Dangerous Dan

At first glance, it looks the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is a winner. He's highly qualified and has a strong record of a particular judicial philosophy (one which I like – an added bonus). The Dems will now have to decide if they want to expend the political capital filibustering him. They'll think about it, but I still believe they'll come out on the losing end of a Supreme Court nomination battle.

Looking around the blogosphere, though, I'm already enjoying some of the talking points against him. From Bench Memos comes this Harry Reid quote:

For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.

I suppose if Bush had nominated a Hispanic, Reid would be complaining that it was blatant pandering to the Hispanic vote (which is what Reid himself is doing here). Also, when looking at this, let's keep in mind that the Dems filibustered the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the appellate court because they were afraid he was being set up for a future appointment to the Supreme Court. They also accused him of not being Hispanic enough.

If you don't yet have a Halloween costume, don't fret. Forbes has a nice selection of masks you can print and cut out. Here's a sample with the description (I'm also a fan of Steve Jobs as Darth Vader):

Alan Greenspan as Yoda

Net worth: not available.

Source of wealth: government job, TV star wife

The out-going Fed chairman has a lot in common with the withered muppet: Both are wise old sages, possessing knowledge beyond the comprehension of ordinary people; and both can move giant objects–whether they're financial markets or X-Wing starfighters–by sheer force of will.

(link via Stackable Bards)

The EU is turning 50 (kinda) on March 25, 2007. That means Brussels is having a massive 50 day party at what will almost certainly be taxpayer expense. In fact, though it won't be held for another 17 months, the planning has already begun.

On March 25, 2007, the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the EU, will be half a century old. Brussels believes that this is such a key event that planning began last week, 17 months in advance.

The EU, together with the local Brussels government, envisages a massive programme of concerts, carnivals and firework displays.

Sophie Goeminne, who represents the Brussels government on the jubilee celebrations steering committee, said: "We are looking at a series of events around March 25, possibly starting on that date and running until May 9.

"This will be our way of bringing the EU closer to its citizens."

Ah, bread and circuses. Nothing like a government throwing a two-month party to make the citizens forget how much they're being charged for it (and how much got "lost" in accounting mismanagement) and how inefficient and wasteful their leaders are. And 50 days? The U.S. turned 230 this year. We had one day with a lot of celebrating and people maybe took a few days off and then it was back to business. The EU, though, is throwing itself a Bacchanalia for turning 50 (kinda).

This reminds me of the Roman Empire. When they first took power or when their popularity was suffering, emperors routinely held massive celebrations paid for with gold from the treasury. Although, to their credit, the Roman emperors often paid for such extravagance with plunder obtained during their constant conquering. The Coliseum, for example, was financed by gold and treasure taken from Jerusalem when Vespasian sacked it in AD 69. So perhaps the EU should engage in some good old-fashioned conquering to fund its party instead of plundering the pockets of its own people.

In my continuing coverage of the wanderings of the New Orleans Saints, I offer this article. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue claims that the Saints will stay put in Louisiana instead of taking off for San Antonio or Los Angeles.

NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, after meeting with team owner Tom Benson, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and other officials, said he was committed to keeping the team in New Orleans.

"The Saints are Louisiana's team and have been since the late '60s when my predecessor Pete Rozelle welcomed them to the league as New Orleans' team and Louisiana's team," Tagliabue said. "Our focus continues to be on having the Saints in Louisiana."

I still don't buy it and here's why:

The big question is how New Orleans could support the Saints.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin believes the city's population, which was 460,000 before the hurricane, will quickly rise to 250,000 and be back above 450,000 in three years. But many returnees face major obstacles rebuilding homes and businesses.

"I think what we need to do is recognize that the people of this region and the businesses of this region and the governmental agencies of this region have so many priorities that rebuilding the Saints and recommitting the Saints to Louisiana is just one of those priorities," Tagliabue said.

I read somewhere that it's estimated that only 60,000 people are currently sleeping in New Orleans each night. The city will rebuild, certainly, but thinking it will be above 450,000 within three years is being too optimistic. In fact, it's being unrealistic. Massive demolition and cleanup still needs to take place and new homes will need to be built. That in itself takes awhile. It's still an open question as to whether residences will be rebuilt in the same density in places that are more prone to flooding. Many former-citizens and businesses have permanently fled to other locales and won't be lured back to a city that may again displace them. Others will be wary about moving into New Orleans with recent memories of the disaster there. While the city will gradually come back and repopulate, this will happen over the long-term as memories fade.

