Friday, May 21, 2010

A Manifesto In Search Of A Name

On the ESPN two-guys-yelling-at-each-other-about-sports program Pardon the Interruption, they have a segment called "What's the Word?" in which the hosts are asked to select the perfect single word to describe various subjects. Let's try one together:

What's the word for a political philosophy centered around promoting maximum individual liberty for all people?
I have to admit, I'm stumped. If we've learned anything this week, it's that the answer is absolutely not "Libertarian."

For years, I've called myself a "small-l libertarian." I used the word libertarian because my political philosophy is based on the belief that an individual's liberty should be limited only by the need to avoid infringing any other individual's liberty. And I used the "small-l" modifier because, as we all know, the big-L Libertarians believe nothing of the sort, they merely want to enable corporations to do whatever they want and could care less about the liberty of anyone who isn't a CEO, though they occasionally pay lip service to some civil liberties issue that's too egregious to get away with ignoring, like the drug war or gay marriage, just to try to distinguish themselves from big-R Republicans.

The latest case in point is Rand Paul, who is such a lover of liberty that he don't think people should be free to buy lunch or ride the bus, let alone have an abortion or get married. By all rights the word "libertarian" should define the exact opposite of nearly every policy position Rand Paul espouses. Yet not only is Rand Paul called a libertarian, but he's called a libertarian precisely because of these positions. "Rand Paul wants to limit people's freedom to marry, limit people's freedom to collectively bargain for better working conditions, wants to eliminate people's freedom to end a pregnancy, and doesn't think it's the government's place to ensure people have the freedom to buy lunch or find a job or use a public building. What a libertarian!"

Reluctantly, I've finally had to admit that the battle has been lost. The Libertarians have defined the word "libertarian" in the public mind, and there's nothing us libertarians can do to change it. But I'm left with the question of how to describe my own beliefs. Now that "libertarian" has been defined to mean "let businesses do whatever they want and screw people over as much as they can," what name do I use for my own liberty-based philosophy?

What's the Word? A political philosophy centered on individual liberty is called _______.
I'm open to suggestions.

Monday, May 17, 2010

2Scott2Review: The Evolution of Everything by Mark Sumner

The Evolution of Everything is not what I expected it to be, but for what it is it's very good.

The book grew out of a series of essays originally published on Daily Kos, which were a mixture of bits on the history of the theory of evolution and examinations of various other subjects using evolution and selection as a lens through which to analyze them. When I learned that this concept would be expanded into a book, and especially when I read the promo blurb for the book, I was expecting a lot more of the latter part of that mixture, with perhaps enough of the former to tie it all together. In the finished form, the book is in fact the reverse: an expanded examination of the development of various aspects of evolutionary theory, with relatively little of the broader examination that I was expecting. Perhaps The Evolution of Evolution would have been a better title.

Throughout the book, the focus is squarely on evolutionary theory, including but not limited to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Sumner dispels the misconception that evolution was an idea that originated with Darwin, and places Darwin's ideas in the larger context of general scientific thought at the time, explaining why the first theories about evolution came about when they did. He covers earlier ideas such as Lamarckian evolution, and traces the development of later misunderstandings of Darwin's ideas, such as eugenics, social Darwinism, and the modern anti-science Creationist fervor. There is comparatively little of the broader application of selection and "survival of the fittest" (a phrase nearly as misused and misunderstood as the word "theory" BTW), and what there is mostly comes out of the original Daily Kos essays. That disappointed me.

Sumner does a very good job of explaining the science so a lay person can easily understand it, without dumbing down the subject matter. The comparison I make in my head is to Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace. Kaku's introduction to string theory is far more technical than The Evolution of Everything, and as a much longer book is able to provide a more in-depth exploration of its subject, but both books find the right balance of making their ideas easily understandable without making the explanation simplistic. This isn't Evolution for Dummies, this is Evolution for the Un- (or Mis-) Informed. I like to think of myself as a scientifically literate person, but I learned a lot from this book, particularly about how various theories related to each other and how other discoveries set the table for evolution and natural selection.

Now I'm going to make every author cringe: This is a rather short book. (CRINGE!) I know authors hate it when readers complain about books being "too short," because writing a book is an equally trying process whether the finished product is 200 pages or 400 pages, and because authors are trying to produce quality not quantity, and it's a bit gutting to expend that much effort trying to make a book engaging and interesting and entertaining and informative, and then for someone to slam it based on page count. All I can say is, try to see it as a compliment: if the book wasn't engaging and interesting and entertaining and informative, I wouldn't give a shit about there not being enough of it. Part of it is also based on my expectations: After the background on natural selection is finished, just when I'm thinking that the book is finally going to get to the Everything part, it ends. So don't blame me for complaining about the page count, blame the marketing people who made up covers for The Evolution of Everything and then used them to bind The Evolution of Evolution

Final Grade: I'm really conflicted about what to put for a grade. I'll put it this way: As an introduction/explanation of evolution and natural selection, this book is a solid A-; better as an introduction I think, a bit thin on detail for someone already familiar with the subject. And I'm eagerly awaiting the sequel, The Evolution of Everything Else.

Friday, May 14, 2010

WWE Smackdown 2010-05-14 - Not-Quite-Liveblog

I basically did this last week, except I didn't post it live. I'm about 20 minutes behind to start, I'll catch up as we get commercial breaks. Whenever I have a thought, I'll post it.

- Oh, great, we open with ANOTHER rerun of the Drew McIntyre - Matt Hardy beatdown. Was that only last week? Cause I've already seen this video package at least six times.

- Smackdown is in Buffalo, New York. I haven't had any buffalo wings in a while. Mmmmm, buffao wings.

- Christian and Kofi know each other's wrestling styles because they were both in the 27-man MITB clusterfuck? Great insight there, (whiever is yelling in the ear of) Todd.

- Scott Norwood callout by Striker. I guess I should have expected that. Have I mentioned that Matt Striker is the best thing on commentary since JBL?

- BTW, spellcheck of earlier thought:
  • Kofi = Kori, Kodiak, Sofie, Sofia, Korrie.
  • MITB = MITE, MITT, MITZI, MITTY.
  • Clusterfuck = clustered, clusters, cluster, lackluster.
  • Spellcheck = spell check, spell-check, spellbound, spellbinder, spelldown.
  • Whiever = whoever. :)

- So does this count as an Intercontinental Title reign for Kofi?

- So I guess the whole "Teddy long on probation" thing is still going on, even if Vince can't be arsed to show up on Smackdown.

- Christian-Kofi was a good back-and-forth match, I thought. Somehow it just wasn't as good as it was trying to be.

- Shad Gaspard vs. Jesse Guyver? This should be just as good!

- Ah, they're rerunning the clip with Rey's family and Eddie Guerrero's son Dominic.

- And now rerunning Edge-Orton from RAW. Feels like that was six months ago because of how many times I've seen the clip.

- MVP-JTG? There-s so much going on in that team - the utter failure to do anything with MVP, the uselessness of breaking up Crime Time just to stick JTG in another team, the incongruity between MVP's life redemption background and JTG's role in a team called Crime Time. So much to unpack in that team.

- Wow, Trent Baretta and Caylen Croft still exist! And they're called the Dude Busters now. Lots of ECW folks showing up on TV lately.

- Ooohhhh! Our Savior is on! Everybody put your hands to the screen - ten minutes ago. Unless you're on DVR like me.

- These twenty-minute Swagger promos are interesting, not sure it's getting him more heat but he has the mic skills to pull off 20 minutes in the ring alone and still keep it interesting. Also like the tactic of taking a commercial break in the middle of the promo to make it seem even longer.

- Did I mention before that I have absolutely zero interest in heel authority figures? Plus, I thought she resigned as GM of Raw?

- I would be shocked if this was actually the first 2-on-1 Women's Title defense.

