Rummy's working overtime

This may be a bit dense for non-economist types, but the concept remains alarming. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has developed a trading market where individuals can trade on the future likelihood of world events. Think the U.S. military will intervene in Burma? Believe that the Iranian government will fall in the first quarter of 2005? Put your money where your geopolitical analysis is.

According to this New York Times article the Pentagon has developed the market as a means of gathering intelligence. I just can't wait for terrorists to place bets on acts of terrorism, execute the acts, and then finance their actions through the market. Military strategists are dreamy.

But at least they have cutting edge graphics of globes and white boards.

Don't know when I'll be back again

Some of my friends have been bitching about the lack of updates. On the one hand, I suppose it's nice to be loved. What I still don't quite get is the fact that I'm neither funny nor clever, so I don't really know what they're looking for. I guess when your job sucks, even my bullshit monotony is a distraction.

So I'm leaving in a month now. I've spent a while now talking up my departure, since I never planned on spending as much time as I have here, and have complained about it more or less since I got here (fucking midwestern hicks [don't worry, you don't get it]). One day when I was bored in stats class I figured that on Sept. 12 I would have spend 1/4 of my life here. I'll miss that "goal", but can't deny that my stay in the midwest has had an impact on the person I am. The nature of that impact remains to be seen, and aside from the normal growing up that takes place during the college years, I'm not sure it's been beneficial.

This isn't to say that I don't care about the friends I've made, but all along I've know I'm out of place. My efforts to recruit other to join me in the coastal lifestyle have failed, and though I disagree, I understand the reluctance. It's a big, scary world, and it sure is safe in Minnesota. Sometimes safe just isn't enough, though.

I'm sorry, we're not listening

Last week I wrote our beloved President in regards to a change in White House communications policy making it more difficult for individuals to voice their opinion to the President. president@whitehouse.gov is no longer a valid way to contact our President. Now you must go through this form. One result is that citizen comments are categorized into issues determined by the White House. If the President doesn't want to hear about abortion, they can remove it from the list of possible topics. Because there was no topic covering communications policy, I selected one at random (volunteering) and wrote a brief note mentioning my repulsion about the policy shift and its detrimental effects on American democracy. This is the White House's reply (in a PDF file no less, reducing the likelihood that an individual will be able to view it):

Dear Mr. Chabel:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your letter about the USA Freedom Corps. The President appreciates your interest in the initiative and your desire to volunteer. Comprehensive information about the USA Freedom Corps is available on the world wide web at ww.usafreedomcorps.gov or via telephone toll-free at 1-877-USA-Corps.

I hope you find these resources helpful. President Bush is grateful for those who are responding to the call to serve those in need. Thank you again for writing, and best wishes.

Sincerely,

Desiree Thompson
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence

A new low, America

Details remain sketchy, but we've reached a new low with "hunting for bambi." Individuals (presumably men with "women issues" pay $10,000 to shoot paintballs at naked, unarmed women. This takes place somewhere near Las Vegas, home of exploitation and electricity. There are many things wrong with hunting for bambi, though the economist voice in my head still points out that there wouldn't be a market for this without customers. So perhaps condemning it addresses merely a symptom rather than the problem.

I predict this hits mainstream media in two days.

Update:The hunting for bambi website is now up. Tremendous. I did learn, however, that your $10,000 not only buys the right to shoot paintballs at unarmed, naked women (an aside, but it seems that it would be even more satisfying if "bambi" was armed [but presumably still naked]) but you also get the entire "hunt" on videotape for home viewing. And for those of you who can't spring for the $10,000, but still hate women, you can buy a video of someone elses experience.

Finally, they have a section on their site (to which I refuse to link) depicting wall mounts of the women they've "hunted." Brilliant.

UPDATE (2):

Apparently this is a fraud, designed to sell tapes of the "hunts." Kudos to Michael for first noting the potential deceit, and some sloppy journalism for allowing this to go on for this long.

Credibility gap

More and more coverage is being focused on the deception of the Bush administration with regard to intelligence presented to the public and Congress. The White House is so strong at public relations, I remain confident that they can spin this story away from any real political controversy. Recent coverage is also focusing on the ramifications of deception on the President's popularity. A number of columnists have cited a growing "credibility gap" the White House now faces both with the international community and the American public.

