Conquered And Prevailed

In October, I drove 4 1/2 hours home from St. Louis for Vanderbilt's homecoming game against Duke, hoping to be physically present to witness Vandy getting win #6 for the first time since 1982. However, the team that started the season 5-0 did not show up for that game, and win #6 wouldn't come for a few more weeks. We all wondered if the amazing start had only been a fluke and if "same ol' Vandy" had reappeared.

So what a thrill it was for me to be at LP Field to witness Vanderbilt winning the Music City Bowl, making its first bowl appearance since 1982 and getting its first bowl win since 1955. This also marks the first time Vanderbilt has ever beaten three ranked opponents in one season, including #24 Boston College today.

And here's the thing--Vandy almost lost. Not because of bad play; they had zero turnovers and zero penalties. And the defense pressured BC's freshman QB all over the field, leading up to the final interception by Myron Lewis with 1:36 remaining. But Bobby Johnson's offensive strategy made no sense whatsoever. Every drive started with freshman QB Larry Smith, who demonstrated why it won't be 26 more years before Vandy makes another bowl game--he's got a rocket arm and he can run too. But Johnson kept pulling him for Chris Nickson, who had two good runs but other than that accomplished nothing. Mackenzi Adams even made one appearance, although his sole achievement was to draw a roughing-the-passer penalty. As a result, Vandy couldn't get into much of a rhythm on offense. Their sole touchdown came off of a fumbled BC punt return.

Regardless, a win is a win, no matter how ugly or nail-biting it was. I can only see good things in the future with Larry Smith driving the offense, as long as Bobby Johnson shows a little confidence in him. And the best of luck to D.J. Moore and Reshard Langford next year in the NFL (I'm thinking the Titans should pick up Moore as a potential WR option).

GO DORES! Conquered and Prevailed!

Meeting The Candidates

Earlier tonight, several progressive Tennessee bloggers had an opportunity to meet the candidates for Tennessee Democratic Party chair and to ask them questions. Charles Robert Bone was there in person, while Chip Forrester called in through speakerphone. A good time was had by all, and I think everyone agrees in what general direction the party needs to go.

It was quite interesting for me. I hadn't made up my mind yet, but I was definitely leaning towards Chip Forrester based on his previous statements. However, I came out of the meeting thoroughly impressed by Charles Robert Bone. My reaction was similar to the one my mother had upon hearing them at the Kitchen Cabinet meeting a few weeks ago--Mr. Forrester certainly seems very energetic and enthusiastic, and shares my concern that the party has focused too much on top-down organization up to this point. However, without going into too much specifics, Mr. Bone has an amazing grasp of the "nuts and bolts" surrounding party organization and fundraising. He seems to be someone who could go in on Day 1 and start cleaning house immediately. He definitely did not come across as the "establishment candidate" as I had feared.

I'm still "on the fence," I suppose. But after tonight, I feel a quite a bit better about the future of the TNDP. When you've hit rock-bottom, the only place to go is up. We have two candidates for chair who at least understand which direction is "up".

What Else Can I Pray Away Today?

This post from Kleinheider the other day had me thinking...if you can "pray away the gay," then what else could you potentially pray away? Here's what I'm going to attempt to pray away in the new year:

• About 15 pounds.
  

• My parents off my little brother's back about everything.

• The traffic on Forest Park Parkway now that the second half of I-64 in St. Louis has shut down. It's forced me to wake up a whole five minutes earlier so I don't get stuck in traffic!

• For that matter, the entire drive between Nashville and St. Louis. No one will miss western Kentucky or southern Illinois.

• The coal ash sludge in East Tennessee.
  

• Rick Warren at Obama's inauguration.
  

• The Religious Right in general.
  

• Supposed "friends" who comment on my blog for the sole purpose of stirring up shit.

• "Republican-lite" Democrats.

• Vitamin Water. I just don't get the appeal.

• Case briefs.

• UT fans who never seem to mind 6-6 teams going to bowl games unless that 6-6 team happens to be Vanderbilt.

• Pittsburgh Steelers fans who really just need a good towel-whipping.

• Eric Crafton. Actually, I'm going to pray him away in Spanish.

• Rude salespeople at Macy's.

• The Israel-Palestine conflict. Hell, it shouldn't be so much harder to pray away than the gay.

What are you praying away for 2009?

Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

What do you do, what do you say, when you turn on the news to discover that the country that is supposed to be your religious homeland killed 300 people, mostly civilians, in one day?

You want to give them the benefit of the doubt--Hamas was firing rockets at Israel from Gaza, Israel has the right to defend itself, the terrorists use civilians as shields, the Israelis wouldn't have done this without good reason. But then you hear that they had been planning this action for six months BEFORE the latest round of rocket attacks, even while attempting to negotiate a cease-fire, and it begins to look an awful lot like the build-up to the Iraq War over here, when we were told that all diplomatic options were being pursued even as the invasion plans were well under way.

