Predators Deadline Likely To Be Extended

From The Tennessean:

Nashville Predators owner Craig Leipold met with Mayor Karl Dean today and said afterwards that he's consider extending today's deadline for a sale of the hockey team.

A mostly-local investors group has been trying to close the deal by today. After the midnight deadline passes, Leipold will be free to negotiate with others, including out-of-town buyers who might be more likely to move the team out of Nashville.

Leipold said the city and the investors were making good progress toward renegotiating the team's lease of the city-owned Sommet Center arena. He declined to elaborate.

I had an idea something like this would happen. Leipold would have no reason to re-open negotiations if he thought the Freeman group was making progress toward a deal. In spite of everything, it sounds like he'd much rather sell the team to the local group than to the liar Jim Balsillie. And with more time, Mayor Dean and the Metro Council will have more time to analyze a deal and make sure the city gets the best possible outcome. Everyone wins.

So, sorry Balsillie, no team for you!

UPDATE: The deadline has been extended indefinitely.

Wishing You A Happy Halloween

From your Fairy Goth-Mother!

Shalom Y'all

I've been quite amused by the conservative bloggers falling all over themselves to claim that because 100 Jews showed up to hear Ari Fleischer speak in Nashville last week, it's obvious that there is an "Exodus" of Jews from the Democratic to the Republican Party underway.

First of all, do the math. 100 Jews showed up to that event (and frankly, we don't even know that they were all Jews. Webutante obviously isn't, but still felt the need to wax poetic about said "Exodus"). By my mother's estimate, there are at least 5,000 Jews in Nashville. And that's just the ones who are affiliated with some sort of synagogue--when you take into account everyone who's not, that number goes up to as much as 8,000. So at best, this event attracted a grand total of 2% of Nashville's Jewish population, and at worst, 1.25%. I'd say this is less of an Exodus and more of a trickle that can easily be stopped.


But why, my mother then wanted to know, do they support the Republicans? One answer might be because of money/taxation reasons, but then that begs the question of why there are so many wealthy Jews who are hardcore liberals.

I think in this case it has more to do with a misguided view that Republicans, and Bush in particular, are "good for Israel." Ari Fleischer certainly promoted the idea that Bush is "the best friend Israel ever had." Which is of course utter nonsense--what exactly did Bush do for Israel? He invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to them (and let's be honest here, if the Israelis really felt that Saddam was an imminent threat, they wouldn't have hesitated to take him out), and in the process, destabilized the entire Middle East and made the whole region more dangerous for Israel. Bush may have given the Israelis more money and weapons, but hasn't attached it to any sort of peace process. The "road map" to peace lays forgotten in the corner.

That's not a friend. That's an enabler. A true friend of Israel would tell them when they're doing something wrong and how to make things better. A true leader would use the money and weapons as a condition to coming back to the negotiating table. What we have now is a foreign policy of all carrots and no sticks.

But of course, there is a deeper problem with Republican Jews, that neither Ari Fleischer nor anyone at that RJC meeting seemed to bring up. How do you reconcile being Jewish and belonging to the party of the Christian Right? How do you reconcile being Jewish and aligning yourself with people who don't believe that there should be a wall between church and state? Bear in mind that historically, every time that wall between church and state has come down, the Jews have suffered.

How do you reconcile belonging to a religion that places such a high value on education with belonging to a party that is waging a war on science?

How do you reconcile belonging to a religion that places the highest value on charity and good works with belonging to a party that thinks that the poor deserve to be poor and that the rich have no obligation to give back to society?

It just doesn't make any sense. If you vote for a candidate solely on Israel, then you're damning the rest of us here in the U.S.

But fortunately, I think that most of my community realizes this. And that is why, in fact, there is a ceiling to the Jewish Republican vote.

Godspeed

Sean Braisted (or The Brainstem, if you will) has gone on indefinite hiatus. Here's hoping he comes back soon.

I'm Probably Majorly Jumping The Shark Here

But if anyone's interested, I've taken it upon myself to start the first official "Mike McWherter for U.S. Senate 2008" Facebook group. You can join it here.

The Judge Young Stories Keep On Coming

Something tells me that we're about to see a whole bunch of people who were denied justice by this pathetic excuse of a judge coming out.

Here's another woman denied an order of protection against her abusive husband (even though a court in Knoxville had authorized it), while the husband got everything he wanted from the court. Oh, and he made their daughter testify in open court. Lovely human being. Go read the article.

UPDATE: Sean Braisted originally found this when the first case broke, but it bears repeating.

Judge Young's own statements on domestic violence and on orders of protection:

Orders of Protection presently authorized by law give any law officer the right and duty to arrest an offender without warrant upon being notified by the protected party that a violation has occurred. The offender is incarcerated subject to the further orders of the Court. This is a valuable tool in ensuring the safety of the victim and sends a message to the offender that consequences result from criminal action.

Those who engage in and are found guilty of domestic violence are treated like the criminals they are and are punished as such to the full limit of the law.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a judge who actually lived up to all of this?

And Now We Wait

Fifteen minutes ago, I submitted fifteen law school applications, complete with what has to be Draft #67 of my personal statement.

I decided in the end to apply early to GW. If you get in early to GW, you get a full ride, regardless of anything else. Some people thought that I should try to get in somewhere higher-ranked with a 167, but in the end, I felt it'd be stupid to turn down a chance at all that money to a school that would have been one of my first choices anyway (on that note, to anyone considering applying to law school, just a heads-up...the LSDAS, which is the clearinghouse that you have to submit all your forms through, nickel-and-dimes you at every step of this process).

So now we wait.

My Liberal Breed

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what’s known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-based thought reign supreme.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Geez, even my computer thinks I'm an elitist! I can't win!

SHOCKER--Judge Dale Young Is A Liar!

Either that or he's just illiterate.

I've been following the abuses committed by Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young of Blount County over the last month. First, he denied a legal immigrant from Nicaragua an order of protection against her estranged husband by telling her to "go back to Nicaragua," and then he ruled against a mother in a custody battle simply because he disagreed with her religious beliefs (the "crazy cult" she belonged to? Seventh-Day Adventism). For the first case, he was placed under judicial conduct review, and the second case is waiting appeal.

Today, Judge Young denied the appeal of Ana Calixto, the abused immigrant from the first case, by claiming that she and her husband were not, in fact, in this country legally:

In Young’s response, he states, “They were illegal, non-resident aliens and there were, in the court’s mind, serious legal questions to be answered before the case proceeds further.”

The judge’s statement ends with, “Mrs. Calixto is in the United States of America under the auspices of a “work visa” which has expired. She does not have any appropriate documentation which allows her to remain legally in the United States of America. Mrs. Calixto cannot establish domicile and/or residence in Tennessee because she is cannot stay here legally and she must return to her home country.

The only problem with that claim is,

Her current employment authorization card from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department — of which The Daily Times has obtained a copy — is valid through Jan. 5, 2009.

Which, you know, ever so slightly undermines Young's claim that her visa is expired and that she is here illegally. Just slightly.

I find it hard to believe that he didn't see her current documentation before making this ruling, so either he just flat out can't read, or he blatantly lied to keep the original ruling upheld. How he didn't think he'd get called out on this, I have no idea.

According to the Maryville Daily Times, the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary has already sent an investigator to Blount County to conduct interviews and look into Young's record, and if necessary, impose sanctions or begin the procedure of removing him from the bench.

At this point, I think anything less than removal from the bench would be a grave injustice. If there is such a thing as "judicial activism," and making stuff up from the bench, this is it. It's pretty clear that he's following his own ideology, not the law. The state of Tennessee should follow the example of Alabama and their own conservative activist judge and remove him from the bench.

Why Can't They Be Like We Were, Perfect In Every Way?

Another example of "Kids! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!", this time from the front page of Daily Kos. UVA professor and famous political analyst Larry Sabato, in his quest for a new constitutional convention, has declared that what we really need is for all of us kids to perform two years of mandatory national service. Anyone in their late teens or early 20s would be required to spend two years "serving the nation," either in the military, in volunteer organizations like AmeriCorps, or in disaster relief groups. There's an ironic statement in the diary about how such a proposal will "offend libertarians." I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I personally am horrified by the idea.

Put aside for a moment the fact that there is no way in hell this country could afford such a program right now (the government would have to guarantee wages and benefits according to Sabato), and the fact that it's completely unconstitutional. Let's deal with the practical reasons why this is wrong.

First of all, no matter how many options there are for service, it would be way too easy for whichever party is in power to use this to justify a peacetime draft. Sabato's proposed constitutional clause would state that:

all citizens of the United States, who are of sound mind and body, shall be required to give two years of service to their country, in a manner prescribed by law.

That doesn't specify what kind of services the government has to offer. If any particular Administration wanted to use it to bring back the draft, they could simply change the law so that going into the military is the only option left. I realize that there are valid arguments for reinstituting the draft, but if you're going to do that, do it through the front door, not the back.

Second of all, this completely undermines the idea of "public service." People should absolutely want to serve their country, but signing up for the military or volunteering for AmeriCorps should be something you do because you want to. Otherwise, those who are forced to do it will only end up resenting it. And that's no way to get young people to love their country. They don't teach civics in classrooms anymore, let's try bringing that back and see if that helps.

Third of all, the rich and well-connected kids will still find a way out of doing it. They'll go to college and go straight to working for the investment banking companies, and they'll get away with claiming that they're serving the nation by "helping the economy."

Fourth of all, Larry Sabato is 55, according to his Wikipedia entry. I must say that I find it incredibly ironic that a baby boomer is saying that people in my generation should stop working for two years to do minimum wage service. I mean, if you boomers want to pay for your own Social Security, then by all means, go ahead and push stuff like this. But yall ought to remember whose payroll taxes will be paying for your Social Security within the next twenty years. If I were you, I'd want me to graduate as soon as possible so I could get to work!

