Diary of a Mighty Bastard

Nothing too deep or serious- just some random thoughts:

1) People are talking about the President bowing to the Japanese Emperor. To which I say "Oh, come on now..."

This happens with every President. People nitpick over the smallest details, and it gets to the point that valid criticisms of the President are covered under a deluge of 18 million other attacks.

It happened with Reagan. It happend with Clinton. It happened with W. And now it's happening with Obama.

There's a lot of decisions the President is making that I disagree with. The fact that he bowed to the Emperor of Japan may be a breach of protocol, but that's filed under 'not a big deal'.

2) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried as a criminal in New York City. I think this is an exceptionally bad idea, for one primary reason: If he is found 'not guilty', is the United States going to release him as a free man?

3) Why we should restrict government power, Part I: In 2005, The state of Connecticut forces homeowners out of New London, Connecticut, citing 'eminent domain', to give the land to Pfizer so they could build a complex and supply job.

Today, Pfizer announced they would close the plant. Meaning the state forcibly evicted people against their will for... nothing.

4) Why we should restrict government power, Part II: Now that GM and Chrysler have bailout money, they are planning to stop Chrysler's Electric Car and GM's 2010 IPO

The lessons from the two steps above- government makes a lot of bad decisions. Well, so does everyone else. But once government takes your money- or in the case of New London, your home- there isn't much that can be done about it. Treat government power like a fire extinguisher- 'only use in case of emergencies'.

5) I was asked by my uncle about Afghanistan, and the decisions Obama is facing about whether to increase the number of troops (as his generals have asked) or begin withdrawing.

I'll be honest here- I think he's in a place where there is no good decision. I can see arguments for staying in Afghanistan and trying to protect them from the Taliban, and I can see the reasons to pull out and leave Afghanistan.

I suspect this is a 'fish or cut bait' moment- either decision has bad consequences, but staying in limbo might bring out the worst of both cases. But I see that this is a tough decision, and unlike a lot of things Obama is doing, I don't plan on lambasting him for whichever call he makes.

This story, about the long-term effects from football collisions, has gotten me to think.

I like sports- and I like football. Heck, I'm a long-suffering fan of the Cleveland Browns.

I know that people choose to play the sport on their own free will, and are willing to accept the consequences of their choices. I know- and accept- the idea that most people who play football may have bad knees, hips, or other injuries that may affect their health.

But it's one thing to know that the players you are rooting for might be limping twenty years after they start playing- and another thing entirely to think that they might be suffering from Dementia because they spent their younger years playing football.

This isn't an accident, or something that can be cured with better equipment. Even if you play the sport the proper way- especially if you play football the way it is encouraged- the players end up with several collisions to the head, every game.

If better helmets could stop this- or if the game could be changed to prevent this from happening- then I would support those changes 100%. But I don't know if there is a change. I suspect- I fear- that the nature of football leads to players suffering the collisions that cause this long-term mental damage.

And if that's true, I'm not sure I can still be a fan of football anymore. This might be a bridge too far for me to cross.

Sports is just killing me right now.

The Indians fired their manager, and are basically at stage one of a rebuilding project. It's frustrating to have been so close in 2007, and despite having a Cy Young award winner, falling completely apart in 2008 and 2009. And I neither understand nor can explain why it happened. I liked Eric Wedge as a manager, and I hope he does very well in the future.

The Indians, though, are nothing compared to the other teams I like. The Indians are just rebuilding; they aren't phenomenally stupid like the Browns. Somehow, the Browns began a rebuilding project (the fourth one since they've returned to the NFL) and have not only gotten worse, they've mutined on the head coach just three games into the season. They seem lost, without any signs of an offense or a defense, and I don't know where you go to start rebuilding this team.

To make things much, much worse... there are the Baltimore Ravens. AKA the old Browns. Who have not only developed into a top notch contender, but are the EXACT type of team Cleveland would easily fall in love with- tough defense, unspectacular but effective offense. It's like having your girlfriend not only cheat on you, but then after she broke up with you turn into your EXACT dreamgirl for another guy. So, so frustrating.