- I almost wish I wasn't spoiled on this match so I could experience the true shock and horror of Layla as Women's Champion. At least they mentioned her last name. She's also the second Diva Search winner to win a title.

- And now I'm caught up live.

- Rey Mysterio is wearing sleeves but no shirt.

- Rey-Punk was good again, but it's starting to get worn. I hope Judgement Day is their last match for a while.

Friday, May 7, 2010

WWE Smackdown livebloggish thoughts - 2010-05-07

I'm watching Smackdown (almost) live for the first time in a few months. After this awful week, particularly today, particularly today from 4:15 to 6:15, I could use some entertainment and some levity. Can Smackdown provide some? Let's find out...

- Geez, how often do they change the Smackdown theme music? About as often as I watch Smackdown, it seems.

- Matt Hardy shaved the sides of his head so he looks like RVD now. I wonder if that's intentional.

- "You heard what Teddy Long said!" Damned skippy! T.Lo is the man! "Josh, I gotta roll." Always the best, now the only, General Manager in WWE. What ever happened with the whole probation storyline? Did that just go away when Vince didn't feel like showing up on Smackdown anymore?

- Luke Gallows wrestles in camouflage pants and a tank top. Another who looks less like a wrestler than does any NXT rookie.

- So at whatever the hell they're calling Judgement Day now they're going to have the match I originally thought they were having at whatever the hell they're calling Backlash now: join the SES vs. shave Punk's head. I'm obviously rooting for Punk, but I'm not optimistic.

- Ever since he turned heel, every single time Punk talks, it's golden. Fucking awesome, every time.

- A Michelle McCool match. This makes me glad I'm not quite live yet - I can fast forward through this.

- Dolph Ziggler's face is the color of Sheamus. The rest of his body is the color of HHH. And my disinterest in Dolph is greater than the sum total of my disinterest in HHH and my disinterest in Sheamus.

- Holy shit! A Prince Nana call-out on Smackdown! And they didn't edit it out! I love Matt Striker on commentary, he's the best they've had since JBL. Like how he calls it the World's Heavyweight Championship like Gorilla Monsoon used to.

- Ziggler-Kofi was surprisingly entertaining, considering Dolph Ziggler was in the match.

- Now they re-run the video package they just ran an hour ago, which itself is just a re-run of the end of last week's Smackdown. People wonder, how can WWE put on five hours of television every week? Cause an hour or two of it is reruns and recaps.

- And now I'm caught up live, can't fast forward through the commercials.

- Cody Rhodes has another ridiculous fake tan. Christian too. What is it with wrestlers and comically awful tans? Trust me, that's not what made Hulk Hogan as popular as he was.

- It occurs to me that this is really more of a liveblog. If only I had posted it at 8:30 and updated it with each bullet. Oh, well. Maybe the next time I watch something live.

- Christian and Kofi are fighting for the Intercontinental Championship, meanwhile Jack Swagger is WHC. I'm really pulling for Big Show in that match, but again I'm not optimistic.

- Oh, Joy. Another video package. Followed by an ad for the Wrestlemania DVD, which is essentially another video package. Then after the commercial break, it's time to rerun the Drew McIntyre firing from the beginning of the show. It's video packages all the way down.

- "When I was taking on the world and winning, where was Big Show?" Um, back then, Big Show was WWE Champion. Don't think you've got him beat there, kid.

- Why are commentators always surprised when people come down to join them on commentary? You'd think the third chair and third headset would be a clue.

- I've always liked face Big Show. He's a very likable, charismatic guy, when they let him be. He was great on commentary tonight.

- I love how, after Big Show chokeslams Swagger through the table, the referee runs over, waving his arms for him to stop. One, Swagger is twice your size, and Big Show is twice his size, so WTF do you expect to do to stop them? Two, dude, Swagger is already lying insensate amid the ruins of a table, and Big Show is already walking away. You're just a bit late with your exhortation for them to stop fighting.

- God, that title looks so small when Big Show is holding it. I remember when Rey Mysterio wore that belt, it was basically full-torso body armor. When Big Show holds it it looks like a trinket.

All in all a good show, minus the reruns, video packages, and divas match. Maybe I'm being generous because the last wrestling shows I saw were Impact and NXT, but wev. I liked it. I'm glad I decided to watch Smackdown tonight, I needed some entertainment after today. Maybe I'll even watch it again next week.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

WWE NXT thoughts - 2010-05-04

An obstacle course? Seriously? I've been saying since they started that these stupid "challenges" every week have basically turned NXT into the Diva Search. But look at what the "obstacles" are on the "obstacle course" -
  • Monkey bars - This is actually one of the more sensible obstacles. Pretty standard obstacle course obstacle, though you'll have to explain to me what monkey bars ability has to do with with either wrestling or being a WWE performer (different skillsets that sometimes don't overlap as much as you'd hope).
  • Climb a rope ladder and ring a bell - Rope ladders are also often an obstacle course standard, though this rope ladder looked particularly insubstantial, especially when a 260-pound man is trying to climb it.
  • Run up the arena steps - Okay, run up stairs, pretty normal.
  • Drink a soda - Um, what? This is officially the dumbest thing they've asked the rookies to do, surpassing the American Gladiators q-tip fighting and hawking programs in the stands. Making the wrestlers drink a soda quickly is not a skill they need to wrestle well, not a skill they need to do all the other things involved in being a WWE performer, and is incredibly boring to watch. The only saving grace here was the absurdity of having Referee Charles Robinson there to officiate the wrestlers trying to chug a soda, but that wasn't enough to make this entertaining.
  • Run down the arena steps - Not quite the challenge of running up the steps, but okay, they have to get back down to the ring somehow.
  • Juggle for five seconds - What? Aside from all previous arguments about what any of this has to do with being a WWE performer, the obstacle course is a race. You're trying to finish it quickly. You're trying to beat the times of the other competitors. How exactly do you juggle for five seconds in less time than someone else? This was completely nonsensical, almost enough to be dumber than the drinking, but I still call that one dumber because at least the juggling only lasted for five seconds.
  • Spin around a bat - Um, what? I don't get what this has to do with anything, plus some people spun more times than others.
  • Push an equipment cart up the ramp - This only makes sense by comparison when it immediately follows the drink, juggling, and bat.
So there you go, an obstacle course, only half of which is comically nonsensical. And we had to watch this obstacle course eight times. They got rid of a show with Christian, William Regal, and Yoshi Tatsu and replaced it with this.

- I really don't get what they're doing with Bryan Danielson. Well, I get it, but I don't get it. They've turned him into Colin Delaney. They can't have him win NXT if he's 0-20. Well, they can do whatever they want, but I think this whole "Daniel Bryan losing streak" was a much better idea in people's heads that it's turning into in reality. I just hope when they finally give him a win it's not some weak rollup against The Miz.

Michael Tarver- I actually kind of like Michael Tarver's character. I know we'll probably never see him on TV again after next week, but he does unwarranted arrogance well. I also liked how, at the end of his match with Daniel Bryan, when he finally won a match, he looked completely dumbfounded for a few seconds. Like he had no idea what the hell had just happened, he was so unfamiliar with winning matches. And his [nXt] t-shirt: Genius.

- All of a sudden out of the blue Justin Gabriel has a beef with David Otunga. um, okay. This show really is incredibly random.

- I'll say this for the NXT Rookies: They all wrestle in wrestling tights. So they start off looking more like real wrestlers than people like John Cena, Rey Mysterio, Shawn Michaels, K-Kwik, Johnny Nitro, Great Khali, Carlito & Primo, etc. None of them even wear long tights. I'm old-school, I appreciate people who wrestle in wrestling tights.

TNA Impact thoughts - 2010-05-03

So I watched TNA Impact for the second week in a row. First time that's happened, ever. Maybe they really are doing something right.