And you wonder what the point is, exactly. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the Palestinians, but don't tell me that one of the most advanced armies in the world, with one of the best intelligence services outside of the U.S., can't come up with a way to target the terrorists without carpet-bombing an entire population. Wasn't that the problem in Lebanon, that Israel went in and started firing indiscriminately, without any real purpose in doing so? Hezbollah emerged stronger from that war, and there's nothing to indicate that Hamas won't emerge stronger from this one. This action isn't going to free Gilad Shalit. It's not going to stop the rockets. All it's going to do is create a new round of anger and bloodshed, create a whole new group of recruits for Hamas. Again, what was the point?

I'm not excusing the Palestinians here. Hamas are murderers and terrorists, no doubt about that. And the world can't expect Israel to not respond when their citizens are being attacked on a daily basis. But the response was so out of proportion to anything that has happened in the towns around Gaza that it's impossible to justify.

I'll admit that when I heard the story, my first concern was for my younger brother, who's going to Israel on his Birthright trip next week. I know they don't take the kids anywhere near Gaza during Birthright, but I'll still be worried while he's over there.

It makes me think back to my own Birthright trip three years ago, about six months before the fighting in Lebanon broke out. The guides take great care to show you all of the sites of Judaism's greatest triumphs--Jerusalem, Masada, the fortifications in the Golan Heights that were captured in 1967--but when you try to ask about the Palestinians and the illegal settlements in the West Bank, the guides go oddly silent, and basically encourage you to go flirt with the IDF soldiers instead.

But you have to ask them at some point--is it worth it? Is it worth killing hundreds of people and incurring the wrath of a whole new generation just to show your military superiority? Is it worth hanging onto a handful of settlements in the West Bank just because a small group of people believes that a book tells them a nomadic tribe lived there thousands of years ago, and therefore we MUST control it or else God will rain down fire and brimstone upon us? Remember, we think Hamas is crazy for believing that THEIR book says that they can kill infidels. Is the dream of a "Greater Israel" really worth all the bloodshed?

Which brings me to a Jewish identity crisis I've felt for years. To me, Israel is a country that I love and care deeply about, to which I feel a strong connection. But even as a Jew and a Zionist, I don't know that I consider it to be my homeland. I'm an American, I'm not an Israeli, and I can't see that changing anytime soon. I've heard the debate over whether we should refer to ourselves as "American Jews" or as "Jewish-Americans," but I've always referred to myself as the former. If I don't like how Christian Right extremists can influence policy in the U.S. to make it more in line with the Bible, how would I even survive in a country where the religious wackos, belonging to my own religion, not only control social policy but operate under their own set of rules, with no interference from the government? This liberal could never truly be at home in a place like that, where the way I practice my religion is considered inferior to that of the women who spend their lives wearing wigs and popping out 10-15 kids.

It sounds strange, almost traitorous, for me to voice the thought. I want to continue to support Israel, but I feel no kinship to those who would sacrifice thousands of lives on both sides in order to play out some biblical fantasy.

No Caroline (Bah Bah Bah!)

I'm back from the vacation (fun time, but I think my end of the family is a little too ADD to keep doing this type of trip now that Ben and I have more or less grown up) and officially off of hiatus. I'm playing catch-up on the news, and I'm starting with Caroline Kennedy.

In short--no.

I don't doubt that she's a good Democrat. I'm sure that she'll vote the right way in the Senate, maybe even more so than her predecessor, Hillary Clinton, did. And I suppose that should be the most important consideration. Furthermore, whomever gets the appointment would have to be re-elected in 2010, so that person still has to make a pitch to the voters, starting now. Just appealing to David Paterson won't cut it.

But wasn't the whole point of this election cycle that it should be your accomplishments, not your family name or your connections, that determine your merit? One of the main criticisms of George W. Bush was that he appointed his friends to critical posts rather than people who were actually qualified for those jobs (see: Katrina, Response to). I have no doubt that Caroline Kennedy is a smart woman. But shouldn't she have to have done something--anything--besides being born with the last name "Kennedy" to be appointed to such a high public office? I realize that this has nothing to do directly with Barack Obama, but somehow this just doesn't gel with the new era he's ushering in.

So far, these are the only qualifications we can come up with:

She provided only the broadest of rationales for her candidacy for the Senate, saying her experience as a mother, author and school fund-raiser, her commitment to public service and her deep political connections had prepared her for the job.

In that case, why isn't Fran Drescher qualified to be the Senator from New York? She runs a large cancer foundation, so she has the public service angle covered. She's made millions of people laugh over the years, and I think she wrote a book at some point. She would make C-SPAN infinitely more entertaining. On paper, her credentials are exactly the same as Caroline Kennedy's!

