The Thin Red Line

I received an email today from a co-worker that I think some of you may find interesting. Undoubtedly, many of you have received a similar email in the past - especially where we are coming off a bitterly fought presidential election. You know the type: "Important" facts that "every voter" or, better yet, "American" - "should know about", usually accompanied by some fancy graphics, vague statistics, or mildly disturbing or eye opening photograph.

Well, the election has come and gone, and after apparently going back to the drawing board (once again), the chain-mailers are back:

It does not hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
  
• Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
  
• Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million


• Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicanswon was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Normally, these emails go straight to my 'delete' folder, but I was feeling a bit feisty today. My reply:

Republicans (at least those like this fellow - which are increasingly numerous) are always quick to point this sort of thing out, despite the fact that any reasonable American, regardless of party alliance, could put together a nice one of these little chain emails with statistics like "Percentage of Citizens with 4 year Degrees in Areas won by Party" and "Number of Universities" "Number of Museums" "Infant Mortality Rate" "Average Reading Level" "Life Expectancy" etc, etc. I would wonder what that grid would look like. I wonder what I would be called for pointing this out.

There are 2 reasons that most Americans don't do this: 1) The Union, who's sanctity Professor Tyler seems so anxious to uphold, holds it's Presidential elections through the electoral college. Every time it works against a party, it's "broken" - but when it works in your favor....well, that brings me to 2). Remember the election of 2000? If you do, you've ignored these same Republicans who told the majority of Americans - who voted for Al Gore (in fact, not just the majority, but at that point, the highest popular vote tally ever recorded for an individual candidate) to get over it. That was the past, time to rally behind our Commander in Chief. So, this is really just par for the course.

These are the same folks who rail about Federal spending under Democratic leaders, though Republicans spend multitudes more - and put up billboards like this:

...and say things like this: "I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a Republican president at the time," Meehan (who put up the billboard) said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Also, Professor Tyler must have gotten a staffer from the University's Democratic-leaning math department to calculate his statistics, because they're a little "fuzzy" - unless two states have seceded from the Union. Perhaps the 29-19 tally (which totals 48) in favor of the Republicans, didn't work as well in his favor as does the actual final tally of 28-22 - in favor of the Democrats.

Again, most folks just delete these, and quietly chuckle to themselves about what they have just read. Not me, though, not anymore. I'm getting a little too tired about reading some one's lies about our truths destroying everyone's 'freedom.'

Who's With Us?

In keeping with a recent trend, the following post is a transcript of a conversation with fellow blogger "Smack" - with this added wrinkle: it cross references a post from Paul Levy's excellent blog Running A Hospital.

The topic at hand, as introduced by Paul Levy's post, is the unethical pension payments being made to 10 former Massachusetts legislators, and an interesting proposal on how current elected officials can address this issue.

Excerpts from Paul's post, including my comments (the first of which I erroneously posted anonymously) comments, are below, followed by the conversation with Smack. I encourage readers to weigh in with their own opinions by posting a comment. Enjoy.

Another approach?

Here's a proposal for a different approach to a political issue currently facing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one that would enhance the stature of the Governor and would also achieve the result most people think is correct.

Imagine the following. Each of those 10 former legislators receives the following call from the Governor's office: "I'm calling to let you know that at 3pm this afternoon, Governor Patrick is going to call on you and the other nine former legislators to voluntarily relinquish this pension benefit. He would be honored to have you stand by him during this press conference to announce that you have agreed to do so -- to give you a chance to receive credit for a selfless act that sends a signal to the people of the state that former public officials realize that this kind of benefit undermines public confidence and current efforts to balance the state budget and retain important services."

The second part of the conversation, to be held in reserve pending the reaction to this request, would be the following:"I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. The Governor wanted me to let you know that, in that case,we will display a picture of you with the amount of payments you will receive in your lifetime both at this press conference and in every public appearance the Governor makes and on his websites, where hundreds of thousands of people will see this until the situation is legally reversed. He would prefer not to do that because he appreciates your years of public service, but there is something more important at stake here."

Now, perhaps those ten people wouldn't care about this, but I am guessing that their reputation in their community matters to them.

Maybe that would help them to do the right thing. Whether they did or did not, it would give the Governor additional moral authority to pursue appropriate legal action to undo this benefit and achieve other reforms. It would set him apart in the public eye and help in pending budgetary and pension fund matters.