- The first thing they do in the show is announce the show is moving back to Thursday, starting next week. So the new Monday Night War didn't quite last as long as the last one did. At least TNA threw in the towel quickly rather than run their company into the ground trying to compete with WWE. Though it's another reason why I think they should move Smackdown back to Thursdays. Nobody watches that show on Fridays, not only would more people watch in Thursday but they could knock TNA off of their night again.

- Speaking of which, still with the WWE rings? Ric Flair called his WWE ring his most prized possession, live on TNA TV. Meanwhile Bryan Danielson can't even call himself Bryan Danielson. Do folks like RVD and Jeff Hardy agree that a WWE Hall of Fame ring would be their most prized posession? Cause anyone who agrees with Ric Flair should be trying to get a WWE ring, not wasting their time in TNA.

- Black Naitch was pretty cool overall. Though I did notice, when Hogan came out and beat everyone up (did the former world champion just get taken out by one punch from a 60-year-old man?) and made about fifteen matches pitting all the brawlers against each other, Jay Lethal was left without a match, and indeed he didn't even appear on the rest of the show.

- Brian Kendrick is in TNA now? Still with that funky jacket he was using as The Brian Kendrick towards the end of his WWE run. Is he another who is with TNA primarily to get away from WWE's drug testing? That's at least three.

- TNA did something WWE was never able to do - they made Ken Kennedy promos boring. Even when he couldn't stay healthy for two weeks in a row, Kennedy's promos were always entertaining in WWE.

- Just when a fairly entertaining three-way tag match gets going, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall come out to interrupt. Because the Dudleys weren't slow and awkward enough already. I was momentarily glad to see the MCMG beat them down, until they promptly got beat down themselves.

- Overall, there were more people I didn't recognize on the show this week, which I think is good. It's not good when the show is entirely WWE rejects, they need to mix in TNA guys, which they did this week.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

TNA Impact thoughts - 2010-04-26

Just watched this week's Impact cause I was curious to see RVD as champion, and I had some thoughts.

- The show opens with an RVD promo where he explains that the reason he's not with WWE is because of their Wellness Policy. We're apparently supposed to boo WWE because of this, and cheer TNA because they let the wrestlers drug it up, I guess by the same logic that makes CM Punk a hated heel because he doesn't abuse addictive substances. (A Punk-RVD feud would be EPIC, BTW.) My main reaction is that I'm surprised the Wellness Policy actually works / has enough teeth that it would be a reason for someone to avoid WWE. Maybe WWE folks aren't on as many drugs as I thought.

- WTF is with everyone fighting over their WWE Hall of Fame rings? If TNA TV were to involve WWE HOF rings at all, you'd think it'd just be to throw them in the gutter and exclaim "These ain't worth shit, now I'm in TNA!" If WWE HOF rings are so prized, why am I watching TNA instead of watching the future WWE HOFers on Raw?

- So Ric Flair has stolen JBL's gimmick as a "wrestling god"? And holy crap he got old in the last two years. He even flubbed his promo a few times.

- It's still weird to me that Hulk Hogan isn't using Hulk Hogan's theme, or even some TNA bastardization of Hulk Hogan's theme like they did with Christian, Booker T, Dudley Boys, etc.

- Speaking of which, how many people in TNA right now are WWE rejects? I don't think there were more than a handful of men's wrestlers on the entire show who weren't former WWE talent, and the vast majority of them are involuntarily not WWE employees. I guess that's why the ended the TNA Originals vs. carpetbaggers storyline - not enough originals left.

- All of that said, the show is markedly better than it used to be, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. I actually watched the whole thing, and didn't spend the whole time lamenting what a disaster the show was, like I usually do with TNA. But I'm not going to be a regular TNA viewer, I'm a WWE viewer. It took putting Hulk Hogan in charge and giving RVD the title just to get me to watch TNA on DVR five days later. Whatever TNA fans were enjoying about TNA for the last several years was not something that attracted me, so now that TNA has changed to get me to upgrade my opinion to "not a total disaster," are TNA fans still entertained? I obviously can't judge that, but I wonder.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

2Scott2Review: WWE Extreme Rules 2010

The internet seems to be generally underwhelmed by Extreme Rules, and I don’t understand why – I thought it was a good show, a nice rebound from a decidedly lackluster Wrestlemania. So, in an effort to correct this imbalance, I’ve decided that what the internet needs is my review of Extreme Rules. I’ve got a beverage, I’ve got some snacks, I’ve got Extreme Rules on the dish divver, and apparently I’ve got nothing better to do, so let’s do this.

The show opens with the WWE show opener, now safely sans-Hulk Hogan and sans-Ric Flair, followed by a video package hyping the show. I’m not sure how necessary this is, given that literally every single person watching at this point has either already bought the show or already gone out to a bar/restaurant to see the show, but WWE loves to get maximum use out of their video packages. I take the opportunity to enjoy some snacks.

Three minutes into the show we go inside the arena. HHH’s music hits but he doesn’t show. We then go backstage, where H and Sheamus brawl for a while, before Sheamus bashes H several times with a pipe. This angle was supposed to be done on Raw the previous Monday, but was derailed because Sheamus got stuck in Europe. I think it actually works better here, with H’s injury more proximate to the match. H is examined by trainers, and meanwhile ShoMiz comes out to the ring.

I’m a Miz fan. Ever since 2007 on ECW, he’s been entertaining as hell, and him with three belts is an amazing sight. Big Show with two belts looks like a normal man with one belt; Miz with three belts looks like most other wrestlers would look with eight belts. Miz says that they’re the greatest tag team in history, which was previously the gimmick of Jericho and Big Show, and also of Miz and Morrison, so it’s natural that Miz and Big Show make the claim. Miz puts over how Bret Hart is now obligated to announce live on Raw that they’re the greatest team in WWE history, another angle that got reshuffled because the roster got stuck in Europe.

Eventually Teddy Long comes out, and he and Miz go back and forth in a pretty good promo that would have been better if they hadn’t tried to talk over each other so much. Eventually we end up with ShoMiz facing a three-team gauntlet match – gauntlet match, that’s extreme! – where any team that beats them gets a tag-title shot on Raw the next night.

Wait a minute, a PPV match against the champions, for a No. 1 contender’s slot in a match on Raw? What is this, 1998? How’s this for a novel concept: If you beat the champions on PPV, you win the titles. Why not just have the gauntlet match be for the titles, or have the title match later in the night? Maybe this is another angle that got reshuffled and the gauntlet match was originally supposed to be on Raw last Monday, but the way this happened was just weird. Plus it completely telegraphed the ending – make the arrogant heel champs defend their titles in a gauntlet match and the result could go either way – maybe their arrogance is their undoing, maybe they connive and cheat and end up beating all comers and earning mega-heat from the crowd. But making the match for a No. 1 contender’s slot is basically a way of saying, “Go get a drink, the only thing you care about in the next fifteen minutes is the identity of Team #3.”

Team #1 is K-Kwik and Johnny Nitro. As usual, Backlash begins with a Wrestlemania rematch. This match is okay, but doesn’t last long. The match ends when Morrison refuses to release a headscissors on Big Show while hanging outside the ring and gets disqualified. Yes, the first match at Extreme Rules ends with a DQ.

Team #2 is MVP and Mark Henry. Henry, after a Decade of Dullness, finally blossomed as ECW Champion, and seemed poised for big things when he moved to Raw last year. Then, WWE Creative did nothing with him for six months, before sticking him in a team with MVP, another person who a lot of people expected a lot from before Creative lost his number. Now they get to job to the Tag Team Champs every so often, sometimes on PPV.

