To see some of the stuff I have written before my online column was created, click the links to the left.
PAST COLUMNS
02.14.08 The Theory of Huckabee
02.08.08 Our President Should Speak English
02.07.08 Mixed Marriages In Politics
01.30.08 Definition of Torture
01.30.08 Hillary Zero, Barack Zero, Hillary Wins?
01.30.08 Lots Of Hits, No Hit Men
01.23.08 Fred Thompson Quits. Why Now?
01.17.08 Oh, No! Are Biofuels Just Garbage?
01.10.08 S.F. Tiger to Claim Self Defense?
01.03.08 The Rose Bowl and the War
12.20.07 What Is The Administration Hiding Now?
The Theory of Huckabee
February 14, 2008
(236.com) Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is still in the race. Huckabee has not compromised on any of his beliefs or stands. He remains unconvinced that evolution ever happened. He seems to believe that humans and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time. What does that have to do with politics? If he gets the nomination, for his running mate, he might choose Barney Rubble.
Our President Should Speak English
February 8, 2008
(236.com) I have a hard time voting for a candidate who doesn't use proper grammar. I was presented with a dilemma before the recent primary election. At the last debate, I was shocked when Hillary Clinton used the phrase, "The differences between Barack and I..." Obviously, the correct way to say this would've been, "The differences between Barack and me ..." This particular grammatical mistake is a pet peeve of mine. When I hear someone say something like, "It was very nice for Mary and I," or "This is the kind of thing that's very important for Jim and I," it's as if I'm hearing someone scratch their fingernails on a blackboard.
It's such an easy thing to do correctly. It's the object of the verb, so you have to use "me," "them", "him," "her" or "us." If you're unsure, all you have to do is say the sentence without the other person in it. You wouldn't say, "It was very nice for I," so why would you even consider saying, "It was very nice for Mary and I?"
Sometimes I think this mistake comes about from people who are trying to be somewhat pretentious. They know that "I" is often a "better" word than "me." They know that technically when someone asks, "Who's there?" the fancy people answer, "It is I." They know you're not supposed to say, "Me and Frank went to the store." You're supposed to say, "Frank and I went to the store. " So for some strange reason, they conclude that if one always uses "I" instead of "me," they'll sound smart. Of course, the result is just the opposite.
I realize that I am perhaps more obsessed with grammar than the average person. When I see mistakes scrawled in graffiti in a bathroom stall, I want to take a red pen to correct them. So, I certainly did not feel great about Hillary possibly being my president now that I knew she was one of those "between you and I" people.
A couple of days later, I saw Michele Obama being interviewed on television. Like Hillary, here was another intelligent, highly educated woman. And sure enough, she made the same mistake and said, "That's between Barack and I."
So now, who, I mean, whom was I supposed to vote for? I gave it a great deal of thought. Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama? Finally, I made my choice. I'm not going to tell you which one I voted for, but I'll give you a hint. The one I voted for wears pants.
Why do I think speaking properly is such an important prerequisite for the Presidency? Well, just think whom we got when the last guy who didn't speak too well was elected.
Mixed Marriages In Politics
February 7, 2008
(Huffington Post) Recently, "mixed marriages" and "blended political families" have been in the news. I'm talking about Democrats and Republicans being married to each other. For example, Governor Schwarzenegger supports McCain, and his wife, Maria Shriver, is for Obama. We've also seen some famous uncles and cousins supporting opposing candidates. We're all familiar with the saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." I also think "bedfellows make strange politics."
Whenever I see the odd couple of political pundits -- Mary Matalin and James Carville -- on TV, I can't help thinking, "What's going on with the two of them?" I realize it's not that uncommon for spouses to disagree about politics. I'm sure there are Republicans married to Democrats. There are bound to be families in which one spouse is for Clinton and the other for McCain or, maybe, one is for Huckabee and the other is for Obama. I might have gone too far with that last example. In fact, if there are any couples reading this who are Huckabee/Obama supporters, I'd love to hear from them.
My point is that when Mr. and Mrs. Citizen disagree politically, it's just a healthy aspect of our democracy. But Matalin and Carville are professional politicians. They don't just disagree. When each of them describes the other's party, they describe evil. They attack each other's basic values. How can they be married? How does it work? "I hate everything you stand for. Could you pass the salt please, honey?"
And how did Arnold handle Maria coming out for Barack Obama just days after the governor endorsed John McCain? Again, it's not the same as the husband and wife down the street who support different candidates. To those who are (incredibly) claiming that McCain is "too liberal," how does it look for the wife of his muscle-bound endorser to be campaigning for Obama? I'm sure Governor Schwarzenegger took it in stride. He probably said something like, "This is America, and this is California. So, in this greatest land in the world, you can support whoever you want, Maria. I'm not angry. Now I'm just going to go work out and bench press our Hummer."