Anonymous said...

Paul, it’s one thing to capitalize on public opinion to bring about meaningful reform, but it’s another thing entirely to use a public office to strong-arm citizens under an ambiguous "moral authority." Should these pension payments cease? Absolutely. Is there a more practical and ethical way of handling this? Certainly. Imagine the precedent an action like this would set. What limits would this moral authority have? What recourse would the next group of targeted individuals have?

Paul Levy said...

These are not "citizens" in the general sense. They are former legislators and are earning this money solely as a result of that legislative service. I think the Governor has the right to ask them to display a higher standard.

Ian McCarty said...

1. The Governor has no "moral authority."2. We are all citizens in the"general sense."3. This would just be more grandstanding by the Governor, still the only hold out in terms of filing actual legislation to resolve this issue. As Tim Cahill said on Tuesday "I think the Governor is grandstanding on this issue. He's the only one who hasn't filed legislation to change this. The Senate has, the House has, and we've been filing some form of pension legislation for the past couple of years. Change going backward is just grandstanding. It's not going to save a lot of money in the long run, and it's not going to restore confidence if we're not changing things going forward."

Within Reason: Check this out - interesting topic.

Smack: I think I basically agree with Paul.

WR: You're kidding. You think the Governor should be able to strong arm law abiding citizens based on a non-existent moral authority? Should a pro-life governor post photos of women who have had abortions on-line?

This is like when the government starts taking away civil liberties and tries to sooth the public by saying "law abiding citizens have nothing to fear."

S: How do you figure that public servants have no moral obligation? They’re voted into public office to serve the state. It’s wrong that they’re taking a pension. They should stop or face public scrutiny. It’s state money that they’re messing with. I don’t feel the same way about the private sector.

WR: We are governed by laws - not people. We don't elect kings, we elect officials to administer our government. Granted, we want forward thinking officials who can be both proactive and reactive in their management of our government. You do not legislate morals in this country - in fact, quite the opposite. Legislating morals violates freedoms that are inherently granted to us, and the government cannot impede upon or legislate - in other words, we come into being with rights, the government is in place to make sure no one gets in our way of exercising them.

If it's the public money that bugs you, what if Governor Patrick wanted to amend our welfare system to a point where a few dozen people, who were legally receiving government money, were asked to repay the government, or face public scrutiny. Would that work for you?

S: No, that’s different. Unless the people on welfare are elected officials and their welfare payments are public record.

I don’t know the specifics about this law that they’re collecting pensions under so I can’t comment on the legality of what these people are doing. Following your logic…Outing these people would legal. The info is all public record. So it’s ok, right?

WR: About the law - it's questionable, and should be revoked - but it's the law. About the public record - you're right. But I'm not talking about the availability of information, I'm talking about the intent to intimidate. About the elected officials - if we expect them to follow the laws, they must be the same laws that govern all of us, and they must be enforced uniformly throughout the populous.

There are laws in place to ensure the "good behavior" of elected officials (ask Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, or Rod Blagojevich), but these 10 former legislators were operating within the law.

S: There’s a fine line between aggressive reform and two wrongs making a right. I think, specifically in this case, it’s ok to send a message. I don’t think it’s setting the precedent to strip private citizens of any rights.

WR: The precedent it's sets is "I am the Governor. My opinions regarding past events are de facto law. Anytime I find out somethings been going on that I don't like, I will change it - and pressure ‘violators’ to act like the law has been in place all along."

S: There are no quotes necessary for violators. What’s happening is not illegal but it’s wrong.
The precedent it sets is: if you’re a public official then you’re publicly accountable for wrongdoing.

WR: When does wrongdoing become wrongdoing?

S: In general or in this example? In this example it became wrong when they unethically took pensions.

In general - I don’t have enough time to put proper thought into a definition right now. I’m not going to just throw something out there for you to rip apart.

WR: Here is my larger point - both you and Paul are trying to say that the government should be able to specifically target individuals and instances that, however legal they may be, are not ethical, popular, or both. The problem with that is - we are a society of laws. When the government starts side stepping laws to enforce their agenda, even if it is in lock step with public opinion, you get the breakdown of our society. That may sound dramatic (and it is - but come on, this is me), but you can draw a parallel between this and, say, water-boarding, i.e. Terrorists: "Immoral." American Government: "Moral Authority." American Public: "Terrorists Bad!" American Government's course of action - "To hell with the laws! We're right! Go get the caterpillars and Dobermans." See what I mean?

