topless firemen making chili!

what would you do with $1 million?

Apparently the Barenaked Ladies dream if they had a million $, in addition to a faux fur coat and Kraft Dinner (mac and cheese), is to get a topless fireman from a calender to make chili.

It is nice to hear guys so comfortable with their sexuality

listening to live BNL on the iPod - I love witty banter

Oh No - A Clinton supporter asked a question to the GOP Candidates!

I think it is fine that a Clinton supporter asked a question during the YouTube/ CNN debate. Anyone can ask a questions to them and Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr had a good question. They should even let Clinton or any candidate ask a question. He is a real person with a real question about gays in the military. I don't think that CNN should apologize. WP article:

CNN expressed regret yesterday for allowing a Hillary Clinton adviser to ask a question at Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, even as controversy swirled about two other questioners who have declared their support for Democratic candidates.

Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who asked why gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, is a member of Clinton's steering committee on gay and lesbian issues, something her campaign disclosed in a news release in June.

"Had we known that, we probably wouldn't have used the question," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief, who produced the debate. He added that "you could spend hours Googling everybody. What we cared about was that he was real." CNN deleted Kerr's question from a rebroadcast of the debate.

How should we pick a candidate?

At first I thought this article on Salon about the odd debate format which dominates our elections seemed on to something and raises good points about the questions picked, etc.

I think that debates and speeches are wrong ways to campaign for office or to pick who to vote for. That format rewards people who have stamina and who are photogenic and charismatic speakers. I want someone who is a good manager, who is a leader, who can unite people from different backgrounds, and someone who is not going to be corrupt by power and money of politics.

Just because someone seems likable and genuine and bright when you hear them give a speech doesn't have much to say about how they will be in office.

How do you pick someone for a job - resume and references

The media should not shy away from doing a critical analysis of candidates and saying things about how they worked together with others on tough issues and showing the weaknesses of people.

Disturbing Talk of the Nation

I have often thought that the main stream media fuels our fear of crime and kidnapping by sensationalizing the cases. I am listening to an interesting story on Talk of the Nation on sexual misconduct by teachers in schools. While it is an important topic and it is tragic if this ever occurs, the tone of the story is that this is going on all over the country all the time and we have to be suspicious of teachers at all times. The guest is a guy who is an expert on these cases but the show fails to put this in perspective. The guest from Kansas State U. actually says "there are thousands of children being harmed every day" - I doubt that and would like to see any data to that effect. The first specific stories discussed were from long ago and I think that the extent this goes on today is less than the past.

I don't fault them for covering this but I think that some more serious effort to assess the prevalence of the problem would help.

State of Top Candidates in Pres Race

John Nichols has a nice short article which really lays out clearly where the horses are in the race for the white house - a quick easy read. It sounds like Clinton is not the leader in Iowa and NH : )
I am somewhat encouraged by Richardson's improving numbers but you don't get in the White House with 3rd place.

What is more interesting than the article itself is the comments. It is refreshing frank political discussion about the pros and cons of the top candidates. Skip the unrelated posts and you will think seriously about the race. I don't want to seem racist but this comment raises good points and basically says that Edwards is the only electable democrat and everyone should support him:

If the Democrats, caught up in their NAIVE IDEALISM, nominate someone other than John Edwards, they deserve to lose in 2008, just like they will.

Apparently, too many of them are too stupid to realize that the United States is still a race-conscious and xenophobic country, that still would rather have a change in policy, but probably not a change in package.

1. In a year when Americans are pissed off over illegal immigration, if Democrats think they would have any chance of winning an election with "Bill Richardson," they are delusional. "VISUALLY AND VISCERALLY," that's a loss waiting to happen. Sorry if you don't want to hear it. I rather you think about it now, than to screw up the freaking election. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN with Richardson.