That's not the only reason to be concerned about the choice of Caroline Kennedy. This freaks me out:

After weeks of criticism that she had not opened up to the public or the press, Ms. Kennedy has embarked on a series of interviews. But in an extensive sit-down discussion Saturday morning with The New York Times, she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way.

I'm having flashbacks to "In what respect, Charlie?" here (although in all fairness, I'm sure Caroline Kennedy could tell Katie Couric which newspapers and magazines she reads). But didn't we all criticize the selection of Sarah Palin not because she's a dumb-as-a-rock theocrat (although that was true too), but also because the campaign was determined to keep everyone in the dark about her? With so much unknown, all we could do was speculate, and what the American people concluded was that it would be dangerous to put such an unknown into the position of being one heartbeat away from the presidency. And while the office of a U.S. Senator may not be as high up as that of the Vice President, the people of New York are left with a huge question mark, of whether they will be represented in the Senate by someone who genuinely wants to represent them and not just by someone looking to further their own career (and really, after Hillary, don't New Yorkers deserve the former by this point?).

And needless to say, in this day and age, she can't be shielded from the press forever. As a Kennedy, she's obviously a hot news item. And trying to shield her as she's running for such a public position only makes it look as though she's trying to hide something. If there's one thing Democrats don't need right now, it's our own Sarah Palin.

If Caroline Kennedy wants to go into politics, I say good for her. Let her start with the New York City Council or the New York State Assembly, pass some meaningful legislation for New Yorkers, and work her way up. And in the meantime, appoint someone to the Senate seat who's actually done something for the state of New York.

Gloria In Excelsis Deo

Last night on the cruise, they held a caroling session in the main foyer. My mom really wanted to go, and I tagged along, martini in hand, because the blackjack tables were too crowded at that particular moment. It was actually a lot of fun, although my mom got annoyed because they were doing a lot of the religious carols, and not the "fun" ones like "Jingle Bells" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." I had to remind her that the whole religion thing is sort of the whole purpose behind this holiday, even if it's not our religion.

Anyway, I had never heard the song "Angels We Have Heard On High" before last night. And I have to say that the "Gloria in excelsis Deo" line, where they sustain the "Gloooo-Oooooo-Oooo-Ooooo-ria" forever, comes out sounding really pretty. It was fun to sing, even if I had to go on the Google later on to find out what it meant.

Here's some more Feel-Good Christmas music for you. One of my favorite scenes from any movie, holiday-themed or otherwise:



And another classic, apropos because it's still technically Hanukkah for three more days:

The Tyranny Of The Majority

Is it really so much fun to rub salt in someone's wound, especially right around the holidays?

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

I don't see how this even holds up. The proposition never explicitly states that it is retroactive, and the Attorney General of California has already ruled that it isn't. The courts in general, and certainly the California ones, tend to be very reluctant to holding that a statute is meant to be applied retroactively, unless it explicitly says so in the wording of the statute. If the authors of Proposition 8 wanted it to be retroactive, they should have put a provision in the text of the bill so that the voters knew exactly what they were voting on. To now say that it was their intent is quite fraudulent.

As far as the morality of this action is concerned, there is none. It doesn't matter if you believe that marriage is meant to be between a man or a woman, and it certainly doesn't matter what the Proposition said. The 18,000 couples were legally married under the law of California at the time. You may have disagreed with the law, but that was the law of California from the time the court ruled on it until the vote on Proposition 8. So for the courts to rule that a legal marriage is invalid under a retroactive statute amounts to a forced divorce.

So much for that "sanctity of marriage" we keep hearing about.

I think back to Sean's hypothetical of Rick Warren calling for a ban on Jews intermarrying. If you legally married someone of a different religion, you wouldn't like it if the courts ruled that your marriage was invalid based on a statute passed AFTER your marriage, now would you?

By the way, here's a real doozy from the Prop 8 supporters:

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges -- as servants of the people -- to bow to the will of those whom they serve -- even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

At the risk of sounding elitist, whoever wrote this is either full of crap or just plain stupid. The role of the judiciary is NOT to bend to whatever the majority wants. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. The whole point of having an independent judiciary, and of having a republican form of government as opposed to direct democracy, is to prevent against the tyranny of the majority by balancing the will of the majority against the rights of the minority. This isn't some new concept, it's what the Founding Fathers warned against. If the judiciary were bound to defer to the "will of the people" at every turn, then we'd still have segregation today. Hell, we'd probably still have slavery.

Finally, I do love how in that statement, the supporters of Prop 8 basically admit that their entire worldview is unenlightened, although I suppose that in their minds, enlightened thinking is elitist. But what you Real Americans (TM) call elitist, the rest of us call "the law."

UPDATE: I didn't notice this when I first read the article, but look at who's representing the supporters of Prop 8:

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Proof, of course, that not all greedy, capricious lawyers are Democrats.