Simply put, New Orleans is not going to be the same place it was and the fact that it won't be the same makes it a bad location for an NFL franchise. It's hard to make money in a town with only 200,000 people (most of whom probably won't have a lot of disposable income for expensive NFL tickets).

So what else does Tagliabue think?

In a letter this month to the Saints, state officials said they are willing to discuss adding enhancements to the Superdome to help boost team profits. Although he envisioned the Saints remaining in New Orleans, Tagliabue said they needed to become more of a Louisiana, or even a regional team. The state and Saints need to take a fresh look at the team's deal with Louisiana, Tagliabue said.

Efforts to rewrite the deal worked out during the former governor's administration were called off before the season and were slated to begin again in January. Blanco wanted a new agreement that would relieve Louisiana of some of the financial burden the current arrangement carries — including $186 million in payments over 10 years.

Ah, so here's the rub. Tag realizes that New Orleans won't be big enough to support the Saints and wants it to become a regional team. He also wants the local and state governments to engage in corporate welfare towards the team. And if that doesn't happen? Does that give the team an escape clause to go elsewhere?

I can't help but be Machiavellian about this. I wonder if Tagliabue is just covering the NFL's butt and keeping it from looking like the bad guy if the Saints leave. Even if the Saints lose money next season, he could keep them in New Orleans for one year and then let them leave on the basis that the area can't financially support the team. That way he still gets the Saints out, but fulfills his “moral obligation” not to strip the beleaguered city of its team while it’s down. Or maybe he's just willing to let Saints owner Tom Benson be the bad guy while the NFL comes out squeaky-clean.

I'm no more convinced the Saints will stay in New Orleans than I was before reading this. Benson is already engaging in legal maneuvers that could release him from New Orleans and he has plenty of reason to go elsewhere. I currently put the odds of the Saints being in New Orleans past 2006 at about 50-50.

Previous posts on this topic are here and here.

Want more?
Visit Citizen Dane who has thoughts on the Saints moving to San Antonio

California State Treasurer Phil Angelides is running for governor in 2006 and has set up a parody site in the style of JibJab called Schwarzenegger Street.

First, the criticism: the basic message is that Arnold is nothing but a stooge of right-wing conservatives, including Bush, Rove, Cheney, Ken Lay, even Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Considering Arnie's social liberalism, I'm sure they'd be surprised to hear he's their stooge. I also hope Angelides has a little more to run on than the "Anybody But Arnold" platform. Negative campaigning is annoying and a candidate needs to do more than continually put down his opponent. See John Kerry. And for a serious election, the cartoon is remarkably infantile.

Now the upside: It's hilarious. Especially the Cheney-monster.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams recently started his own blog and it's funny. His style is a bit like Dave Barry's but without the constant inanity. Concerning his idea of executing perfect crimes following a hurricane, he says:

I’d wait until a hurricane started to threaten a particular community and then I’d steal a car and start towing my little pirate boat in that direction, monitoring the news as I went. I’d set up camp near a target rich environment, tie the boat to a lamppost, up high, and wait for the storm to empty the city. There’s a good chance I’d be killed by the hurricane before I did any quality looting, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take for free pants that aren’t my size.

I might bring my own decoy puppy, in case anyone saw me climbing through a broken store window. I’d just hold up the puppy and yell “It’s okay! I Got her!”

I recommend it.

(link via Riding Sun)

So, I didn't expect to wake up this morning and find out that George Takei, Star Trek's Sulu, is gay. Meh, ok. Floating somewhere among my belongings is an autographed picture of Takei. He signed it at a Star Trek convention I attended 13 years ago. Yeah, I'm a Star Trek nerd. Although I've wanted to go to more conventions, that's the only one I've been to. I didn't want to go by myself but could never convince other people to go with me.

I suspect that a game some Star Trek uber-geeks will now play is going back to the original episodes and movies and reinterpreting everything Sulu says, looking for hidden meanings.

According to CNN's breaking news banner, Harriet Miers has asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Good.