On that note...why cut this off at 26? If the U.S. military still considers troops to be fit for service well into their 40s, then why not require people older than that to continually serve their country? Most volunteer work would certainly be less physically demanding than military service. Again, Sabato is 55, that's hardly ancient? He should have to take two years off from his cushy job at UVA to serve his country if he feels that strongly about it!

I don't mean to get all ageist here, but I do resent someone who's 55 (younger than my father) sitting back and saying that this should be a burden on "the young folks."

My mother's favorite saying is "To whom much is given, much is expected." I try to live my life by that admonition. I don't need the government deciding how I do it.

Stop! Meta-Time!

As you may have noticed, I changed the blog description from "Dedicated to electing Democrats and Progressives in Tennessee and the South" to "The Adventures of a Progressive Jew Down in the Bible Belt." When I started this blog three months ago, it was mainly focused on the Nashville mayor's race, and I really had no idea what direction it would go in once that was over. So the change is simply a reflection of what the blog has become focused on now.

Also, I've added a new site to my blogroll, Real Democratic Moderate, run by dKos diarist FleetAdmiralJ. I may not agree with everything he says, but he raises some interesting points. Go check it out.

In one final meta note, I saw an ad in the Cornell Daily Sun today saying that they're accepting applications for new opinion columnists for next semester. I applied to do it sophomore year and I got rejected. But I'm thinking I may give it another go...this blog has given me a nice springboard for it. And I'll need something to do as a second-semester senior. Stay tuned...

Much Ado About Nothing

That's really the only way to describe this "controversy" of the Barack Obama campaign inviting famous gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform at a campaign event in South Carolina. McClurkin, struggling with "gay tendencies" himself, has made several anti-gay statements. Everyone's now going "Oooh, Obama's a bigot, Obama's a hypocrite, why are we pandering to the homophobes?"

But it's a non-issue.

First of all, Obama's own statement on the issue:

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

I don't know if you can repudiate something any more clearly than that. He's the one trying to confront homophobia in the African-American community.

So why invite someone like McClurkin then?

Easy. He's a very famous and popular gospel singer. The campaign probably figured (rightly) that he would be a huge draw in South Carolina. I have a hard time believing that Obama personally invited McClurkin because he agrees with him.

Also, I don't understand how this could be described as "pandering" to homophobia. True, the numbers aren't encouraging, with 62% of African-Americans saying that homosexuality is "strongly unacceptable." But saying that the campaign did this to pander to that 62% is just overly simplistic. From what I can tell (and I realize that I am a white girl from West Nashville, I could very well be wrong about this, please tell me if I'm wrong), the issue is simply not as prominent for African-Americans. The majority may think that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but it's not an issue that they're obsessed with, the way white evangelicals are.

So it's not pandering and it's not deep-seated homophobia on the part of the Obama campaign. They simply thought they'd bring in an entertainer who would bring in large crowds, and someone just didn't do a full background check. The campaign made a mistake, but ultimately, it's a non-issue. It says nothing about the kind of person Barack Obama is or the kind of President he would make.

Look At Me, I'm Talking About Ron Paul!

You know what this means--I'm talking about Ron Paul, so Kleinheider will HAVE to link back to this on Volunteer Voters!

I'm certainly no fan of Ron Paul. Isolationism has not been a legitimate foreign policy since 1941. Yet watching his campaign has been interesting--it just goes to show how disconnected the Republican leadership is from many on the right, especially on the war.

But some of the wingers don't like the idea that their party is not monolithic, and they're fighting back against the "Ron Paul Revolution":

From Leon Wolf, admin for wingnut blog RedState.com:

Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for why this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Wow. To say that's pretty harsh would be the understatement of the century. And posts complaining against this policy are already being censored.

Even though I don't like Ron Paul, after reading all this, I can certainly see why so many libertarian-leaning Republicans are disaffected with the GOP these days. I'd be pissed if the party I was trying to help win elections called my ideology "zany."

Daily Kos banned diaries discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories, because those fell outside of the concept of the "reality-based community," and it was embarrassing. But why would discussing a legitimate Republican candidate on a Republican blog be an embarrassment?

Unless, of course, they're genuinely afraid of the implications of Ron Paul's success.

UPDATE: DAMMIT! Kleinheider decides to take a vacation mere hours after I post this. Figures!

So What's A Girl To Do?

Over the weekend, I followed with interest the back-and-forth on the blogs between Kay Brooks and Aunt B. over the case of a young woman walking home from downtown who was raped while cutting through Bicentennial Mall. Kay Brooks seemed to be saying that because she was walking alone at night, she was responsible for what happened. Aunt B. naturally was apoplectic:

Carrying a phone, walking with friends, never leaving your house except to go to work and the store, avoiding places your tax dollars pay for, curtailing your life, these are all just tricks we play, deals we make with fate, please don’t let it be us this time, and they are about as effective.

I mean, please, do you see how insidious this is, and kind of gross? It assumes that there are rapists out there, determined to rape, and that there’s no solution to the problem of all these rapists except for women, “sensible women,” as Brooks puts it, being willing to curtail their lives. But this does nothing to actually lessen the incidents of rapes, because all you’re doing is playing this game where you try to make yourself look like less of an easy target than someone else. “Don’t rape me; rape her or her or her.”

I posed a question to Kay Brooks, and I don't feel that she answered it adequately. If you say that a woman is responsible for what happened in this instance, then in what instances can you say that she's definitely NOT responsible?

Women can get raped walking home at night. But that particular woman could have taken a taxi home, and there still might have been a chance that she would have been raped by the driver (I heard of several instances of this happening when I was in London).

Women can also get abducted and raped in broad daylight, snatched out of a Target parking lot, or raped in their own homes by their husbands. Are women in these instances also responsible for what happens simply because they didn't have a defensive mechanism at the time? Do we all need to carry guns and mace wherever we go? I carry pepper spray on my keys (to protect myself from the fratholes and the crazy Ithaca hippies), but I'm well aware that at 5'4", I could easily be overpowered. Should I just never leave my apartment then?

And then there was this story that I read about this morning:

Police in Maryville say a woman reports being raped after she was pulled over by a car with flashing blue lights.

The victim says instead of a police officer, the car was driven by a man who wore a face mask and who pulled her from her car into his, then raped her.

Is this woman responsible too? People like Kay Brooks would probably say that she shouldn't have opened her window before making sure it was a real cop. But anyone who could say that they would definitely have such a reaction in an instance like this is lying. When you get pulled over by the cops, your first thought is "Oh God, please don't let them give me a ticket." And you want to be as nice and cooperative as you can be in case the cop changes his or her mind.

It seems to me that unless all rape victims are at least partly responsible for what happens to them, then the discussion should not be about what the victim should or should not have done, but rather how we as a society can prevent men from becoming rapists in the first place.

Sadly, No Poke Button

Those great folks at People for the American Way have put up a "Right-Wing Facebook" parody site, with the profiles of the Republican presidential candidates and their news feeds. Among the highlights:

Mitt Romney joined the group "Pro-Lifers."

Mitt Romney left the group "Pro-Choicers."

John McCain is appealing to Ron Paul for fundraising tips.

Rudy Giuliani is wondering how he can fit 9/11 into a speech about agriculture policy.

Pro-Life Unless They're Already Alive

About once every other year or so, the Cornell Right to Life chapter brings a group called the "Genocide Awareness Project" to campus. This group sets up shop on our main campus walkway, Ho Plaza (and yes, it's called Ho Plaza. I've heard every joke you could possibly come up with about this, so don't bother), puts up large pictures of aborted fetuses next to pictures of Holocaust and lynching victims, and tries to claim it's the same thing. This would outrage me even without my personal experience, but as someone who's actually been to Poland, been to Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek, and who has actually seen the human ashes still in the ovens there--it disgusts me to the core of my being.

And so does Mike Huckabee:

"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

First of all, this is a blatant strawman argument, trying to tie immigration and abortion. You could have a million more people in this country and people would still be using any means necessary to get into this country.

But aside from that, anyone who could compare abortion to the systematic torture and murder of six million Jews, not to mention millions more Poles, Russians, Gypsies, and anyone else found to be "unfit" (you know, people who were actually alive and conscious) is worthy of nothing but derision and scorn. It's disingenous, it's cynical, and it's disgusting.

Underconfidence Worries Me More

You almost instinctively know that if you see an article with the headline "Overconfidence Worries Democrats," it's going to make you slap your forehead and go "OY!"

At any rate, I REALLY hope this is just an act to fool the Republicans:

Buoyed by Republican retirements, a significant financial edge over the opposition and their success at elevating children’s health insurance into a top-tier issue, some Democrats have been feeling downright smug, confident of not only holding their House and Senate majorities, but expanding them next year.

But November 2008 is not exactly right around the corner and the man responsible for overseeing the political fortunes of House Democrats is trying to recalibrate expectations. Not his, since Representative Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland says he is well aware of the difficulties ahead. But he wants others to put away any idea of a cakewalk.

“We need to be aware of irrational exuberance and take nothing for granted,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “It is early and a lot can happen in 13 months.”

Certainly you can't take anything for granted, especially not in an election year such as this one.

But why be overly cautious right now? The Democrats have public opinion on their side right now on almost everything, from Iraq to S-CHIP. We're finally fighting back in the PR battle. Meanwhile, so many Republicans are either dealing with scandals or retiring. I'm hard-pressed to think of a better opportunity for the Democrats to win, and win big. This is not the time to be overly conservative, either in ideology or in strategy. In fact, one way I can think of where the Democrats might struggle next year is if they continue to compromise with capitulate to Mr. 24% Approval Rating on Iraq.

And herein lies something that I will concede that Republicans do better than Democrats. Would you EVER hear Republican strategists publicly worrying about their chances? Of course not! They may express concern privately, anonymously, or off the record, but they wouldn't say anything like what Congressman Van Hollen is saying. Even if they know they may get slaughtered next year, they maintain a confident front and keep everyone more or less on message.

We see it time and time again. Why are Democrats scared of winning?

In Case You Haven't Heard

VANDERBILT--17
#6 SOUTH CAROLINA--6

Since I Can't Brag About This Elsewhere

Just wanted to let everyone know that I got a 167 on the LSAT. But more importantly, I'm in the 95th percentile. Go me!