Ah, you say, at least you have the Cavs. The Indians frustrate me. The Browns infuriate me. But the Cavs? The Cavs...

The Cavs scared the HELL out of me.

Look- just about everything broke right for the Cavs last year. The Cavs were practically injury-free. LeBron was unstoppable. The team was firing on all cylinders. No drama. Injuries hit other teams.

And The Cavs lost to Orlando- not even making the finals.

This year, we've added Shaq- who is a phenomenal player. But we're risking a very good team chemistry with such a dynamic player. It's a risk, a good one, but still a risk.

Then we have the Delonte West situation. Delonte was, last year, the third best player on the team (behind LeBron and Mo Williams). A quick, small guard... can't pass but he could drive and score. But he's always been a bit of a head case. Last year, everyone loved him. This year, we're worried as hell for him.

And then there's the LeBron contract, which expires in 2010. Now, I can give you a million reasons he's staying in Cleveland. But he has the option of going elsewhere. I won't begrudge him that. But... it's like the Browns situation all over again.

I have a nightmare of watching TV in 2011 and seeing "LeBron James, holding up his first championship as the New York Knicks beat the LA Lakers..."

And I don't think I could watch basketball anymore. At some point, you get so beaten down you give up.

So... in a lot of ways, I'm on pins and needles. And will be, sports wise, for a long time.

The official, "I don't know anything but I'm willing to make wild guesses" NFL Predictions:

AFC:

Playoff teams: New England, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Indianapolis (WC), Baltimore (WC)
Playoffs: Tennessee over Baltimore, Indianapolis over San Diego, New England over Indianapolis, Pittsburgh over Tennessee, Pittsburgh over New England

NFC:
Playoff teams: NY Giants, Carolina, Green Bay, Arizona, Dallas (WC), Chicago (WC)
Playoffs: Chicago over Arizona, Dallas over Carolina, Green Bay over Dallas, NY Giants over Chicago, Green Bay over NY Giants

Super Bowl: Pittsburgh over Green Bay

Senator Ted Kennedy passed away at 77.

Many scattered thoughts here. Ted Kennedy was obviously one of the most powerful Senators in the history of the United States. In fact, I would say that while John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy are more fondly remembered, Ted Kennedy had the most impact on American lives.

He was a fierce, non-apologetic advocate of liberal policies, from Civil Rights to expanding Welfare to working for Universal Health Care. reasonable people can disagree on his goals (I probably disagreed with 90% of what he believed in), but he was an extremely effective advocate of his beliefs.

He had his flaws. While he often worked acrossed the aisle (heck, in 1988 he defended Dan Quayle, pointing out they worked together on nuclear arms treaties), he could be ruthless. His speech against Judge Robert Bork was full of cheap shots. It also worked; Bork, who was extremely qualified, was rejected by the Senate.

And there was Chappaquiddick- call it recklessness, or an accident, or stupidity; a young woman died because of his actions. It probably cost him the Presidency.

If politics means that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil, then someone like me should celebrate his death. But politics shouldn't be that way. So we should celebrate his life, and remember him well.

Rest in Peace.

I have a lot of jumbled thoughts about Health Care. I don't claim to have the right answers- but I'm concerned enough about what is currently offered that I would much rather not do anything than implement the ideas being discussed now.

* Health care is expensive. Tests are expensive, research to make drugs is expensive, surgurical procedures are expensive. Either someone has to pay for these, or they aren't offered.

* I am certain that some costs could be contained- but if it's like most businesses, the amount of waste is small compared to the amount of legitimate costs. Anyone who thinks that they can cut 'waste' and significantly reduce health care expenses is (I believe) unrealistically optimistic

* The best way to signifcantly reduce the cost of health care is technology and time- what was prohibitively expensive 30 years ago is now affordable to a much larger degree. I fear that any 'savings' will reduce the research to improve technology- that is, save a nickel today and lose a dollar in ten years.

* Insurance companies have tried to not pay out bills. When they do, the consumer has the right to sue, where an impartial observer (the courts) can decide who is right or wrong. If Insurance Companies are replaced by the government, who assumes the role of the impartial observer?

