loading up on the pass. The Patriots are playing well in all phases of the game. And that's bad news for anyone standing in their way.

Plus, Belichick has the tape from their previous match-up this year. And you don't want Belichick to have tape of you. You really don't.

That leaves a couple of interesting match-ups for next week. Carolina at Seattle is anybody's game. The Steelers will be at New England. Can Bill Cowher finally beat the Pats in a championship game? He couldn't do it at home - maybe he can do it on the road. If they can win in Foxboro, they will be only the second team in NFL history to win three road games on the way to the Super Bowl. The other team?

The 1985 Patriots.

Ribbit!

One of the hallmarks of our current reign of abysmal governance is the denial of scientific fact in order to further the narrow interests of money. And power. This is no more evident than in the political rejection of the well-established scientific fact of global warming. The planet is warming, and it's warming fast because of human interference in the ecosystem. Fact.

But because the Junta makes loads of cash from polluters, they go to great lengths to find any sort of street-person scientist with a degree from the "University of Under the Bridge by the Bypass (UUBB)" or the "University of Fundamentalists who are Right and Going to Heaven Any Minute Now (UFRGHAMN)" to create a false 'controversy' about it all. Dr. Dingleberry says "Garsh, all these numbers is hard!" So Georgie gets to say: "scientists disagree about global warming." Cute.

But tell that to our croaking croakers. Yes, frogs are dying. Not just frogs - entire species of frogs are disappearing. And that's proven to be a direct result of global warming.

In this case, the frogs are our canaries. Just as miners used to bring the small songbirds with them into the mines - their untimely expiry would indicate a major air issue - frogs are telling us that we're on the clock. We're polluting our world to the extent that the species that are least resilient (partly because we're bulldozing the habitats) are not able to continue.

That's a warning, folks. What more do you need? The Bushes and Cheneys and DeLays have been sopping up the pollution industry money all their lives. They're like a Survivor contestant at an all-you-can-eat biscuits and gravy buffet.

A legacy of greed and waste? Bring it on! Nothing for their grandchildren but debt and scorched earth? Who cares? Live for today!

There is also a religious element. That is, they believe that their deity told them that the earth and all its species are theirs to do with what they will. So if the 'will' to wipe them out - no biggie. They're there to be used.

The other thing their narrow conception of the divine tells them is that the ultimate divine conflagration is coming very soon. The true believers think that they can spend all the money and burn all the trees and kill all the animals because the world will be judged any day now, and the only criteria for passing the pop quiz will be a belief in the properly chosen deity.

Now, the Junta doesn't believe that. If they did, they wouldn't do half the stuff they get away with. They're not religious, they just court religious votes. And when there is a requirement for an explanation for inhuman behaviour, they can call on their "higher father" to excuse the insanity.

So here's to the frogs who can no longer croak our doom. Georgie says you must die that he profits.

Join the club.

Did You Hear It?

Did you hear hat?  Like the distant rumble of Godzilla's footstep.  Or the brilliant scene in the original Jurassic Park - where the circular ripples form in the puddle whenever the footsteps land, growing louder and louder and the THX rumble almost knocks you out of your seat.  Boom.  Boom.  Boom.

 

The Chinese are moving away from the US dollar.  Boom.  They are less confident init, and may move their colossal appetite for saving to another currency.  Boom.  Another country.  Boom.  Or they may start, finally, to buy things with it.

 

Boom.

 

First Georgie spent the surplus.  Then he went into debt.  The money all went to his friends as cash for spending.  He didn't buy any statues, and he didn't build any bridges.  He just burned the cash, the way you'd fry a $20 you forgotten you'd left in your jacket.  More and more, to historically indecent heights the deficit has bloated. 

 

The idea, of course, is to so hamstring the government with debt that cuts to programs for, you know, people can be eliminated.  People who needs stuff like food and education and a fair shake and clean air and water.  Those things we are to do without in the totalitarian neocon vision.  And the way to cut them is to "starve the beast" - deny money to the government by bankrupting it. 

