So long and thanks for all the fish...

To my loyal readers (all 12 of you), you might have noticed that I stopped writing in August. Today, I am officially closing up shop. Its been fun...

In defense of arugula

What is up with attacking people for eating arugula ? Firstly, arugula is delicious, especially on sandwiches. It tastes much better than lettuce.

This is the one area of political discourse that really escapes me. I must be blinded by my foodie nature, but really eating a leafy green denotes something significant?

McCain closing on Obama (only if you are dumb)

The older I get the more I find it hard to listen to the MSM. It is divorced from reality and unable to grasp the most obvious details in pursuit of filling their 24/7 news cycle. The latest story is that McCain is gaining on Obama. Of course if you look at the national polls it is true. Unfortunately for McCain, it doesn't really matter. The national polls may make supporters feel good or bad, but they are meaningless (winning the popular vote is a moral victory).

The line reminds of the HRC stories about her being ahead (inevitable) in the national polls before Iowa. Note to press, the presidential race consists of 50 state-wide races that are winner take all (please ask Al Gore how it works). Obama's people seem to be doing the same things in the general that they did in the primary, using the format and rules to their advantage.

Here is the reality:

1. Obama still leads nationally (even if it is meaningless).


2. McCain has not put away Arizona yet, he is currently under 45%.


3. Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska, Indiana, Missouri, Florida and Georgia are all within 5 points. McCain cannot lose any of these without winning Ohio and some other Democratic state.


4. Obama holds comfortable leads in most of his base states (except New Hampshire).


5. McCain's burnrate is unsustainable, he spent roughly $10 million more than he took in last month.


6. Obama is investing in a big victory (voter registration, traditionally Republican states and a massive field program). It is hard to know which of these will pay off, but Obama is building a huge operation while still maintaining his lead.


7. Many Obama supporters are not being polled. If you registered recently, if you only have a cell phone, if you have not voted in many previous elections then you are not likely to be polled.


8. Likely voters models and samples are built from the last election. This election will be very different demographically.

I am not trying to justify anything here, but just state facts and most likely scenarios. The press can say what they want, but I would not trade where we are for McCain's standing.

PS -- My ability to post is greatly diminished at the moment. I would still love to get some permanent guest posters. Email me at ademlament@gmail.com if you are interested.

Place the blame for the oil crisis on George Bush

We all remember back to 2001, when George Bush spoke to the nation after 9/11. We were a united nation with the backbone to pursue al qaeda to punish them for the attack. At that moment, if George Bush had told the nation we were going on a crash diet and cutting the use of oil by 90% in ten years, the resources would have been there and the country would have been united.

Oil has always been a national security issue. It is one of the many failings of George Bush... He could have had class, he could have been a contender. He could have been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what he is...

2nd Amendment Decision and why it probably matters little

I don't want to take anything away from the hard fought victory that gun advocates won in the Supreme Court last week, but here is why it is not likely to matter much.

I ran across this article on the Huffington Post today. Here is the problem for gun advocates, most rights are covered by a couple of legal standards, such as "a compelling government interest" and least restrictive means (BTW -- The Supremes did not define a standard). This basically means that the government will likely have to prove in most cases that they have a compelling interest in curtailing your rights and that they are using the least restrictive means for doing it.

Fighting terrorism and securing air travel are pretty compelling government interests. The only chance that 2nd Amendment advocates will likely have is based on least restrictive means. I think ultimately the Supreme Court decision will not cause a huge ripple-affect. I suspect many governments will have to alter their laws and a lot of them will be challenged.

Free speech may hurt people feelings or sensibilities, but rarely (ever?) does speech kill or injure people. It is simple much easier for the government to have a legitimate reason for regulation when it comes to guns. There is also an unknown about where this newly incorporated right will begin and end. Do you have the right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher? An M-16 (fully automatic or semi)? Sawed off shotgun? How about the right to concealed carry? I suspect common sense would dictate that you have the right to own semi-automatic hand guns or rifles (shot guns included). You probably would not have concealed carry rights and you would probably be restricted about where you can carry them (no airports, bars, government buildings, schools, etc). Having said that, I think the government will have to provide reasonable procedures for owning automatic weapons or concealed carry.

Just for the record (as a gun owner), guns don't kill people, but they do make killing people a lot more efficient which is why the government seeks to regulate them. After all nuclear warheads don't kill people either, people in the silos who fire them do, but I digress.

One last note: This decision was clearly not based on strict constructionist principles. Reading the 2nd Amendment clearly defines the right as being related to militias. They had to reach to make this decision.

Finally, a good initiative for 2008

The Arizona Republic has this story about a "homeowners bill of rights" initiative being put on the ballot by the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

I think even conservatives and Republicans will find this largely non-controversial. It gives homeowners a 10 year warranty on a new home, allows the homeowner to choose who does repair work, the ability to sue the home builder without paying attorney's fees and requiring model homes to (gasp) reflect the houses being sold.

As far as I am concerned this is overdue... Kudos to the Sheet Metal Workers.

Apparently there is no healthcare problem

This opinion piece from the East Valley Tribune just shows how short-sighted and dumb some people in the news media can be.

The piece entitled "Shadegg has a point about healthcare" argues that no one really goes without healthcare. After all, we have a system that provides reduced or free healthcare if you cannot afford to pay or don't have insurance. Don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of running a system this way.

Ok Mr. Le Templar, while factually true that we do not turn away people in dire need of healthcare would you admit that with about 45% percent of bankruptcies being related to medical expenses that we still have a huge problem.

The problem is that the middle class gets screwed in our current system. If you are very poor, there are programs to help. If you are very wealthy it is likely that you have an employer who provides health insurance. That leaves people in the lower and middle class in a lurch if they lose their job or cannot buy healthcare on their own. I personally have been in the unenviable situation of trying to decide whether it was worth going to the doctor to have something checked knowing full well that my insurance would only cover a small portion of the cost and would likely drop or greatly increase the cost of my coverage the next year.

I doubt I am alone in making that calculation. There are many times when individuals decide to go without vital medicine or avoid going to the emergency room or doctor because they hope their problem will go away without a two or three day hospital stay putting them thousands of dollars in debt.

There is also a larger problem. The only reason I am no longer running my own business is because of healthcare. It was not that I could not afford my premiums, it was that as a two to three person company our insurance was always at risk. I could not ask my family to risk going without healthcare for the sake of my personal ambition. The satisfaction of doing what you love and being your own boss sometimes takes a backseat your family's well being. There is also the fact the no matter how much I wanted to provide insurance to my employees, it was simple financially out of reach.

I think what you are referring to is a distinction without a difference. Your argument is both specious and asinine.

Thomas Watch: Thank God for the New Times

Once again, the New Times runs circles around the Arizona Republic when it comes to political reporting. This article properly covers the on-going State Bar investigation of Thomas. Let's just say that the Republic only reported part of the story. (I know, it is hard to imagine)