2. Only two...TWO...TWO...states in the history of the Constitution, have elected black candidates "BY POPULAR VOTE" to a statewide federal office. Just two, Illinois and Massachusetts. So, naturally, Democrats who in their infinite wisdom, don't know how to do anything better than snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, would believe that there are "GREAT ODDS" that Barack Obama could win a General Election. Keep dreaming. The GOP hopes you nominate Obama, or Richardson, or Clinton. There isn't an upfront GOP strategist out there who won't tell you that the last candidate they would rather run against, is John Edwards. So, naturally Democrats would turn away from him and go with someone else. Naturally. Obama has zero chance of winning. Most blacks will tell you that if you ask them, and most black comedians definitely will. That's why more blacks like Clinton, because they think she can win, even though she can't.

3. Hillary Clinton is a corporate lawyer. Why in the world does a party of the working man want to nominate a corporate lawyer, who fought for coporations against working Americans? Because those Democrats are "CLUELESS" about Clinton's history as a lawyer with the Rose Law Firm, and because magazines like the Nation and Mother Jones haven't bothered to delve deeply into it. On top of that, there will be a General Election backlash againt the idea of "DYNASTY" (Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Cinton H, Bush J). It will happen, and it will destroy Clinton. Americans are going to want a new family. Not only that, I don't for a second believe that Rove hasn't compiled a list of things that the Clinton White House did that none of us know about, and the GOP can't wait to use that crap to bring down Clinton in the General Election, and destroy Bill Clinton's legacy in the process.

So, with John Edwards, the Democrats get a candidate that most Democrats believe has a great set of policy proposals, who has actually won a statewide race against real competition (unlike Clinton and Obama) in region that's not usually too friendly for Democrats.

Naturally, a party that does nothing but snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or that folds even if they know an election has been stolen, would believe the media reports that John Edwards is dead on arrival. Naturally a party that overwhelmingly "TRUSTS THE NEWS MEDIA" more than the Republican voters do, would believe every report that praises Clinton and Obama and cuts down Edwards.

Naturally Democrat would set themselves up to lose again, just like they always do.

Some people will never learn. Say hello in 2009 to President Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney.

Clinton Not Electable!

I feel like I keep beating this anti-Clinton drum but here is the biggest reason that Dem’s should not vote for her. "New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans" – I know this is very early polling and things will change a lot but this should be encouraging for HC fans. While I like her, I think that there are huge groups of American’s who have a negative impression of her. The key part of this poll is also:

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Like it or not, the main GOP candidates are fairly moderate conservatives that can fairly easily distance thenselves from Bush.

I've jumped off a few cliffs but this is insane

holy crap! check this out

Which one is Beavis and which one is Butthead?

Althouse had a post on her blog about the spat between Hillary and Obama about their foreign policy experience.
"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Here is a great quote from a commentator - "Revenant":

"Listening to Clinton and Obama argue over who has more experience is like listening to Beavis and Butthead argue over who is better at picking up chicks."

Crisis of Part Time Professors

NY Times ran a piece about the problem with colleges hiring part time profs and less Tenured Faculty The article seems too soft in its points. Even the headline "Decline of Tenure Track Raises Concerns" - seems quite conservative. This is a huge problem for students, for all the part timers trying to make a living this way, grad students hoping to be professors, and for the university system as whole. It is an injustice for a university to pay an adjunct prof a total of around $10 - $20K to teach say a total of 8 classes in a year and then the same university may pay a full tenured professor $70K to teach a total of maybe 4 courses in the whole year. Yes the tenured people do "research" and other stuff but in many fields the research is completely unrelated to the education that the students in that department want to gain.

Karl Rove has a new policial column in Newsweek?

This is news to me and here is his first? article. How to Beat Hillary (Next) November Republicans who think she'll be easy to defeat are wrong. What they should do. Catchy title, blah article. At first I thought, how could Karl Rove get out of politics and switch to a political commentator to the general public. Then I thought, this is brilliant move for the GOP, Newsweek thinks, oh great, we will get a well known White House insider to share his views on politics. Rove is thinking, here is a chance for the struggling party and struggling president to get a prominent placed column in the best read news maganine in the country to spread whatever message they want to spin. It may read like Karl's musings and political insights but it really is GOP political marketing. Newsweek should be ashamed of offering them this soap box. This blog includes a quote from the Newsweek editor about Rove.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Karl, there is no arguing that he has been a critical player in the political world," says editor Jon Meacham.