A True Hollywood Moment

Fred Thompson, at the Value Voters Summit, explaining what his first act would be as President:

"I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what was right and I would pray for the strength to do what is right," the Republican presidential candidate said.

It sounds like something out of a movie. But no, why would Fred Thompson do something like that?

This is such a blatant and thinly-veiled pander to the audience that it's actually pretty hilarious. And to any Christian Right folks, if you don't think that this is simply pandering, then I just want you to know that I have a championship-winning hockey team to sell you!

What the Abortion Debate Is Really About

There was an article in Newsweek today about how a new slate of anti-choice restrictions have been passed in Missouri, and the likely impact that will have on an abortion clinic just across the state line in Illinois. The law puts new restraints on abortion clinics, requiring them to operate in the same manner as surgical outpatient centers, which at this point looks to be financially impossible for all of the abortion clinics in the state except for one.

I'm not going into the merits of this law--the underlying motivation for this law, to put abortion clinics out of business, is pretty obvious. But there are two problems with the law. First, as the article shows, this won't put an end to women in Missouri getting abortions, they'll just go to Illinois to have it done.

Second, there was one clause in this law that, at first glance, seems completely irrelevant:

Anyone who works at an abortion clinic, or at an organization that refers patients to abortion clinics, is now barred from teaching sexual education in Missouri public schools. Hile, who holds a master's in sexual health, has spoken on condoms and safe sex at Oakville High School in St. Louis for 26 years. This year she won't be able to return to Oakville, but educators who promote abstinence until marriage, like those supplied by Lutheran Family and Children’s Services of Missouri, are still allowed in the public schools of Missouri. The Lutheran agency believes the provision is necessary to prevent a conflict of interest. "They say they won't talk about abortion, but once they get in the classroom, who knows?" says Christine Reams, the group's director of community services. "It opens up too many doors having them there."

So let me get this straight. Someone who, say, works for Planned Parenthood would have a conflict of interest because they might say something about abortion, but those who are representing a specific church doesn't have a similar conflict? Someone who has a masters in the subject can't teach it, but someone who promotes abstinence but may not have ANY academic credentials is allowed? And what, exactly, does this have to do with the laws stated purpose, "making abortion clinics safer"?

To me, this just highlights what the abortion debate is really about for some people. For the "pro-lifers", it's not just about "saving babies." It is also very much about punishing women for the act of having sex. Why else would you oppose both abortion and the very means that can bring the number of abortions down? To these people, the babies are not just "a blessing", they're also your punishment for the "sin" of having sex outside of marriage.

But don't forget, many women who ARE married have abortions too! You wouldn't stop abortions even if you managed to stop all premarital sex.

There was a brilliant article written in 2000 called "The Only Moral Abortion is MY Abortion," which I would encourage everyone to read. The article contains many anecdotes from abortion clinic doctors and staff about strongly anti-choice women who found themselves in the position of needing an abortion, and how they justified it.

Cornell Daily Sun Hits Rock Bottom

When I was a freshman, I would always hear upperclassmen and alumni say that our paper, the Cornell Daily Sun, had really gone downhill from "their day". I never quite understood what they meant.

Now I do. Today, the Cornell Daily Sun officially hit rock bottom.

They published this guest editorial about how 9/11 was a big government conspiracy. First of all, I don't know which is more disturbing...the fact that they published it, or the fact that the guy who wrote it is a professor of elementary particle physics!

Almost everything that the professor wrote has been thoroughly debunked, either in the comments section of the article or elsewhere, so I'm not going to go into that. But there's one big reason why I universally reject these conspiracy theories.

For the government to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would require an extraordinary amount of coordination. Hundreds of people would have had to be in on it in some way, and all of them would have had to keep quiet. There's an old saying about how the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead. Are these conspiracy theories saying that all of the people involved in this conspiracy have managed to keep quiet for the last six years? Really? No one's accidentally let something slip to anyone in their families, or to anyone else? Considering that we hear about a government leak of some sort on an almost weekly basis, I find that impossible to believe.

This Administration is simply not competent enough to pull off something like this.

Really, I guess the biggest surprise from the editorial was that it didn't include an explanation of why the professor is supporting Ron Paul for President!

:)

Come On, Help This Mensch!

The Swing State Project just released a chart of the Q3 fundraising numbers for members of Congress who look to be facing competitive races next November, and the numbers for their opponents. There was only one Tennessee Congressman mentioned:


TN-09 Steve Cohen D-inc. $131K $374K $278K
TN-09 Nikki Tinker D $71K $172K $173K

The first number is how much money raised this quarter, the second number is total cash on hand, and the third number is cycle-to-date fundraising. So as you can see, Steve Cohen is winning, but Nikki Tinker isn't that far behind.

I'll admit, I was too absorbed in the Senate race last year to pay much attention to the congressional race down in Memphis. But I have to say, it is incredibly important to me that Congressman Cohen wins re-election. I've long said that we're far more likely to see an African-American win a statewide election in a Tennessee than to see a Jew win. Maybe that's just pessimism on my part, but you would immediately start hearing whispers of how the Jewish candidate "obviously doesn't share our values."

But as long as Steve Cohen is in Congress, then maybe, just maybe, there's a slight chance that I'm wrong. And I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong on this issue.

So Congressman Cohen, make us proud bubbeleh!

UPDATE: Thinking about it further, I just wanted to clarify something. Steve Cohen would still have my 110% backing even if he weren't Jewish, just because he's one of the most progressive politicians we have in Tennessee. The fact that he is Jewish just adds another level of poignancy for me.

Memo to Jim Balsillie: Get Your Own Damn Team!

I noticed the other day at our chapter meeting that a lot of other seniors in my sorority have BlackBerry's. But after seeing your behavior over the past few months Mr. Balsillie, I am proud to be the owner of an iPhone instead. And I don't intend on buying one of your BlackBerry's even when I enter the business world, even if Steve Jobs has made my iPhone completely obsolete by that point and forces me to buy an all new one (and I have no doubt that he'll do just that).

I generally like to support companies that are compatible with my values. But you, Mr. Balsillie, are a two-faced liar and a cheat, and you don't seem to think that the rules apply to you.

You negotiated over the summer with Craig Leipold to buy the Predators. You told him that you weren't looking to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario anytime soon, despite all the rumors. Yet while you were telling him that, you started taking season ticket orders for the 2008-2009 season in Hamilton! You lied to Leipold's face, and that's why negotiations were cut off.

Now you've come back all apologetic, claiming that you've changed your ways and "understand" the Nashville market. You claim that you can keep the team here without readjusting the lease. Oh, it all sounds good on paper, and of course some people ate it right up, ignoring your past history. You were heralded as a great alternative to that mean group of local millionaires who just want to cheat everyone. I held back for a few days on getting back on my Predators Soapbox, waiting to see how this would play out.

But now, I'm calling bullshit on this whole thing.

In doing all of this, Balsillie is really showing what little regard he really has for this city. He's got Bo Roberts, former campaign chair for Howard Gentry and then for Karl Dean, to advocate for him. The problem is, he's not supposed to be doing any of this right now. The local group has exclusive negiotiating rights until the 31st. Since Balsillie knows he can't talk to Leipold right now, he's taking it to the media instead.

Councilman Tygard is now complaining that Bo Roberts is lobbying for Balsillie without being registered as a lobbyist, and wants the whole thing investigated. Personally, I don't think Bo would have acted improperly, but I do agree with the Councilman on one point:

"His client doesn't seem to want to follow the rules regarding the process down here," Tygard said, adding that everyone else has followed the rules.

There is a proper way that this is supposed to be done. And it's not just the rules set down by Metro, it's also the rules of the NHL. Going to the media to try and indirectly influence the process is really not kosher. Balsillie didn't think that the rules applied to him over the summer, and he doesn't think they do now. The fact that he's now trying to act all conciliatory seems incredibly disingenious when you take this plus his entire history into account.

The truth is, Balsillie does not want to have a thriving NHL franchise in Nashville. He never did. He wants to make a quick deal and move the team to Hamilton as soon as possible.

And to Sean and anyone else who thinks that Jim Balsillie is completely innocent and just wants what's best for Nashville, let me explain to y'all how this is going to play out. Balsillie buys the team, and immediately you start seeing a change. Key players start getting traded. We don't sign any more high-profile free agents. We end up being a team of rookies and no-names, and we're not winning games (and to whoever tries to be smart and say that we're losing now--it's five games into the season. This isn't like football, you don't have to be undefeated to make the post-season). Revenue starts dropping, and more importantly, attendance starts dropping even further. All of a sudden, it's not so difficult for Balsillie to come back to Metro and exercise the escape clause that was naturally put into the contract. He's got billions, so he could easily buy out any local partners he may have. And bear in mind, for a multi-billionaire like him, a $75 million escape fee is chump change, and who's to say it'll even be that high in the end? So Balsillie trims the team down to its bare bones, and is then able to move it to Hamilton relatively easily. Nashville, thinking all along that it had found a solution to the arena issue, is then left with nothing.

If you don't think that Balsillie is capable of doing that, then I've got some nice property in Florida to sell you. Balsillie does not want what's best for Nashville--unless, of course, you think that what's best for Nashville is to lose the only tenant the arena has without any other plan in place.

Jim Balsillie--go get your own damn hockey team. You couldn't fool Pittsburgh, and you're not fooling us. Rather than trying to screw everyone over and go behind everyone's backs, why not go to Gary Bettman and ask for your own expansion team? Or better yet, you have enough money, go start your own hockey league! That way, you can make your own rules, and you can keep us dumb Southern hicks out!

Sweeping The Awards Like Al Gore

Earlier this year, Cornell University was named as the "Hottest Ivy" in the country, much to our delight. We're also tied with Dartmouth for the coldest Ivy, but that's another story.