We've also witnessed the race for Kennedy endorsements. Caroline and Ted endorsed Obama, and then quickly Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Kerry Kennedy endorsed Hillary Clinton. Then, Ted's son Patrick and RFK's widow, Ethel Kennedy endorsed Obama. I worry about how they're all going to get along at their next Thanksgiving dinner or touch football game.
This whole idea of political endorsements has gotten out of hand. On the Democratic side, both candidates will now try to get anybody with any connection to the Kennedys. Look for an announcement like: "Man Who Once Sold JFK Pack Of Gum Backs Hillary."
Any of the Republicans would be happy to have the headline, "Ronald Reagan's Brother Makes Endorsement." Then if we bothered to read the rest of the article, it would be something like: "Fred Reagan, the brother of master plumber, Ronald Reagan, of Omaha, Nebraska, has endorsed..."
Recently, John McCain was so anxious to get rid of the non-endorsement of Rush Limbaugh, that Bob Dole sent Limbaugh a letter praising McCain. How unseemly was that? The former Senate Majority leader courting a radio host? What's next? Is a presidential candidate going to celebrate the endorsement of TV's Oprah Winfrey? Oh, yeah, I forgot.
Endorsements are vastly over-rated. The concept presumes that we can't and don't think for ourselves. Is the union member really going to vote for somebody the union officially supports if he or she doesn't like that candidate? How many people are going to change their minds because a karate guy/actor endorses someone?
If Matalin and Carville are so smart, if Arnold and Maria have so much influence, how come they can't even convince their own spouses?
Definition of Torture
January 31, 2008
(236.com) Apparently, the Administration still can't decide if waterboarding is torture. But the American people know what torture is. Having to sit through one more Republican debate would be torture that nobody should have to endure.
Hillary Zero, Barack Zero, Hillary Wins?
January 30, 2008
(236.com) Curiously, Hillary Clinton seemed to declare victory last night after "winning" Florida. This was despite the candidates agreeing not to campaign there because the Democratic Party had stripped Florida of all of its delegates. Nonetheless, Senator Clinton flew to Florida to make a speech after the votes were counted. Keep in mind, she won 0 delegates. Look for Hillary to compete in other places where no delegates are at stake. We might see her declaring victory in places like Argentina and Bangladesh.
Lots Of Hits, No Hit Men
January 30, 2008
(Huffington Post) Craigslist is a huge internet website that people use to buy and sell all kinds of products and services. According to the "best of Craig's list," people have advertised a couch shaped like a vagina, have looked for the hot-selling Wii, and have even posted an ad that read, "Wanted: Heart Surgeon for ½ Day Gig--No Pay." People find apartments, roommates, and romance on the site. My son found his job on a listing there. If you think you can find anything and everything on craigslist, you're not alone. A 49-year-old woman supposedly tried to use the site to find an assassin to kill the wife of a man with whom she had had an affair. It turns out that this is not only against the law, but it's against craigslist's rules.
HYPERLINK "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-newmark" Craig Newmark started craigslist as an e-mail list for friends and coworkers in 1995. It was a way for them to be aware of events going on in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1999, Craig quit his job to work full time on craigslist. The "bio" about Craig says that he no longer runs the website, but now works as a customer service representative. That's almost as shocking as the story about the woman looking for a hit man. After all, if you didn't need a job, why would anyone want to be the person on the other end of the phone when people call up to complain? I wonder if he pretends to be a computer-generated voice, saying things like, "Press 1 for English, press 2 if your computer crashed because of our site, press 3 if you're tired of listening to computer voices like this one."
How successful is craigslist? Over the past 12 years, 550 million ads have been posted there. There are more than 9 billion page views per month. More than 30 million people use the site each month. If just half of those people would read my column regularly, I could afford a couch shaped like any body part I want.
Anyway, the FBI caught up with Ann Marie Linscott who allegedly was using the site to look for a killer. Ann Marie didn't come out and say, "Hit man Wanted To Kill Woman Who's With The Man I Love." Instead, she advertised for somebody to perform a "freelance job." Only after people responded to this ad, did she email her true intentions to them. That's when she offered them $5,000 to "eradicate a female."
Fortunately, the proper authorities were called before anyone got hurt. Craigslist has strict rules about trying to use the site for activities such as selling child pornography, weapons, and counterfeit currency. Also, you can forget about it if you're thinking about going on the site to try to sell that extra kidney of yours. I couldn't find "murder" on their list of prohibited postings, but I think we can assume a site which bans fireworks sale and stud breeding, also doesn't approve of killing people.