Feel Good Friday--I Survived First Semester Edition

It's true, after finishing my Property exam at 4:30 this afternoon, I was officially over my first semester of law school! I came out (relatively) unscathed. We'll see how truly unscathed I really was once I get my grades back in January.

I'm not coming out of my mini-hiatus just yet because I'll be out of town all next week. But in the meantime, this is certainly a Feel-Good Friday, and so I have a double-header for today.

First, this was an April Fool's joke from earlier this year, but I only saw it a few days ago. Please tell me I'm not the only one who's a little disappointed that it's not real (and please note, I never doubted for one minute that Hyrule and the Hylians were Irish):



Second, here's some holiday cheer for those of you braving the crowds. Love the random guy trying to sing a Hanukkah song:

R.I.P. Deep Throat

W. Mark Felt, who was the No. 2 official at the F.B.I. when he helped bring down President Richard M. Nixon by resisting the Watergate cover-up and becoming Deep Throat, the most famous anonymous source in American history, died Thursday. He was 95 and lived in Santa Rosa, Calif.

In 2005, Mr. Felt revealed that he was the one who had secretly supplied Bob Woodward of The Washington Post with crucial leads in the Watergate affair in the early 1970s. His decision to unmask himself, in an article in Vanity Fair, ended a guessing game that had gone on for more than 30 years.

Whatever his motivations were, and whatever missteps he made along the way, he blew the whistle on some of the most odious corruption and abuse of power in this nation's history, at a great risk to himself. He was an American hero, and he will be missed.

The OTHER Preacher At The Inauguration

I'm not thrilled about Obama's choice of megachurch pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Not just because of his political beliefs, although I certainly disagree. My main problem is that he's more of a businessman attempting to sell a product than a pastor. He's turning Christianity into Christianity (TM, All Rights Reserved).

Furthermore, while I understand Obama's need to reach out to conservatives, will Democrats ever figure out that there are just some people they can never please? The selection of Rick Warren isn't going to cause those religious conservatives who think Obama is a baby-killing Marxist Muslim to suddenly say to themselves, "Huh, maybe he does understand me." No, those people will continue to think that in spite of this. They'll see his selection of Rick Warren as a cheap attempt at pandering, just like Harold Ford dressing up in camouflage and going to the bar with the Confederate flag. And that's exactly what it is. Maybe Rick Warren truly can reach out to those uncomfortable with Obama and help change some minds, but I'm not holding my breath.

But in the meantime, for what it's worth, bear in mind that Warren will not be the only pastor offering a blessing at Obama's inauguration. Warren is giving the opening invocation, but the closing benediction honors are going to a pastor by the name of Joseph Lowery. He's a civil-rights icon, who recently blasted Bush over the war in Iraq at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

And of course, there's this:

The Reverend stated that we “are too easily divided and victimized by ‘weapons of mass distraction.’” Here he told the story of an African-American, Washington, DC-based pastor (who he kept nameless within his speech but who we all know to be the Reverend Willie Wilson of the 8,000-member Union Temple Baptist Church) who led his congregation down a path of division and mis-guidance, preaching and pushing for an amendment against same-sex marriage. The Reverend asked, Why care about something like same-sex marriage when millions of your own children are dying in starvation and poverty within the slums? The Reverend went on to speak on respect for all people and how that played in to Civil and Human Rights as a whole. He said that if you are one who says, “I believe in human rights for all people, except for…” then you really don’t believe in human rights or equality. To believe in equality and human rights is to believe in it for all people. If you don’t, then you are, according to the Reverend, creating an oxymoron and certainly not standing up for equality. He said no matter what race, color, religion, creed, sex, gender OR sexual orientation… we are all deserving of human rights, civil rights and equality. The Reverend said he “sometimes wonders about people who are so homophobic.” Quoting Hamlet, he said, “Me thinks you doth protest too much.” The audience responded with laughter and applause. He continued, “If a person is a secure in their sexuality, they have no time to waste on sneaking around to see what you are doing.”

Sounds good to me. Par for the course, I suppose.

I'm Screwed

The Atlantic via ACK:

In retrospect, I guess I felt sorry for the Jewish women who intermarried, because I sensed that they tried, and failed, to convince Jewish men that they weren't, in fact, their mothers, that they were intelligent and sexy and all the rest. Jewish men who go outside, I think - and this is not everyone, obviously - are looking beyond the tribe not because they really think they're going to end up marrying their mothers if they find a Jewish woman, but because they're scared of Jewish women, especially the intense sort my friends and I all seemed to marry.

I'm screwed. I'm never going to find a Jewish husband. I might as well get a cat now and get a head start on spinsterdom.

Either that, or hope that I find an amazing Goy Boy Toy who would convert for me, and who wouldn't mind going through a, shall we say, very "cutting" conversion process.

Don't Sell Yourself Short!