 

And they're getting close.  They keep giving away the nations treasury as gifts to the wealthy.  They call them "tax breaks" but that money is not a break, it's a gift.  It doesn't belong to those rich people - it's not theirs to keep - it belongs to us.

 

And all the while, the debt piles up.  It grown because somebody is there to buy it.  Somebody is there to loan us the money that Georgie burns.  Yes, it's exactly like loaning your friend $1,000 and watching him use it to buy drinks for the house.  And then ask you for another $1,000.

 

The "housing bubble" which has fuelled the jobless recovery of little George exists because there is cheap dollar credit to be had.  That cheap dollar credit comes from China, because they save at nearly 50% and they buy American dollars.  Without an infusion of more than a billion dollars a day from China, the cheap credit that all those second and third mortgages and the interest-only mortgages that put spending money in peoples pockets goes away. 

 

Boom.

 

Georgie has engineered it so that his rich friends profit from the less-than-normal economic growth of the Bush years.  Working people (like, 95% of America) haven't seen dime one.  Just how they like it in the Junta.

 

But when the Chinese move on, they take the Ponzi scheme with them.  When they pull out for good and for real, they take our economy with them.  The only limiting factor is how much they'll risk devaluing the Yankee dollars they've bought by making America an economic beggar.  We better hope they like their dollars more than they like their Marxist-Maoist ideology.

 

Or they'll pull that rug overnight and take us back to the stone age.

 

Right where the neocons want us.

 

It's a Record!

Spending on health care now eats up 16% of the US economy. And growing. The "good news" is that drug costs are only 10% of that figure, and they finally stopped ten years of double-digit growth. Yes, ten years of double-digit growth every year in the cost of medication. Health care eating a sixth out of the economy. When will they get it?

Conservatives of all stripes in all countries seem to have an irrational hatred of healthy people. That can be the only possible reason for their decades-long fight against public health. Every advanced country in the world provides universal health care. It's the only civilized way to do it. Health care is a right, not a privilege of wealth. But in the US, it's become a centre of corporate profit. And as we all know (say it together) corporate profit trumps all.

But wait: turns out, health sector profits actually hurt other sectors. It's the proverbial snake eating its own tail. As the neocons protect massive health sector profiteering, they simultaneously raise costs for their other close friends (more like family, really) in other industries. And what do the even most callus and grotesque corporate criminals have to offer their employees? Health care.

It's a well-known but seldom acknowledged fact that universal health care (no matter what the system or the country) costs less per person than the bloated cash register system in the US. Paul Krugman points out that a big chunk of administration dollars are spent by every provider trying to shift the cost to someone else. It's a nonsensical system that kills people every day.

And here in Canada, we're reaping the befits. Where auto plants are closing and laying off workforce in the US, they're investing billions in Canadian plants. The reason? Health care costs (and worker education). They've figured out that it's better to pay somewhat higher corporate taxes (and still get government sweetheart deals) and not have to carry a huge and ever-increasing burden of medical spending.

And programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are purportedly killing state budgets, could be wiped out. When the healthy and rich are in the same program as the sick and poor (that's four separate categories if you're counting), the risk and cost is spread out and manageable.

But that's against the conservative creed, isn't it? Conservatives believe that we're all in this alone, that you keep what you get and if you get nothing than screw you. If life hands you a lemon - suck on it. You won't get any sugar or water from anyone else to make that lemonade.

The rest of us don't see it that way. We all know that the more we rely on each other, the stronger we are. But guys like Canadian Conservative Leader Steven Harper want to turn the Canadian system into one system for the rich who can pay for top care and one system for the rest of us to get the left-overs.

It's in-human. It's greed over all. It's short-sighted. It's less efficient and more costly. It's conservative.

The Point

I'm not the first to say this, but I think it's important to give it the full 'echo chamber' effect: the Abramoff scandal is not about lobbying, and "lobby reform" is not the way to prevent future Abramoffs. The issue is official corruption. It's the Republicans accepting dirty money for services, not the rats who offer the money.