According to Chris Mortensen on ESPN Insider (subscription required), the San Diego Chargers may not stay in San Diego after the 2006 season. That's when their lease with Qualcomm Stadium is up and the team can begin talking to other cities, probably Los Angeles (assuming the Saints don't get there first). The problem is that the team's owner, Alex Spanos, wants a new stadium and the city is balking. What's amazing about this, though, is that Spanos is offering San Diego one colossal sweetheart deal:

" • The Chargers will construct, at the team's sole expense, a state-of-the-art Super Bowl-quality professional football stadium at the current Qualcomm site. They also will assume the risk of all cost overruns on the stadium's construction.

• The city of San Diego will own the stadium, but the Chargers will be responsible for all operational and maintenance costs.

• The Chargers will pay off in full the existing bonded indebtedness on Qualcomm Stadium (nearly $60 million).

• The Chargers will assume infrastructure improvements — estimated between $150 million and $175 million.

• The Chargers will sign a 25-year lease to play in the stadium and will include no "out" clauses, ticket guarantees or other like subsidies.

• The Chargers will devote and pay for approximately 30 acres of the site as green space and parkland.

• The development will generate property, sales, hotel and other taxes, and the city of San Diego will be entitled to its full share of the new tax monies. "

The deal couldn't get much sweeter for the city of San Diego. The team will build a new stadium at its expense and take care of associated costs, but the city will own it, and the Chargers will be locked in for the next 25 years. Contrast this with other NFL owners who extort public funds from local governments for their sports palaces. Spanos is practically running a charity. So what's the hang-up?

What do the Chargers need from the city? They need the city to provide 60 of the 166 acres of the existing Qualcomm site — currently a drain on the city's revenues — with approval on a development and rezoning plan.

The sticking point is that 60 acres of the current Qualcomm Stadium site is currently just sitting around unused. In return for all the above, Spanos is asking for that 60 acres in return so that he can develop condos and housing that will recoup his sizable investment in the stadium. This seems like a hell of a deal for the city. It gets a $500 million public-use facility (that will be given to it), it doesn't have to pay for associated costs, it will get Super Bowls, it will get taxes, it will get an NFL team for the next 25 years, and it will get new high-end housing (which doesn't naturally occur around stadiums)… all for turning over 60 acres. Seems like an obvious trade to me.

Sheryl Swoopes is gay. Big deal, don't care. What really annoys me, though, is sports writers like Mechelle Voepel in this story taking the chance to be preachy and condescending about homosexuality in general and homosexuality in sports specifically. Here's a sampling:

Certainly, the religious debate about homosexuality is not going away in our lifetimes; that's something Swoopes says she continues to deal with. And some people will read that Swoopes acknowledges she didn't always know she was gay — she was married to a man — and exclaim, "See! I knew it! It is a choice!"

However, Swoopes is relating her own personal experience, not trying to represent the universal gay or lesbian experience. Because there's no such thing. People come to their own understanding of their feelings in different ways and at different times in their lives. Many people are attracted to and fall in love with people of both sexes, and they might choose to define themselves based on whom they're with or not define themselves at all.

Some people know they're gay from their earliest consciousness. Maybe you knew when you couldn't concentrate on doing your Spirograph picture after your big sister's friend smiled at you when she walked into the house. Maybe you knew when a bunch of girls in your grade-school class were debating who was the cutest on the "Hardy Boys" TV show, and the answer in your head was "Nancy Drew."

Maybe you knew when you had your first conversation with a certain woman. Maybe you knew when you wanted a divorce. Maybe you still don't know.

Oh, lay off it! This is what she says almost right after saying, "but here I want to focus on the impact it could have specifically on the women's basketball world." Yes, there are homosexuals in sports, most of whom are in the closet, and yes, they're eventual coming out will have ramifications. I just don't need some sports hack moralizing to me and giving me her version of a sociology lesson. It's boring and it's trite.

And I already mentioned it's condescending. Voepel makes sure to finish up with a little slam on those backward philistine conservatives down in Lubbock, TX:

Finally, there is the question of how Swoopes' story will be received in Lubbock, Texas, home of Texas Tech and some of the most loyal and knowledgeable women's basketball fans in the world. It's just as dumb to suggest that everyone in Lubbock has a problem with homosexuality as it is to say that everyone in New York City has no problem with it. However, Lubbock is a place one would describe as conservative, to use, admittedly, a stereotype.