A quote from Phil Bredesen that Sean Braisted linked to earlier today, one that I still don't quite understand given the source:

“It seems to me that the kids who always have their head up, looking around for the next opportunity, usually don’t do as well as the ones who put their head down and become really good at doing the job at hand. Being on those various short lists for vice president was sort of the ultimate proof of that, because I’ve been doing all these things that are supposed to make me unpopular.”

With all due respect, Governor, you don't get to build a huge health-care company, and then become mayor of an (arguably) major city, and then go on to be the Governor of the state in which that city is located, by "keeping your head down" and waiting for opportunities to come to you. The people who end up with such success in life are precisely the ones who always have an eye out for a new opportunity and who take it when they have the chance. Those people don't lose sight of the task at hand, but nor are they content to remain in one place for their entire lives.

Phil Bredesen saw an opportunity in an unfilled niche in the healthcare market, took it, and made his fortune. He then saw an opportunity to present a new style of governance politics to the people of Nashville and then to Tennessee, and won (most) of his subsequent elections (and for all the possible criticisms of his governance, they were at least a break with the "good ol' boy" politics of the past).

He got where he is in life precisely because he didn't keep his head down. So I'm having a really difficult time understanding what he means by that comment. Anyone have any ideas?

But again, with all due respect Governor, you weren't on anyone's serious short-list to be Vice President.

The Offer Still Stands

In light of new Republican attempts to require photo ID to vote in Tennessee, and in light of today's Contracts exam which focused quite a bit on the concepts of "offer and acceptance," I'm renewing an offer I made a while back.

If you, random conservative person who stumbled over here by accident, can offer me one specific example of a non-citizen who cast a vote in Tennessee due to the inability of election officials to confirm their identity, I will give you a cookie. Note that it has to be a specific example that has been confirmed, and not just some gossip you read in a Phil Valentine column. If you can do that, when I'm home over break, I will bake you a batch of cookies, from scratch, any kind you like, and personally deliver them.

(Note that the personal delivery aspect of this offer only applies to the Greater Nashville area. If you live elsewhere in the state, I'll overnight ship them to you. I'm only home for a week, I can't be driving all over the place.)

I'm reading this thread over at Kleinheider's, and there have been some eloquent-sounding (and some just outright stupid) arguments for requiring ID. But no one has given me any examples of it actually happening.

That's because it hasn't happened, to our knowledge.

To register to vote in the first place, you have to provide your Social Security number. You don't have a Social Security number unless you're a citizen. Now, you may be saying, "Oh but GoldnI, all them illegals could just fake a Social Security number to register, like all them ACORN people!" To which I respond that if I were in this country illegally, then somehow I don't think I'd want to put myself in the situation of being caught by doing that. I'd rather just lay low.

If you're that concerned about preventing fraud at the polls, there are other ways to go about doing it. The provisions the current bill sets out are incredibly narrow, only allowing photo ID to vote. Here in Missouri, your ID only has to show your address, which means you can use a bank statement or a utility bill as your ID. When I worked as a poll-watcher this past election day, quite a few people used those, since they didn't have a driver's license (yes Republicans, there are quite a few people who don't own big honking SUVs and actually have to take the--ugh--BUS to get to work). But under the proposed Tennessee bill, you'd pretty much be limited to a driver's license, unless you're in the military or otherwise employed by the government.

Note that the bill doesn't contain a provision for student IDs, which are almost always photo IDs. Now, if you go to a Tennessee state school, then I suppose you could say that your student ID is "state issued." But tough luck if you go to Vanderbilt, Belmont, or to any of the other smaller religious schools, especially if you're from out of state and wouldn't have any reason to have any other form of Tennessee ID (yes folks, out-of-state students have the right to vote in their college town as long as they're not voting both there and in their hometowns). But the Republicans do realize that there are probably more conservatives than liberals, at, say, Carson-Newman, right?

Point is, the measures in place to prevent fraud are already working quite well. The ACORN registration fraud from this election cycle was caught pretty quickly, if I recall correctly. Here in Tennessee, we haven't even had a decent allegation of dead people in Memphis voting anytime recently. If the Republicans were serious about preventing fraud, there are better ways of doing it--requiring verification of address, or mandating independent auditing of our voting machines. But the way in which they're going about doing it is to make sure that the people they don't want to vote don't get to vote, and nothing else.

Prove me wrong, and get a cookie. I'm waiting.

UPDATE: Our friends at KnoxViews have an exclusive first look at what Tennessee's new voter ID cards will look like.

"Somebody Made A Mistake"

That's the understatement of the millennium. I may be beating a dead horse here, but this was too good not to pass along.

It seems that the remnants of the McCain campaign decided to sell off their equipment to pay off debts. The local DC Fox affiliate went to go see what was for sale:

The hottest item? Blackberry phones at $20 a piece. There were only 10 left. All of the batteries had died. There were no chargers for sale. But people were snatching them up. So, we bought a couple.

And ended up with a lot more than we bargained for.

