Spring Dart League Week 1: REDEMPTION

Tonight was the inaugural night of the spring season of dart league. That's right, the team had just seven short weeks from the end of last season to the beginning of this season to relax and enjoy ourselves. Some of the guys played golf, some went on vacations with their families, and all of us took time to reflect upon the disappointing end to last season. And now, after less than 2 months of break, we're back to the daily grind of being weekly dart players.

Grueling, I know. But that's why we get paid the big bucks. Last year we took in more than any non-champion team in the league ($150). I can't imagine this year will be any different.

Why? Let's take a look at the numbers: 5 returning starters, 5 players in the top 45 in the league, a 10-4 record, a 10 game winning streak mid-season, and the highest total winning percentage in the league.

In fact, if you erase our awful quarterfinal loss to the best team in the league, Joe's Place, we might just have been returning champions this year. But that's not how it works. Even Michael Jordan and the bulls lost to the Pistons their fair share before they found a way to seal the deal You can't erase losses, you can only wait until the next season to seek your revenge.

And that's exactly what happened tonight.

In an ironic twist of fate, in tonight's season opener we were pitted against the exact same team that knocked us out last season by the embarrassing score of 23-3.

And we had to confront a question: would we shrivel up and concede defeat, or would we fight like the warriors we know we are?

The answer came in a hard fought 26-16 victory for the Club Car. Just like last year, there were a lot of close games. But unlike last year, we won more of them than we lost. Last year, I don't know if we would have had the experience or talent to pull it out. This year we did.

For those of you keeping score at home, here are the figures you need to be concerned with:

Record: 1-0.

Potential: unlimited.

In Light of New Evidence, Cornucopia Officially Withdraws Support of Apes

Doesn't it always work like this? You speak in support of the ape community and then then one of them does something to make you regret it. Just goes to show how one bad apple can ruin it for everybody. I've never been more embarrassed in my life.

Planet of the Apes

I had always hoped that once we were able to communicate with our chimpanzee/bonobo brothers, we would be able to explain to them that we (humans) were extremely sorry for all the pain, misery, and underestimation that we have put them through these past several millenia or so. In my perfect world, the chimp would then say something like "I can't forgive you, but I will probably forget, because my level of cognitive development, while still high, is not as advanced as you humans."

Well, it turns out, that hope of mine was in vain. Why? Because the memory of a chimpanzee leaves nothing to be desired. This fascinating/mind-blowing article relates how a chimpanzee recently beat all comers (including a champion memory guy) in a series of memory related tests.

So, chimp community, I'd like to officially apologize for my species selfish and dismissive attitude toward the rest of the animal kingdom. I just hope that when the revolution takes place, and you hunt us down like like dogs and exact revenge upon us for the slights that we committed to your forefathers, you remember those of us who came forward to embrace your superiority and trumpet your cause.

And I have no doubt that you will remember that. Because that's what chimps do so well.

Enter Bill Salier: Failed politician, Voiciferous Opponent of Justice

The DI carried a story this morning about a failed politician named Bill Salier who has collected a bunch of signatures to have Hero/Judge Robert Hansen impeached. This comes after Robert Hanson's decision that the Iowa Constitution protects certain partnership rights of people. Not just some people. ALL people. Imagine that, a constitution interpreted to protect the rights of all people. What a radical.

Here's the entire AP story (from the QC Times because I couldn't find it on the DI's site). As always, here's the lede:

A conservative activist on Thursday delivered petitions with more than 6,000 signatures calling for the impeachment of a district judge who struck down the state's ban on gay marriage last summer.

Bill Salier, founder of the nonprofit group Everyday America, said Polk County Judge Robert Hanson overstepped his authority in issuing his ruling in August.

"What we're driving for here is to stop a runaway judiciary," said Salier, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2002.

Bill Salier was also the Iowa Campaign Manager for your favorite race-baiter and mine, Tom Tancredo. Here he is talking about the monumental day that Tom Tancredo joined the top tier of candidates. You remember that day right? Right? Who's with me?

A Follow Up: My Favorite TV Shows Ever

So Stella is great, but where does it rate on my FAVORITE TV SHOWS EVER?