Tonight on the Colbert Report, they had on Paul Glastris, editor of Washington Monthly magazine. He was discussing something I had never heard of before, Washington Monthly's college rankings system. They do it as an alternative to the U.S. News rankings--rather than rank colleges based on SAT scores, they rank based on how much each school gives back to the country. They measure things like how much money the school gets in research grants, how many Ph. D's they grant, how many students are involved in service organizations like ROTC or the Peace Corps, and social mobility factors (how many students have Pell Grants and how many of those graduate, etc.).

Check out the rankings (warning, PDF). Specifically, look at which school is ranked #7.

Nation, the implications of this are clear. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are bad for America. But Cornell University stands out as a beacon of service, research, social mobility, and all-around hotness.

The fact that I have nothing better to do at 12:15 at night in Ithaca than to sit at my computer blogging is beside the point.

Same Old Vandy...Or Is It?

It's a typical story. Vanderbilt goes into an SEC game where it's a heavy underdog. They hit the ground running and play incredibly, leaving their fans to start doing the Bowl Game Math once again. But somewhere in the third quarter, they start to lose momentum. They rally, but then make a deadly mistake at the end, allowing the other team to win.

Today's game followed the "same old Vandy" script to perfection. Vanderbilt upset Georgia in Athens last year, and it looked like we were about to beat them twice in a row. We were winning 17-7 at the half, Georgia couldn't find an answer to our running game, and the Georgia QB looked shaken up. But in the second half, Georgia scored 10 unanswered points, and Vandy couldn't accomplish anything on offense. With less than three minutes in the game, Cassen Jackson Garrison fumbled in the red zone, and Georgia marched it down the field to kick a last-second field goal and win 20-17.

However, I hesitate to classify this as another "same old Vandy" moment. I know it's the ultimate Vandy fan cliche to say that this was a "moral victory", but there were so many positives that came out of this game. First of all, I think the QB question has been settled. As good as Chris Nickson is, there's something going on with him, physically or mentally. Meanwhile, Mackenzi Adams came out looking like Michael Vick (in a good way!) in his prime. Georgia was never able to truly stop the Adams run. I think that it's time to let Mackenzi Adams start at QB.

Also, the Vandy defense is as good as I've ever seen it. Jonathan Goff and Co. barely let Stafford complete a pass the whole first half.

So, even though we have now gotten blown out and had our hearts ripped out in respective weeks, I think we've now figured out what works, and hopefully this will translate into more victories.

At least, that's what I'll be telling myself.

A "Completely Unrelated" Post, Brought To You By Beck's Beer

It's been awhile since I've done a true "Completely Unrelated" post, and this is something that I've been wanting to write about for awhile now.

There are two commercials that are annoying the hell out of me right now, both for Beck's beer. The guy is forced with a difficult decision, and the Beck's bartender informs him that "only you can decide what is right for you." In the first ad, the guy's girlfriend gets angry with his dog, and says 'Either she goes, or I go!", leaving the guy to decide whether to go through the "Man's Best Friend" or the "Man's Better Half" door. In the second one, the guy is in a cramped coach seat, but seated next to a hot girl. He gets offered an upgrade to first class, leaving him to choose between the "Mile-High Club" and the "Executive Club".

Ok, to me neither of these decisions should be that difficult. In the second case, take the damn upgrade! No woman is going to join the Mile-High Club with a man she just met. Sorry guys, but that kind of stuff only happens in porno movies. But if he takes the upgrade, not only will he have a better flight, but if she's left with an empty seat next to hers, that means she'll have more room too. And I'm sure she'd be very grateful for that.

The first ad is even worse. Any woman who would force someone to choose between her and the dog is NOT WORTH IT. That's beyond bitchy. And the guy may think that she's "the best thing that's ever happened to him", but what if it doesn't work out? Then he's left without a girl or a dog. And he'd have a tough time finding a girlfriend after that. I know I couldn't have any respect for a man who'd abandon a dog like that, and I don't know any girl who would.

Just my $0.02.

Harold Does Something Right

One of the big sticking points that folks have had with Harold Ford Jr. since the election, and what ultimately became my irreconcilable difference with him, is his tendency to bash other Democrats, especially on Fox News.

It seems that he went on Fox News once again last night. However, unlike previous incidents, I am pleased to report that this time, he not only called out the Republicans on their bullshit, but followed my advice about not letting them change the subject!

On Hannity and Colmes, they got to talking about the Moveon.org ad and accusing Google of being in cahoots with Moveon because they denied Republican ads critical of the original ad. Harold:

“Why are we still talking about this ad?” He asked right at the beginning.

“When are we going to get to the business of trying to figure out where the Republican nominee stands on the serious issue of Iraq, where the Democratic nominee stands and let’s have a robust debate about that.”

Later on, when they continued to talk about the ads:

“You should have Google’s CEO on and let them make the defense.” Then he adroitly brought the topic round to the war again. “There’s a larger issue here. We find ourselves embroiled, as you well know… embroiled in a war that we all want to win. It’s unclear if refereeing a civil war the way we’re doing it, it can be successful, it’s unclear if the surge can last much longer with public support being there for it… That should be where the debate should be centered.”

Frankly Congressman, it's not unclear. In fact, it's perfectly clear that we can't referee a civil war and that this surge can't be sustained.

But good work on not letting them change the subject. The ads don't mean a thing, they're just a distraction from really debating Iraq.

Scratch This Law School Off My List

Last April, the government of Thailand blocked access to YouTube in their country because someone had posted a video that mocked their King. This action was universally decried as an attack on free speech. Anyone else see a weird parallel here?

Regent University law student says school officials have threatened to discipline him for posting an unflattering photo of founder Pat Robertson on his Facebook page.

Adam M. Key, 23, posted a picture of Regent's founder and president making what appears to be an obscene gesture on the social-networking Web site. Key copied it from a YouTube video in which Robertson scratches his face with his middle finger.

Now, I do realize that private universities can make their own rules, and are not necessarily bound to protect all forms of speech. But being threatened with expulsion because you posted a less-than-flattering picture of Fearless Leader on Facebook? That just seems ludicrous. It might make some people think that the Christian Right leadership has--Heaven forbid--an authoritarian streak! But we all know that's not true, the Christian Right is happy and tolerant. Ann Coulter told me so.

Also, this is a law school. They're supposed to be teaching students how to uphold the Constitution, not how to subvert it. But considering some of the graduates that have come out of this school, that's clearly not what they're doing. I guess it's "Subvert the Constitution for Jesus!"

What was really interesting, though, was the kid's reaction:

"I will pay any price to defend free expression — especially against anyone who wants to take it away in the name of God," Key said.

Clearly, honey, you don't belong at Regent. You are way too much of a bleeding heart pinko Commie lib'rul if you think that law students should uphold stuff like the First Amendment.

Gorebama?

As speculation over Al Gore's possible Nobel Prize win and subsequent entry into the 2008 Presidential race grows, we're starting to hear the question--would those of us who have already settled on a candidate now switch to backing Al Gore?

It's so tempting to back Al Gore at this point. He's done such great work since leaving office. He could be the ultimate compromise candidate for the left. And it would definitely be payback for the theft of the 2000 elections.

But I see no need to switch at this point. I like Barack Obama. I find him to be far more inspiring than any of the other candidates. Al Gore, I feel, is more effective fighting for action on climate change outside of the government, taking his message directly to the people. In addition, I don't buy the argument that he would be the only one who's electable, and that Hillary and Obama are necessarily unelectable. All Hillary or Obama would have to do is win the Kerry states and swing Florida and Ohio (both of which look like they will swing blue this time around).

And frankly, although I guess we'll soon find out whether I'm right or wrong, I still don't think he's entering the race.

However, if the end result of this were to be a Gore-Obama or an Obama-Gore ticket, that would be the most amazing result of all.

Surprise, Surprise

I am shocked, SHOCKED to hear about the results of this study:

Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.

Which is, of course, what those of us who favor reproductive rights have been arguing all along. Overturning Roe v. Wade will NOT mean that there will be no more abortions, it just means they'll be performed underground, in unsafe conditions. The coathanger is not just a political symbol.

Kleinheider asked earlier today if liberals would consider voting for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton because Ron Paul is said to be more anti-war. For me, this is a clear example of why I would never even consider voting for someone like Ron Paul. Hillary may have problems, particularly on Iraq, but at least we know that she would follow policies that would protect reproductive freedoms and appoint justices who respect the right to privacy and Supreme Court precedent. And she would certainly stop the ridiculous, destructive policies that the Bush Administration has followed abroad, like the global gag rule on abortion and "abstinence-only" programs in Africa.

Let's Make A Deal

Lately, I seem to be incapable of going a whole day without getting on my Nashville Predators soapbox. But I come here tonight not to repeat the same arguments, I'm here to make a deal. I'm here to make a few concessions and see what I can get in return. I got to thinking about this after reading Bruce Barry's article in the Nashville Scene earlier today. So here's what I think, for what it's worth.

Is Nashville doomed to perpetual mediocrity if we lose the Predators? Probably not.

Are the Predators over-valued as a franchise? Probably.

Are they going to bolt if a deal is not signed by October 31st? No. If nothing else, it won't happen then because NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman won't let it. That's ultimately the trump card over all of this--it would be a personal humiliation to Bettman if the Predators were to leave. If there's a hint that Craig Leipold would start negotiating with anyone else, Bettman will probably stall it for as long as possible.

Should other options be explored, such as asking the state to kick in some money? Absolutely. Should we sign a deal hastily rather than weighing all of the pros and cons? Absolutely not.

Ok, those are my concessions. Now, those of you who think we should just let the Predators leave, please explain to me your plan for what we'll do after they're gone. Please explain what other tenants we're going to attract, how we're going to attract them after letting one pro team go, how you propose paying off the debt from the arena, how you're going to offset the loss in revenue to downtown businesses. I want to see numbers, specifics.

*********************

But you don't have a plan, do you? Y'all just like to whine about how much this is costing us and how we should just let them go, but you don't have any better ideas. If there were any better ideas, they would've been proposed by now! If you've got a real one, with numbers and specifics, I'm all ears. And I'm sure there are several people on the Metro Council who'd be all ears too.