* Many of the bills being suggested are requiring a mandate- that is, forcing everyone to buy health insurance. Doesn't this amount to a tax on the young and healthy towards the old? In the middle of a recession?

* Government run agencies are not known for efficiency. How and why would they be better than Insurance companies?

* Let us say we try a single-payer system, and find that it is not as good as we would like. How difficult would it be to go back to the way things were?

My thoughts- health care costs can be improved (I really approve of some of the ideas by Whole Foods CEO John MacKey). And if the plans being discussed now were "There are 40 million uninsured. We're going to insure them, and the cost will be $X", I think it could pass. But the plans currently being discussed are signifcant changes to the way health care is run in the country, and I don't blame myself or other people for thinking this is a significant change that they do not want.

To those who want government run health care:

Say you get everything you want- a complete 'public option' that leads to government completely overseeing all medical insurance and medical claims, to give health insurance to every citizen.

It's now 2016, and Sarah Palin has just been elected President.

Do you still like this idea?

A couple of months ago, I bought myself a clarinet, and have been trying to learn to play.

Admittedly, the clarinet is not the sexiest instrument out there to learn. But I tried years ago to learn to play the guitar. I CAN play, but it takes me about three weeks to get my fingers from one chord to the next.

Also, I've developed into a huge fan of Benny Goodman. Listen to 'Sing Sing Sing' and... the best way I can put it is to say how much fun it is to listen to, if that makes any sense.

So I've taken a couple of lessons, and I thought I was doing well, but I've run into a roadblock. I can play the clarinet, but because of how I'm playing, the notes come out about half a step too low (An F instead of an F Sharp, for instance). I've bought a tuner, but the only way I've been able to raise the note high enough makes it so awkward that I can't play for very long.

I'm hoping to find a workaround for this, because I've been having fun playing. Though I'm sure I'm driving both the wife and the cat crazy in the process.

Leave me a comment and I will give you a letter.
Then, write 10 things that you love starting with that letter. Post the list in your journal. Give out letters to those who comment in return.

lurkerwithout tagged me with "C".

1. Comedians
2. Cookies
3. Cleveland
4. Caray, Harry
5. Connells (music group)
6. Clarinet
7. Champions RPG
8. Cards
9. Currency
10. Conservatism

Gov. Sarah Palin announced she will be stepping down as Governor of Alaska in a few weeks.

That's unfortunate. People are speculating why, and I certainly hope it's not because of family illness. On the other hand, she was elected to serve a full term, and stepping down without a good reason is poor form, and not fair to the people of Alaska.

She's an extremely charismatic politician- one of the best I've seen, and (In my humble opinion) the best Republican Speaker since Reagan. And she was a very capable governor- her approval rating was over 80%, and she her track record showed her as a Governor who fought corruption (including against her own party) and with a Libertarian streak that belied her religious beliefs.

Did I think she should have been the Republican VP nominee? No. One half of a term as Governor is not enough experience to be in a position to run the country. I would have liked for her to remain governor for about 3 terms and then step onto the National Stage. And she wasn't prepared for dealing with the foreign policy issues of the day.

That being said, I found the treatment of her by the media to be absolutely vulgar. It was fine to question her opinions or competency. But there were more below the belt attacks at her, her husband, and her children than any non-President I had ever seen. Andrew Sullivan went from being an interesting writer who's opinion I respect to turning into a vile cheap shot artist.

And it continued, long past the election. No one attacks John McCain anymore. But Dave Letterman had no problem making a crack about her 14 year old daughter.

I'll be honest- I was really hoping she'd win just to see the people who attacked her choke on their bile. The attacks on her family was one of most disgusting things I've seen in politics, and I'm of the belief that most politics attacks are fair game.

It didn't happen, and maybe she's out of politics for good. It's going to be hard for her to restart after stepping down in mid-term (as it should be- barring illness, there's no good reason to step down as Governor)

Then again, maybe not. If she waited until she was as old as Hilary was in 2008, Sarah Palin would be running in... 2024. That's a long time, and a lot could happen.