S: But this isn’t about enforcing a particular agenda, unless you think doing the right thing is an agenda. This is about fixing a problem in a public forum. You can’t liken this to water-boarding because torture is illegal.

It’s the corruption that’s breaking down our society. If we start making these people accountable then maybe we’ll get somewhere. FYI, I think we should amend the law also.

WR: What is the "right thing?"

S: That goes beyond the scope of my argument. In this case it’s clear and it’s my understanding that you agree with me on that.

WR: I'm not arguing that the law is correct, I am arguing that law itself is correct.
I am sure there have been plenty of elected officials - again, W. comes to mind - who have thought "To hell with the law, it's wrong and I AM RIGHT!" It does not work that way, though. If you want the pensions to stop, change the law - you are the government, you can do that (to a point). As a matter of fact, it is all you can do within your elected capacity. To step outside of that capacity is an even more severe transgression against our system of government than is bilking it for a few thousand $k.

S: I agree that they should change the law.

I still have no problem with publicizing what these legislators have been doing and how much they’ve been taking. It’s not an extreme measure. The public should know, especially if these people are in a position to run again.

WR: We'll have to end it there, agreeing to very strongly disagree. The law is the law for a reason. I understand that in this case, the "violators" in question are former public officials, but this standard is an imaginary line that could be placed anywhere moving forward, were this precedent to be set.

S: But how is this even a precedent? Since when is pointing out public information a new thing?
There has to be accountability and transparency.

WR: We’re at an impasse. Let’s open this up to commenters.

Smack Talk

Due to positive feedback, Within Reason has gone back to the "Smack" well sooner than expected for another round of banter. This week, the discussion of a new snack product took us down the darker - and more comical - alleys of advertising. Feel free to join the conversation by posting a comment. Enjoy.

Within Reason: So, "Doritos Late Night" - have you seen that?

Smack: Don’t think so – what is it?

WR: Check it out: Doritos.com (ed. note - please check this out and weigh in with your thoughts/ideas)

S: I don’t get it.

WR: Neither do I. It's one of those things that's bugging me a little too much. Either it's targeting people who are up late with the munchies - in which case, would make it about as sensible a move as "Bud Light: Cookout" - or it is an evil genius plot to get people to talk about Doritos who normally would not.

Or, I'm totally missing the point. The commercial, which I saw for the first time last night, doesn't help. Essentially, it’s the typical 18-29 Scion-ish commercial, with Doritos. At night. Late.

S: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/04/27/adventures-in-branding-doritos-late-night/

WR: Hmmm. Nice piece, and a nice site. Still doesn't get me any closer. Perhaps what I'm experiencing is a bit of disappointment. This is almost a good idea. Marrying 2 objects - or an object to idea(l) - is exciting whenever a new boundary is crossed.

If, this is as it seems - just an attempt by Doritos to appeal to the "Dude, what time is it?" crowd of late night eaters, then it almost backfires for a few reasons: 1) I would venture that Doritos has a pretty firm grip on a decent share of the "in-home, late night munchies" market among the targeted demographic. 2) The easiest way to get late-teens and early twenty-something’s NOT to buy something is to try this hard to sell it to them. 3) You're dividing your market unnecessarily. I'm not that into junk food, but I'd buy Doritos, and eat them in front of my boss, to boot. I would think twice about buying "Late Night Doritos" because they are so specifically targeted to a certain demographic. Like the "Overthinkingit.com" site points out - this is kind of like Cinemax. When some one says "I didn't see the Sopranos - I have Cinemax" there are those that hear "I was too busy enjoying 'Cinemax After Dark last night" and think to themselves "...dirty, dirty man." It would be as if The Cheesecake Factory came out with an "All Night Taco Stand" at select locations.

S: You’re going to buy them. Even if you deny it I won’t believe you.

WR: There is only one junk/snack food that I am powerless to resist: 'Hint of Lime' Tostitos. This is kind of my point - people up late at night, suffering from 'the munchies' eat snack food. Doritos and Tostitos both occupy that market. And while Tostitos Hint of Lime would undoubtedly satisfy the snack urges of plenty of those late night eaters - it does so without selling out, and eternally (or until the marketing budget dries up) linking itself to a somewhat questionable demographic.