Junta members are scrambling to introduce anti-lobby legislation in a desperate attempt to look like they're doing something. They're even proposing a ban on Members accepting trips. Gosh! See, that way, no Member of Congress will every take money to vote a certain way ever again.

It's drivel, but if the Dems drop the ball (yet again) the Junta might slime out of this with the voters this year. "See!" they'll say: "we're all reformed! We won't take any more trips directly from lobbyists!"

Sure, but there will be lots of contributions to the various children's charities that grease the skids of power in the Junta.

Don't let anyone tell you that this is about lobbyists. It's about the bottomless maw of greed at the heart of the Republican congressional machine.

It's a Record!

Spending on health care now eats up 16% of the US economy. And growing. The "good news" is that drug costs are only 10% of that figure, and they finally stopped ten years of double-digit growth. Yes, ten years of double-digit growth every year in the cost of medication. Health care eating a sixth out of the economy. When will they get it?

Conservatives of all stripes in all countries seem to have an irrational hatred of healthy people. That can be the only possible reason for their decades-long fight against public health. Every advanced country in the world provides universal health care. It's the only civilized way to do it.

Health care is a right, not a privilege of wealth. But in the US, it's become a centre of corporate profit. And as we all know (say it together) corporate profit trumps all.

But wait: turns out, health sector profits actually hurt other sectors. It's the proverbial snake eating its own tail. As the neocons protect massive health sector profiteering, they simultaneously raise costs for their other close friends (more like family, really) in other industries. And what do the even most callus and grotesque corporate criminals have to offer their employees? Health care.

It's a well-known but seldom acknowledged fact that universal health care (no matter what the system or the country) costs less per person than the bloated cash register system in the US. Paul Krugman points out that a big chunk of administration dollars are spent by every provider trying to shift the cost to someone else. It's a nonsensical system that kills people every day.

And here in Canada, we're reaping the befits. Where auto plants are closing and laying off workforce in the US, they're investing billions in Canadian plants. The reason? Health care costs (and worker education). They've figured out that it's better to pay somewhat higher corporate taxes (and still get government sweetheart deals) and not have to carry a huge and ever-increasing burden of medical spending.

And programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are purportedly killing state budgets, could be wiped out. When the healthy and rich are in the same program as the sick and poor (that's four separate categories if you're counting), the risk and cost is spread out and manageable.

But that's against the conservative creed, isn't it? Conservatives believe that we're all in this alone, that you keep what you get and if you get nothing than screw you. If life hands you a lemon - suck on it. You won't get any sugar or water from anyone else to make that lemonade.
The rest of us don't see it that way. We all know that the more we rely on each other, the stronger we are. But guys like Canadian Conservative Leader Steven Harper want to turn the Canadian system into one system for the rich who can pay for top care and one system for the rest of us to get the left-overs.

It's in-human. It's greed over all. It's short-sighted. It's less efficient and more costly. It's conservative.

Did You Hear It?

Did you hear that? Like the distant rumble of Godzilla's footstep. Or the brilliant scene in the original Jurassic Park - where the circular ripples form in the puddle whenever the footsteps land, growing louder and louder and the THX rumble almost knocks you out of your seat. Boom. Boom. Boom.

The Chinese are moving away from the US dollar. Boom. They are less confident init, and may move their colossal appetite for saving to another currency. Boom. Another country. Boom. Or they may start, finally, to buy things with it.

Boom.

First Georgie spent the surplus. Then he went into debt. The money all went to his friends as cash for spending. He didn't buy any statues, and he didn't build any bridges. He just burned the cash, the way you'd fry a $20 you forgotten you'd left in your jacket. More and more, to historically indecent heights the deficit has bloated.

The idea, of course, is to so hamstring the government with debt that cuts to programs for, you know, people can be eliminated. People who needs stuff like food and education and a fair shake and clean air and water. Those things we are to do without in the totalitarian neocon vision. And the way to cut them is to "starve the beast" - deny money to the government by bankrupting it.