I haven't said anything about the situation in Iran, because I'm not really sure what to say. Iran is run by a tyrannical regime that suppressed freedom and deprives rights to women, they financially support many terrorist organizations, they have vowed to obliterate a free country in Israel, they hate the United States (when you called "The Great Satan" by the leaders of the country, there's not much room for nuance)... and they have been trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Now, on top of that, they have rigged an election to the point that the citizens in Iran are protesting on the street, being shot at by soldiers. It reminds me of Tienanmen Square, and I worry that it will have the same ending.

I don't blame Obama for being cautious- when it comes to foreign affairs, I understand that it's a minefield, and that caution is a good thing. On the other hand, I seriously doubt there's anything the US could do that would actually win the friendship of the Iranian leaders (again, when you're called "The Great Satan", it's a hard place for dinner diplomacy to work) and be able to influence them enough to actually take steps we would approve of (like getting rid of the nuclear technology, or letting Israel live without speaking about wiping them off the face of the Earth).

Protests continue, every day. The leaders have been arrested and harassed. I'm not sure what happens in Iran, now- and I don't know if anyone really does.

But I'm very worried that we're going to get caught up in other events- from the economy to Michael Jackson- that we forget about Iran. "Oh, another day, another protest, another five arrests." That type of attitude will kill any hope of serious change in Iran for a generation.

I'm not sure what we (as the Great Satan) can do to help out the Protestors. If there's some suggestions, I'm all ears. But the least we can do is not put them off to the side.

Keep being aware of the situation.

The House passed a climate bill yesterday.

According to the CBO, this bill will cost the average American family about $175 a year. To stop "climate change", which I think means that the weather should never change again.

Note- the temperature has gone up around the world an average of 1 degree Centigrade over the past 100 years. No one can say with conviction if (a) that 1 degree is man made, as opposed to a natural change on the earth (b) the consequences, if any, of that one degree or (c) what the temperature of the earth will be in the next Century.

I'll add (d)- no one is really sure what this bill will do, if anything, to change (a) through (c).

So, during a recession, Congress has passed a bill that will hurt the lower income families much more than the wealthier people for what can be best called 'a feel-good measure'.

But even that isn't why I think this is a joke. If Congress wants to pass this bill, fine. The voters will remember and act accordingly during next year's election.

What I'm furious about is that, not only has no one in Congress actually read the bill that was passed, The bill did not officially exist yet!

There is no other way to put this- any Congress person who voted on this bill, without reading and knowing what they wanted to voted on, is guilty of Dereliction of Duty and should be fired from their job.

Governor Sanford of South Carolina admits an affair.

Moron. Idiot. I'm really, really pissed off.

At first, I was trying to figure out why- until a couple of months ago, I had never heard of Sanford. Then he was the Governor who was refusing Stimulus funds. Then he became the Governor who went on a Walkabout. Which I thought was a good thing- people make so much out of politics that I thought it was awesome there was someone out there who said, "You know what? It's not the end of the world for me to take a couple days off. The state's fine without me."

That was just an excuse to meet up with his Mistress. So it was much more of a Rompabout.

But thinking about it some more, I realize the source of frustration. It's just one more way the GOP has shot itself in the foot and made itself a laughingstock.

Now, I can live with that as a partisan- parties go up and down (the Democrats looked hopeless not seven years ago). But we're dealing with a lot of serious issues here.

President Obama wants to make significant changes in our society- in health care, in ouur environmental responsiblities, in our business dealings. I'm very skeptical about the directions he wants to take us, and what the consequences could be. But I'm also willing to believe (a) I could be wrong and (b) he won the election and will try to push his agenda.

But we're a system of checks and balances. And right now, every check and balance that could look at his ideas and test them out before they are implemented is seriously crippled:

* Congress is full of corrupt, incompetent partisans who are far more concerned with winning elections than actually debating the issues.

* The loyal opposition party (The GOP) is irrelevant, without a coherent message or philosophy, and find new ways to shoot themselves in the foot (The 50 most powerful politicans at the moment are Democrats, but the next week will be full of stories about Sanford. Watch)

* The media- how do I say this tactfully?- has voluntarily given up trying to be objective critics and willingly play groupies to our Rock Star President

* And we seem to have a culture that has gone from assuming the worst about the President to one that thinks he can do know wrong, and never wishes to criticize him.