This match had a good storyline, where Big Show is on the floor recovering from John Morrison’s hold, leaving Miz on his own to fight off two men. Miz takes a lot of punishment. Big Show eventually recovers, but is dumped outside on the floor again when he comes in to break up a pin, allowing MVP to hit his finisher on Miz. At this point, I have to assume the ref blows his spot, because rather than continue tending to a disabled Mark Henry, he runs over to the other competitors where he watches clear as day as Big Show reaches through the ropes and knocks out MVP. Rather than calling for another DQ, the ref shoos Big Show as if he never saw the punch, then counts the pinfall when Miz covers MVP. The announcers even try to cover for him, saying “I’m not sure the referee saw that.” Good match in terms of storytelling, marred by the ref’s fuckup on the ending.

So now Show has been choked out by Morrison, dumped outside again, and Miz was just hit with MVP’s finisher, and here to pick the bones are the Hart Dynasty, TJ Wilson and Harry Smith. Two months ago their main schtick was to talk about how they were so much better than losers like Bret Hart and Davey Boy Smith; now they’re accompanied to the ring by Bret Hart with nary a word said. Sometimes it’s weird to watch wrestling with a memory.

The NuHarts knock Big Show off the apron, hit a springboard Hart Attack on Miz, and they’re the No. 1 contenders. This “match” was so short that I actually did a full blow-by-blow recap, and I did it in one sentence. Exciting if you’ve been waiting months to see the NuHarts finally triumph over ShoMiz, otherwise meh.

Next we have a backstage segment where Todd Grisham reports that HHH is injured, and Sheamus looks threatening. Some good heel spinning by Sheamus, where he talks about “If HHH is too scared to fight me,” while holding the pipe he just used to incapacitate him.

Next match is Punk-Mysterio, our second Wrestlemania rematch of the night. This match was one of the reasons why I bought this show, and it doesn’t disappoint. Punk-Mysterio was the second-best match at Wrestlemania, it’s only real drawback being that it was far too short. This match fixes that. Punk and Mysterio have a very, very good match here. Ironically, it’s during the wide shot before Rey’s entrance where you can best see that the Extreme Rules stage is a giant straight-edge X symbol.

Just as the bell is ringing, we get one of my favorite parts of the show. Michael Cole mentions how the wrestlers were stuck in Europe as a segue to thanking fans who bought the show in Europe. He says “They’re watching all over Europe tonight in places like the United Kingdom on Sky Sports, Canada, uh, of course Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, uh, all the other places around the world here tonight watching Extreme Rules, live.” So to recap, here’s Michael Cole’s list of places all over Europe:

  • The United Kingdom
  • Canada
  • Uh
  • Of course, Australia
  • New Zealand
  • Fiji
  • Uh
  • All the other places around the world

Michael Cole, thankfully not a geography teacher.

The only “extreme” stipulation here is that if Punk loses, he gets his head shaved. Punk and Mysterio trade short control segments, while Matt Striker tries to explain/sell Straight Edge to Cole and King. “It makes you feel wonderful when you’re pure, Jerry.” Punk’s facial expressions and body language as a heel are just awesome. His frustration whenever Mysterio kicks out, his selling of Mysterio’s offense, are incredible. About half-way through the match, Serena and Fake Kane interfere one time too many, and they get ejected from ringside. Finally, Mysterio hits a 619, but before he can get off the apron he is assaulted by a hooded Straight-Edge Society member from under the ring. Punk hits the GTS on an insensate Mysterio and gets the win.

There are conflicting reports as to the identity of the hooded Straight-Edge Society member, who reappeared on both Raw and Smackdown this week. Early reports, from people familiar with WWE storylines and plans said it was Joey Mercury, who has long been rumored to rejoin WWE as a part of the SES storyline. Later reports, from people in attendance at Extreme Rules who actually saw the guy, say it was FCW champion Alex Riley. Joey Mercury later made his re-debut in WWE in a dark match before this week’s Smackdown taping.

After an ad for Raw the next night and a shot of National Guard servicemembers in attendance, we move on to the Crime Time break-up match, Shad Gaspard vs. JTG in a strap match. I had no expectations for this match, as I’m not sure there was ever a Crime Time match I was a big fan of, but this was surprisingly good. Relatively short, but this was a pretty full show, and when you’ve got Punk-Mysterio, Edge-Jericho, Cena-Batista, another world title match, and a HHH match on the card, not to mention Randy Orton’s entrance and time to replay all those video packages before every match, Shad-JTG is not going to get a lot of time. If there was an Undertaker entrance to fit into the show, this match would have been bumped entirely.

Watching the match for a second time, the crowd is totally dead, they couldn’t care less, but I still find the match entertaining. There’s some vicious beating from Shad, and some fun use of the strap by both men. It’s not a five-star classic, but it’s better than any previous match I can remember involving either of there two.

Shad comes out first, wearing tights, which looks weird at first. JTG comes out next, and he kept the gimmick in the split-up. Shad I guess got the time-share in the Hamptons. Toward the beginning of the match, Matt Striker asks King about the strategy of a strap match, based on his years of experience in every type of match, and King doesn’t know how to respond.

JTG wins by secretly touching three turnbuckles behind Shad’s back, then hitting his finisher before Shad can touch the fourth. Not the most imaginative ending, but how many ways are there to touch four turnbuckles?

Up next is an ad for the KFC Double Down, which I paid PPV money to watch. In case anyone is wondering, the Double Down isn’t very good. Next, Todd Grisham says HHH has nerve damage, and won’t be able to fight Sheamus.

The next match is Randy Orton challenging World Heavyweight Champion Jack Swagger in an extreme rules match. First we need a five-minute video package to explain why we should care about this match, as if “Randy Orton challenging World Heavyweight Champion Jack Swagger” didn’t already accomplish that.

Matt Striker mentions on commentary that Randy Orton has had six world title reigns in his career so far. That’s the number that Steve Austin had in his entire career. Cole mentions that “everyone who’s ever cashed in Money in the Bank” has done so against an incapacitated opponent, confirming that TNA champion Rob Van Dam no longer exists in history. Sometimes it’s weird watching wrestling with a memory.

This match is fairly slow and plodding for a while, typical of an Orton match. Shortly after it starts to pick up a bit, Swagger takes a pair of headshots from a garbage can that are frankly hard to watch. I just saw Jack Swagger lose about 50 IQ points, while Striker excitedly yells, “Ooooohhhhh, brain pudding!” If in 10 or 20 or 30 years Jack Swagger can’t speak straight, or is in a wheelchair, or has Parkinson’s symptoms, or goes crazy and kills his family and texts his neighbor that the dogs are in the enclosed pool area before hanging himself from a weight machine, I’m going to remember this match. Those headshots are that brutal.

Orton jobs clean to Swagger after a gutwrench powerbomb, but gives him an RKO after the match. Sheamus comes out while Orton is making his way up the ramp, as if he was going to confront Orton over how he jobbed clean to Swagger but didn’t do that for Sheamus at the Royal Rumble. Instead Sheamus goes to the ring and demands that either HHH come out to fight him or the ref declare him the winner by forfeit. Backstage, Todd Grisham tells us that HHH will not be able to compete tonight, but is interrupted by H leaving the trainer’s room on his way to the ring to compete. Shocking, I know.

The storyline for our third Wrestlemania rematch of the night is that H has “nerve damage” in his left arm, which means that he holds that arm still, whenever he’s not using it like normal. The announcers can’t decide whether the nerve damage is causing HHH great pain, or numbness. H has no problem lifting Sheamus for a spinebuster, but then can’t lift him for a pedigree.

This match is a street fight, which is totally different from the previous match, which was extreme rules. I personally think it would have been better as a no holds barred match, or maybe just no disqualification.

Sheamus controls most of the match, taking advantage of H’s injury, and eventually kicks him in the head so much that H can’t fight back and Sheamus gets the pin. There is very little back-and-forth as H sells the injury. The match never really gets into a rhythm – whenever Sheamus beats on HHH, he steps back to admire his work, and whenever H beats on Sheamus, he stops to sell the injury. Very slow, very methodical. Not exactly boring, but neither is it entertaining. Maybe a big HHH fan would hang on his comeback segments and get sucked into the storyline of the match, but it left me cold.