Go on...

When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night.

We traced the Blackberry back to a staffer who worked for “Citizens for McCain,” a group of democrats who threw their support behind the Republican nominee. The emails contain an insider’s look at how grassroots operations work, full of scheduling questions and rallying cries for support.

Whoops!

We called some of the numbers.

“Somebody made a mistake,” one owner told us. “People’s numbers and addresses were supposed to be erased.”

“They should have wiped that stuff out,” another said. But he added, “Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise.”

Good job America. I think we may have dodged a bullet.

One Down, Two To Go

Took my Torts exam today; it wasn't so bad. In fact, the professor posted his exam from 2005 online, and that one was a lot harder than ours. I still have Contracts on Monday and Property next Thursday.

While I was taking the exam, however, I got a shout-out from New York Governor Dave Paterson (or whoever does his online operations), in a diary on Daily Kos, after a comment I had made the last time he came by for a visit. I was still in New York when Spitzer-Gate broke, so I have quite a lot of respect for Paterson righting the ship and moving everyone past that.

News To Make Bill Hobbs' Head Explode

President-elect Obama plans to use all three of his names when he is sworn in on January 20.

Yes Hobbs, that means that you will hear the words, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." Oh no, guess it's time for an angry press release accompanied by an even angrier YouTube video!

Of Feminists And Drunk Frat Boys

We interrupt your regularly scheduled hiatus so that I can weigh in on something I probably shouldn't get involved in, but am anyway.

I've read the back and forth all day between bloggers I like and respect, Sharon Cobb and Sean Braisted and my dear Aunt B., on the subject of Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and the newly surfaced pictures of him cupping the breast of a Hillary Clinton cutout. Wait, I mean, I haven't been reading blogs, I've been studying Torts! All day! Girl Scout's Honor!

I find myself extremely torn over this. On the one hand, it certainly is sexist and disrespectful, but on the other hand, I can't get too worked up over it. Maybe I'm just desensitized now, but it's hard for me to see it as any different from all of the ridiculous things I've seen drunk frat boys do over the last four years.

I will say this--what amazes me about the whole incident is how in this day and age, some people high up in politics still haven't figured out that NOTHING you post on Facebook is private. Even if you set your account settings to "private," any random person you may have friended over the years can still see it, and more importantly, can show it to others. You won't find any pictures of me on Facebook in which I'm doing anything worse than holding a beer can or prancing around in a Sexy Little Red Riding Hood Halloween costume. So it's hard for me to understand how someone within the campaign that revolutionized new media tactics would have been so stupid as to allow a picture like that to end up on Facebook. If I were Obama, I wouldn't fire the guy for being sexist, I'd fire him for BEING A MORON.

I get what Braisted's saying, it's only a cardboard cutout. It's extremely unfair to insinuate that this guy endorses date rape because of it. And the guys were probably plastered, no doubt about that. But the problem with the photo is that it basically reduces a smart, powerful woman into a sex object, even if only in effigy. No, I'm sure that's "not what they were thinking" at the time, but if not at least subconciously, then why choose to publicize it?

I have no idea. But you want to know what does piss me off as a feminist? Bush is giving a farewell gift to women by ordering a new HHS rule that would allow any healthcare worker to define abortion to mean whatever they want, and refuse to provide treatment as a result. What that means is, if you want to go on the Pill so that you DON'T have to have an abortion, any person even remotely involved in the prescription process can overrule your decision. But don't worry, Viagra for men is safe, since that in no way encourages risky behavior. Obama has said he will overturn the order if it goes through, but that process could take months. Women's lives are at stake in the meantime.

That's why I can't get worked up over one isolated, boneheaded incident. I wish Obama would fire him for his stupidity, but I have far greater concerns right now. Liberals can't get too bogged down in fights over symbolism when the threats to women's lives are very real and very UN-symbolic.

Vanderbilt In The Music City Bowl

It's official, for Vanderbilt's first bowl game in 26 years, we're simply going up West End Avenue/Broadway a few blocks and then crossing the river to LP Field for the Music City Bowl, to play Boston College on New Year's Eve. I had thought we'd be playing UNC, but Virginia Tech's surprising win yesterday threw the ACC standings out of whack.

I know some fans will be upset that we're not traveling anywhere for this game. But I couldn't be happier about it (not for entirely unselfish reasons, I wouldn't have been able to go to Memphis if Vandy were in the Liberty Bowl). The way I see it, we get a de facto home game. The students and the alumni WILL show up for such an historic occasion, as will plenty of locals. We can look forward to plenty of Yankees showing up to fill the hotel rooms downtown; Boston College fans are hardcore (Boston sports fans in general are nuts, ever seen a Red Sox game?).

I don't care where it is, who we're playing, or how bad we looked at the end of the season, it's a bowl game and I'll take it. Go Dores!

