Spin this

USA TODAYHagel: Bush administration is 'incompetent' and he would consider joining a Dem ticket

If only he'd said so before the 2004 elections!

Click link

Huckabee running even in Iowa

I'm telling you, folks, this guy is sitting right in the middle of today's Republican Party, and he's the only candidate I can see who can excite all the various "bases" in the GOP. Take him seriously.

Political Wire: Huckabee Catches Romney in Iowa, Clinton Fading

Every other candidate has a terminal shortcoming WRT Republican electoral politics. I'm reiterating my predictions: Huckabee v. Clinton, with Clinton winning. I'll add that I think it will be Clinton by 5 percentage points.

Insomnia Theatre

There's greatness, certainly, in this:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1786412

Inky Hinky Pinky

Confectioning monster stunned

Mukasey and Waterboarding

So he's going to be Atty. General. Just great.

Hey, let's set aside questions about the Geneva Conventions for the moment... Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is technically torture, it's certainly assault, no?

The same is true for numerous other "interrogation methods" the Administration believes are appropriate for the unlawyered, untried, unconvicted detainees it is holding.

When did government officials (such as interrogators) get exemption from basic criminal law?

Snakes in a tub!

They make 'em different down there...

Texan sets record with 87 snakes in tub

But if he was really hard-core, he'd do it wearing nothing at all.

(Author confesses that with regard to rattlesnakes, he is not "hard-core".)

The Presidential race

My official position is it's WAY TOO EARLY for a civilized nation to begin discussing a presidential election more than a year away.

The Constitution ought to be amended to prohibit any candidate from receiving campaign contributions more than 365 days before the general election and prevent any primary from taking place more than 9 months before the general election, meaning the first primary or caucus would be held at the beginning of March. (I also have devised a sensible system for holding the primaries which respects the Iowa/New Hampshire tradition, while giving every state an equal chance to be influential in the selection of the parties' candidates.) We could then have several months of meaningful primaries, ending in June, leading up to a nice July convention/coronation. That would be followed by a little more than 4 months of campaigning for the general election.

That would make sense, but instead we have our current system wherein we are already talking about "frontrunners" and watching the first of the hopeless candidates drop out. Not a single vote has been cast, nor will any be for three months! The general election is still over a year away. This is insanity. The issues which the candidates are running on today are not likely to be all the same issues on the political agenda a year hence, and then what do you do if your presumptive nominee dies? Yes, it's all asking for chaos, and chaos is increasingly what we get. And there's no respite from the campaign bullshit for my fragile eggshell mind.

Anyhow, that's not the point of this post. The point of this post is to offer my predictions on who will take the nominations of the two major parties. This is NOT an endorsement on my part, and it's not even a wish list. But it's what I think will happen. About four years ago at this time, on my then-blog The Mighty Pen, I predicted John Kerry would emerge as the nominee, though the "smart money" was on Howard Dean or John Edwards. Kerry was a good candidate, ran a pretty good campaign (though he really bungled the Swift Boaters) and became a pretty darn good stump speaker by the end of the contest (I saw him at Joe Louis Arena a week or two before the vote, so I saw it firsthand). Anyhow, I called it, that's all I'm sayin'.

The Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton, a prediction which I know won't surprise anyone. She's smart, she's well-funded, she's disciplined as hell, and she's surrounded by a team of people who have been through this before. Obama is a compelling person and story, and I hope he'll be part of our political landscape for a generation, but he's just not experienced enough to overtake Hillary. It's not the B.S. lapel-pin issue -- that's just symptomatic of the problem: He needs to learn how to do one of these modern campaigns. He gets a B-. She gets an A. He's the student here; she's the teacher.

The Republican is going to be.... drum roll.... former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. I've thought and thought about it, and I think he's the only candidate with a prayer to win this nomination. Let's first dispense with the crap: Guiliani is NOT going to win the nomination. He doesn't deserve the nomination, he's rather unlikeable, and there's the problem that there's now video of him as NYC mayor explaining why he wouldn't attend the 1996 GOP convention (now THAT is an awkward clip to explain away). But that's not the real killer for him. The real killer is that he's pro-choice. I know a bunch of people have told him he can turn his fame from 9/11 into national office. But they're wrong. The Rudy show doesn't play all that well outside New York, nor does the liberal Republican motif. In a six-way race, Rudy can look like a front-runner, but as also-rans drop out the picture will become clear: Pro-life voters will not cross the rubicon to vote for Guiliani.