After the match, trainers come put to help HHH to the back, and just when I was thinking, “Come on, Sheamus has to come back out and kick him again before the get to the back!” Sheamus came back out and kicked him again. Supposedly H is going to be off TV for a while now.

After about a hundred replays of that last kick to the head; a segment of trainers loading H onto a stretcher that lasts longer than any of the tag matches that opened the show; an ad for Judgement Day, which is now called Over the Limit; a plug for the band; and a backstage interview with Edge, it’s now time for Beth Phoenix vs. Michelle McCool in an Extreme Makeover Match for the Women’s Championship. An “Extreme Makeover” match means there’s a table of cosmetics at ringside. The only real reaction I have to this match is that I’m disappointed that Mickie James was released.

This match is pretty standard “garbage wrestling,” with the competitors hitting each other with weapons rather than trying to wrestle. In this case the weapons include a broom, a mop and bucket, ironing boards, and the aforementioned table of cosmetics. And that phrase “rather than trying to wrestle” makes it at least marginally better than most Michelle McCool matches. In fact, of all the matches at Extreme Rules, this is the one with the most weapons use. It’s basically weapons, weapons, weapons, weapons, Beth Phoenix reverses the Styles clash into her front slam, pin.

Next up, after an ad for the Wrestlemania DVD and a backstage interview with Chris Jericho, is the Edge-Jericho cage match, the fourth Wrestlemania rematch of the night. Watching this match live, I was bored to tears. It was slow, plodding, uneventful, and unending – it seemed to go on forever. Watching it a second time, early on the story is good – Jericho refuses to enter the cage until Edge beats him up outside and throws him in, then Jericho tries to climb up over the top whenever Edge isn’t holding him down. But after a couple of escape attempts, we get to the slow, plodding part. Edge hits Jericho, then both men sell for a minute. Then Jericho hits Edge, followed by both men selling. It’s supposed to raise tension, but instead it just bores me. They haven’t done enough to get me emotionally invested in this match before skipping right to the both-men-play-dead part. Also, the announcers keep trying to put over Edge’s achilles injury, but after the H match it just feels old.

At one point, after refusing to enter the cage, after trying to climb out four or five times, just a minute after trying to claw and scratch and squirm his way through the door, Jericho incapacitates Edge and actually leaves the cage through the door. He walks down the steps, but before actually stepping off the steps onto the floor he decides to go back into the cage and beat on Edge some more, which is so completely opposite from the entire psychology of everything Jericho has been doing up until that point that it turns the whole thing into kind of a farce. Two minutes later he’s back to trying his damnedest to escape.

Just when you think the match is going to pick up a bit with Edge’s comeback segment, it turns into a long drawn out Edge-tortures-Jericho segment, where Edge hits Jericho in the leg and then taunts him for two minutes before hitting him again. Finally Edge hits a spear and this match mercifully ends.

Don’t try this at home, watch the draft tomorrow, hey we’re in Baltimore, Cole plugs Over the Limit, and a video package replay cause apparently they have time to kill?, and it’s time for the main event, our fifth and final Wrestlemania rematch of the night, Cena-Batista Last Man Standing. This I thought was a great match, the best of the night. One of the better LMS matches I remember.

At the start, it takes until after the entrances and ring introductions and opening bell before the crowd remembers they’re not supposed to like Cena, so they chant “Cena sucks,” for about 15 seconds. It’s almost funny.

Cole mentions early on that Batista is a six-time world champion, and Cena is a nine-time world champion. Steve Austin was a six-time world champion in his career, and The Rock was a nine-time world champion. Cena and Batista are now the equals of the biggest stars of the Attitude Era, at least in terms of title reigns, and Cena at least seems set to far surpass them. As mentioned before, Randy Orton is also a six-time champion, with many more to come. Chris Jericho is also a six-time champion. Edge is a nine-time champion. And of course there’s HHH, the thirteen-time champion. That’s three Steve Austins, two Rocks, and a Hulk Hogan, all still adding to their lists of titles.

This match is a bit slow to start due to the match type – there’s a lot of Batista waiting while the referee counts, which at least makes more sense than the waiting for no reason in other matches. It doesn’t feel as slow as Edge-Jericho because at least there’s something happening, the referee’s counting. After a few minutes they get into more of an even back-and-forth fight, and then they go for some weapons. One guy lets out a single lonely “holy shit” chant attempt when Batista Irish whips Cena through a barricade. At one point, Batista is dismantling the announce table, and Striker starts saying, “This is the Batista I like! This intensity!” Batista stares for a moment, then throws a TV monitor at him.

At a certain point in the match, about the time of the F-U through the announce table I’d say, though possibly as early as the Irish-whip through the barricade, you think each move is the end, yet the competitors keep getting up. There’s a good four or five moves in a row that you think is the end, except the match just keeps going. Very well done by both men. The eventual ending has gotten a lot of flak, but I thought it showed ingenuity, and allowed the face to taunt his helpless opponent, which is always a good spot. It at least has the virtue of being unique. I just wish the tape hadn’t broken so much, the application ended up looking a bit clumsy.

All in all, a good to very good show. Match by match:

  • ShoMiz vs R-Truth and John Morrison in one-third of a Gauntlet Match – Some decent action, but too short to be anything much.
  • ShoMiz vs. Mark Henry and MVP in one-third of a Gauntlet Match – Good storyline, huge ref blunder, again very short.
  • ShoMiz vs. The Hart Dynasty in one-third of a Gauntlet Match – Literally two moves.
  • CM Punk vs. Rey Mysterio in a Wrestling Match – Very good match, these two work very well together.
  • Shad Gaspard vs. JTG in a Strap Match – Surprisingly good. Short, but entertaining.
  • Randy Orton vs. Jack Swagger in an Extreme Rules Match – Slow to start, picks up towards the end, but my main takeaway from this match is, Jack Swagger, protect your head!
  • HHH vs. Sheamus in a Street Fight – Kind of slow, the whole injury storyline didn’t work any better than it ever does, the main highlight is how many times HHH gets kicked in the head at the end.
  • Beth Phoenix vs. Michelle McCool in an Extreme Makeover Match – Better than most Michelle McCool matches, but that’s not really saying much. Nothing to this match other than the weapons, but at least it’s something. With Mickie James out of work and Natalya not wrestling, WWE literally doesn’t have enough women who can wrestle to put together a one-on-one match. So we get this match, literally Beth Phoenix wrestling with a broomstick.
  • Edge vs. Chris Jericho in a Steel Cage Match – Very slow, very long, intermittently nonsensical. My least favorite of the night.
  • Cena vs. Batista in a Last Man Standing Match – Very very good, best match of the night. Good action, big spots, innovative ending.

All in all a good show, and a full show – eight matches, even counting the tag team gauntlet as one match, and the last match ended literally two minutes before the three-hour mark. I highly recommend seeing it if you can.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Surprise Dinner

As I mentioned before, the other day for dinner I made some meatballs in tomato sauce. The next day, I made another bag of meatballs in the leftover sauce. There wasn't enough sauce leftover to cover the meatballs as they were heating, so I added some water. I also added some butter and some parmesan cheese to the sauce, and cooked off the excess water until I had a nice saucy consistency. The next day, I added the leftover sauce/butter/cheese to some cans of Chef Boy-Ar-Dee I was making, along with more butter, more parmesan cheese, and just because I had it and thought it'd be tasty, I melted about six or eight slices of provolone cheese into the sauce.

So yesterday, I had all this sauce leftover (there's a lot of sauce in Chef Boy-Ar-Dee) and no more pasta or meatballs to put it on, so I just heated the sauce in the microwave and dunked slices of Italian bread into it.