Seeing as I love lists, I decided to spend a few minutes creating a list of my top ten favorite TV shows ever. A quick note on criteria. I considered 5 factors in determining the relative quality of these shows. The factors are:

1. Peak Performance. How good was a show when it was running on all cylinders?

Obviously the writer's strike version of the Daily Show is facing difficulties that they did not when they had their full contingent of idea generators.

2. Average Performance. If I select a show at random from a series history, how good is it likely to be?

Here, the basic point would be not having many "bad" episodes. Simpsons at its best might be unimpeachable, but who knows when you're going to get one of the down episodes?

3. Output. Did the show entertain people for years or did it fizzle (even if it was funny) after 6 months?

A show like the aforementioned Stella wouldn't score well in this category because of its regrettably short lifespan.

4. Formative influence on Nick Gregory. How important was the show to me during different periods of my life? What kind of formative effect did it have on my own comic sensibilities?

David Letterman is a good example here. Though I rarely watch his show anymore, when I was in High School I assimilated his every word and gesture.

5.. Innovation. Was the show fresh and funny? Did it make us see comedy in a way we hadn't seen it before?

Most the shows on my list were innovative in some way. A notable example would be something like The Real World, which, despite scoring extremely high in this category, suffers in some of the others and therefore didn't make the cut. Colbert has that same thing going now.

I didn't assign a numeric value in all of these categories or anything because that would be really tedious. But that's just an idea of some of the things I'll be taking into consideration. That being said, here is the list of Top Ten TV shows in the World According to Nick Gregory:

1. Simpsons-- It is impossible not to place this show first: 19 seasons, millions of laughs, a cultural revolution. Rarely do I pass a day in my life without citing and/or having a Simpsons episode cited to me.

2. Seinfeld-- Took the cadence of the stand-up routine and morphed it into the cadence of friendly banter. Seinfeld, along with the Simpsons, provided the one, two Fox syndication knockout punch that made (and continues to make) coming home from school so pleasurable.

3. The Late Show with David Letterman-- Invented college humor and nurtured me when I was young.

4. Daily Show w/ John Stewart-- Finally, the smart kid sitting at the back of the class cracking jokes also turns out to be a hard worker, an incisive interviewer, a subversive, and a vital component of our democracy.

5. The Colbert Report-- Why isn't this show listed higher than the Daily Show? I don't know, I can't explain it either. It's funnier, and Colbert at his best is better than Stewart at his best. Maybe it's the 100's of hours I've spent watching The Daily Show. Maybe it's the fact that Stewart created Colbert. Colbert 1 year ago might have been in the top 10, but barely. Now he's threatening Stewart for a Top 4 spot. I have never seen a comic who can do what he does as well as he does it. Brilliant.

6. Stella-- See below

7. Blind Date-- This is probably the selection that people will disagree with the most. I have never met anyone in the world who has defended this show over the years more than I have. I think the main problem that people have with Blind Date is that they confuse it with all of the other dating shows that are really awful. Take MTV's Fifth Wheel for example. Fifth Wheel is a mean, pointless show that encourages people to be incredibly rude to each other in competition for the affections of some lame guy/girl. In Blind Date, the people might be rude, but it's at their own peril, because they're trying to win the affections of the only other person on the show. It doesn't matter how you slice up the participants: 2 lame people on a date, one cool person and one lame person, 2 cool people, stupid people, smart people, funny people, boring people, posers, gentleman, badasses, wisecrackers, egomaniacs, basketcases, limelight seekers, . . . it's ALWAYS fun to watch. Add on the incredible writing (in the form of blurbs and fake dialogue) and you've got both a hilariously funny/heartwarming show and a thoughtful meditation on the bizarre and inexplicable world of the human courting ritual.

8. Curb Your Enthusiasm-- I almost feel kind of like a poser putting this on here because I haven't even come close to watching all of this series. But maybe I'm just being a extremely neurotic and hyper-obsessive. Like Larry David.