I don't know if anyone's heard, but the Nashville Kats are gone. For real this time, Bud Adams decided to cease operations. That's right--the only other tenant the arena had is gone. So suddenly, that whole "we can quickly find a new tenant" line becomes a little more precarious.

The Predators lost to St. Louis tonight. And I blame this whole situation for the loss. St. Louis has Paul Kariya, who we had last season. Paul Kariya left this summer when his contract was up. It wasn't a money issue, he left because he wanted a guarantee that the team would stay in Nashville, and he wouldn't have to uproot his family at any moment. So he left and went to a franchise that could offer him that stability. He was one of the best we had, and now he's one of the best St. Louis has.

The Shiksa Speaks

Perhaps the people starting the Nashville chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition should keep in mind just what some prominent Republicans think of Jews. The Coultergeist, in an interview on CNBC:

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they --

DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes

**************************

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier.

***************************

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

Wait, you mean I'm not perfect already? You do realize that you're calling my mother a liar, right? You DO NOT accuse a Jewish mother (or a Southern one, for that matter) of lying.

I do realize that some evangelical Christians consider it their mission to witness to everyone, and I respect that. But what gives them the right to insinuate that another religion is somehow defective? What gives them the right to say that another religion should be thrown out altogether? Really, how does it make the Coultergeist any different from Ahmadinejad? She too sounds like she'd be happy in a country with no Jews and no gays.

Perhaps, though, the problem isn't really evangelical Christianity. Perhaps the problem really is Republicans like the Coultergeist, and like the Freepers, who try to uphold the idea that the GOP is truly a "big tent" party, but can't help letting that streak of--dare I say it--anti-Semitism show through.

Because really, what other phrase is there for saying that an entire religion is defective and ought to be thrown away?

UPDATE--Some commenters both here and on other blogs have been saying that it's satire and we shouldn't take her seriously. Maybe, but do you honestly think any Jew would get away with saying the same thing about Christianity, even if it were in jest? If a Jew were to say on TV that "Christianity is defective and we'd be better off without the Christians", the Christian Right would be calling for blood, even if they followed it up with "Oh come on, it's a joke, lighten up people!"

Judge W. Dale Young At It Again!

Remember Judge W. Dale Young of Blount County? The one who is now under judicial conduct review because he told a LEGAL immigrant to this country to "go back to Nicaragua" when she asked him for an order of protection against her abusive husband?

Guess what? Young is at it again, this time deciding against a mother in a child custody hearing because her religious beliefs were--wait for it--different!

A Maryville woman who went to court on Aug. 14 for a child custody hearing says she was persecuted because of her religious beliefs at the hands of the Blount County judicial system.

According to Jo Anne White, what was supposed to be a standard child custody hearing turned into an almost hourlong “Bible study” in the courtroom in spite of the repeated protests of her attorney, Kevin W. Shepherd.

After a detailed discussion of her religious beliefs — documented in court reporter transcripts obtained by The Daily Times — and a brief recess to chambers, Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young awarded temporary custody of White’s two children to her ex-husband. The custody will be reviewed again in Circuit Court on Dec. 11.

While Young questioned White about one specific aspect of her religion, attorney Craig Garrett, who represented White’s ex-husband, asked numerous probing questions about her faith. Of the 65 pages of court transcripts reviewed by The Daily Times, 41 pages deal directly with White’s religious beliefs.

That is an awfully long time to discuss someone's religious beliefs. The judge must have thought that her religious beliefs could somehow harm the children, for it to be relevant to a custody case. So what weird cult does Ms. White belong to?

White is a Seventh-day Adventist who married her now ex-husband 17 years ago in a Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I know several Seventh-day Adventists. There is NO real difference between them and your standard evangelical Protestant, except that they, like we Jews, observe the Sabbath on Saturday rather than on Sunday.

I'm not saying that a parent's religion is necessarily irrelevant in a custody case. But:

While discussions about religion are permitted in child custody cases, most states prohibit religion from being a deciding factor unless there is evidence of potential or present harm to the child, such as if the parent engages in unusual cult activities or has an unorthodox lifestyle that endangers children, according to Nihara K. Choudhri’s book “Complete Guide to Divorce Law — Divorce Law for All Fifty States.” Religions that prohibit medical treatment are also regularly examined in child custody cases.

There's a very clear legal standard--the parent's religious beliefs cannot be a deciding factor in the case unless there's proof that it harms the child.

Here is a partial transcript of the hearing, obtained by The Daily Times. Seven pages, talking about nothing but "the mark of the beast". Only one word about how this is relevant to the child, with a reference to a question earlier in the hearing. Read through the transcript, and you can see that the whole line of questioning has nothing to do with whether or not she's a good mother, but the judge trying to find something damning about Seventh-day Adventism (on one level though, it was kind of interesting...I always thought that the mark of the beast was the "666" on Damien's neck in the movie "The Omen").

You may be thinking now that this doesn't necessarily prove that the decision was based solely on the religious beliefs. However:

“At one point, I told the judge, ‘I didn’t write the Bible — so why are we discussing this?’

“He just wouldn’t stop, and I thought I would go to jail if I didn’t respond to his questions — so I went along with it even though I knew they were inappropriate questions.

“We talked about my religion for so long that I wasn’t even allowed to bring my witnesses to the stand.”

This is the kind of atmosphere that's being created in this courtroom. One of fear, one where evidence to help your case isn't allowed if it goes against what the judge already believes. I don't understand how you can forbid someone from bringing their witnesses to the stand. Judge Young made up his mind about the verdict after he had a problem with some of her religious beliefs.

Clearly, the only crime committed here is that this guy is still on the bench.

Quick note--A huge thank you to the anonymous posters who sent me this tip. But in the future, if you have a story like this, it'd be better to e-mail me directly (my email is in my profile) rather than to leave comments in older posts. I'll get it quicker that way. Thank you again!

You Might Win Some, But the GOP Just Lost One

Excellent post from now former Republican John Cole:

If you look through this family’s dossier, it appears they are doing everything Republicans say they should be doing- hell, their story is almost what you would consider a checklist for good, red-blooded American Republican voters: they own their own business, they pay their taxes, they are still in a committed relationship and are raising their kids, they eschewed public education and are doing what they have to do to get them into Private schools, they are part of the American dream of home ownership that Republicans have been pointing to in the past two administrations as proof of the health of the economy, and so on.

In short, they are a white, lower-middle-class, committed family, who is doing EVERYTHING the GOP Kultur Kops would have you believe people should be doing. They aren’t gay. They aren’t divorced. They didn’t abort their children. They aren’t drug addicts or welfare queens. They are property owners, entrepeneurs, taxpayers, and hard-working Americans. I bet nine times out of ten in past elections, if you handed this resume to a pollster, they would think you were discussing the prototypical Republican voter. Hell, the only thing missing from this equation is membership to a church and an irrational fear of Muslims and you HAVE the prototypical Bush voter.

*********************************

My bad- they don’t have any advice other than “SUCKS TO BE YOU” or “SELL YOUR HOUSE” or “GET ANOTHER JOB.” Because, as we all know, the hallmark of responsibility is making your children homeless so they can maybe get healthcare. Nobody even pointed to the numerous charities that we conservatives are supposed to expect to fill the gap so the government doesn’t have to pay for things. Instead, it was taunts, catcalls, contempt, and jealousy (because these folks are in SUCH an enviable situation).

I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow.

Read the whole thing.

Need A Republican To Answer

By now, most people have heard the sad story of Graeme Frost, the boy who gave the Democratic radio address last weekend, explaining how S-CHIP had helped him and his sister. In case you haven't:

"If it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today," Graeme says in the address, to air today on stations across the country.

************************************

Graeme and his 9-year-old sister, Gemma, were passengers in the family SUV in December 2004 when it hit a patch of black ice and slammed into a tree. Both were taken to a hospital with severe brain trauma. Graeme was in a coma for a week and still requires physical therapy.

Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work.

Having priced private insurance that would cost more than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month - they continue to rely on the government program. In Maryland, families that earn less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level - about $60,000 for a family of four - are eligible.

The right-wing smears of this child started immediately. A poster on Free Republic asserted that the family must be "fat cats" living off the government, because the children live in a good neighborhood and attend private schools. It wasn't long before the rest of the right-wing media picked up on the story, particularly Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh. Seems pretty damning for the Democrats, right?

Wrong. Once again, they ran with a story before getting all the facts straight.

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

There you have it. Both the children go to their private schools on scholarships, and their house was not as expensive when they bought it as it is now. Completely debunked in only a few minutes.

But that's not the most disturbing element to this story:

Right now, the Frost's home address is posted on Free Republic. And it's been there for gawd knows how long -- nobody's taking it down. Why would they? The kid is the latest enemy of the entire conservative movement: they want to make him pay.

I have a question for any Republicans who might be reading this. Forget about S-CHIP and health care for a moment. If this had happened on a Democratic blog, if some liberal blogger had posted a child's personal information on the Internet, the media would be apoplectic, and everyone in the Democratic leadership would be on the talk shows wringing their hands about how the people who did it are a bunch of extremists. Yet we've seen no condemnation from the Republican leadership or from the media.

So, why the tacit approval, or at least non-condemnation? Why do you consider putting someone's personal information for the purpose of intimidating them on the Internet acceptable? Is it really ok to destroy people in this manner, if it scores you a cheap political point?

Did your mothers teach you that this was ok? I know my mother didn't, even though she's one of them lib'ruls (and a Hillary backer to boot).

To sum it up, answer this question--why is this acceptable to you?

UPDATE--We now know via ThinkProgress that this goes far beyond tacit approval. This is blatant approval. The office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been tracking this from the beginning, and is "relieved" that they didn't issue their own press release condemning the Frost family. Translation--they're more than happy to let the right-wing blogs and media do their dirty work for them.

Looking For a Few Good Mensches

Courtesy of my dad, here's an ad from Nashville's Jewish weekly, The Observer, about the new Nashville chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Click here to see it.