When someone commits a crime that seems bound to lead to their arrest, we often ask, "How could they be so stupid?" I guess people just don't think things through, and they believe that they won't get caught. There will be people trying to get away with crimes as long as there are things like greed, lust, and lightweight DVD players.
The internet has produced all kinds of crimes that we couldn't have imagined 20 years ago. We've come to accept that identity theft and financial scams are just part of the web. But I never thought that the internet would be used to advertise for a murderer on the same site where you can buy a dishwasher.
It's obvious that the internet and its uses are growing at an alarming rate. I'm sure it's hard for law enforcement to keep up with every new law-breaking idea. That's why all of us have to be cautious when it comes to what we get involved with using our computers. In case you're wondering how the accused woman met the married man she had the affair with - they met online.
Fred Thompson Quits. Why Now?
Jan. 23, 2008
(Huffington Post) We all know that former senator/sometime actor Republican Fred Thompson dropped out of the Presidential race on Tuesday. The question is "Why then?" Why not on Monday? Why not last week? Or last month? What drives a person to be a candidate when everyone in the world knows he or she has no chance? And what finally convinces that candidate that the rest of the world has been right all along? All this gets to an even more basic question which is, "Why do people who can't possibly win an election run?"
Some pundits believe there are people who just feel it's important to get their beliefs and their presentation of the issues out to the public. They probably never even think that they have a chance to win the election, but they want their ideas -- and their faces -- to get exposure.
I'm not so sure about this. Another theory could be that they all convince themselves that maybe a miracle will happen, and they'll win. So it's quite possible that even the candidates whose first names many of us don't know -- like Gravel or Tancredo -- enter the campaign thinking that they have a shot.
In other words, the explanation is either ego or self-delusion. They are like the geeky kid who thinks that someday the beautiful, but snooty cheerleader will actually go out with him. They're like the people who think the stock they bought at $100 a share that sank to five cents a share will make a comeback soon. They're like people who think that their shirt might be ugly on everybody else, but they can pull it off.
We've all seen candidates who receive less than 1% of the vote in a primary and who don't do any better in national polls continue to campaign. What do they tell their families, their campaign workers, and themselves? "I know .03% doesn't look good, but we did better than expected?"
So, how low, how few votes, and how few contributions does one of these candidates have to get before he or she says, "That's it. I quit?" Apparently, awfully low.
In Thompson's case, after some unimpressive showings in several states, he finished third in South Carolina -- a state he had said he needed to win. Actually, the fact that he said he needed to win in South Carolina before the primary tells me that he wanted to quit. Let's face it. He must have known ahead of time that he wasn't going to win that primary. But since he said that he needed to win it, maybe he felt he wouldn't look as much like a quitter when he quit.
Remember before he officially declared himself a candidate? Fred Thompson was quite coy about it. He waited and waited, and then finally made his announcement. Talk about ego. Thompson isn't a popular enough candidate to be coy. Who cared if he were in or not? Besides him, I mean.
Once he was in the campaign, it became hard to describe him as actually "running" for president. It was more like he was "walking." He was the Perry Como of candidates, or the Rip van Winkle. Either he seemed like he was half asleep, or his audiences did.
So, why did this particular man who not only seemed to have no chance to win but didn't even seem to want to win all that badly enter the primaries? I've got a theory: It was because of Hollywood's writers' strike and possible actors' strike. He knew that television and movie production was going to be down for a while, so instead of joining the picket lines or just hanging around the house, he ran for president.
He had played the President of the United States in at least three different movies, so he probably figured, "How hard can it be?"
I'm not thrilled that sometimes he seems to use American politics as his unemployment office. However, until Congress passes an amendment, he doesn't have to choose between show business and politics. He can keep going back and forth. So, don't be surprised if you see him soon, back on television in something like, "Law & Order: Compulsive Candidates Unit."
Oh, No! Are Biofuels Just Garbage?
Jan. 17, 2008
(Huffington Post) When I first heard about biofuels, they sounded fantastic. The way it was explained to me was that the fuel would be made from renewable vegetable oils and recycled cooking grease. I figured that soon, when people finished eating their fries at McDonalds, they'd just take that greasy wrapper paper and drip it into their gas tanks. I dreamt of the day that we could just put our garbage directly into our cars. Not only would we have gas-free vehicles, but we wouldn't have to take out the garbage after we've already removed our shoes and gotten comfortable. It was an energy source that we would never run out of. It was perfect, right? Well, maybe.