Final SEC Bowl Projections

I'm still on hiatus, but I feel the need to do one more of these before the bids go out tomorrow.

(UPDATE: Oh, give me a break Mizzou, couldn't you have at least TRIED to beat Oklahoma? We were all counting on you to destroy the BCS!)

Florida: BCS Championship, vs. Oklahoma

Commentary: Great match-up here with two Heisman-worthy quarterbacks. Florida easily punched their ticket to the national championship today, and there's no reason to think they won't easily beat their opponent in that game.

The opponent, of course, is the source of a lot of controversy. I don't feel that Texas necessarily deserves to be in the BCS Championship more than Oklahoma, but it was a genuine tie. I understand that Texas beat Oklahoma, but Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, who beat Texas as a lower-ranked team. However, I certainly sympathize with Texas fans who are pissed that it went to the BCS computer rankings to break the tie.

Texas could still technically sneak into the championship game. If Mizzou beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship tonight, then Texas gets in based on BCS rankings. Mizzou will likely lose, and lose by quite a bit, but it's still a possibility. Should that happen, look for Penn State and USC fans to scream bloody murder--because, after all, shouldn't you have had to win your conference to play for the championship?

Bottom line--the BCS sucks.

Alabama: Sugar Bowl, vs. Utah

Commentary: Alabama has nothing to be upset about, even though they lost the SEC Championship and their undefeated record. No one expected Nick Saban to have this good of a season, and they'll be the dominant force in the SEC long after Tim Tebow has signed his NFL contract with lots of zeroes. But, I have to pull for Utah with this game in order to preserve my long record of always rooting for the non-BCS team to pull off the upset.

However, if Oklahoma loses, as in the scenario above, why should Alabama necessarily be eliminated from a rematch with Florida?

Georgia: Capital One Bowl, vs. Ohio State

Commentary: It could very well be Michigan State instead of Ohio State, but I don't think the Buckeyes should be in a BCS game with two losses. Although Georgia has slumped as of late, they're the undisputed #3 in the SEC.

Ole Miss: Cotton Bowl, vs. Texas Tech

Commentary: Another great matchup. Ole Miss is the hottest team in the SEC right now, and certainly showed why LSU is overrated.

South Carolina: Outback Bowl, vs. Iowa

Commentary: LSU could conceivably be going to Tampa instead of Atlanta. Given South Carolina's loss to Clemson last week, they certainly would have moved down if LSU had beaten Arkansas. But since everyone lost, the rankings stay the same, with the Cocks just slightly ahead. Also, Steve Spurrier will still be a draw in Florida.

LSU: Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl, vs. Boston College

Commentary: These bowl officials must be PISSED that it's not Virginia Tech in this game. But the Hokies are going to the Orange Bowl after winning the ACC. This must be kind of a letdown for LSU, a lock to go to Dallas for the Cotton Bowl only a few weeks ago.

Kentucky: Liberty Bowl, vs. East Carolina

Commentary: Although the Music City Bowl would probably rather not be left with Vanderbilt, it's looking as though Kentucky in the Liberty Bowl is a done deal. The bowl wants them and the team wants to go to Memphis (although their fans seem to like coming to Nashville). Since the Tennessee Titans will likely have a first-round bye in the playoffs, perhaps Chris Johnson will go to see his alma mater play.

Vanderbilt: Music City Bowl, vs. North Carolina

Commentary: How great of a game will this be? Two schools that put an emphasis on academics and that no one expected to become bowl eligible this year? I don't care that it's a low-level bowl, I'm excited!

Taking A Hiatus

It was bound to come to this sooner or later.

Today was my last day of classes, and I've survived my first semester relatively unscathed. It's been tough for me though, I'll admit. I'm the one who coasted through high school while exerting a minimal effort, and only knew the library at Cornell as "that building on the Arts Quad where you get coffee on the way to your 12:20 class after having rolled out of bed at 12." Law school has been much harder for me. On the one hand, it has definitely forced me to stop procrastinating and and prepare for every class much more seriously. On the other hand, it's a tough adjustment for the person who used to be thought of as "the smart one" to be thoroughly humbled in the span of four months.

Blogging has been cathartic for me throughout this process, ensuring that I can spend a little bit of time thinking and writing about something other than abstract legal concepts and retaining my connection to the outside world.

But right now, I'm staring at three casebooks, three study aids, and a whole lot of outlining to do before my first exam next week, trying to figure out what to do now.

So I'm taking a hiatus from blogging until I'm finished with exams, two weeks from now. Knowing me, this could last as long as John McCain's campaign "suspension," but I'm determined to not get distracted.

Send me good vibes. I need all the help I can get.

To My Future Husband

If you do this to me, I swear to God I will say no.

And don't do it at a sporting event on the JumboTron either.

Voter Intimidation, Texas Style

Any other state and I guarantee this guy would have been fired:

A Denton city jailer will likely be suspended for two days without pay after telling a detainee on Election Day that he would be released if he voted for John McCain, Denton police authorities said.