Swoopes is a legend in Lubbock more than anywhere else; she brought the university national recognition and always will be one of the most important people in the school's history. Texas Tech fans genuinely love her, though some will feel very conflicted about her story.

But I think most of them, even if they don't understand or totally accept Swoopes' story, are people who believe we should live and let live. They might still vote for any and all measures to ban gay marriage, but they'd give Swoopes a sincere hug if they saw her.

Translation: Yeah, those Lubbockites are a gang of gay-haters, but they'll still be hypocritical and like Swoopes. The reaction among most of them will be a collective yawn that a star women's basketball player who graduated from Tech 13 years ago has come out. I imagine there will be a vocal few, though, who will rant against her and they will surely get picked up by the media and allow Voepel to chastise us all over again.

Just as a discretionary note, my concern here isn’t Swoopes’s coming out. I think it’s good that she did and it will be good for other lesbians in sports afraid to come out. I just don’t find the topic interesting. Rather, my complaint is about sports writers who feel the need to wag fingers and go veering into grand cultural discussions instead of sticking to the sports angle.

Upon browsing Sports Illustrated top 10 NFL rushing tandems, I got to their number 1 pick, Larry Csonka and Jim Kiick. It was accompanied by this 8/7/72 cover of SI:

Pay attention to Csonka's right hand. That's right… he's flipping you off. In a most casual sort of way too. I'm not exactly sure how this photo made it past the editors, but it's a classic.

Have you ever wanted to see Harry Potter set to music, complete with dance numbers? Of course you have! I mean, really, who hasn't?

Let the dream become reality.

(via Allergic to Bees)

Howard Dean has no shortage of rants in him. He most recently ranted against Republicans (natch) and the "culture of corruption." Of course, he's referring to the Tom Delay indictments (which appear to be largely trumped up and a political attack) and the possible malfeasance of Karl Rove in the completely absurd Plamegate non-scandal. He, and the rest of the Dems, have some set of cajones to complain about corruption considering that it is his party that saw 16 elections workers convicted of voter fraud in St. Louis (as noted here by Pete the Elder), that committed voter fraud in Wisconsin and Minnesota, that gave out crack in exchange for votes, and a number of other problems. And let's not get into the scandal-a-day Clinton presidency.

Now, obviously Dem wrongdoing doesn't excuse Republican wrongdoing and if Delay and Rove broke the law, they should be duly tried and convicted. But the problem with politicians throwing around accusations and vitriol of this sort is that they tend to live in glass houses. So it's a little galling to see any of them pointing fingers at the opposition while they themselves pretend they've just climbed out of the River Jordan.

All the same, though, if there is corruption, surely something needs to be done about, even if the solution comes from those whose own hands aren't clean. So what does Dean propose? Well, he's an arch-liberal, right? What does that always mean? More government meddling.

To deal with the "culture of corruption," Dean said, there needs to be an ethics code in Congress and stronger campaign finance laws.

Yes, those great campaign finance laws that restrict political speech, which, oddly enough, is the primary kind of speech the first amendment was meant to protect. The last round of laws clearly worked so well, we must need more. The problem with these laws is that they always have loopholes. That's why we saw the rise of the 527′s in the last election. The people with the most money and the companies will best know how to exploit those loopholes. For the average citizen, however, the rules make things more complicated as they don't know the loopholes and may not have the financial wherewithal to use them. Campaign finance laws increase the power of the wealthy's political contributions instead of diluting it. By tightening the laws to close the loopholes, you only further restrict free speech and force entities to use ever-smaller, better concealed loopholes and tracking money becomes that much more difficult. Roll back the campaign finance laws, don't make them stronger.

Dean said if the Democrats were to regain power, the party would be strong on national defense. He said the party never would send troops abroad without telling them the truth about why they were going, and without adequately arming them.

Dean said that Democrats also would make sure every American has access to health insurance.

"If 40 industrial nations can do it and balance the budget at the same time, it's time to have somebody in the White House who can chew gum and think at the same time," he said.

First, I don't think anybody really believes the Dems when they talk about being strong on defense. They sold out their credibility on that point a long time ago.