First of all, as you can see, the more appropriate name for the Nashville chapter of the RJC would be "the May family". Just my opinion.

Here's my question though--how come we don't have a Nashville chapter of the Jewish Democratic Council? By the looks of it, they don't have chapters outside the major cities. But that doesn't mean we couldn't do one here. And I could probably get more people to join than they will in the RJC. At the very least, I could get more people who aren't all related.

Who's with me?

Macaca Thompson!

Politico:

Fred Thompson's campaign will announce this morning their "National Campaign Leadership Team."

Among the four chairs -- former Sen. George Allen (Va.).

I guess it makes sense for Frederick of Hollywood to bring Macaca Allen on board. They're both "folksy" Southern conservatives, which is really just a nice way of saying that they're two good ol' boys completely out of touch with the rest of the country. They're two peas in a pod really.

Or maybe this is just a backhanded way of showing gratitude. Without Allen's implosion in his Senate race last year, there wouldn't have been an opportunity for Freddie to run for President in the first place. Allen would have run as the "conservative", anti-Giuliani candidate, and probably would have done a better job in that role than Thompson is doing now.

All I can say now is...someone give Allen a mike, and make sure he's next to Freddie when he starts talking!

And So It Begins

You thought it was annoying that the Presidential campaign started so early? Well, I've got bad news for you...we're officially starting the race for Governor of Tennessee a whole three years early!

U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis wants to be Tennessee’s next governor, and he plans to seek the office even though friend and fellow Democrat Harold Ford Jr. also may want the job.

“I’ve made up my mind to run for governor,” said Davis, who served as Ford’s campaign chairman during his unsuccessful 2006 Senate bid against Republican Bob Corker.

Great! The DINO with no substance, the Congressman with the 66.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, the man who wants to be a "pro-war Democrat", the one Democrat who could make Harold Ford Jr. look progressive, is running. Color me thrilled.

And what on earth does this mean?

“I don’t think (Ford) is going to run because Lincoln Davis is going to run. I would imagine that if I’m in the race, he’ll step aside.”

Please, PLEASE tell me this is just posturing. Please tell me that Congressman Davis is not so naive to believe that Ford would decide not to run because he's already in the race.

Why would Ford stay out? He'd crush Lincoln Davis in the primary, just on the strength of name recognition. For that matter, Bill Purcell would probably beat him too. So why is Davis running?

Personally, I'd like to see Bill Purcell make a go of this (or even better, Tim McGraw!). Lincoln Davis is absolutely unaccpetable, and I don't know if I have the stomach for another Ford campaign.

"I'm About a Six"

Fred Thompson on Saturday Night Live:

Why Donkeys Are Better Than Elephants

We all know that Democrats are sexy, because there's no such thing as a hot piece of elephant. But courtesy of my favorite non-political blog, Cute Overload, we now have further proof of why donkeys are just better than elephants. Because really, how many elephants would you see carrying around little baby lambies in pouches on their backs?

So Far, So Good

I know it's early on in the season, but we've now had two Predators games, 120 minutes of hockey. In that period, the Predators have outscored the opposition 9-1. Chris Mason went over 100 minutes without allowing a single goal, effectively erasing any doubt there may have been over his readiness to be the starting goalie. The people who needed to step it up have so far REALLY stepped it up--David Legwand had a hat trick tonight, Jason Arnott had two goals on Thursday, J.P. Dumont had a goal in each game, and Martin Erat's had several assists. It's only two games into the season, but if we keep playing how we are now, we'll see some great results come April and May.

And that's another thing that bugs me in this debate over the Predators--those of you who say that we should let them go and not work to help them stay will ALL be on the bandwagon once we win the Stanley Cup. This whole squabble will be completely forgotten once that happens, you'll all be saying how GREAT this is for the city and how LUCKY we are to have a championship-winning team.

You know how I know this? Because Tennessee sports fans are quite possibly the most fickle group of people you'll ever meet. Last year, we'd all grumble about Pacman Jones' problems, but they would all be briefly forgotten every time he had a huge interception or kick return. Hell, we'd probably still be going back and forth on it had he not been suspended. And don't get me started on UT fans...the people who tonight are thrilled about beating Georgia and just know that this represents "a return to the glory days" were the same people who were calling for Phil Fulmer's head after the Florida game (by the way UT fans, this may just be nitpicking, but each time the band played "Rocky Top" this afternoon, y'all were about half a second off on the "WOOOs". Work on that, kthanx).

Vanderbilt, for one, will need to find a nice big bandwagon once we eventually make it to a bowl game, for all the fair-weather fans that will inevitably come out of the woodwork (the math for this week--ok, so we got blown out by Auburn, not totally unexpected...if we beat Miami OH and Wake Forest, then we just need to win one from Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, or Tennessee. Crap).

But this is why I said that the quickest way to raise the money and convince everyone that the Predators should stay here would be by winning the Stanley Cup. And judging by their play up until now...so far, so good.

UPDATE--Memo to ESPN--now that Florida's lost two straight and LSU is the undisputed #1 team, can we please stop making human sacrifices on the altar of Tim Tebow now?

There's Your Answer

As you've probably heard by now, Barack Obama decided to stop wearing an American flag pin, pointing out that true patriotism goes far deeper than what you wear on your lapel:

“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart," he told the campaign crowd Thursday. "You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”

Oh, but we all know that's not true. Being a patriot means that you wear a flag lapel and put a yellow ribbon on your SUV! It means saying that you support the troops, except for the "phony" ones who oppose the war, even though giving them full health care and other benefits is "socialized medicine."

It's such a novel concept, patriotism as an inner value rather than a slogan. But in response to Sean Braisted's reaction to the announcement...

I think his response is somewhat refreshing, and I look forward to hearing the wingers on the radio bash him for being anti-American over the next few days.

...well, here you go:

Discussing a recent interview with a reporter in Iowa in which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said that he had stopped wearing an American flag pin on his lapel during the lead-up to the Iraq war, Fox News host Sean Hannity said on the October 4 broadcast of his radio show: "[W]hy do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack." He continued: "And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world?"

But according to Media Matters, there have been many instances lately where Sean Hannity himself hasn't worn a lapel. If it were that important to him, he should've worn it on his book cover, or at the very least on his show.

So at what point, conservatives, does the hypocrisy stop?

I Put Up Your Yard Sign, Now Give Me My Hockey Team

I just did something I've never done before. I didn't even know who my Metro Councilman was until last year (I had always assumed it was Charlie Tygard, but apparently it wasn't), but I just e-mailed my new Councilman, Carter Todd, and urged him to support keeping the Nashville Predators. I also e-mailed Councilwoman Emily Evans, who represents the next district over from me, and thanked her for injecting a good deal of common sense into this debate.

I'm trying to figure out how to get in touch with Megan Barry and Jerry Maynard as well. I can't figure out if they have "nashville.gov" e-mail addresses yet.

This is democracy in action people. If you never want to hear the phrase "Kansas City Predators", then call or e-mail your Metro Council member (if you don't know who it is, go to their website), and let them know what you think.

This whole thing made me think of a conversation I had with a friend from Buffalo, NY a few years ago. Whenever I started talking about the Nashville Predators, he said that you shouldn't have hockey anywhere where you don't naturally have ice. It's a ridiculous line of reasoning, NCAA and NHL hockey are not played outside on frozen ponds. However, some people (at least a few of whom I'm guessing are closet Red Wings fans) seem to be using this line of reasoning to say that we shouldn't have hockey in Tennessee.

I say that if you're going to use that line of reasoning, then you also shouldn't have football anywhere where it might be snowing for a good portion of the season. That means no more Green Bay Packers, no more Minnesota Vikings, no more Detroit Lions, no more DA BEARS, and DEFINITELY no more New England Patriots. The North can stick to hockey and basketball, while we'll have football and baseball and NASCAR in the South.

I think this is only fair if we're going to insist that certain sports must fit into neat little regions. I, for one, think that the Civil War is over.

UPDATE--The investor group missed the deadline to file legislation with the Metro Council to get onto their October 16th agenda; however, it looks likely that there will still be a special meeting called.

UPDATE 2--I forgot, also no more Buffalo Bills. Especially because almost ten years after the fact, they still don't understand what a lateral pass is.

UPDATE 3--The response from Carter Todd:

Thanks for the email, and I really appreciated your support back in August. I, too, am a big Preds fan (and was at the game last night). I agree with you – the City is in a tough spot and will probably lose money either way. I think we should work with the Mayor and the team and do what we can to keep them here (it would be a huge burden on the City to have the Sommet Center without an anchor tenant). However, as I said in the Tennessean earlier this week, there is a “breaking point” at some spot where it is not fair to those taxpayers who aren’t Preds fans for the City to further subsidize the team.

I am optimistic about the process and believe we will come up with a solution that is a win-win for both the taxpayers and the fans.

One last comment – I am somewhat disappointed about the “procedural” aspects of this entire matter. I campaigned on a platform of transparency in government, and now the Council is being asked to approve a huge matter (e.g. the Predators lease amendment) without adequate time for proper debate and input from our constituents. We still haven’t even seen a definitive proposal on the lease amendments, and yet we may be asked to vote on it in a week. In large measure, it is these types of rushed decisions in the past that have the City in this current predicament.

That makes sense. Perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to have a special session on the matter, like the City Paper article suggested there might be.

Senator Craig, We Just Can't Quit You!

What a day for the GOP. On the same day we find out that Senator Larry Craig can't withdraw his guilty plea (because there's no such thing as "not guilty on the grounds of sheer stupidity"), the Republicans release their new official logo for their 2008 Convention in Minneapolis:



Does anyone else think that this looks like an elephant in Minneapolis who is, shall we say, taking a wide stance? Or looks like it's leaning over something (which could explain the starry eyes)?

This is real, not photo-shopped in any way. Go take a look.