To get to your point, Tostitos may be able to get me to buy 'Hint of Tequila', should they ever try.

S: Don’t forget about Funyuns. There is one and only one demographic that repeatedly gets duped by that product.

WR: Well, I don't know. I've never seen a Funyuns commercial, or seen one in print. That could go either way. Actually, I'm not even sure I know which demographic you're referring to. I associate Funyuns with young children, so in that case - you'd go after them. Anything snack-foody or cool, just go after the kids. Parents want to make kids happy. This gets back to my comment about marketing to anyone under 30: that is a very perceptive demographic.

If, as a child, I knew that my mother thought it would be a "good idea" for me to consume something - it immediately went on the "not too psyched to try that" list. Conversely, if I went to my mother armed with the incredibly targeted information about Cinnamon Toast Crunch having "vitamins and minerals" and "being part of a balanced breakfast" - she knew that I was brainwashed by a commercial that was essentially pushing sugar on me. I actually love that, now that I think of it. The people behind those commercials knew that by sprinkling in (pardon the pun) "scientific facts" about the quality of their product, it would make the child all the more likely to repeatedly demand the product from the parent - "But it IS healthy" - usually ending in one of those "I will collapse right here in the cereal aisle if you do not buy me Cookie Crisp, with it's 6 healthy ingredients - out of 73." Looking back, they could have skipped the actual research and said things like "Full of nutritional breakfast goodness" or "Complete with all the ingredients your mother will be looking for" (technically true) or "Now with corn, which the Native Americans referred to as maize. Just like you learned about in school." Any talking points.

S: Funyuns aren’t heavily marketed, but the demographic I’m referring to would be all the main characters in “Half Baked.” I don’t see too many children being turned on to puffed rice with onion powder.

WR: That's why they call them 'Funyuns.' I wouldn't see too many children being turned on to puffed rice with partially hydrogenated corn syrup and yellow 32, until you call it 'Corn Pops.'

S: Which reminds me… Have you seen the new commercials for high fructose corn syrup? Seriously?

WR: Yes! Those go right with the Exxon Mobil commercials that try to say "we care about Earth." Again, it's just the trick of marketing - getting you to think for a second longer about a specific product than you normally should. Even though everyone who speaks English should be able to deduce that there is something inherently wrong about a commercial that's essentially: "Hi there! I'm high fructose corn syrup. Not that you were probably wondering at all, but there's nothing wrong with me. In fact, I'm made from corn. You like corn, right? Hey! Alright - good talk, America. Remember: just forget about me." Even in the case that these adds are targeting the select few who actually remember the strangely revelatory 1990s-ish discovery that "Hey, what do you know? This stuff is like sugar on steroids. It can rot your teeth and make you fat. What? Oh yeah, diabetes, too!" - most of those people could be taken care of with a "We're America's producers of high fructose corn syrup. We'd like to address a few of the concerns you may have about our product. As you all know...Hey! A blimp!" - cut to black.

It's really like a commercial from gasoline. Not a brand, just gasoline. Or a hybrid of both "Hi, I'm Peyton Manning speaking on behalf of high fructose corn syrup. You know how you could theoretically ride your bike to work, or take a train - but almost all of you drive a gasoline powered car? Well, the next time you're ready to dump all over high fructose corn syrup - good luck finding incredibly sweet food without it. You could, but, people would think you were just getting all uppity. Now back to this very special episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition."

S: The whole campaign hinges on their new slogan, “It’s ok in moderation.” WHAT?

Even a Doritos Late Night patron can read between the lines and see that this product is not good for you.

You don’t see tobacco growers doing this. Why? Because as you point out, it just raises awareness of the issue that you’re fighting. Only the Corn Refiners Association could come up with an ad campaign like this. I can picture their board meeting… It takes place in Omaha in a barn loft, by torch light, and they’re getting all worked up in their overalls… One particularly articulate member speaks up: “We gotta do somethin!”