Now, remember what's in this stuff at this point: A mixture of two kinds of tomato sauce, butter, parmesan cheese, and provolone cheese, left overnight to let the flavors meld and then heated. It was sticky and gooey and cheesey and I was dipping bread into it.

It wasn't until today that I realized that what I'd made was a fondue.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Quick Review: A Plate of Meatballs

A plate of meatballs

Since I blogged my dinner yesterday, I thought I'd do the same today. Tonight, I took some meatballs out of the freezer, put them in a pan with some tomato sauce, waited for them to get hot, and ate them.

Mmmmmmmmmm, meatballs.

Final Grade: A-

Security Cluelessness

I mentioned this quickly on Twitter, but it keeps sticking in my head so I had to give it a longer treatment. I don't know why it stuck in my head like this. Maybe because it's one of the most wrongheaded technology articles I've seen since the last time I read Lance Ulanoff. Maybe because the writer works for the Thompson-Reuters corporation, and you know how those people are.

This article by Felix Salmon talks about many of the security measures we all find so annoying when dealing with our online accounts, and refers to them collectively as "security theater" as if they did no more good than making airline passengers remove their shoes and get rid of their bottled water. The specific things he mentions as being security theater are:

  1. Having to change his password regularly
  2. Having to delete old emails
  3. Account security on his bank's website
  4. Not being able to read his password as he's typing it in

Let's take these one at a time...

1. Having to change his password regularly - This is the closest Mr. Salmon comes to making a point. But first he misleads his readers about why companies use forced password changes - he claims that making people change their passwords is useless because a hacker won't wait to exploit a stolen password, but this is not designed to thwart hackers. The reasoning behind making people change their passwords regularly is that people tend to tell other people their passwords, or else use the same password everywhere they need one, and if you make them change it you can mitigate these factors - after a month or 90 days or whatever, that person and/or other company will no longer have your user's current password. The downside is that it disincentives people from using strong passwords - why take the time to memorize a complicated password when you can only use it for two months anyway? Some companies make people change their passwords often, and also place restrictions that force people to use strong passwords. This combination seems to me to be begging people to write their passwords on a post-it note and stick it to their monitor. Personally I don't make people change their passwords unless there's a particular need. I think it's better to make people use a strong password and let them keep it for a while. But that's a decision I made based on my company and my specific circumstances.

2. Having to delete old emails - Reuters gives employees extremely limited email storage space, forcing the employees to delete old messages to stay under the storage quota. Salmon again misconstrues what this is designed to accomplish - he goes on and on about how cheap disks are these days, forgetting that 1. Highly-available redundantly-stored server storage space costs a bit more than a Caviar Blue from Newegg, 2. Electricity to power that highly-available redundantly-stored server storage 24/7 costs a pretty penny, 3. A building to house that highly-available redundantly-stored server storage costs a bit as well, 4. Paying IT people to setup, maintain, and repair that highly-available redundantly-stored server storage costs money, but most importantly 5. Email (non-)retention policies like that have almost nothing to do with the cost of storing old emails, and almost everything to do with potential liability, ie, how much incriminating evidence do you have on-hand once the subpoenas start arriving. Just think how much better off Microsoft would have been if they'd been able to tell the DOJ "Sorry, it's our long-standing policy to delete any email more than a month old, you're free to anything from the last 30 days though." Even the Bush White House learned that lesson.

3. Account security on his bank's website - He had trouble filling out the security question on his bank's website, misread a prompt or two, ended up having to call their customer support line to get himself straightened out, and sees this as a reason why bank website security is a waste. He says that the cost of paying the support people to get him straightened out is more than the money saved by the security. First of all, exactly what is his alternative to security on a bank website? Here's a list of names, click yours and you're in? I don't get that. Second of all, the cost of paying people to help customers figure out how to enter both a password and the name of the street they grew up on is not an automatic cost of security, it's a cost of having customers who can't figure out how to answer two different prompts correctly. Does it cost banks a lot of money to have support people standing by to help people who can't figure out the web interface? Sure. Does it cost more than it did twenty years ago when there was no web interface and every single customer needed a support person just to do everyday banking? No, of course not. Thanks to online banking, banks these days need fewer tellers, fewer physical locations, and only enough phone support people to get customers onto the website, rather than enough to help every customer do all of their banking. And again, what's the alternative to having security measures on bank websites? I'd honestly love to hear that.

4. Not being able to read his password as he's typing it in - As anyone who has ever typed a password knows, when you type it in you can't read along, the characters are masked. This is done so that if someone is watching over your shoulder, they can't read your password. Mr. Salmon makes no actual argument against this practice other than calling it "idiotic," but the site he links to posits that a person behind you could simply watch the keyboard as you're typing and get your password that way, and anyway there's hardly ever a person standing behind you when you type a password. Apparently whoever wrote that has never tried to decipher what someone is typing merely by watching the keyboard, or had to unlock anything while someone stood by and waited for it, or shared an office where co-workers could see their screen all day, every day. The writer seriously suggests offering a checkbox so the user can choose whether or not to mask the password, as if any user ever would choose security over convenience. Users want ease of use, period. For example, Felix Salmon just said he wants to be able to get into his bank account online without any security getting in the way! That's why you need security people to worry about security.

So, to recap: Mr. Salmon is correct that changing passwords regularly will not prevent a hacker from exploiting a stolen password, but woefully off-base in that he thinks changing passwords regularly is a security practice aimed at preventing hackers from exploiting stolen passwords; He vastly underestimates the short-term cost of email storage space, and seems to not acknowledge or not be aware of the existence of the long-term cost, while misconstruing email storage limits as having anything to do with storage costs; I have no idea what he wants his bank's website to do to secure his account; and he wants anybody within ten feet to be able to read your password.

I... disagree.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Quick KFC "Double Down" Review

Picture of a KFC Double-Down sandwich

So KFC has come out with their already-infamous "Double Down" "sandwich." (Straight quotes, then scare quotes there.) For anyone unfamiliar with this new item, it consists of bacon and three kinds of cheese (swiss, monterey jack, and cheese sauce) sandwiched between two chicken breasts, your choice of Original Recipe or Grilled. I got Original Recipe.

Now, in my mind a sandwich is stuff on bread, thus my use of scare-quotes above. I think if you've decided that the problem with sandwiches is the presence of bread, somewhere you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a sandwich is supposed to be. Bread is more than just a means to hold tasty stuff, it's integral to the taste and texture of the food. Just imagine taking a plain hamburger patty, slathering it with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, and cheese, and slapping it on a plate. It'd be a gooey, disgusting mess. Put that same combination on a bun, and you can open several different multi-billion dollar restaurant chains. So whenever someone tries to up the ante on a sandwich by getting rid of the bread, I'm skeptical.

The two chicken breasts in the Double Down are the same boneless chicken breasts KFC has been selling on their own for several months at least, so if you've had one you've already had 99% of this sandwich. And you already know one huge problem with this sandwich, which KFC has cleverly managed to turn into two huge problems: These breasts are dry as hell. Maybe on a real sandwich slathered in condiments that could be dealt with, but here not only is there nothing but a little cheese sauce to add moisture, but there's two breasts, with twice the dry.

Another thing you already know if you've had the KFC boneless breast is that this sandwich isn't nearly as large as you'd think: In terms of circumference it's smaller than most fast food burgers, about the size of the dollar burger from McDonalds. Obviously there's a lot of meat here, but not as much as the pictures make you think. This isn't a heart-attack-in-a-box, at least not any more than a Wendy's Baconator or a McDonalds Double Quarter-Pounder With Cheese.

Now that we've dealt with the breasts, let's get to the rest of the sandwich: Well, there isn't much else. Two slices of cheese and a slather of cheese sauce, and a strip or two of bacon. Honestly, eating this I forgot there was bacon on it except when it got caught in my teeth. These cheese was tasty, but even three cheeses wasn't enough to make up for the dryness of the breasts.