This Is Weird

I saw on MSNBC that the House voted overwhelmingly, 404-11, on Congressman Cooper's legislation to boost the power of and give more protection to government watchdogs. The Preznit is threatening to veto this legislation because it infringes on the authority of the executive branch to silence all whistleblowers and waste as much money as they want only to "discover" fiscal responsibility when it's the Dems passing the appropriations bills make sure that inspectors general remain under their control. That doesn't matter right now, since it passed by well over a veto-proof majority. However, I saw something really weird when I went over to the House website to see which 11 Republicans are perfectly ok with the executive branch pressuring inspectors general not to report fraud or waste. Another bill caught my eye.

The House passed a bill yesterday, H. Res 635, to recognize the start of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. Standard stuff, I've found that most of the legislation that actually goes through the House just involves "recognizing something" or "expressing the sense of the House". However, I was surprised to see that 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat didn't vote aye or nay on this, but just voted present:

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 42 ---

Aderholt Akin Barrett (SC) Bonner Bono Broun (GA) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Buyer Carter Conaway Deal (GA) Everett Fallin

Forbes Franks (AZ) Garrett (NJ) Gohmert Goode Granger Hayes Johnson, Sam Jordan King (IA) Lamborn Marchant McIntyre Miller (FL)

Neugebauer Pence Price (GA) Rogers (AL) Souder Tancredo Thornberry Tiahrt Walberg Wamp Weldon (FL) Westmoreland Young (AK) Young (FL)

This group included Congressman Wamp from Chattanooga, Lynn "Let's put the 10 Commandments up everywhere but don't ask me to recite them" Westmoreland, and of course, Tom "Bomb Mecca!" Tancredo.

What to make of this? It's not a difficult question. But I suppose that if you vote "no", that the Congress shouldn't recognize the start of Ramadan, then it looks like you're Islamophobic (which of course would be ridiculous. How could ANYONE think that Republicans are Islamophobic?)

So what do you do, if you want to cater to that part of your base that thinks that bombing Mecca is a fine idea but not be branded Islalmophobic? You vote "present". Let's not kid ourselves--voting present is a "nay" vote. Had this bill actually been divisive, present votes would have been counted as nays. But this way, you can vote against the bill but make it look like you're not.

Meanwhile, here at Cornell, when Hillel held a break-fast to mark the end of Yom Kippur a week and a half ago, we invited the Muslim students to join us so they could mark the end of their daytime fasting as well. This happened while I was in Miami, but by all accounts the joint break-fast was a resounding success. What do you think drives Muslims to radicalization more--respecting them, or treating them like second-class citizens?

Why I Love the Nashville Scene

Reports of the Nashville Scene's death have been greatly exaggerated. Some choice excerpts from their "Best of Nashville" edition:

BEST POLITICAL TRAGICOMEDY: LI’L BOB AND THE BLOG RANTERS

One of the odder things about the latest mayoral race was the whiny aggression coming out of the Clement camp. The ranters promoting Clement online did his campaign no favors with their trash talk about “Fatboy Karl,” the “trophy husband” living off his old lady. Yeah? You got a problem with women having money? Then there was the just plain weird stuff. Choice quote from the Scene’s blog: “BOB CLEMENT is GONNA EAT ALL YOUR BALLS” (poster’s caps). Take heed, future candidates. Send a memo to supporters: “If you wouldn’t shout it on a street corner holding one of my signs, don’t post it online!”

Awww, I'm going to miss all the shills! They were so much fun to toy with! But that last little bit of advice? Genius. I'm going to take that advice to whichever campaign I go to next.

BEST POLITICAL BLOGGER (UNPAID): SEAN BRAISTED

He only recently turned 25, but Sean Braisted, sole proprietor of seanbraisted.blogspot.com, has more political sense than most people twice his age. Serving as both executive committeeman for the Davidson County Democratic Party and regional vice president of the Tennessee Young Democrats, Braisted has turned his fledgling site into a great source for local political coverage written from the perspective of an interested citizen. (His self-description on the site: “I like politics. It’s that simple folks.”) Most impressively, the activist Democrat can discuss his political views and those of others without being a self-righteous partisan pain in the ass, no mean feat in the vast wasteland of the local political blogosphere.

My blog would not have happened but for Sean giving me the opportunity to guest-blog at Nashville21. Anytime someone comes up to me and says, "Oh, you're that girl with the blog!", I'll have Sean to thank.

Also, Kleinheider beat himself to win Best Political Blogger (Paid).

BEST POLITICAL CONSULTANT WHO OUTDID HIMSELF: JIM HESTER

An old rat around the political barn, Hester has worked for more than a few losing campaigns for public office. But with Karl Dean pouring his wife’s inherited wealth into the mayor’s race, Hester finally produced a winner. It’s debatable just how much credit Hester should receive. One school of thought holds that he ran a lackluster campaign, and Dean won in spite of it only because his opponent, Bob Clement, was such a terrible candidate. That may be true, but Hester had a job in an off year for elections and even landed a position as senior adviser in the new administration. Short of a six-figure book deal, that’s about the best outcome a political pro could hope for.

Let me give a little bit of perspective on this. I think Jim Hester got a bad rap for most of this campaign. He's the sort of person you either love or you hate. And it's true, the Dean campaign was not the most exciting in history, and he had the advantage of a self-destructing opponent. But Hester ran a very tight ship the whole time.

Also, he taught me a very important lesson. As I said before, I try to observe the campaign professionals and learn from what they do. Hester taught me the importance of making nice with people from other campaigns. My first instinct, in politics and on the blogs, is to always go on the attack against any opposition. But right after the general election, Hester brought in several aides from other campaigns, most notably Toby Compton from the Buck Dozier campaign. All of those people brought their own perspectives and an understanding of their own base to the Dean campaign, and I think that was as key to Dean winning as anything.

I'm Not the Professional Here, But...

We know that a Mike McWherter campaign will be difficult, but it certainly is not outside the realm of possibility to win:

At the outset, the veteran Alexander - a fixture on the statewide political stage for three years - is certainly a heavy favorite. But operatives on both sides of the fence say some polling has indicated the former governor could be vulnerable.

If so, McWherter will still need to run an almost flawless campaign. For starters, he will need a lot of money - say, $10 million or so. While McWherter says he's willing to put some of his own money into the race, it's doubtful that he can afford to self-finance a major share of campaign needs in the fashion of Bredesen or U.S. Sen. Bob Corker.

It would help him, of course, if the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee decides to make Tennessee a priority race. Tennessee Democrats think that's a real possibility, but the jury is still out.

McWherter would also need a bit of good luck. Say, for example, the failure of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.

Consider that arch-conservatives in the Tennessee Republican base have never been all that enthusiastic about Alexander, who they see as too pragmatic and moderate on many matters. Such folks might be even more prone to stay at home on election day with Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney as the party's presidential standard-bearer.

On the other hand, they and Tennessee Republicans generally are forecast to be much more motivated to hit the polls if Thompson should emerge as the nominee.

In other words, Alexander could ride Thompson's coattails. Or McWherter could ride Giuliani's.

Given the current state of the Fred Thompson campaign, it is very possible that the latter scenario would occur. But riding Giuliani's coattails would not be enough to win. McWherter would have to raise a good deal of money, and more importantly, get his name recognition up. And all this will have to be done in a relatively short amount of time.

But the news out of that camp today makes me a little concerned:

McWherter, who launched an exploratory campaign for the Senate last week, said he is all but certain to become a full-fledged candidate within three or four months.

Mr. McWherter. You are well within your right to discount anything I have to say. I'm by no means a professional. I'm just someone who's worked two campaigns, one as an intern and one as a half-step above an intern. Over that time, I've tried my best to observe the campaign professionals, to learn what they do and what advice they give. And I keep a blog that's not really read by anyone except for my relatives, a couple of other bloggers, and my friends in the UK. I'm no campaign expert. But Mr. McWherter, I need to tell you one thing:

YOU DO NOT HAVE THREE OR FOUR MONTHS.

If you want the DSCC to get involved, then you're going to have to prove you're already a viable candidate. That means you've got to get a ground operation into place, start raising A LOT of money (even if you're going to throw your own money in), and get voters to know you. The time to do all this is NOT three or four months from now. Three or four months from now will put us smack in the middle of the Presidential primaries, and no one will be paying attention.

The time to do all of this is NOW. Ideally, some of this should have been done over the summer. Part of the reason Harold Ford was able to raise as much money as he did was that he started in April of 2005, well over a year and a half before the election. And he had the benefit of not having to worry about name recognition, a luxury you don't have. But if you start now, if you hit the ground now, everyone will know who you are by next November.

You could always pull an Obama, by getting everything into place now, and waiting to announce until the end of the year. But that requires that you stay in the news up until then, and that you have a full-fledged ground operation well before then. And there's no reason not to, you've got a good message:

“But I think they’ve gotten on the wrong course in Washington and Lamar has been a part of that. George Bush and Dick Cheney didn’t do that on their own. Lamar has stood with them, again and again,” he said.

Lockstep Lamar. Keep saying it.

Finally, one more thing that gives me pause:

“I want to spend a lot of time in East Tennessee, getting a real handle on the level of support there. That would be determinative,” he said in an interview, adding that he already is comfortable with support in Middle and West Tennessee.

"Comfortable" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Of course we need a concerted effort in East Tennessee, Democrats win even when we just force the Republicans to fight for it. But that should not come at the expense of the base in West and Middle Tennessee. You have to make sure you've got the base securely locked down before you try to go after East Tennessee. That was one of Ford's fatal mistakes...he picked up some votes in East Tennessee, but rural West Tennessee stayed home. There is no reason to make that mistake again.

But it's up to you. I'm not the professional here.

Dear Metro: SIEVE SIEVE SIEVE IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!

Let me start by saying this--my family has had season tickets to the Nashville Predators from Day 1. My father is a diehard Philadelphia Flyers fan, and was thrilled when we got a hockey team in Nashville. I've gone to the games since 1997, and have grown to love hockey. I go to a school where hockey is our only good sport, where we actually camp out to get season tickets (and yes, we're so obviously out-of-town Yankee elitists who aren't entitled to an opinion, I KNOW).