And they're getting close. They keep giving away the nations treasury as gifts to the wealthy. They call them "tax breaks" but that money is not a break, it's a gift. It doesn't belong to those rich people - it's not theirs to keep - it belongs to us.

And all the while, the debt piles up. It grown because somebody is there to buy it. Somebody is there to loan us the money that Georgie burns. Yes, it's exactly like loaning your friend $1,000 and watching him use it to buy drinks for the house. And then ask you for another $1,000.

The "housing bubble" which has fuelled the jobless recovery of little George exists because there is cheap dollar credit to be had. That cheap dollar credit comes from China, because they save at nearly 50% and they buy American dollars. Without an infusion of more than a billion dollars a day from China, the cheap credit that all those second and third mortgages and the interest-only mortgages that put spending money in peoples pockets goes away.

Boom.

Georgie has engineered it so that his rich friends profit from the less-than-normal economic growth of the Bush years. Working people (like, 95% of America) haven't seen dime one. Just how they like it in the Junta.

But when the Chinese move on, they take the Ponzi scheme with them. When they pull out for good and for real, they take our economy with them. The only limiting factor is how much they'll risk devaluing the Yankee dollars they've bought by making America an economic beggar. We better hope they like their dollars more than they like their Marxist-Maoist ideology.

Or they'll pull that rug overnight and take us back to the stone age.

Right where the neocons want us.

No, Jeb

No, you can't.  Sorry, Jeb, but that's not how America works.  The Florida Supreme Court rejected Gov Jeb Bush's program to allow vouchers for state money to go to private schools.  They said the program unconstitutionally diverts public money to private schools, and it violate  the separation of church and state.  The Florida law was the only state-wide voucher system in the country.

 

This is the sort of Junta-era stuff that should have been pounded flat before it ever became law.  See, in America see, the government isn't supposed to give money directly to churches.  That's what we call "wrong."  But, to pay religious nuts for their rabid votes on election day (yes, even they votes are rabid and must be handled with special gloves), Jeb let them have school vouchers to send their children to rabid nut schools where they wouldn't have to study hard topics like "science." 

 

Meanwhile, the government education money could be drained away from the public system.  As more and more little crusaders went to schools that didn't "cotton to" fancy book-learnin' there would be less and less money in the public system.  And since the whole voucher scheme was keyed on public schools failing some arbitrary Jeb-test (gum under the desks?  Fail!), you could be sure that the increasingly under-funded schools would keep failing and sending the little automatons to moron academy.

 

But alas, no.  Moron academy will still cost big bucks. 

 

Also, the schools that would fail would be in poor and middle-class areas.  Remember that the religious nut cases aren't in the Junta because they're rich.  The religious nut cases are in the Junta because they are psychotically obsessed with what other people do with their bodies (things like abortion and homosexuality).  Religious nuts are dumb and often dirt poor (draw your own conclusion there), so it would be their schools getting failed and not the rich Junta schools.  That's okay - rich people get their own massive dollar infusions from the Junta - they don't need vouchers.

 

Don't you wish someone would start challenging Jeb's idiot brother?  Don't we have a "congress" or something that's supposed to have oversight?  According to Georgie, not so much.  According to his statements on the NSA warrantless wiretaps, his job as Commander in Chief allows him to break any law at any time.  He's not a fascist dictator - he just plays one on TV!

 

At least there is one less crime a Bush is getting away with today. 

Coaches

Football, more than any other sport is a coaches' game. In basketball and hockey most of the results will be from the players on the floor or ice (or you could switch ice and court for some gag-reel hijinks). In baseball coaching seems more granular; coaches show players how to pitch and hit and field, and then more or less let them play on game day (yes, they do make decisions during the game - I said "more or less").

In football, coaches are intimately involved in the pre-game and in-game decisions. A better coach will always win given equal talent. A better coach will often win with inferior talent.

My favorite quote about NFL coaching comes from former Oilers and Saint coach O.A. "Bum" Phillips, talking about why Don Shula is such a great coach:

"He can take his 'uns and beat your 'uns, and he can take your 'uns and
beat his 'uns."