The other strong candidate is Romney. Again, he's a liberal northern Republican, only he's made a better flirtation with the paleolithic Christianist power brokers of the right. He's getting them to consider exchanging vows, but they haven't committed to the union just yet. His problem, you see, is that he's a Mormon. This is no small matter in a political party so thoroughly beholden to the Bible belt, and it is nothing like the problem JFK had trying to win the Democratic nomination as a Catholic. JFK appealed for religious tolerance (and certainly didn't convince everyone) but the GOP base isn't playing that game. While the base may be willing to swallow Romney's politics, they don't buy his religion, and that matters a great deal. Bob Jones III sort of endorsed Romney, but even as he did so felt compelled to remind voters that he views Mormonism as "a cult". Romney is wicked smart, and an enormously competent manager, but he's pretending to be a good ol' boy to appeal to the base. I just don't think the GOP base will embrace him.

That brings us to Huckabee. The first thing going for him is that, as far as I can tell, he's genuine. He's genuinely conservative, and he communicates very clearly. He says what he really thinks, and who he is puts him squarely in the middle of the Reaganite GOP. Fortunately for him, his positions allow him to appeal to the whole range of traditional Republican demographics. A former minister, he's a genuine born-again Christian. But he's no fire-breather; he's had to baptize babies and bury the dead, and I think his faith is more about conviction than condemnation. He's likeable. There are no flambouyant divorces or flip-flops on his record. He's pro-life, pro-gun, economically conservative, non-slick, amiable and genteel. None of the GOP candidates is another Reagan, but Huckabee is the best fit for that coalition, and he's comfortable in his own skin. So I believe that over the next couple months, he's simply going to appeal to the most Republicans.

The X-factor in all of this is Al Gore. He could conceivably announce his candidacy even as late as December and still give Hillary a fight. Even if he missed the ballot deadlines in a few states, he could clobber her in California and some of the other populous states and make a run at the nomination. But my feeling is that this is unlikely. He doesn't see his mission as being President -- he sees it as changing the world. He's happy now, in ways that he wasn't when he was a politician. And he's getting a whole lot done. It may be that as a person, he's moved on beyond politics. Maybe he's done compromising himself. I'd vote for him, but if he didn't want to run, I can't say I blame him.

Tongue Twiddle answer

Okay, for those of you who have been trying, and want the answer, I've posted it as a comment in response to this post. (I wouldn't want to ruin it for those who are still working.

If you HAVE NOT given up, here's some clues:

-Three words all begin with the letter "P".
-The fish in question is commonly found in pet fish tanks.
-Think of synonyms for "after death".

Now you're on the right track.

David Copperfield raided by FBI

Yeah, it's THAT David Copperfield...

Reuters story

So the guy who made the Statue of Liberty disappear couldn't find a way to get rid of $2 million? What is he, some kind of amatuer?

How you know it's the 21st Century

I'm not sure what this means, but it means something:

TIME Magazine has an article this week about the small-town gay Spanish mayor who recently conducted a gay wedding dressed as Gandalf.

An alarming chart

I'm posting a chart which looks really technical because it is. I happened to spot an intriging headline at Reuters today, and following it, stumbled on this very complex article about oil production in Saudi Arabia. Before you let your eyes glaze over and roll back in your head, here's the point: Saudi Arabia's huge oil fields are crashing.



The two key lines are the dotted rust-colored line -- which shows declining production from the world's largest oil field -- and the spiking green line, which shows a frantic expansion of oil rigs to try to keep the field producing crude oil. Even if this strategy were successful, logic says that this super-giant oil field is getting more and more expensive to run. But it does not appear to be succeeding.

You might also notice the odd horizontal blue line -- "Proven reserves". In a chart with lots of spikes up and down, odd how that line doesn't move, isn't it? De Nial ain't just a river in Egypt -- it seems to be characteristic of the Saudi government's oil policy.