That last point scares the hell out of me, more than the others. We're a country that always mocks our leaders- we're built around the idea that our leaders are human, make bad calls, and screw up as badly as anyone else. Every former President I can recall was mocked for something- Ford's clumsiness, Reagan's forgetfulness, Clinton's randiness. It was a way to remind people that while we can respect the office, we do not deify our leaders.

Mentally, I keep telling myself that this can't last forever. Eventually, Congress will get some leaders that actually want to do more than get elected. The GOP can't screw up this badly forever (though it sure seems that way). And I suspect there will reach a tipping point, that the media and culture will start to actually test and question the President (in fact, I think it may even cause a backlash, in which case the President would get an unfair reaction. But we shall see).

But until that happens, I will wonder when the checks and balances will be fixed.

I think I made the right call, but I wouldn't mind hearing opinions from others who play:

I'm on the button with K8 of diamonds. One person calls, I call, big blind stays. $70 in pot

Flop- 8c 5d 6d, giving me second nut flush and top pair

Big Blind bets $20, first caller raises $100, I call $100, raise to ~$300 by big blind, RE-RAISE to $750 by first caller (we all have about $1400, it's early in the tournament).

Should I fold, call or raise here?

What I did was push all in, and got called by both. Big Blind had 47o for a straight, First caller had 66 for trip sixes. Turn and River didn't improve, so I'm out of the tournament.

I think I made the right decision, but I'm not positive. Wouldn't mind hearing other thoughts.

Taking a very early guess as to the card for Wrestlemania XXVI (because I look at the Indians in the standings and don't want to talk about baseball):

WWE Title: CM Punk (c) vs. John Cena
Note: Officially, Cena's the face and Punk's the heel. But the crowd will be split down the middle for this one

RAW Title: Edge (c) vs. HHH (Royal Rumble Winner) vs. Randy Orton
Note: I know HHH-Orton has been done to death, but I don't really have any place to put Orton. HHH has feuded with every current main eventer in the WWE, and I don't know if they want to build up another one big enough for him to challenge at WM.

IC Title vs. US Title: Miz (IC) vs. John Morrisson (US)
Note: Not sure if I would unify the titles (probably not). For a long time I thought Morrisson was the star and Miz the understudy, but Miz has been outstanding recently, single-handedly making fans care about his feud with Cena (and it'll be a shame if Cena squashes him on Sunday)

Tag Titles: Legacy(c) vs. World's Greatest Tag Team
Note: The WWE doesn't really care about tag titles at the moment (in face, part of me suspect DiBiase and Rhodes will turn on Orton, leading to DiBiase-Orton and Batista-Rhodes at WM. Call that my backup plan). But until they pull the trigger on pushing DiBiase and Rhodes up the card as singles, they'll hold onto the tag belts. Haas and Benjamin are a great team that can have great matches with anyone

ECW Title: Christian (c) vs. Matt Hardy
Note: May be a ladder or TLC match, as we can push a feud between former and current ECW champions, as well as bring back a bunch of Hardys/Edge and Christian references

Jeff Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio
Note: This won't be for a title, but could easily be billed as a face vs. face 'dream match'

Undertaker vs. Chris Jericho
Note: Some heel needs to challenge Undertaker for his streak. Jericho is a big enough name to make it interesting.

Shawn Michaels vs. Bryan Danielson
Note: My big (and only) acquisition for this card (Danielson is a free agent at the moment). Bring Danielson in (truthfully) as Shawn Michael's "prize pupil", have him turn on Michaels around the Royal Rumble, you have a recipe for a fantastic match. I know the "American Dragon" isn't in the WWE's mold of a wrestler, but with Michaels there he could get over very very quickly.

Money in the Bank: Evan Bourne vs. Fit Finlay vs. Carlito Colon vs. Brian Kendrick vs. MVP vs. R Truth vs. Primo Colon vs. William Regal
Note: For once, it won't be Punk or Edge taking home the title shot. I say give it to Bourne or Kendrick. Bourne, probably- he was incredibly over last year, before his injury.