When a team does poorly (or does not reach expectations) in other sports, firing the coach is often window-dressing. You can't fire the players, right? Well, not all of them.

In the NBA, there are fewer than a handful of coaches who make the slightest bit of difference for their teams. Certainly Larry Brown currently of the Knicks), Phil Jackson (back with the Lakers), Pat Riley used to have "it," but it's been a while. You have to give it to Gregg Popovich and his three championships with the Spurs. Sure, he has Tim Duncan, but lots of coaches have had future Hall of Famers on their teams and done nothing with them (you think Duncan is that much better than Patrick Ewing? Well, okay, maybe).

For the rest, it's just a challenge to keep the guys 'up' for 82 game and do the best with what the GM gives you. Success in basketball (and hockey) is much more a function of the GM. Is the talent on the court? The Toronto Raptors are having a bad season right now, but their coach, Sam Mitchell, hasn't necessarily done a bad job. His charges play hard every night, but he just doesn't have much talent on the floor. Game over.

Fire GM Rob Babcock.

In football, there is an expectation that the right coaching staff can make a winner out of a loser. The impact of the salary cap has been that teams can reverse their luck pretty quickly with the right coaching. This is because all the teams are in the same boat - they can't out-spend the next guy for talent. And the guys they draft go way up in price if they prove themselves, and most teams can't afford their own guys after three years.

It used to be that a young player could develop in practice until he was ready. A player could expect to play his career for one team, and take what they offered. A team like Dallas could dominate over decades because they kept their talent, and when one player retired a better player would step into the job.

Today, first round picks are expected to be impact players in their rookie year - even quarterbacks. Second and third round picks ("day one picks") are expected to be starters. The rest are expected to contribute, both in situational football and on special teams.

The coaches who've done well in this new world are the teachers. The coaches who understand that their teams must be better week 17 than they were week 1 thrive in the new system, none more than the Guru, Patriots coach Bill Belichick.

The other things a coach needs in today's game is a scheme. He needs a deep understanding of the game from the ground up, both tactically (what play do we call right now?) and strategically (what plays are working? What is the defense doing against us?).

The scheme doesn't have to be any one thing. Part of Belichick's genius is that he adapts his defense to every opponent to take away what they do best. Other coaches are known for certain aspects of their approaches. Tony Dungy made his rep as Defensive Coordinator of the Vikings and uses the soft "Tampa Two" defense (but more recently has ridden the coat-tails of Offensive Coordinator Tom Moore's Manning offense). The Steeler's Bill Cowher is known for running a 3-4 defense with aggressive attacking LB's.

Coach who fail are deficient in one or both of these. The other factor is their GM - is the talent on the field to begin with? Some coaches get trapped because there is a perception by fans and media that the team is talented and should win, but in reality they are lightweights and can't meet the high expectations.

There are currently six head coaching vacancies, - and there could be more soon. Let's take a look a the teams who hacked their coaches into unemployment:

The (New Orleans et.al.) Saints fired Jim Haslett. This is considered the kindest cut, as Haslett has apparently had enough of the circus that owner Tom Benson has run, especially (though not limited to) the period since Katrina devastated the city. Benson has made a sham of a mockery out of the team with his transparent machinations to move to San Antonio while people were still burying their loved ones in the ruined city. A dozen dancing bears would do a better job of running the team, and with so many coaching vacancies open right now, Haslett can be reasonably assured of landing on his feet.

Why that is so is an open question. In his tenure as head coach, there's been no more a 'trick or treat' team in the league than the Saints. You never know what you'll get from them. Some weeks they look like world-beaters, some weeks they've looked like the clowns that Benson uses re run the team. If consistency is the hallmark of a professional in any field, it's been the thing that has eluded Haslett in his coaching career.

Ratings (out of 10):

Ability to teach: 7
Ability to scheme: 6
Used the talent he was given: 6

Dick Vermeil retires from the Kansas City Chiefs. The other amicable separation was 69-year-old Vermeil's exit from the game, again. Vermeil took a 14 year sabbatical from football coaching after losing a Super Bowl coaching the Eagles in 1980. He miraculously turned the Rams into a winner, and discovered Kurt Warner. He ran the 'Greatest Show on Turf" offense to a Super Bowl victory, then retired again. That only lasted a year.