San Francisco recently converted its entire diesel fleet to biodiesel. Last November, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a new project called SFGreasecycle. The idea is to collect used fats and cooking oils from restaurants at no charge. Then these restaurant wastes would be converted into fuel. The only negative I could envision was that as the need for more and more grease would grow, there would be an increase in the construction of fast food places. But there are other negatives.
Today, every once in a while, I see a car that proudly bears a sticker proclaiming that it is powered by bio-diesel fuel. Even if I am in our Prius, I feel this car is bragging to my car, "I'm even better for the environment than you are." I've felt almost ashamed that I'm not as much on the cutting edge as I could be. Until now.
I recently learned that there are some serious concerns about this new "green" fuel. Some experts think it might cause more problems for the environment than bad old gasoline. It's all getting very confusing.
So, what's the problem? Well, not all biofuels are created equally. The European Union just announced that it is proposing a ban on certain biofuels. It turns out that some entrepreneurs are perhaps more interested in "the long green" than in "being green." Crops for fuel are being grown on all kinds of land -- forests, wetlands, and grasslands. Not only are some trees being chopped down in tropical rain forests to plant these crops, but I'll bet they're not using biodiesel-powered tractors to plow those areas.
Certain parts of Southeast Asia are planting too many palm trees for the oil and not necessarily harvesting them in environmentally friendly ways. And these crops require nitrogen fertilizers and use large amounts of water that might be better used elsewhere.
A branch of the Smithsonian recently warned that biofuel production can result in environmental destruction and health problems. Great. Wasn't it invented to help avoid these things? It was bad enough when scientists learned that sunshine and eggs weren't that healthy for us. And after some of us switched from red meat to fish, we were told we were putting mercury into our bodies. But biofuels? What's next? Are they going to discover that flossing is bad for our health?
Of course, there are "good" ways to grow crops and convert them into fuels. They don't have to be grown in places where they shouldn't be. They don't have to be converted to fuel without regard for the environment. Governments can have standards for the production and import of what so recently seemed like the perfect fuel.
That's what the European Union is doing, and I'm sure states and cities here will, too. But I'm worried that there will be cheaters who will try to sneak their "bad biofuel" into our cars and buses. Am I being cynical? I don't think so. Let's see: There's the possibility for businesses to make at least multibillion dollar profits selling fuel for transportation purposes without regard for the environment. Sound familiar?
S.F. Tiger to Claim Self Defense?
Jan. 10, 2008
(Huffington Post) It was widely reported that on Christmas day, a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped from her San Francisco Zoo enclosure, killing a 17-year-old boy and injuring two of his friends. At first, this tragic incident was seen as, well, a tragic incident. It was a horrible accident that left one person dead, two injured, and the tiger killed by police. But the zoo's director, Manuel Mollinedo's story was filled with so many contradictions that investigators looked closer at the event. At first, Mollinedo inaccurately told reporters that the wall between the tiger and the people was 18 feet high. Then it was revealed that it was actually only 12 ½ feet high, four feet below the recommended national standard. So you're probably thinking that obviously the zoo and Mollinedo would be held at fault.
Not so fast. You're forgetting that we live in the United States of Litigation. Knowing that the young men's families would probably sue, the zoo took the typical tactic of blaming the victims.
The zoo hired a crisis management expert, Sam Singer. He and Mollinedo then suggested that something must have happened to provoke the tiger -- as if that would take away the zoo's responsibility. So rumors started that the guys had been drinking, they had slingshots, and they taunted the tiger. Even after there was no proof of any of these things, the zoo continued to imply that the young men, not the zoo or the tiger, was at fault.
Let's pretend for a minute that the guys had taunted the animal. Such behavior may be cruel, and it may be stupid. But that's precisely why there should be tall walls between dangerous animals and people -- because sometimes people do foolish things around animals. Even if the guys had yelled, "Nah, nah, nah-nah. Can't catch us," it's hard to blame them for the tiger's escape.
Animal rights activists have long criticized Mollinedo for being less interested in the safety of animals and people than in "showmanship." I guess some of that showmanship might have been having a wall that was excitingly low, but dangerously lower than the recommended height.
Obviously, the tiger is dead, so she will not be present at any legal proceeding. But look for her memory to be invoked. Look for some attorney to talk about the tiger's death -- "the loss of a beautiful, innocent animal all because of the wanton behavior of some thoughtless youths." Or something like that. Look for the city of San Francisco and the zoo to cover its tails by claiming that even if they had a wall of the proper height -- or a hundred feet higher -- the accident still might have occurred because "who can predict the behavior of an animal when she is taunted by uncaring kids?" Look for someone to reveal that at least one of these three kids had misbehaved in elementary school once, "obviously" demonstrating a pattern of disregarding rules and regulations.