Second, a government has a choice among three options: allow people to keep the lion's share of their income, have a strong military, or have a generous welfare state. At best, you can only have two out of three (although I don't think you can adequately guarantee both the first and third). Dean seems to be promising the latter two options, so we know what will be left out. All those industrialized countries with universal health care have it because their governments, while under the protection of the U.S. military, decided to throw their citizenries ever more bread and made them ever more dependent upon the governments' benevolence. They let their militaries crumble since they weren't necessary. Now their welfare expenditures are so high, they couldn't field advanced armed forces even if they wanted to. And I could get into those great health-care systems the countries have too. That's a topic for another post, but let's just say they ain't so great.

More than 400 party loyalists listened as Dean described Democrats as a party of moral values, while criticizing Republicans as trying to divide Americans over race, sexual orientation and country of origin.

Uh-huh. I've mentioned before that I have no idea what the moral values of the Democratic party are. Dean always raves about them, but never lists them. While they may exist, it won't do to say they merely exist. He needs to describe them.

And lastly, it's amazing that Dean accuses the Republicans of being divisive on those issues considering the Dems have made a comfortable political living in playing up every conceivable division both real and imagined.

That's enough for my rant on Dean's rant.

Want more?
Visit Save the GOP, Hawkeye Republican, and Iowa Voice

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that key NFL officials are saying that it's unlikely the Saints will return to New Orleans. Instead, they'll play the 2006 season in San Antonio and will likely permanently move to Los Angeles after that (assuming a proper venue is set up).

Wow. If this is what happens, the good people of New Orleans and Louisiana can't properly blame San Antonio and Texas for poaching their team nor can they fully blame Saints owner Tom Benson for leaving. It appears that the NFL itself is the opportunistic vulture. The league is looking to use the occasion of the Saints' displacement from hurricane-ravaged New Orleans to finally get a team back in L.A., the nation's second largest market. The NFL has desperately wanted a team in L.A. ever since both the Rams and Raiders left during the off-season of 1995. Recall that when the NFL was taking bids on an expansion team about seven years ago, it came down to being between Houston and L.A. Houston had the financing, the government and fan support, the land, plans for a brand-new fancy state-of-the-art stadium with a retractable roof (first in the NFL) – everything was in place. The two L.A. bidders, though, were in complete disarray. They didn't have definitive stadium locations, they didn't have the financing, the local citizenry wasn't interested and polls showed they wouldn't support funding of a new stadium or renovating an old one – they had nothing. Between Houston and the L.A. groups, Houston was the obvious winner. Despite this, though, the NFL extended the bid deadlines on several occasions solely to give the L.A. folks more time to get their act together and provide an offer just barely sufficient so that the NFL could find a believable excuse to award them the franchise. When it became obvious, though, that a deal in L.A. simply wasn't going to happen, the league reluctantly gave the team to Houston.

While the NFL still wants an L.A. team, no owner has recently been disgruntled enough to seriously consider leaving their current city and the majority of the owners don't want to expand beyond the 32 teams (the divisions work out nicely at 32 and too many teams risks seriously diluting the available football talent). Now, though, the league has a golden opportunity. The Saints have been uprooted and the owner isn’t rushing to return to New Orleans. The NFL brass would just as well they stay in San Antonio for a season instead of settling back down in Louisiana where they might reroot, and it gives the league a year to try getting a viable arrangement in L.A. So San Antonio won't be taking advantage of New Orleans's problems, it will be the NFL itself. Actually, San Antonio will also be getting screwed by the NFL. It will be a pawn in the league's efforts to return to Los Angeles; given a pro-football franchise for one season, but only in order to keep it away from New Orleans. Thanks for being the place-holder, but we're putting the team where we really want it to be!

Damn, this irks me. I know I previously said that the NFL is a business and it will make business decisions. You can't depend on owners losing money on account of principle. This may be going too far, though. Taking away New Orleans's only professional sports franchise while it's down and out due to a natural disaster, and then simply using San Antonio, a city with long-held, teary-eyed aspirations of getting an NFL team, by finally giving them a team for one season and then stripping it away from them. Giving the big screw to two cities at once. Robert Irsay, Art Modell, and Bud Adams must all be smiling because now they don't look so bad. They each only managed to screw over one city when they abandoned their home locales.

The Army is developing a new window armor that is essentially transparent aluminum. If you recall Star Trek IV, Scotty gave a manufacturer the formula for transparent aluminum when the crew time-traveled back to 1986. I thought it was a just a sci-fi movie… I didn't realize it was a documentary.