Offensive Coordinator Mike Martz was given much of the credit for the Rams success (more on him below), but in his next incarnation as Chiefs coach, Vermeil showed who was the real brains behind the operation. He turned a cast-off RB into a record-setting league leader (Priest Holmes) and his Rams cast-off QB into a top performer (Trent Green). He didn't have a WR like Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce, but used guys like Eddie Kennison to compliment future Hall of Fame TE Tony Gonzales in the passing game.

His KC offenses became as unstoppable as his Rams teams had been, but their defense was far worse. The year he won his only Super Bowl, his Rams were first in overall offense and third in overall defense. Tough to beat that combination. His Chiefs teams were more of a tennis match - both teams scored constantly. The trick was to be the last to score.

In a memorable playoff loss to the Colts, there were no punts in the game. None.

Dick needed to fix the defense, but he never did. He also needed to lighten up. He was known for working himself to death as Eagles coaching his first go-around, spending nights at the office and putting in far too much of himself. When he came back, it was with the promise that that stuff would stop.

Which it did - he got much better at delegating. But he never stopped being extremely emotional about the game. Usually that's a good thing - professional athletes tend to be jaded and genuine emotion can bring out the best in them. But it also gets old after a while. Word was with the 1980 eagles that they'd tuned him out long before the Super Bowl. And the same word is making the rounds today - the Chiefs have heard all the weeping they ever want from their coach.

Whatever the truth is, the Chiefs missed the playoffs and Vermeil says he's done. Don't be surprised if he shows up coaching again as early as next year. With so many vacancies and his history of excellence, somebody's going to make him a pretty tough offer to refuse.

Ability to teach: 8
Ability to scheme: 8
Used the talent he was given: 8

The Texans fired Dom Capers. No surprise here. The only coach in Texans history had clearly topped himself out. Taking on his second expansion team (he was the first coach of the Panthers and took them to the NFC Championship game before flaming out), Capers made them better each year until this year. While he's a great Defensive Coordinator (as he's proven more than once with the Steelers), he's not really a head coach. His offenses have always been suspect.

This year, even the defense fell apart. The team was sloppy and unmotivated for most of the season. He was the first coach to extensively use the 'zone blitz' - but his current defense wasn't stopping anybody. His offensive lines were always bad - which you'd think a defensive coach would realize is important.

The team made way too much commitment to Dominick Davis, a marginal starter at RB. QB David Carr never developed because he was spending too much time on his back. He just got the living hell beat out of him year after year. Plus, he only had one decent receiver to throw to - what do you do when Andre Johnson is double-covered?

In the end, Capers deserved to be shown the door. Questions remain about GM Charlie Casserly. Was winning talent brought in? Did Capers do the best with what an over-rated Casserly drafted and signed? I think there's a lot of truth to that. Is David Carr a first pick bust? We won't really know until they start signing a coaching offensive linemen down there. You can't rate a QB when he gets that beat up. Is he gun-shy? Would you be? The question is whether he can get it back if the protection is good around him.

Ability to teach: 4
Ability to scheme: 6
Used the talent he was given: 5

The Packers fire Mike Sherman. Sherman was left with a winning legacy - a top team led by a future Hall of Fame QB and a Pro Bowl runner. As GM (until last year) and head coach, Sherman has seen it all crumble around him. The team is short on talent, especially defensively, and Brett Favre's final years of starting have been wasted. Sherman the GM failed to bring in the talent that Sherman the coach needed to win. When the GM job was taken away, Sherman the coach still couldn't win. Favre's had to try to win every game on his own, and as a result has pushed too much and lost games for them with too many gambles downfield.

One point in Sherman's favor has been the perception that Favre would retire if the team started over with another coach. That didn't stop them from canning Sherman, and Favre will have to make his decision based on who they bring in. I hope he plays another year, but limits his role. A defensive-minded coach could do wonders up there, especially if he puts in a conservative offense that doesn't call for more than 25 passes a game.