In the end I pulled off one of the breasts, and just ate one breast with the cheese and bacon. That was okay, if messy, but still a bit dry. How would I fix the Double Down? I'm glad you asked:

  1. Get rid of one breast.
  2. Put it on a roll.
  3. Add more bacon, so you can actually taste the bacon.
  4. Add either more cheese sauce or some mayonnaise, to help cover the dryness of the breast. Alternately, figure out how to cook a boneless breast so it doesn't wind up half-way to a hockey puck. But hey, how can KFC be expected to make a decent fried chicken breast, it's not like "Fried Chicken" is in the freaking name of your restaurant.

Final Grade: C-

Sunday, April 4, 2010

A Fucking Test For TwitterFeed

I published two posts on this blog today. The first one, The HCR Shit List, never made it over to Twitter via TwitterFeed. The second one, "Maximally Pro-Choice", went over almost immediately. I theorized that is may be the word "Shit" that is causing TwitterFeed to shit the bed, so this is a test of that theory.

ETA: Looks like no, this post went up immediately. So no idea what happened to The HCR Shit List. Guess it's just one of life's mysteries.

"Maximally Pro-Choice"

Following up on my previous post, there's a special group of people I want to highlight: There were 64 Democrats who voted for the Stupak coathanger amendment in November - well, there were 219 Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment in November, but that was after it was already inserted into the bill. There were 64 Democrats who voted to insert that language into the bill. Of those 64, 37 went on to support the bill through all three votes in March. In other words, if these 37 Democrats had only found it within themselves to not explicitly make women second-class citizens, they wouldn't be on my list. They are:

Joe Baca CA-43, Sanford Bishop GA-02, John Boccieri OH-16, Dennis Cardoza CA-18, Christopher Carney PA-10, Jim Costa CA-20, Henry Cuellar TX-28, Kathy Dahlkemper PA-03, Michael Doyle PA-14, Steve Driehaus OH-01, Brad Ellsworth IN-08, Bob Etheridge NC-02, Bart Gordon TN-06, Baron Hill IN-09, Paul Kanjorski PA-11, Marcy Kaptur OH-09, Dale Kildee MI-05, Jim Langevin RI-02, Michael Michaud ME-02, Alan Mollohan WV-01, Richard Neal MA-02, Jim Oberstar MN-08, David Obey WI-07, Solomon Ortiz TX-27, Tom Perriello VA-05, Earl Pomeroy ND-AL, Nick Rahall WV-03, Silvestre Reyes TX-16, Ciro Rodriguez TX-23, Tim Ryan OH-17, John Salazar CO-03, Vic Snyder AR-02, John Spratt SC-05, Bart Stupak MI-01, Charlie Wilson OH-06

I understand a lot of people want to forgive and forget this vote, as I did for other votes against the bill in November, because these people voted for the bill in March. SEIU is running ads in six congressional districts to thank those Representatives for supporting health care, and four of the six voted for Stupak. Stupak himself, once he was bought off with the President agreeing to issue an Executive Order just for him, came up solid in speaking against the Republican motion to recommit, which was basically his original amendment from November. Tom Perriello seems to be a particular favorite around Left Blogistan: He's on the short list for OpenLeft's Better Democrats slate of endorsements, and on the We've Got Your Back ActBlue page created by DailyKos's Adam Bonin. Commenters compare him to Alan Grayson, who voted for the health care bill while wearing an American flag tie. (537:20 in this C-SPAN clip.)

On one blog where Tom Perriello was cited as an example of exactly the kind of swing-district Democrat people should be supporting, I commented stating my reluctance after his Stupak vote. Another commenter stated that "you can't expect Dems in red districts to take a maximally pro-choice position." So now allowing health insurance to cover an entirely legal medical procedure is a maximally pro-choice position? Bullshit. Voting no on Stupak is the very definition of minimally pro-choice. Maximally pro-choice would be making free, no-questions-asked abortions available at every post office. Maximally pro-choice would be legislating that no doctor could be licensed in any field unless they were also certified abortion providers and offered abortion services at their practices. Maximally pro-choice would be making the abortion pill available over-the-counter in vending machines and using government subsidies to keep the price down.

Simply not voting to make abortion unavailable to any woman who can't afford an additional rider, or any woman who is prevented from making her own insurance purchasing choices by her employer, controlling/abusive partner, parent, etc. is not anything like maximally pro-choice. It is incredibly minimally pro-choice, and Tom Perriello and these rest of these 37 so-called Democrats, and indeed all 64 D's who voted for the amendment, couldn't even scrape together the guts to stand up for that.

The obvious question is, why give folks like Dennis Kucinich and Betsy Markey a break for their votes against the bill in November and not give the same break to Tom Perriello and Earl Pomeroy? Well, Kucinich et al literally got a do-over; the house had to pass the health bill a second time, and they came out on the right side that time. The Stupakers got no such chance; because of their vote, we got the Nelson abortion language in the Senate bill, and that executive order, and they have done nothing to repair that damage.

If they all helped to pass a bill that, say, removed the Nelson language and repealed the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding of abortion services, then I would say fine, all is forgiven. But until something like that happens, good riddance. Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, or they are not, and this group emphatically voted 'Not.' Supposedly they did this because they can't survive in their districts while supporting equal rights for 52% of the population. Great, then this vote should have helped them, they don't need my help.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The HCR Shit List

This is a list of 74 members of the House of Representatives who will get no support from me in whatever race they're running this year thanks to their votes in the recent health care reform effort: (methodology after the list)
  • John Adler NJ-03
  • Jason Altmire PA-04
  • Mike Arcuri NY-24
  • Joe Baca CA-43
  • John Barrow GA-12
  • Marion Berry AR-01
  • Sanford Bishop GA-02
  • John Boccieri OH-16
  • Dan Boren OK-02
  • Rick Boucher VA-09
  • Bobby Bright AL-02
  • Dennis Cardoza CA-18
  • Christopher Carney PA-10
  • Ben Chandler KY-06
  • Travis Childers MS-01
  • Jim Cooper TN-05
  • Jim Costa CA-20
  • Jerry Costello IL-12
  • Henry Cuellar TX-28
  • Kathy Dahlkemper PA-03
  • Artur Davis AL-07
  • Lincoln Davis TN-04
  • Joe Donnelly IN-02
  • Michael Doyle PA-14
  • Steve Driehaus OH-01
  • Chet Edwards TX-17
  • Brad Ellsworth IN-08
  • Bob Etheridge NC-02
  • Bart Gordon TN-06
  • Stephanie Herseth Sandlin SD-AL
  • Baron Hill IN-09
  • Tim Holden PA-17
  • Paul Kanjorski PA-11
  • Marcy Kaptur OH-09
  • Dale Kildee MI-05
  • Larry Kissell NC-08
  • Frank Kratovil MD-01
  • Jim Langevin RI-02
  • Dan Lipinski IL-03
  • Stephen Lynch MA-09
  • Jim Marshall GA-08
  • Jim Matheson UT-02
  • Mike McIntyre NC-07
  • Mike McMahon NY-13
  • Charlie Melancon LA-03
  • Michael Michaud ME-02
  • Walt Minnick ID-01
  • Alan Mollohan WV-01
  • Richard Neal MA-02
  • Glenn Nye VA-02
  • Jim Oberstar MN-08
  • David Obey WI-07
  • Solomon Ortiz TX-27
  • Tom Perriello VA-05
  • Collin Peterson MN-07
  • Earl Pomeroy ND-AL
  • Nick Rahall WV-03
  • Silvestre Reyes TX-16
  • Ciro Rodriguez TX-23
  • Mike Ross AR-04
  • Tim Ryan OH-17
  • John Salazar CO-03
  • Heath Shuler NC-11
  • Ike Skelton MO-04
  • Vic Snyder AR-02
  • Zack Space OH-18
  • John Spratt SC-05
  • Bart Stupak MI-01
  • John Tanner TN-08
  • Gene Taylor MS-04
  • Harry Teague NM-02
  • Charlie Wilson OH-06
I put this together more for myself than anything else, to refer back to as we approach the election and I get more and more fundraising appeals. Anyone on this list will get a polite reply explaining exactly why I won't be supporting them this year. Some of these people I gave money to in 2008. Some of these people are running for Senate seats, or running for Governor of their state, rather than running for reelection in the House. The best outcome in every case would be for them to lose a primary to a real Democrat.