I continue to wonder whether this actually matters. Short of impeachment, I don't believe the public expects its government to tell the truth. If this is the case (and election results in the past two decades would certainly confirm it), then is the media simply being naive?

Dear Sen. Coleman

Sen. Coleman:

While your first seven months in office have been largely disgraceful, particularly given your predicessor, an opportunity for redemption has presented itself. I strongly urge you to put aside party politics and hold this administration accountable for their misleading statements and outright lies presented to the Congress and the public as justification for a war. With Americans still dying in Iraq almost daily, the memories of our fallen heroes demands the truth. It is insulting to both them and ever American that this administration has repeatedly lied and concealed the truth to push its agenda. Please demand the truth, it is the least we can expect from our government.
Thank you for your time.
-Simon Chabel

Want to get in on the act?
Contact Sen. Coleman

Yip this

It may not be a fair comparison, but let's look at the editorials from the Star Tribune and New York Times:

Star Tribune	New York Times
Bush in Africa	Iraq occupation
Yips and the Mayo Clinic	Something important
	Sidewalk vendors & state law

The fucking Yips? (for those who aren't down with golf lingo, apparently some golfers have major muscle control problems when trying to putt, causing poor performance) I'm not even going to get into what a waste of medical research dollars this study is. (the strib disagrees and applaudes the study; I'm wondering one thing: have we fixed that whole AIDS thing?)

Is there so little going on in this state that what should be a mediocre sports column makes its way to the editorial board? Of course the comparison to the New York Times may be unfair, so here's a sampling of a few other newspapers' editorial topics:

• Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
  • Water shortage
  • School Board tomfoolery
  • American vs. foreign cars
• Dallas Morning News
  • No uranium in Iraq
  • Medicare drug benefit
  • State budget controversy
• Kansas City Star (hi maggie)
  • Sept. 11 failures
  • Food labeling accuracy
  • Supreme Court and the death penalty

I'm sure these papers have their share of crap editorial topics, even the NYT runs the occasional weather editorial. But the Star Tribune is getting pretty worthless in the editorial department. Perhaps the clearest indicator of this is its placement on the navigation bar on the left side of their homepage.

I don't know what I believe

Scooter sent me (and a few others) this link where you can answer a series of political issue questions and it will compare your answers to the current candidates for President. Apparently I'm an Edwards supporter. While a curiosity, the test is a bit simple and seemed slanted to the left. I think you'd have to come off as a scumsucker for the site to spit Bush out at you. On second thought, perhaps its completely accurate...

Speaking of Edwards, The Slate which has been covering Dean more than other candidates (in part because Dean is out and about more), has an interesting analysis today. The article predicts Dean to be among the final two remaning Democrats. I haven't seen recent polling data, but I'm still not convinced he appeals to nearly a wide enough audience to get that far. Something tells me 35-50 year-olds will be voting for Kerry and Lieberman and Gephardt. It is good to see Edwards getting some exposure from online publications. I think they contributed to the Dean groundswell.

Finally, this article proves it: Karl Rove is evil.

Howard asked me to forward this

From: Howard Dean [info@deanforamerica.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:42 PM
To: simon
Subject:One Simple Action

Dear Simon, I cannot thank you enough for your incredible support at a critical moment in our campaign. Because of your efforts, we have transformed this race. (Now that the second quarter is over, my campaign will return to sending you only the occasional email-- on average, one per week.) Today, you stand with over 180,000 people, determined to restore the American community and our nation's traditional role as an idealistic moral force in world affairs. Our tremendous achievement now gives us the opportunity to build our campaign even further. Much remains to be done for us to win the Democratic nomination and to prepare ourselves for the fight against George W. Bush in 2004. If we are to defeat this President in the general election, we must continue building the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics. Building that grassroots effort now is what our campaign is about. We cannot wait until after the primaries are over and the nominee decided to enlist people in our cause, because only a grassroots campaign of one to two million Americans will have the power to defeat the special interests that are filling the coffers of George W. Bush's campaign. To help grow our campaign, I need you to take a simple action today. Please join others in forwarding this email on to at least 3 of your friends, family members, or colleagues. Tell them about our successes, and about your commitment to taking our country back from the ideologues in Washington. Let them know why you support our campaign, and ask them to join us. They can sign up simply by clicking here:   http://www.deanforamerica.com/signup Thousands have demonstrated that our individual actions, when united in common cause with the actions of thousands of others, have the power to change this country.  In the last nine days of the second quarter, 59,000 people came together to help raise a total of $7.5 million for our campaign. We surpassed everyone's expectations, and last Monday we made history, raising over $803,000 on the Internet in a single day. If you were unable to give last quarter, please consider making a contribution today: http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute We have come a long way in a short period. We are where we are today because you have given so much of  your time and resources to make it all happen. Thank you for all you've done. Let's grow the movement, and together, with thousands more beside us, we will win the White House in 2004. Howard Dean PS. Please stay in touch with our campaign by reading our campaign weblog at: http://www.blogforamerica.com Contribute to Dean for America: http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute Paid for and maintained by DEAN FOR AMERICA Contributions to Dean For America are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes

I [heart] The New York Times

From a New York Times Magazine interview with Naomi Klein, a Canadian political columnist:

"The main difference between the two counties is that the United States is driven by hear. There is not a strong social safety net in the U.S., so you worry that you will have no money when you retire, or have no one to take care of you when you get sick. The look-after-yourself mentality is at the core of how the United States has chosen to build itself as a society."

Garlic bliss

I just watched Laurel Canyon, the second of two movies (Happiness) I've recently watched this weekend (also Jackie Brown and The Candidate) which are about "normal people" who find themselves in these dramatic and powerful situations. It wasn't particularly good, though better than most of the Hollywood drek out there.

Films like that do create a yearning for these momentous situations of drama. Perhaps that's why when well done (i.e. Magnolia) they're so compelling. They provide reminders that despite the general monotony of daily life, there are moments of emotional brilliance, where you can be so overwhelmed by life that it seems incredulous that anyone else wouldn't be.

---

I'm working on some beet ravioli with roasted garlic, and also some spinach ravioli.
Unwrapping the roasted garlic my heart leapt at the softness of the cloves. It's good that food can be so splendid.

Lawrence v. Texas

The Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision seems to have raised myriad political issues. Obviously the law was faulty. To my mind the government has no role in my bedroom (nor does anyone else...). However (as The New Republic Online describes here) there are some major problems both philosophically and politically from the decision.

Having read Kennedy's opinion, O'Connor's concurrence and Scalia's dissent (plus the two paragraphs Thomas threw in seemingly to more clearly [than Scalia] demonstrate the difference between a bad law and an unconstitutional law) I tend to agree with <gulp> Scalia. While his writing is a bit muddled, and has some potentially offensive passages, his legal reasoning is sound.

As a democracy, the laws — even those dictating morality — are decided by the people. To have overturned the Texas law because it prohibited only homosexual sodomy would have been reasonable. But a democracy values the ability of the populace to establish a set of morality which its citizens must observe. There are behaviors (prostitution, drug use, incest) that the majority of Americans believe to be detrimental to the social fabric of our nation. Perhaps someday opinions will change. Expanding individual rights to supercede limitations deemed necessary by society could irreparably harm our democracy.

That I agree with the outcome of the court's decision does not temper my concern that the court and not the people are responsible for establishing guidelines for our lives.

---

A number of people I've spoken with have also expressed some concern about the potential conservative (religious) backlash from this decision. (the best discussion of this idea was in Worst Choice also in TNR, arguing that we'd be better off without Roe v. Wade) We'll see, especially if Rehnquist (and perhaps O'Connor or Stevens) retire now that the session is over. I still think denying gay rights is a tough sell for conservatives.

I suspect the key will center on how the discussion is framed. If the right can shift the discussion away from individual rights and toward the protection of the institution of marriage, they may win. If GLBT activists can keep attention focused on gays as a group effectively living under discrimination, perhaps domestic partner benefits and/or civil unions will have a shot.

Ah, Howard

I was reading this article about the Dean campaign's fundraising success. He raised $7.5 million last quarter, besting all other democratic candidates (Sharpton raised a cool $80,000). More and more it seems that he is a legitimate candidate, and will likely challenge the big three of Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry. There are a number of pitfalls for him (the article mentions Bradley's success in second quarter fundraising), including whether his supporters will come out and vote.

Oh, the President raised $35 million.