WR: ...and no one thinks "about what? We OWN the artificial sweetener market for everyone except Momorexics." Actually - bingo! There it is. It totally fits the criteria. It's a sensible commercial. They’re going for the Moms. Not for their kids, but for the actual Moms. "Hey, don't you miss juice? Because, you know, Crystal Light isn't juice. A little juice won't kill you. Also, tasty cookies. Just saying."

At least they're not going the alcohol 'moderation' route, where every add says to "Enjoy Responsibly" after presenting you with the following - A bunch of young people sitting around thinking "Awwww man, this is the worst lakeside gathering I've ever been at. And man oh man is it hot or what? hey...wait a minute...ice? In July??? Whooo hooo! Here comes the Silver Bullet! Yeah! Now that I'm smashed, I LOVE volleyball! And those hot chicks LOVE me! Thanks booze!"

Maybe the corn syrup folks could go after the kids with a commercial like this: Boring school lunch, same old fish sticks...chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!! It's the High Fructose Corn Syrup Express! Yaay! Popsicles! It's actually raining cookies! Juice with literally zero nutritional value from all the water fountains! Our teachers turned into The Wiggles - who are singing "M-o-d eee-ration!"

That would work.

S: If we could make that commercial that would be one of the better parodies/satires ever.

WR: And somewhere in Nebraska (or on Madison Avenue), the Corn Refiners of America's ad firm would think "damn!"

What's in a Name?

Once again, Within Reason figured it was time to check in with fellow blogger Smack to get his thoughts on the NHL playoffs, MLB All-Star voting, and to make sure he celebrated his April birthday in true Massachusetts style: getting rained on at Fenway Park.

As is usually the case with our conversations, the main points are quickly abandoned in favor of more eclectic discourse. In this instance, we touched upon a topic (in Smack's case, this was a revisiting of a past topic on his site) that, while comical, brings to mind the fact that our rapidly expanding technological capabilities are not only an engine to improve the standard quality of our lives, but also a catalyst in changing our very standards.

I invite readers to join in the discussion by posting a comment below. Enjoy.

Within Reason: Baseball All-Star voting begins today - thoughts on that?

Smack: No thoughts on all star voting. Haven't been following baseball much. Or do you mean thoughts on starting it so early?

WR: Yes - the timing of the voting...

S: Too early. But I guess if the votes come in all season then it makes sense. If Youk takes a dive then people would stop voting for him.

WR: I say that All Star voting should start September 1st, and run through the offseason - and up until July 1st. It would take into account the period between games. A 2009 All Star would be someone who has played well since the 2008 All Star game. At least that would be the idea.

S: The only reason I would even care would be because the ASG now determines home field advantage in the World Series. Otherwise I don't care enough to have an opinion on it.

Sweeping the Habs: Helps the Bruins or hurts the Bruins? They won't play again until the end of next week.

WR: First point: See, that's where I think they could actually trump up this whole "now it counts" thing with the ASG. If you refocus on the period between the games, you can try to shift people's attention to who actually deserves to be on the team - as opposed to the whole thing being a popularity contest. For example, I would almost guarantee that Alex Rodriguez will be the AL's leading vote-getter at 3B, even though he hasn't played at all this year. It might make it more interesting if fans had been voting since late 2008, and were now faced with the possibility that A-Rod may not suit up. Maybe Brandon Inge could slide in, or Longoria...Another interesting position is 1B in the NL. Pujols will probably run away with the votes, but I'll bet Joey Votto's stats measure up against Pujols' pretty well since the '08 ASG. It would direct fans to pay more attention to up and comers, therefore developing more "stars"...at least it could...there will always be the 300,000 automatic votes for Ichiro, and the casual "popularity contest" fans.

Second point: I think it definitely helps. Rest is huge in the playoffs. The play gets much more physical, and players get more banged up. The more time to heal, the better. I think the Bruins are strong enough to handle a break. The only possible catch - and this is specifically for the B's (although you could apply to any team in a similar situation) is that the Rangers are very hot right now. I could see the Rangers (and this is assuming they take care of Washington, which looks likely) coming in and giving the Bruins a hard time. You don't want to be down 0-1 to a team that's over-achieving and hot. That said, I'm not sure which scenario they'd like to see play out - the WASH/NYR series stretch to 7, and a tired, beat up team come in (either one), or the Rangers wrap it up in 5 and come in sooner, but hotter. I still lean towards rest being beneficial.