Also note the second graph on the page I link to. It shows that Ghawar is currently about 50% of Saudi Arabia's total production. That's how big this one field is.

As Matt Simmons writes about in "Twilight in the Desert," the stark reality is that Ghawar is symptomatic of the other giant Saudi oil fields. These huge fields have been in production for over 50 years, and they are nearly tapped out. The decline in production at these fields is predicted by many to be rather shocking. I think this chart shows that this is what we're seeing now.

The upshot of this post is that Saudi Arabian production is going to decline by millions of barrels/day (it's currently around 8 million barrels/day) So, $5/gallon gasoline is right around the corner. Dump your guzzlers now, while they still have resale value.

More later on other implications of the collapse, which is apprently impending.

A tongue-twiddle

That is, a riddle with a solution that is a tongue-twister. So, when you get the answer, you'll know it.

What do you call an algae-eating fish that dies of a venereal disease? (3 words)

I'll post the answer after 5 guesses -- or the correct answer -- have been submitted to the comments.

Odd occurance

For about 10 minutes this afternoon, a pair of fighter jets were circling in the skies over the Chelsea area. They departed to the Northwest. Could be a training mission, but I don't recall that happening before in the 5 years I've lived here. Rather odd.

Bless You Boys

"You know, when I first got here, I took a taxi from the airport and the driver said, 'This is a baseball town that's sleeping. You guys start playing well, the fans will come out of the woodwork.' There's really been an uprising ... and to have the seat I have and to see it soldout most nights, it's incredible."

-- Justin Verlander, young Tigers phenom. on the Tigers good-but-not-quite season. Thanks for the thrill ride.

Well said

"I told her that it wasn't about the 50 cents, it was about the principle. Any idiot would understand the principle - it's about simple human decency."

-- Elizabeth Schaper, of Harrison, N.Y., who was vexed that a library staffer coldly insisted she pay the fine on a book taken out by her recently-departed mother. Story here.

Once again: HughesNet sucks

Another example of how awful HughesNet is

I just spent another hour on the phone trying to pry a refund out of HughesNet. It's an hour I'll never get back, and just the latest example of the "pain in the ass" factor involved in being their unwilling customer. It was a qualified success, and I'm going to move on. But first, I want to put this on the record as a warning to other prospective customers. And maybe, just maybe, a HughesNet exec. will see this and they'll address the alarming problems within their company.

Many of you know that I have been suffering mightily under the oppression of HughesNet, the satellite communications monopoly which sells Sat. Internet service. I had an older DW4000 modem, which had served me tolerably well for several years. The old dog still should work, technically, but early in August, the tech gnomes at HughesNet began disabling a variety of services. They want us all to upgrade, and they have eschewed the carrot for the "nothing but sticks" approach.

For a time, I thought these were just glitches that would be resolved, but after contacting tech. support several times, I learned that in fact my old DW4000 was being abandoned and I required an upgrade.(They called it "obsolete", but of course that's just because they decided to make it so.) My unsatisfactory options included paying them a $125 ransom for a new modem, or paying just shipping ($25) and binding myself to them with a 15-month indentured servitude contract. (Not happy, Jane!)

Before I get too far, let's start with a simple timeline:

June 24: Monthly bill: $59.99 for 6/24-7/23; Service working acceptably (not great).

July 24: Montly bill: $59.99 for period from 7/24-8/23

About August 7 (guessing here): Problems begin. Some browsing works, but secure Web sites, e-mail, IM, video files, file transfer, etc. are not working. There was NO WARNING from Hughes that this would be happening. I begin working from the road most of the time.

August 19: I call "Gotcha" -- HughesNet says this is the first record they have that I reported a problem. Maybe. Of course, their engineers knew there would be a problem months ago, when the made the decision to put the squeeze on all of us DW4000 users, but this is the date I call them out on it.

August 24: Montly bill: $59.99 for 8/24-9/23

Late Aug./Early Sept.: I win an eBay auction for a DW7000 modem, pay for it, and await its arrival. Very time-consuming. Costs me about $90.00 (but no service contract, and no $ to the leeches at Hughes).