Jack Swagger vs. Batista
Note: Technically, it's a demontion for Batista. But Swagger is going to get a huge push because he fits the WWE's formula so well. And Batista is so injury prone that at this point I'd use him to elevate others.

His Mana Pool Is Expanding Faster Than The Dark Portal:





He sees the unconquerable- and conquers it:





Every reputation is exhalted with him:




He is… the most interesting toon in Azeroth

I found a good tool showing both the percent of government spending compared to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the percentage of the fedreal deficit compared to the GDP.

A couple of observations:

* We're above the 40% mark- in other words, the government is spending about 40% of what the entire United States produces. Now, we have had that at one other time in the 20th century- during World War II, for a two year period. But after the war ended, we quickly dropped back below that mark. What, if anything, will cause the US to drop below the 40% mark this time?

* As you can probably guess, I'm not happy with this trend- either the % of government spending or (much worse) the percentage of the deficit. The first one the people can pare down at any time, but the deficit... at some point, someone will have to pay these bills. And I'm not sure who the people spending the money are expecting to pay for it.

* I'm trying to keep this above politics. I think Bush was reckless in his spending. I think Obama is just as bad. And I don't really see any political force WANTING to reduce these numbers. Would you trust any of these fools with balancing a checkbook?

Needless to say, I'm in a foul mood. (Admittedly, not just because of the spending. Yesterday was not a good day for me as a sports fan.

But I look at these numbers, and I worry.

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. A few random thoughts:

* She's qualified- 10 years on the Court of Appeals, former District Attorney, Former partner in a law firm

* She's not the first person of Latin descent on the Supreme Court. Benjamin Cardozo was Portugeuse, and served on the Supremem Court for six years.
===> UPDATE: Portugeuse is not considered Hispanic. My apologies for the error.

* I'm certain she has a lot of positions that I won't agree with. But so will anyone that Obama nominates. The question for me is "Is the person qualified?" By that standard, I'd say yes.

* The GOP will go through her record to see if there's any smoking guns in her past. That's fine- it's the Supreme Court, her record should be tested- but unless something develops, I don't see any reason not to approve her.

* Her specialty seems to be intellectual property law. Given a lot of issues that come up in that category (RIAA), she may become the key figure on any rulings in this category.

1. Reply to this post and I'll assign you a letter.
2. List 5 songs (with links to them, if you can find them) that start with that letter.
3. Post them to your journal with these instructions

I was hit with 'G'. My choices:

1) Gambler- Kenny Rogers
2) Get a Gun- The Connells
3) God Shuffled His Feet- Crash Test Dummies
4) Gods of War- Def Leppard
5) Gimme Three Steps- Lynyrd Skynyrd

Manny Ramirez was suspended for 50 games for violating baseball's steroid policy.

I don't have a problem with this. Baseball believes that using steroids gives players an unfair advantage, they state this in the rules, Manny used some substances that were banned by baseball, he got caught, he's punished. I'm fine with this.

What I get upset is retroactively punishing players who may have used steroids in the past. Several players have been effectively blackballed from the Hall of Fame because they either used steroids or were rumored to use steroids.

That bothers me. I'm willing to believe that steroids cause so much long-term damage that using them amounts to an unfair advantage over those who don't use them (unlike other types of performance-enhancers like weight training, new equipment, or dietary changes). But sports players have always pushed the limits to try and find ways of improving themselves.

And it's not just sports players. How many people do you know who use caffeine to wake themselves up, or other forms of medicinal help? I'm not sure why steroids is where the line is drawn.

But if baseball wants to draw the line there, fine. But sports reporters seem to love getting on their soap box decrying the loss of the sanctity of the record books because players used steroids.

Well, Babe Ruth used a corked bat. Mickey Mantle used amphetamines. Gaylord Perry used a spitball. We not only enshrined these players in the Hall of Fame- we celebrate their cheating.

But Mark McGwire looks bad testifying before Congress and he's essentially banned. It's a bad double standard.

Manny broke the rules, Manny got caught, Manny's doing his time. Cool. But punishing those after the fact is a joke.