Ability to teach: 5
Ability to scheme: 5
Used the talent he was given: 5

Vikings Fire Meathead. Mike Tice is finally gone. The surprising thing is that he lasted four years in the first place. The former offensive line coach made his bones by talking tough with Randy Moss. There was a story, played up in the media, about Tice telling Moss to move when he took the seat from a team booster on a bus. Yeah, Tice could handle Moss. He handled him with a "Randy Ratio" scheme, where 40% of all passes would go to Randy. That could have made Moss the greatest receiver in the game's history (statistically), if it wasn't completely stupid.

You can't throw that many passes to one guy. It's an insult to pro defensive coordinators. Oh, yeah, then Meathead got busted scalping Super Bowl tickets. Which coaches from every team have always done (there are tickets made available to them), but Meathead got busted for it and killed it for everybody. Then there was the "love boat." Great team discipline, Meathead.

Look: Tice worked for cheap, and former owner Red McCombs was a cheapskate. New owner Zyg Wilf (yes that's his name) is showing signs that he'll spend money to field a winner. Job one was firing Tice.

Ability to teach: 4
Ability to scheme: 4
Used the talent he was given: 3

The Rams fired Mike Martz. It's hard to say who was the loonier faction: team management or "Mad" Martz. Martz always had an offense that was innovative and could move the ball. His defenses got weaker and weaker as the Vermeil era players left the team. He was always given too much credit for the team's success in the super Bowl years, and the expectations on his were too high. In his first year as head coach, he reached his only Super Bowl, a historic loss as a 14 point favorite to Bill Belichick's Patriots.

I always thought the key to that game was that Belichick baited him to stay with a passing offense. At a time when Marshall Faulk was completely utterly unstoppable in the running game, Belichick used his defensive schemes to challenge Martz. "Prove it" he said with his defenses; "show me you're more of a passing game genius than I am at stopping passing games."

Ten more carries for Faulk would have won the game for the Rams. Hell, maybe one more carry (he was that good). But Martz kept passing. And Belichick was ready for him. The Pats DB's knew every route. They were told: "don't play the man, just play your assignment." They stayed with their roles and knew what they faced. And they were physical all over the field. The Rams were coached to go down immediately and don't let a tackler hit you hard. The Pats were coached to get there one step ahead of the receiver and get a lick in.

Martz has had some health issues this year, but I think he'll get an offer from somebody to coach somewhere.

Ability to teach: 6
Ability to scheme: 9 offense, 6 defense
Used the talent he was given: 8

Brian "the Brain" Billick saved his job for a year, probably because it's going to be so difficult to replace a head coach with so many vacancies at once. He come to Baltimore as an offensive guru (the OC who set the all-time team scoring record with the 15-1 Vikings), but never had a decent offense in Baltimore. He won a Super Bowl on the strength of Marvin Lewis's defense. He'll be gone next year.

Mike "Mini Meathead" Mularkey might be out of the Buffalo job. Rumours (thanks to Pro Football Talk) have GM Tom Donahoe out first. A new GM may want to bring in his own coach, or could stick with Mularkey. Donahoe has been inconsistent as GM, building a pretty decent defense but making some serious mistakes on offense - including the continued failure to build a decent OL.

And Norv Turner will soon be fired by Al Davis in Oakland. Turner is absolutely hopeless. You know when he's hired that he will soon be fired and the team will regress. Honestly - how does he keep getting jobs? It's just another example of how Davis has completely lost touch with the game - and the business - of football.

Stay tuned - the ride will get bumpier from here.

By The Way...

And did you see Doug Flutie's historic drop-kick for an extra point on Sunday? First drop-kick in the NFL in 60 years.

And first overall pick Alex Smith of San Francisco has thrown one (1) TD pass and eleven (11) picks in 7 starts and 165 attempts.

230th overall pick, seventh round Matt Cassell of the Patriots - who didn't start in college behind two Heisman Trophy winners at USC - threw two (2) TD passes and no (0) picks in 20 attempts against the dolphins Sunday.