Obviously, I have personal reasons for not wanting the Predators to leave.

But there are important practical reasons too. The Nashville Predators have one of the highest percentages of individual ticket sales in the NHL, and are an important source of revenue to downtown businesses. The problem with the Predators has never been an issue of Nashville not being a "hockey town", there's always been a niche for it. The Predators' problem has always been the lack of corporate support in this market, something that the local group currently bidding for ownership has tried to rectify.

But now it's looking like a deal may not happen, because the city and the team can't come to an agreement over arena revenues.

I'm fairly optimistic that they'll get some sort of deal worked out soon, I trust Mayor Dean to come up with an equitable solution. But of course, you have the predictable voices of "Oh, we're not a hockey town, hockey is for Yankees, let them go so that the city won't have to pay for it, who cares about the downtown businesses?"

Everyone forgets (or chooses to ignore) that the issue of the arena is separate from the issue of the Predators. The city built the arena even before the Predators came to town. So regardless of whether or not the team moves, the city is still responsible for paying off that debt. So the choice is, as Councilwoman Emily Evans noted:

"We can pay more money and have the building be lit and live, or we can pay more money and have the building be dark," Evans said. "So if we're not going to accept this plan, I guess I'd like to know what the plan is for the next step."

The deal that the investor group is proposing changes nothing. Either the city helps pay the arena lease, or they're stuck paying off the debt with no source of revenue for it. And if they take the deal, it will actually give the city incentives to bring in new revenue streams to the arena. I'd rather know that my tax dollars are going towards something productive than to a dark arena.

And it's not a question of "Oh, we'll just get something else to fill the arena." If only it were that simple. If you haven't noticed, the concerts aren't coming here anymore. They come for CMA Fest and for Bonnaroo, but since Starwood closed, we're not getting nearly as many big-ticket concerts anymore, and the ones we are getting (Hannah Montana anyone?) won't give us nearly enough revenue to make up for it, either to the city or to the businesses downtown. A minor league team wouldn't cost as much to the city, but this town has proven time and time again that it doesn't care about minor league sports. We're close to losing the one team that HAS survived, the Nashville Sounds. There's a very good reason for this--in a town like Nashville, why would you spend money to see amateur sports when you can go to more high profile college games for the same price? A pro sports team fills a niche that none of these can.

Furthermore, the squabbling over this issue is contributing to a horrible cycle. One easy way for the Predators to solve this problem would be to win the Stanley Cup, soon. Carolina and Tampa Bay are also not really "hockey markets", and had similar problems to the Predators, but they got a huge boost in revenue after they won the Cup. But the Predators lost several key free agents over the offseason, in part due to the team's uncertain future of Nashville. So if the team's future in Nashville remains uncertain, we'll continue to lose free agents and we'll have trouble attracting more. So we won't win the Stanley Cup, we won't have the boost in revenues, and the team will have to have the city bail them out, and we're right back where we started. This would come to a stop if the team could be guaranteed a future here.

Finally, there is no better way to piss me off than to say something like this:

But Councilman Michael Craddock of Madison said he was "real disappointed" by the proposals, which included letting the Predators keep $4.2 million a year in sales taxes and seat use fees that now help pay off the city's arena debt.

"How can they ask us for $4 million a year in sales tax money that we're basically paying the mortgage with?" Craddock said. "We don't have enough police officers. How can we in good conscience do that?"

Craddock also said it was "sinful" for a group of millionaires to ask "little old taxpayers" for public assistance.

Patronizing git? Check. "Real good grammar"? Check. Showing your complete lack of understanding of the Metro budget (we have empty police positions that have ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED FOR, MORON!)? Check. Councilman Craddock, on behalf of hockey fans everywhere--SIEVE SIEVE SIEVE IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!

When All Else Fails...

Fouler:

Former state Sen. David Fowler, R-Signal Mountain, said Monday that gay marriage and the divorce rate will be key issues for his Republican colleagues in the 2008 elections.

"When the family becomes dysfunctional, the society ultimately will, as well," he told members of the Hamilton County Pachyderm Club at its weekly luncheon.

Translation--the Republicans have nothing else to run on. They don't want to talk about Iraq, health care, the economy, none of the substantive issues. Instead, they want to go back to the tried and true strategy of changing the subject to "God, gays, and guns" as a way to distract the voters and the media.

I will say this about Fouler--at least he's consistent. It's easy to be a Republican who complains that "teh gayz" are destroying the institution of marriage, even though they're on their third marriage. Pointing out that high divorce rates also contribute to the problem at least takes away some of the hypocrisy. But Senator, I don't know if you've noticed, but you're the only one talking about this. With the exception of the hates crimes legislation, you're not going to see much on the way of gay issues at the federal level anytime soon. It's something that's going to be settled at the local and state level. And the only divorce issue that most Americans want to debate right now is whether Britney or K-Fed should get the kids.

In 2006, the Democrats finally figured out that we can win if we force the debate to be about Iraq and the economy, and not let the Republicans change the subject to their social fetish issues. Senator Fouler, you're the only one talking about this now and you'll be the only one talking about this in 2008

But not all is lost, Senator:

Though Mr. Fowler did not endorse a particular presidential candidate, he said he would have trouble supporting former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

He said former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson is a good candidate who opposes abortion, but he did express some hesitation about Mr. Thompson's stance on civil unions.

Don't worry about the fact that none of the Republican candidates are pure enough for you. You can always vote for Roy Moore.

(H/t Kleinheider)

Meanwhile, Back On The Death Farm

(H/t R o o k)

While the Republicans are falling all over themselves and circling the wagons to claim that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to criticize the military but MoveOn.org isn't, while we're all fighting over this, something far more sinister (and something far more relevant to the troops) is going on:

Thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq — as many as 10 a day — are being discharged by the military for mental health reasons. But the Pentagon isn't blaming the war. It says the soldiers had "pre-existing" conditions that disqualify them for treatment by the government.

Many soldiers and Marines being discharged on this basis actually suffer from combat-related problems, experts say. But by classifying them as having a condition unrelated to the war, the Defense Department is able to quickly get rid of troops having trouble doing their work while also saving the expense of caring for them.

The result appears to be that many actually suffering from combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries don't get the help they need.

In other words, "We thank you for your service! See, we're wearing this yellow ribbon to show how much we support you! Oh, you want health care for PTSD? No, we're going to claim that you had that before you went to Iraq, so you'll have to pay for that yourself. But don't worry, we still support the troops!"

I don't know if this is a question of not being able to afford it (while we CAN afford to throw money at Halliburton and Blackwater), or whether this Administration is just so cozy with the predatory insurance companies that they're starting to follow their business practices, but I would hope we can all agree that this is bullsh*t.

Barack Obama is leading the charge on the Democratic side to make sure that legislation blocking this gets into the defense appropriations bill. It's good to see that at least one Republican is behind this as well:

Working behind the scenes, Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., have written and inserted into the defense authorization bill a provision that would make it harder for the Pentagon to discharge thousands of troops. The Post-Dispatch has learned that the measure has been accepted into the Senate defense bill and will probably become part of the Senate-House bill to be voted on this week.

The legislation sets a higher bar for the Pentagon to use the personality-disorder discharge, and also mandates a review of the policies by the Government Accountability Office. Bond said it also would "force the Pentagon to stop using this discharge until we can fix the problem."

Bond said he learned of the practice from returning Iraq veterans. He called it an "abuse" of the system and "inexcusable."

I do hope that the rest of the Republicans will get on board with Senator Bond and fix this. I don't know though, I'm just waiting for one of them to say that caring for our troops constitutes "socialized medicine."

Why I Love Olbermann

He provides us with crucial advice, like how to defend ourselves when Fixed News reporters attack!

Barack-ing the Vote at Cornell

Today at Cornell, we had a rally for Barack Obama. It was the perfect day for a rally, sunny and a balmy 75 degrees (in ITHACA! IN OCTOBER!! If this isn't proof of global warming, I don't know what is!). I haven't been very active in the Cornell for Barack Obama group, but it's been by far the most active and visible of the student campaign organizations on campus (except for perhaps the Ron Paulies and their weird chalkings on the Engineering Quad).

Anyway, I went today because it took place in between my classes, and because one of the key people in this group is my "little-little" in my sorority (hold on a second. Yes, I go to Cornell. Yes, I'm in a sorority. No, that does not give you the right to call me a "spoiled elitist", if you know nothing else about me).

Lineage fun!! (I'm in pink)



No, Obama didn't actually make an appearance, but he was there in spirit:



Pretty good turnout for a Monday (there were actually more people there than this. It just didn't occur to me that I should take pictures of it until towards the end):



The President of Cornell for Barack Obama, getting the crowd fired up:



A lot of people didn't stay for the whole rally but still signed up:



Tim Krueger, New York State Coordinator for Students for Barack Obama:


The Chabad Sukkah next to the rally (which actually has nothing to do with Obama, I just thought it was a funny juxtaposition:



So what's the signifcance of a group of kids in upstate New York getting together to support a candidate like this? If anything, I just hope that events like this will help to dispel the whole "college students don't care, students don't vote" myth. What's been unique so far about this election season is the significant youth involvement in so many of the campaigns.

And there's a very good reason for it. I became "politically aware" during the Clinton Administration, and witnessed the impeachment hearings and the debacle that was the 2000 elections, and the first time I was old enough to vote, it was for the less-than-inspiring John Kerry. I've voted in every election I've been eligible--the 2004 Presidential election, the 2006 Congressional elections, and this year's local elections in Nashville--but I can certainly understand why people my age are cynical about politics. But the kids who are turning 18 this year would have become politically aware at a completely different time. Their first "defining moment" would have been 9/11, and from there they witnessed the war in Iraq evolve from a battle to "find the WMD and catch the evildoers" to a bloody quagmire that's sucking our country dry.

You'll see a higher youth component to this election because there is simply too much at stake for us here. There's a desire for change, for inspiration...for someone like Barack Obama. The fact that we could hold an Obama rally this early in the election season and have as many people turn out as they did only underscores that notion.