Also, by doing this as a side by side thing it implies that they are presenting two sides of politics which are somewhat equal. If you look at Bush's approval rating, public opinion on the war, Bush and the GOP are a sinking ship and this helps to elevate them to on par with the Dems. Also, I don't think that the GOP nom. will want anything to do with Rove or the rest of the Bush crew. It will be interesting to see what Rove has to say if the GOP nom. critizes Bush.

Biased Post Debate Commentary

Since few people watch the debates, most folks hear the headlines and the sound bites afterwards. For CNN to do this is a big problem. They had James Carville on and did not disclose that he is a current Clinton advisor. He was not providing objective commentary about he debate, he is trying to sell the message that Clinton did great and the others did poorly. Ed Schultz today on Air America also made the point that the commentators said Hillary won but that he did not feel she won.

Savage Lovecast

Listening to the Savage Lovecast is really unique experience. It is like nothing I have ever heard before. I realized that I have never in my life ever heard people say anything outloud like they discuss on here. Not on the radio, TV, movies, not with friends, etc. My friends in highschool or college never discussed things the way Dan does with his guests. I occationaly listed to that show Loveline but I don't think that they were as explicit because it was on the radio and TV. Check it out!

Althouse: Cute animation from McCain

Althouse: Cute animation from McCain.

Play this little quiz that Althouse highlighted on her site. It is good. I like creative political moves. I would like to see one like this for Obama or Richardson.

A Peaceful Revolution: Hey Mom, Where You Live Matters!

Nice article on Huffington Post about the cost of suburban life for parents.

The author Robert Drago is a professor at Penn State and his piece does sound a little like a sociologist talking about tribes in Africa but it does raise good points. It is sort of a duh article in some ways but I don't think people think about this stuff much.

I wonder if you would look at people and how they feel about their real lives. I would love to do a survey of people and ask questions about how often they walk to the store or a friends house. If they wish there were more retail stores closer to their house, etc. He sort of assumes that a suburban mom could not possibly be happy driving her kids around all day and commuting to work, etc. I think there is truth to this but I would like dig deeper. How many parents say, I thought about taking this job but it would be too far away and too much traffic so I did not or I wanted to put my kid in this preschool but it is too far from my job so I stuck them in the other one I don't like. How many people say, I wish I did not move to this house because it is too far from everything - I would be happier if I lived somewhere else.

Part of what he doesn't mention is the risk of all the driving. I think that the suburban life where every trip is by car is more dangerous.

I personally feel very lucky be live where I live and be so close to my family and job.

Hillary Clinton suddenly vulnerable as bruises start to show

I have to admit I like an article like this one. I do not think she is a strong candidate and a good person to unite our country. The only thing an article like this is lacking is some numbers to show her support dropping somewhere and some info about her high negatives.
Quote:

Clinton remains way ahead in national polls, though some have shown a slip and a survey in early voting New Hampshire out yesterday showed a tightening race there.

The focus for staving off any Clinton collapse, though, starts in Iowa, where the candidates wooed party faithful at the state Democrats' biggest event of the year over the weekend.

Iowa Democrats said they didn't feel Clinton is headed down yet, but many thought the bruises were starting to show over her immigration nonposition and a new flareup over revelations that Hillaryland planted questions in two "conversations" with voters.

"I've turned a little more negative on her because of the immigration issue," said Terry Edwards, a trucker from Waukee, Iowa. "She flip-flops on that. I'd like to know where she stands."

Also, related article that exposes why I think she is not a strong candidate. From my favorte right wing nut, Charles Sykes- "Finding ways to fail
Once again, the Democrats seem intent on blowing it" While he is trying to bring us down, he speaks the truth.

ethical/ health question

suppose that you read that some medicine your friend or partner is taking is not very effective at helping the medical problem it is intended to help. Your friend or partner has been taking the medicine and think it helps. Perhaps because of a placebo effect or maybe not. should you tell your friend or partner about the news or just let them go on taking it. Assume that the side effects are minimal? hmmmmm

You are less likely to die if you are overweight than if you are normal weight

This is the headline that the NYT decided not to use for this interesting article.
This line somewhat summarizes the findings:

They concluded that, compared with people of normal weight, the overweight had a decreased death risk and the underweight and obese had increased risk.