It's an additional tragedy that the families will continue to be hounded by ridiculous accusations. It would be nice if city and zoo officials, and Mollinedo would just say something like, "We really messed up. We are so sorry and we will feel this regret for the rest of our lives." In other words, take the responsibility for what occurred. But that's not going to happen. Personal responsibility has gone out the window, and somebody has probably sued somebody else because of the draft caused by that opened window.
McDonalds has been sued for causing obesity. Thieves who hurt themselves after they break into a house have sued homeowners. A Lancaster, Pennsylvania woman recently successfully sued a restaurant because she slipped and hurt herself on their wet floor -- even though the floor was wet because she had thrown a drink at her boyfriend. So, do you really think the right people are going to stand up and take the blame for this?
At some point, we may very well hear a representative of the zoo paraphrase a famous lawyer and say, "If animals maul, the victims must take the fall."
The Rose Bowl and the War
Jan. 3, 2008
(Huffington Post) I ushered in the New Year by seeing "The Granddaddy Of Them All." I'm not talking about some irresponsible pro athlete or polygamist Warren Jeffs. I'm talking about the Rose Bowl. Because it's the oldest post-season football game, it has that "granddaddy" nickname. This year's game featured the favored University of Southern California Trojans against my wife's alma mater, the University of Illinois' Fighting Illini. We went because Illinois was her school, and because we had never gone to the Rose Bowl before. I'm a big believer that one of the functions of sports is to provide people with an escape from the real world. If you don't like sports, maybe you escape by knitting, or reading, or traveling. Regardless, every once in a while, we all need to get away from thinking about things like the war, the dropping dollar, and who's going to be living in the White House next year. But even in the midst of 93,000 cheering fans at the Rose Bowl, it was impossible for me to escape completely from these things.
Because we took the bus to avoid traffic, we arrived almost two hours before kickoff. So, we had a picnic on the grass while we listened to the partisan fans cheer. Over and over again, I heard the Illinois loyalists loudly spell, I-L-L. It seemed strange that they would cheer for a synonym for sickness. However, after a while, I realized that the "I.-L.-L" was followed by an "I-N-I." The U.S.C. fans also cheered, and although I knew their team is called the "Trojans," every time I heard them call out that word, it sounded like they were cheering for safe sex.
Once we got into the stadium, the massive crowd was overwhelming. If it was amazing to a sports fan like me that so many people had traveled thousands of miles just to go to a football game, I can only imagine what the non-fan must think. And in this political year, a question suddenly occurred to me: How many of these 93,000 people will be too busy, too tired, or too lazy to vote on Election Day? In fact, over a million people attended the five bowl games on January 1st. Another 71,000 went to the first-ever NHL regular outdoor hockey game in Buffalo. So, it's obvious that if we really want to increase voter turnout, all we have to do is make everyone attending a sporting event show proof that he or she has voted in the most recent election.
Before the game even started, we were all reminded of the war as Navy Seal Paratroopers majestically glided and then landed on the field. Fighter planes also flew over the stadium, and, there was a color guard for the National Anthem.
Football is often considered a metaphor for war (and vice versa). This Rose Bowl game was no exception. U.S.C. easily defeated Illinois 49-17 because U.S.C. was faster and more powerful. The nicknames and costumes should have been a giveaway: Illinois' tribe, the Illini, and the Trojans who dress as warriors. I mean, historically, how often did Native Americans defeat soldiers with armor and swords?
The official program for the game cost $10 -- which, any day now, might be equal to about one euro.
Despite these glimpses of the real world, watching the game was pretty much escapist. And fun. When your biggest problem is the fact that the fake bright orange hair on the girl in front of you keeps blocking your view, you know you are not in the middle of any serious pursuit.
One of the most affecting moments of the afternoon occurred before the game started. On the huge television screen, we were shown soldiers who were stationed in the Mideast. One group was from California, and one was from Illinois. As they cheered on their teams, the stadium roared. And then I immediately hoped that these soldiers were going to get to see the game on their TVs thousands of miles away and scream even louder as their teams scored. Those were some people who really deserved an escape from reality.
What Is The Administration Hiding Now?
Dec. 20, 2007
(Huffington Post) For quite a while, many of us have been disturbed by the shredding of documents and the erasures of tapes by the current administration. Yesterday's headline seemed to indicate that they have now gone to an "old school" method of destroying documents. In case you missed it, the headline read, "White House Fire Forces Mass Evacuation."