S: Stop forcing this ASG "debate" on me.

I agree - rest is good and I don't think they'll have a problem keeping the intensity rolling.

WR: Not looking to debate. I was listening to ESPN this morning and they were talking about it. Just think it's interesting.

I also think the Bruins are the better team (vs. both WSH and NYR), so that helps, too.

Any opinion on the whole "game one (of the Red Sox /Twins doubleheader called after 7 innings, yet they played another game that night" debate?

S: Well to be fair it was raining and they had played enough of the game to legally call it off. I might feel differently if it was a closer game. Is there a debate about this too?

WR: It depends. See, I'm not going overboard like some people, but there are a few ways to look at this. First - you are right, they could legally call it off. That, and it was the last time the Twins are in town all season. However, I do see the two counter arguments that I've heard as valid: First, it saves the Twins bullpen. That's where the "it wasn't a close game" thing gets sticky. I'm sure the Yankees would have loved to have forfeited their blowout loss last week when they were down by only 7, or 15 for that matter. It sure would have spared their bullpen. The other point is the business side of it. I'm sure the Red Sox are happy that they got to get both sets of fans through the gate yesterday. If they had held off and said, "We're going to finish the first game when it clears up" - they most likely would not have not gotten the second game in. I realize that all the seats are bought and paid for before hand, but concessions, etc are a cash cow.
Here's the real rub - both teams are off today.

S: If I hadn't left a tip for my friend at the beer stand I would have walked out with more money than I arrived with.

WR: I'm assuming there were tens of thousands of folks in attendance who did not experience your birthday luck.

S: Yeah but who cares about them? Have you heard about La-a?

WR: Spoken like a true Sox fan. Not sure if I know what La-a is. Los Angeles of Anaheim?

S: Not what, but who. (Link is to a story on writer Clay Travis' site, which highlights the following)

"My friend's wife is a kindergarten teacher in Baton Rouge. She has a student whose name is "La-a"- pronounced "Ladasha."She also has a student with two apostrophes in their first name. I give you, Mi'Ra'Ja. (prounounced 'mirage-a')

WR: I am floored by that. I honestly need a moment.

Remember that children's birthday/college drinking activity where you spin around with your forehead pivoting on an upright baseball bat, then try to run in a straight line? My description of said activity proves that it's the perfect analogy for my brain's current ability to maintain any sort of linear thought.

S: When someone told me that story I never saw that punch line coming. It goes something like, "the teacher reads off roll call on the first day of class and says `La ah' and the little girl responds, `it's Ladasha. the dash isn't silent.'" I thought it was awesome and it was at that moment that I decided to name my first born girl Lapostrophetisha.

WR: My son's name is yet to be decided, and this opens up so many possibilities. -er (Dasher), for one. :dre (Colondre) is another. Maybe La ia (Laspaceia) will catch on once it's my next cat's name. You know, I know it's different with animals, but I'll bet veterinarians see some pretty interesting names.

S: I like where this is going. Even traditional names could go this route, such as M@ (Matt) or S&y (Sandy or even Sampersandy). Then you have to decide where, if anywhere, does it end? How long before we see a Paπa (Papaya)?

P.S. I enjoyed Laspaceia a lot.

WR: I think the world is ready for this. Look at Prince got away (albeit briefly) with naming himself a symbol (right) for a while. If he had chosen a symbol that was on everyone's keyboard, and done this after the advent of the internet - and txting - it may have stuck. I guess the trick, in his case, is not getting called "Asterisk" or "Percent Sign." In our scenario, however, that's the intended result.

I don't think this needs to stop at names, either. You could visit your physician for a :oscopy. Generals could give the order to @ack. /er flicks, it goes on.

Try this one on: M&d.

S: What if the @ack order could also come from a Lieu10ant?

WR: Wow. I wonder if we could get the Star Wars fan lobby behind us. Here's the pitch: "Just promote this with us for a while. Endorse names like 4est and N8 and La ia. Then, once this is an accepted norm, you will be free to name your children C3PO and R2D2 without fear of them being ostracized.

S: How about itha?

WR: Not getting that one- Spaceitha? Blankitha?

S: Tabitha!

WR: We're approaching the fringe here. Hopefully we don't IZE.

S: Capsize or capitalize? Why not just IIIIII? (Capital I's? oh boy)

WR: The former. This is getting out of h&.