Sept. 6: I call HughesNet to activate new modem. An installer is dispatched, "old" account is closed, and a pro-rated refund of $34.83 for the unused portion of the month is made to my account. (First thing HughesNet has done right!).

Sept. 11: Installer arrives and sets me up. Works great (finally!). $100 charge.

Sept. 24: Montly bill: $85.15 on the "new" account for 9/12-9/23 (end of previous billing period) + regular monthly bill through 10/23. Service is much better than it ever was with the old DW4000.

So there's your timeline. You'll note from this history that at this point, ZERO dollars have been refunded to me for the service interruptions CAUSED BY HUGHES. The only refund was for the post-cancellation days on the "old" account. Today I spotted the fat $85.15 charge on my bill, and call 'em up to ask about it. After a long time on the phone, I'm able to bring the very nice woman from billing up to speed on my case.

First, we ascertain exactly what the last bill was for, then I try to figure out what the refund was for, exactly. After being put on hold several times, we determine that it was a pro-rated refund for the post-cancellation days. I ask for a refund of ALL the days service was interrupted, or more than a month. They won't budge: Since I reported the problem Aug. 19th, that's the earliest date they'll issue a refund. INFURIATING, since they knew full well they were shutting me down, but what can you do? Sue them over thirty dirty bucks?

So, she says she'll refund me the six days from 8/19-8/24. I point out that's still asking me to eat the next couple weeks, when we all know service wasn't working. Ah, she says, let me talk to my support team members (i.e.: boss). On hold. She's back: OK, we'll refund you a total of 17 days. Grrr... Ok, that's satisfactory. Clearly, that's all I can get back. That will amount to $33 refunded for at least ONE MONTH of unacceptable service. But, it's something. Bloody and wounded, I declare victory and retire from the field with minimally-acceptable spoils from HughesNet.

I'll never get a refund for the two weeks pre-"gotcha." And I'll never get back all those hours on the phone with tech. support, sales, installers, and billing. And there were hours spent working on the road, and numerous costs associated with working from cafes and restaurants. What a HUGE headache for me. Aren't they supposed to WANT me to be a customer? It's a refrain I've heard from so many other HughesNet customers: If I had another choice, I'd take it. But I don't have another choice where I live.

The real joke here is that from a business management perspective, the BIG loser is HughesNet. First of all, their lack of communication with me cost them nearly a month in lost service fees from me. But the real cost was in their labor: Clearly, nobody told their front-line tech people that they were shutting off hundreds or thousands of their oldest customers. Their second-tier tech staff didn't have a clue, either. Billing had no idea what tech was doing, nor did they seem aware of the issue affecting 4000-series customers. Their insanely uncoordinated corporate structure means that this whole episode generated at least half a dozen "case numbers" from my contacts with them, tied up their personnel for HOURS, seriously disgruntled a long-time customer, and generated bad publicity. And it's not just me: Peruse the appropriate message boards, and it's clear they threw hundreds of their oldest customers under the bus in the same way, and nobody's happy. Call it, "How not to succeed in business, because you're not really trying."

Contrast all of this with the way DirecTV recently handled a similar situation. I got a recorded phone message from them saying, "Scot, you need a new dish to get all your HD channels. Call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX, and we'll send someone out to install it, pronto. FREE." There was no interruption of service, no hassle, no charge, and I had to make just ONE three-minute phone call. No wasted motion on their part or mine. I love that company. And I would have paid $50 for the new dish, if they'd asked.

HughesNet, pay attention: THAT is how it's supposed to be done.

Web Refugee

I'm working this morning, as I have for many mornings, on the road; I'm at Zou Zou's in Chelsea today. My itinerant life is not entirely of my own choosing, though I do find it a nice change of pace, and will probably come "downtown" once a week from here on out.

I've been forced from home by the dastardly actions of the folks at HughesNet, who have undermined my expensive Internet connection by turning off services. Apparently my 5-year-old satmodem, the DW4000, is no longer supported, and they're putting the squeeze on me to upgrade by turning off services. Without notice. And naturally, they're good enough to offer me a "free" upgrade which I can have for $25 in shipping charges if I sign a 15-month contract. Oh, and I'd have to have a professional installer come and repoint my dish for $125. So, it's "free" for $150 and a 15-month contract.