While I am sure that many would try to find holes in the methodology or flaws in the conclusions, I would generally be inclined to believe a peer reviewed study from the CDC and National Cancer Institute published in the AMA Journal. The point is not that normal weight people should eat more and become overweight and then they will live longer but it does make you wonder why a normal weight person would be an an increased risk of any medical problem compared to someone overweight. Put another way, why would being overweight protect you or decrease the chances you would contract a disease or medical condition which seems to be happening. A deeper analysis of all the different conditions and diseases that can lead to death should be conducted so that we can better understand the dynamics here.

It doesn't address the exercise piece of the puzzle. Some people think that all overweight people do not exercise, which is not true. I am sure that among overweight people, those who do exercise regularly will live longer than those who do not exercise much.

I would conclude that people should focus much less on their weight or body image and more on being active. If you are active, eat a good amount of regular food and are a little overweight, that is fine. I drought that many obese people do enough exercise.

I am sure a study like this may make some people who work very hard at dieting and exercising every day question whether all that effort is really worth it.

New Free Ricky Gervais Podcast

On iTunes you can get a new free podcast from Ricky Gervais. The first season which I listened to most of was very very funny. I am not sure if it is still available but this is classic comedy. Fast Forward and he is a big international comedy star and some have speculated that his is not as good as he was, fame has gotten to him, etc. I generally agree - i.e. the Simpsons, Night at the Museum. How is the new Podcast? Classic very funny stuff. I did not listen to either seasons 2 or 3 because you had to pay and I am a cheapskate.

The latest episode includes standard making fun of Karl P. Karl pitched a movie idea to some British studio and he told Ricky and Steven. They thought the ideas was completely stupid and worthless. I think it is an interesting idea and has potential. While a brain transplant sounds goofy, perhaps one way to think of the action is that the small section of the brain with long term memories from the dead boyfriend could be implanted into her brain. Like taking his hard drive from his computer. The on the ending for the movie, the lesbian twist is stupid I agree but perhaps the woman who her late boyfriend said turns out to be not an affair but the old love of his life who it turns out ended in tragedy somehow. He thinks her husband was cheating but learns the truth. I can see the trailer now.

Presidential Race Ideas

After reading the press coverage of the latest Democratic debate and some discussion on Stephanie Miller today here are some things to consider.

Many of the candidates spent time attacking Hillary for various things. One pointed out a major problem and fact that 50% of America would not vote for her. Even people who like her are not very passionate and enthusiastic about her. While polls show her in the lead, more democrats do not want to vote for her than do. One poll I see shows her at 46%, all other candidates combined get 49% of the voters. I think there are a lot of people out there who are saying, I don't really like Hillary and I am not sure it is going to be easy for her to win given some of the negative reactions to her and her vulnerabilities but I am not sure who to support. I like some other other candidates but I am not sure they could beat Hillary.

I don't know why the media does not talk about electability and analyze for the public what chances are for a candidate if they got the nomination. I think some prominent dems and even celebrities need to publically make a pick of someone other than Clinton, say why she is not the best choice and push everyone else towards another best alternative. Unless a major push along these lines is made, Hillary will be the nominee and I think many will not be happy with that. I think every person who doesn't think she is either the best candidate or the most electable, should get together and rally behind 1 person. That person and the number two should then join forces and agree to put #2 as VP. All other democratic candidates should step aside and give their support to that person to beat Hillary. We saw a similar thing in Wisconsin during the last election. After Dean was pretty much out, Edwards did very well. We need a conspiracy here or Hillary will be the nominee and I am not sure she will be President. If you really want to know why I don't like Hillary or think she is very electable, let me know and I will post on that.

Who should the nominee be? I think that any of the following would beat Hil if the others dropped out. I think that by January, all the other cadadates have served their purpose and have focused attention on the important issues. Elevate the VP role and basically get two presidents in office.
Obama - Edwards
Edwards - Obama
Obama - Richardson
Edwards - Richardson

EXTRA - Read this article
In part it points out some of her vulerablities but also points out that no one else seems poised to take her place in the front of the field.