A Machiavellian Slip

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

- Kevin Bankston, Electronic Frontier Foundation

While the nation has been transfixed by high seas rescues and swashbuckling Navy SEALS, a far more ominous story has been flying under the nation's radar. Earlier this month, in it's first opportunity to make good on campaign promises of - as quoted above - "transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties" - the Obama administration filed a motion to dismiss a landmark lawsuit against the National Security Agency and several individuals within the administration (including Obama himself). The lawsuit in question is being brought by five U.S. citizens who claim their civil liberties were violated when the United States government, in partnership with telecommunications corporations (most notably AT&T), engaged in domestic, warrantless wiretapping.

Last July, amid the normal partisan campaign attacks and counter punches, came news that then Senator Obama was reversing his decision to hold these telecommunications companies partially accountable for their role in the warrantless searches. In an effort to subdue backlash from Obama supporters critical of this move, Congressional Democrats were quick to point out that only private companies were being granted this retroactive immunity, and that taking legal action against the government, and it's officials, were any wrong-doing to be uncovered, would be perfectly legal. As West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller wrote in a Washington Post Op-ed:

"Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials."

In October, a suit was brought against the Bush administration for it's role in the scandal. Shortly thereafter, the suit was pushed to this month. The Bush administration was happy to see it go, and the plaintiffs were pleased by the prospect of bringing this case before the Obama administration. It turns out that the plaintiff's optimism was sorely misplaced. On April 3rd, attorneys for the government defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case due to, among other things, the tried and true Bush-isms of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity." As if this were not disappointing enough, the filing goes further to undo any promise of government accountability - past and future - by citing provisions of 2001's USA Patriot Act. The provision cited expressly forbids citizens from bringing "suits against the United States for damages and equitable relief based on alleged violations of the Wiretap Act and ECPA, in both cases by permitting relief against only a 'person or entity other than the United States.' Congress enacted these express reservations of sovereign immunity in Section 223 of the Patriot Act of 2001." What this means for Americans is best summed up by Glenn Greenwald in his report for Salon.com:

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned."

This is a devastating blow to our civil liberties. In essence, this filing asserts that President Obama and his administration are not only free to continue to violate our basic rights and freedoms, but also hold themselves above any sort of accountability for these acts. This is a stance that hearkens back to the darkest times in our nation's history; not only the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, but to other infamous executives, as well.

"If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law...what I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, 'Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.'"

-Richard M. Nixon

The problem with the collective rationales of Nixon, Bush, and now Obama, is that when these measures are implemented, they essentially dissolve the core of the nation they are designed to protect. Sadly, it seems that this newest administration will once again manipulate our system of government to expand it's power, instead of recognizing the core values of our society, wherein the Constitution is not designed to grant unto the government absolute power, it is in place to protect the inherent freedoms of the people, and to shield the people from the government itself if the government should so threaten them.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Grand Old Party Time

In case you are one of the millions who, like me, tends not to tune into Fox News on a regular basis, I thought it might be important to make you aware of the events planned for this coming Wednesday, April 15th. Apparently, there are untold dozens around us who have the keen insight necessary to point out to the rest of us the obvious correlation between "taxation without representation" and "paying your taxes." Of course, since these denizens of freedom from "Obamapression" are predominantly conservative Republicans, they are rolling out their message of protest in accordance with their usual impeccable morality and tact.



Now, to be - ahem - fair to Fox News, none of their actual anchors use any questionable terminology themselves. However, this does nothing to take away from the sheer absurdity of this protest, it's message, and it's extensive coverage by "The Most Powerful Name in News."

On a related topic, details surrounding Ohio conservative's "green" transportation initiative, which calls for a return to steam based locomotion, remain sketchy. With the American auto industry on the brink of collapse, some Ohioans are hopeful that steam engine powered cars will provide a greener and more economic solution than socialist bailouts. Unnamed sources within the conservative movement are hopeful that The Cleveland Steamer will return America to automotive dominance by the end of the decade. Stay tuned.

Blog Rally to Help the Boston Globe

We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe. A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally. We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture:

We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance. Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm: Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money. Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help. Thank you.

P.S. - To those of you who publish your own blog, please feel free to cut and paste this post for inclusion on your site.