I'm over a barrel. Am I wrong to feel all this is a bit of a fraud?

My plan "B" is to buy a used modem off the 'Net and just attach it to myself. Should be as easy as a phone call and swapping over a few connections. And then I can work from home again.

Ah, the trials of a Web worker.

Julian stands up for first time

A big milestone for a great old friend of mine. Bill stood up for me at my wedding, and it's exciting to see his family growing.

Too much Beckham, thankee very much

I just watched a great MLS All-Star game, where the good guys defeated Scottish League champion Celtic 2-0. It could easily have been 4-0 (or more), but the Celtic goalkeeper stopped a penalty kick cold, and stonewalled a wide-open point-blank shot early on. The All-Stars were a good mix of American-born and foreign-born talent, and the pace of the game was exciting from the first minute to the last.

Unfortunately, the whole thing was overshadowed by the idol-worship the ESPN crew was bestowing on David Beckham. Now, Beckham's arrival is exciting and all, and certainly good for the L.A. Galaxy, if not the whole league. And it's a development which probably deserved some comment, and the halftime interview was justified and interesting. Beckham showed in the interview that he is genuinely enthusiastic and was quite the gentleman.

But the ongoing, non-stop chatter about the man just served to insult the quality of the product currently on the field. Every segment of the show somehow found a way to refer him. WHILE THE GAME WAS GOING, we saw him smiling in a booth, sitting in some seats, waving at a friend, walking here, walking there, putting on a microphone, waving some more... It was gratuitous. Rather than augmenting the All-Star Game with some exciting coverage of the Beckham phenomenon, ESPN treated the game as an afterthought, or an accessory to the Beckham Show.

It's not like the players on the field were slouches -- the MLS All-Stars absolutely handed it to a quality European squad. And if the MLS team had the advantage of playing mid-season (it's just pre-season for Celtic), the Scots had the advantage of being a real team that has been through the fires together. It wasn't a fluke -- the MLSers really were better.

The low point of the Beckham idolatry was the interview with the All-Star MVP, a guy named Angel, who scored a very nice goal and has really made a big impression on the league this season. In a quality broadcast, the interviewer would discuss the actual game, the key goal, the European opponent and the player himself for a bit. Then, at the end, it might be worth bringing up a topic like Beckham. Not question #2, for heaven's sake.

It was all just a bit too much.

Beckham will be a great ambassador, etc., etc. I'm not ripping on Becks here -- I'm excited too. But he'll be playing in one stadium, for one team, in front of one crowd each week. The challenge for MLS is to prove to its new fans that the product is a good quality and worth watching -- every week in every stadium. Beckham alone can't do it, and that's why the hero-worship is misplaced. His fame couldn't rescue a flawed product, but tonight's game showed me that the quality is there in MLS.

This was supposed to be a night to show off the talent that's already playing. ESPN lost sight of that.

Better late -- even very late -- than never

While it took the New York Times plenty of time to come around to the obvious conclusion, it has finally thrown its voice behind the effort to end the Iraq war now. In a long, well-written editorial, the editors argue for an orderly withdrawal on as quick a timetable as possible. Rather than "bugging out", they advocate a safe, orderly withdrawal that protects American military assets. The Times acknowledges that the bloodshed may increase after Americans depart, but:

"While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost."

The electorate recognized that very clearly back in 2005 or 2006, and registered its feelings in black-and-white terms in November, when Democrats stormed into Congress largely on anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment. And the too-careful Congressional leadership, lacking the courage of their convictions, folded like a tent almost as soon as the President opposed their protests.

I'm very happy that Americans have not, generally, repeated the mistakes of the Vietnam era, when returning troops were blamed for the failures in that war. Americans remain proud of the men and women who serve, and one of the war's most vocal opponents has been the mother of a fallen soldier. But we, long ago, recognized the lack of competence at the top, and the lack of realism among the architects. Our troops were given a basically impossible mission.

So, even at this too-late hour, when so many opportunities have been lost forwever, I still welcome the tardy arrival of the "newspaper of record" into the land of reason.