Can these guys find talent or what?

Requirements

Georgie is on the march, defendizing his warrentless wire taps. He really really likes wire taps that he doesn't have top go to court to get, not even to an ultra secret court that never ever says no to him. Why bother? The court should just give him what he wants, just like everybody else in his life has always done.

Thing is, even though Georgie thinks the whole thing is "vital and necessary," it's against the law. Hey, it could be the most safer-making thing ever, producing the most "safer" country ever - it's still against the law.

And that's okay, too. Because presidents need to be able to break the law every now and then and still keep their jobs (right, Ronnie?). But in the course of the law-breaking, they have to admit that the law was, in fact, broken. And they have to face the consequences.

When Nixon (who seems like a better and better guy every day) tried to hold on to his tapes and cover up the misadventures of his staff, he did so with a knowledge that bugging than thugging are against the law even for a president. He tried to make it so people didn't know he'd done those things.

Georgie is far more dangerous because he admits everything right out front. He just says he's above that crummy old constitution that he was sworn to "preserve and protect." Too bad for all those poor suckers who died back in the Civil War - turns out the Constitution isn't that important after all.

Georgie is walking down an extremely dangerous path - and whistling like the moron he is while he does it. Already, his administration bears all the classic signs of fascism. And now we have the Leader over the Law. Il Duce!

For all the voices being amplified by the right-wing noise machine saying: "so what? The secret court was a rubber-stamp anyway," let me say this. The secret court (that approved secret national security warrants) might have accepted far more warrants that it rejected, but by doing so it forced the government to have a reason.

To go to the court for a warrant you're sure to get, you still have to have a reason for showing up. You can't say that you think someone in Spokane is thinking disloyal thoughts. You have to have a name and address, and a reason to believe that the person is part of a certain group or is planning to do something.

The warrentless taps are an admission that they're fishing. If they had evidence to support a tap, they would have used it. By allowing this sort of invasive policy, the Junta is on the slippery slope to a KGB-backed dictatorship.

Georgie tell us we're safer because of it. Well, I don't think any of us want to be that safe. I'll take the risk of preserving my freedom by, you know, keeping it.

Georgie also likes to tell us that 'freedom isn't free.' That's fine with me; the price I'll pay is the increased risk of attack that the preservation of my civil liberties may cause.

Two Years

I started blogging two years ago. I didn't know for sure what I wanted to write, but I've always fancied myself a writer, so I gave it a whack. I'm more or less pleased with the results. I've written most weekdays over that time. I 'covered' the vicious and divisive 2004 election campaign. I think I've expressed some of the incredulity that most progressives feel about the radical takeover of America by rightist revolutionaries.

Originally, I thought I'd write about stuff like management, since that is my profession. But management is about people, and I didn't want to write about the people I manage even without naming namers, because their issues are too personal, and while my readership remains at the sub-fingers-on-a-hand level, I didn't want to compromise them even at that level.

And when you talk about management issues in the abstract, you lose all your meaning. At its best, management at any level is about people. Good managers can manage anything, because they don't manage the job, they manage the people doing the job.

Anyway, I'd flirted with the idea of a personal blog as well. I thought maybe I'd try writing personal stuff anonymously as a catharsis of sorts. But I'm no more comfortable writing about myself (even anonymously) than I am talking about myself. So forget that.

I've always said that the career I would choose, if I had a choice, would be 'political columnist.' Since that's not happening in real life, blogging is an interesting substitute. I get to write the stuff I want whenever I want and it gets published. So for all the ballpayers and paid writers out there who say "I love this and I'd do it for free," well, you I would.

My only regret as a blogger (aside from the fact that nobody's showing any signs of wanting to pay me) is that I haven't developed a readership in two years of steady work. That's probably due to the other voice out there - however entertaining I may or may not be, I'm only one voice in millions. Still, I'd like to get out more any maybe I'll start pushing this link to more readers somehow.

Happy New Year! On to Year Three!