I don't buy blue dog excuses about "voting their districts" and how "at least they're better than a Republican." How are they better than a Republican? Being a Democrat is about more than just voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Health care reform was the Democrats' signature domestic issue of 2009-2010, and on that issue, these people were exactly as bad as Republicans. You either vote Aye or you vote Nay, and they stood athwart history and voted Nay. Good riddance.

There were seven total health care votes I looked at, four from November and three from March. They are:
I did not look at the roll call vote of passage of the revised reconciliation bill after the Senate parliamentarian edited it down, as that passed rather perfunctorily and everyone who voted against it had also voted against the bill when it originally passed the House. Indeed, even out of these seven, I eliminated three from consideration: Roll Call 885 on a "substitute amendment" offered by Orange Julius, got zero Democratic votes. I decided to throw out the votes on passing the bill in November, 886 Motion to Recommit and 887 final passage, because anyone who voted against that bill got a second chance to do the right thing when the Senate bill was voted on in March. There are six people who benefit from this second chance: Brian Baird WA-03, Allen Boyd FL-02, Suzanne Kosmas FL-24, Dennis Kucinich OH-10, Betsy Markey CO-04, and Scott Murphy NY-20.

There are also three people who would be on this list if they were still House Democrats: Eric Massa NY-29 voted against the bill in November and has since resigned in disgrace. Parker Griffith AL-05 hit the trifecta of voting for Stupak, for the motion to recommit, and against passing the bill, and has since gone ahead and switched parties. Anyone else on this list is welcome to emulate one of these two. Jack Murtha PA-12 voted for Stupak, and sadly he passed away in early February.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Richard Blumenthal thoughts

I find myself unsure as to how Richard Blumenthal will perform as my new Senator.

Blumenthal has been the state Attorney General for as long as I've been aware of such an office, and I've always thought he did a great job in that role. I've often compared many of the lawsuits Blumenthal has brought as Attorney General to suits brought by the ACLU - Even when I disagree with them and think they're going too far, I'm still glad they're doing it, because it's almost always for a cause that deserves to be heard. Blumenthal would file a suit at the slightest whiff of injustice to Connecticut citizens, and I thought that kind of over-zealousness by our Attorney General served us well.

How he'll do as Senator may be another matter, though. Blumenthal, based on observing his performance as my state's AG for the past 20 years, loves the spotlight, loves to be on-camera, on-screen, the focus of attention. To steal an old joke, the most dangerous place in Connecticut is inbetween Richard Blumenthal and a news camera. Now, is this craving for media attention a means by which he seeks to forward the issues he's pursuing? Or the flipside, how much of his laudable over-zealousness as AG is just a bid to make news, to insert himself into whatever story is in the headlines this week?

My question is, between the issues and the attention-seeking, which is the means and which is the end? I'm not sure myself, I think they both happily aligned in the same direction in his role as AG. It may in fact be why he's been so reluctant to pursue other offices, turning down entreaties to run for governor in 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010. But what happens when those two goals are no longer aligned? What happens when the best way to get exposure and screen time is to go along with whatever sell-out party leadership is selling today? Will he continue to be a strong advocate for justice, or will he be angling for a speaking slot right after Harry Reid at the press conference?

I keep waffling on which I think it'll be, it depends on whether I'm feeling particularly optimistic or particularly cynical at the moment. We won't really know until over a year from now, in any event. But it's the one thing that worries me about Blumenthal in the Senate.

Well, that, and who'll be the new AG?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Thank you, Chris Dodd

Chris Dodd, my senator, one of the few really good representatives left in the mess that is the US Senate, is retiring. I know a lot of people are happy about this, because replacement candidate AG Richard Blumenthal is polling about 30 points better than Dodd was, so this means the seat is safe for Democrats. But I can't be anything other than disappointed, because it comes at the cost of having Chris Dodd in the senate.

Everyone has been hammering Dodd for the past year or two, because he was on the senate Banking Committee when the global financial system hit the fan, and because he got a mortgage. Some have slammed him for owning a cottage in Ireland, where his family hails from. Many have slammed him for his 2008 Presidential campaign, as if campaigning in the Iowa caucus showed disloyalty to Connecticut. Somehow that didn't hurt Joe Lieberman in 2006, but IOKIYAR.

I still believe that Dodd would have won reelection. Even in the polls where he trailed Rob Simmons, Simmons was still only getting around 40%. Anger towards Dodd for stupid shit like having a cottage, or having a mortgage, or the deep betrayal of campaigning for president in another state, would only have decreased as time passed. In the end, Democrats would have come home, and Dodd would have won a close one.

But Dodd didn't want to have that fight. He didn't want to spend resources that can now go to other competitive races, he didn't want to be a potential drain on other Democrats running in the state, and he didn't want to run the risk of losing the seat to the Republicans. And, after three decades in the Senate, he didn't want to have to spend a year fighting for his political life. And in my opinion, after the service he did not only for Connecticut but for the country during those three decades, that's his right to make that decision. If he wants to take some time to relax and watch his girls grow up rather than fighting and clawing for votes, I can't complain. He gave me thirty years.

Chris Dodd has been my senator since I was two years old. For as long as I've understood what that meant, I've been proud to have him as my senator. I don't know what Richard Blumenthal will be like in the senate. There may be times in the next six years, when Blumenthal makes some dumb mistake, or caves on an important issue, that I curse the day Chris Dodd gave up his senate seat, and curse Chris Dodd for not fighting it out. Maybe that day will never come, because Blumenthal turns out to be better than anyone can imagine. But either way, I wanted to take this moment to say, Thank You, Chris Dodd. Thank you for your service, thank you for fighting to improve this country. Even when nearly every Republican and even most Democrats fought against your efforts, it was still heartening to see someone making the fight. I'll miss that.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

About This Whole Decade Thing

When I first saw a few people saying "The decade begins in 2010, I don't care what some people insist..." I assumed that it was just people who were still bitter over being wrong about when the 21st century began, arguing with straw-man versions of the folks who were right, who stopped arguing with them in 2001. But later I actually saw people arguing, for serious, that just like the century didn't begin until 2001, the decade doesn't begin until 2011.

Let me say this to those people: Stop it. You're making those of us who were right about the century look bad.

Whether you're talking about the century or the decade, it all hinges on which decade or century you're talking about. The whole issue with the century was that they were numbered. The 1st century A.D. began with the year 1, therefore the 21st century A.D. didn't begin until 2001. If you're talking about the 1900s, that's a different century than the 20th century A.D. The 20xx's obviously began in 2000, while the 21st century A.D. didn't begin until 2001.

Similarly, if you're talking about the 202nd decade A.D., indeed the 202nd decade A.D. doesn't begin until 2011. But no one has ever referred to the 202nd decade A.D. When people say "the decade", they're talking about the 201x's. And indeed, the 200x's are over, we're now onto the 201x's.

So to recap: "the decade" of the 200x's is over. The new decade, the 201x's, has begun. Anyone saying otherwise: Stop.

And anyone trying to complicate matters by talking about "the first decade of the 21st century" I say: Shut up. Why are you trying to throw gasoline on the fire?