The city’s police department recommended that Chris Saunier be suspended, but the city’s human resources department still needs to officially approve the penalty, said Capt Lenn Carter, a Denton police spokesman.

According to police, Aruto Ntel, 25, a senior at Texas Woman’s University, was pulled over for speeding about 10 a.m. on Nov. 4 as he was going to vote for the first time. Mr. Ntel was arrested on an outstanding warrant from McKinney for driving without insurance, said Capt. Carter.

Mr. Ntel said he was taken to the Denton City Jail, where Mr. Saunier dangled a key in front of his face and told him that he would be released if he voted for John McCain. The incident was captured on closed-circuit video.

Mr. Ntel posted bond and later voted for President-elect Barack Obama.

But of course, this can't be considered voter intimidation, voter fraud, or even an unethical act in the slightest. Because, as we all know, that sort of thing is only committed by Democrats and ACORN and dead people in Memphis.

What We Do Instead Of Studying For Exams

This game and complete time-waster has popped up on multiple friends' Facebook statuses in addition to at least one other blog I read. I wanted to try it here because I believe that the Tennessee blogosphere, liberal and conservative, can come up with more interesting responses than law students or lawyers can. In the original form of the game, you're supposed to post your sentence as your Facebook status, but in this case you can post it as a comment here. Here are the rules:

Grab the book closest to you. Now.

Go to page 86.

Find the 5th sentence.

Write that sentence in the comments.

Don't go looking for your favorite book, or the coolest one you have - just grab the closest one.

As much as I wish I could say my sentence was something along the lines of "He laid her body gently onto the bed, caressing her smooth skin and slowly looking her over with his smoldering blue eyes," my sentence is actually "Her husband, Edward, attempted to care for the land" from the Iowa case Katko v. Briney (183 N.W.2d 657) in my Torts casebook.

I want to get as many people as possible to respond to this, so re-post it on your own site if you so desire. Have fun!

Clint Brewer--Stand-Up Guy, But...

....wrong:

3. Harold Ford Jr. is still Tennessee’s most eligible Democratic candidate.

Ford was maligned by the national left wing of the Democratic Party during President-elect Barack Obama’s rise in the primary season. Ford was knocked on forums like Daily Kos for being too moderate and failing to catch up with the “new” politics of the party.

Since Obama has picked a slew of moderate to center-right former Clinton White House veterans to lead his administration, Ford looks downright prescient.

There is only one Democrat in Tennessee who can raise money at a national level for a statewide campaign, and that is Ford. If anything is clear after 2008, it is that the rest of the Democratic Party in the state is in a state of chaos. Tennessee Congressional Democrats will be reluctant to give up seats in the majority to come home and fight a GOP majority in the General Assembly.

Ford may not be keeping his profile up here locally by putting in time traversing the state, but his face is on television almost every week. There is no other Democrat who could give former Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist a contest in the 2010 governor’s race.

Amazing how we still find ourselves correcting people on this point two years after the fact. Ford was NOT maligned for being too moderate. Most liberals were happy to support "moderate" Democrats like Jon Tester and Jim Webb (who could really be described as a conservative) in 2006. You can be a moderate or a conservative and still articulate a clear Democratic message, of why you as a Democrat can better deal with the nation's problems than your Republican opponent, even if you personally disagree with some of the stances taken by the national party. Ford started out doing that, but spent the critical months of the campaign trying to paint himself as further to the right than Corker on every issue that came up. The "new" politics that Brewer speaks of consist of running proactive, as opposed to reactive, campaigns. Ford could only react in the last few months of 2006; he failed to articulate the same messages that he started out with.

Obama's selection of Clinton White House veterans, therefore, has nothing to do with Harold Ford. The Clintons and their operatives may represent a more "moderate" brand of politics, but it's still Democratic politics. The Clintons may have their own agenda, but they won't be encouraging Obama to abandon Democratic principles in order to appeal to some mythical notion of a "center-right" nation. None of this makes Ford look prescient; it makes him look like the guy who could have been in a much more powerful position with the new Administration today had he not blown every opportunity he got.

As far as Ford's run in 2010 is concerned, I don't doubt his fundraising prowess, but it may not matter:

Ford may not be keeping his profile up here locally by putting in time traversing the state, but his face is on television almost every week.

He's on television? So what? Do most Tennesseans watch MSNBC just to hear what he has to say? Even when he was on Fox News, did any conservatives watch for that purpose? He doesn't have much of a local profile here anymore, his profile is in New York and DC. What can he run on now, if he's not willing to stick around here? At least in 2006, he could run on his congressional record. But politics is a "what have you done for me lately?" business, and it's hard to think of what exactly he's done for us lately (besides giving those of us political geeks a constant stream of fodder, of course).

(h/t Kleinheider)