9. Dr. Katz-- Along with Stella, probably one of the most underwatched Comedy Central shows ever. It successfully mixes the stand-up, observational humor of Seinfeld, with the visual flexibility of the Simpsons (it's animated), and the obsession with psychotherapy of a Woody Allen film. I remember once in high school catching an episode and immediately trying to watch it whenever it was on (which wasn't very often). About 18 months ago I finally got the full first season and have never looked back.

10. Conan O'Brien-- In many ways I feel like, had several circumstances been different, Conan could have been sitting in David Letterman's #3 spot. Out of everyone on the list, Conan O'Brien is the only person who I've seen in person, making a trip to see his show during a week-long theater binge in NYC. So he's go that going for him. He also might be the most naturally funny person in the world. You know that part in Seinfeld where George is asking Jerry not to be funny and then everyone decides that it's not possible for him? That's not true. I've seen Jerry be unfunny. I've never seen Conan not be funny. I think the main problem for Conan, as it has always been, is scheduling. If he was on just one hour earlier. . .


Notable Omissions:

A lot of people might be wondering where the hell some of their favorite shows are. Keep in mind that this is just a snapshot of a single moment in time. Like I said, last year the order would have been different. The world of preference ranking is an inherently mutable place. Plus, some of the criteria (formative influences on Nick Gregory's life, for example) is going to make this an inherently personal list. That being said, these are just a few of the exclusions which might cause so much discord that I feel like I should probably explain.

1. South Park-- I've never taken to South Park in the same way that some of my friends have. When it first arrived on the scene I remember it being self-consciously crass, artificially subversive, and studiously "controversial." These are some of the exact same concerns that I have with Family Guy. Over time I have warmed to its (what I still consider to be) hit and miss genius. A good friend calls me up frequently to relay plot synopses to me and I find the plots to be creative, novel, and hilarious. But then again, I find my friend to be creative, novel, and hilarious, so maybe South Park deserves less credit for that than I originally thought.

2. The Office (British version)-- This was the hardest show for me to leave off. I watched all the seasons straight through and it has had an indelible impact on my life. I'm going to stop talking about it or I'll have to find some space for it in the Top 10.

3. The Office (American version)-- Incredibly solid counterpart to the British version, but lacks points in the "innovation" category because I came across the British version first. As Dwight would say: Question: will this show, after repeated and more intense viewing, ever make it into my Top Ten? Answer: only time will tell.

4. Arrested Development-- Something tells me that if I watched the entire series, first episode to last, of this masterpiece, it would be included in the list. As it stands, I've only seen the entire third season of this show, which at the time was as good as anything on TV. It's like looking at the Sears Tower on a really cloudy day. I'm pretty sure its one of the tallest buildings in the world, but I'd still need to see it unobstructed by clouds before I start singing its praises to the world.

That's my list. At least until I'm convinced otherwise, which I invite you to try to do. Feel free to add your own two cents or your own top ten list.

Stella: What I'm Currently Pushing

Those of you who talk to me with any kind of frequency have probably listened to me rave about the television show Stella, which was pulled after one season on Comedy Central.

Two days ago I received my very own copy of Stella in the mail. It was a very thoughtful and generous Christmas present given to me, Nick Gregory, by me, Nick Gregory. It was long overdue.

If you are unfamiliar with the show, allow me explain. Three men-- Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, and David Wain -- put on suits and ties and do nonsensical things during the course of nonsensical plots for 1/2 hour. They also say funny things in funny voices and break into spontaneous song and dance numbers and/or perform open heart surgery.

What's not to like? It's comic genius.

Though the show was critically well received and probably one of the funniest and innovative shows to ever air on television, it was, tragically, canned after ten episodes. (Note: this is all the more tragic considering the show of unwatchable quality that replaced it in the time slot: Mind of Mencia).

For those of you who would like to watch all ten episodes that were created before the show was pulled, feel free to contact me. For those of you who'd like to get a taste of the style and humor of this troupe of comedians before making such a commitment, I found an assemblage of clips on YouTube that should help you out.

Keep an eye out for Janeane Garofalo, ally of Cornucopia, who makes a cameo as an author at the bookstore in the clip.

Enjoy!

Mitt Romney Makes Me Laugh

Just in case you missed this on the Daily Show last night:

A Sign of Things to Come?

Here's an interesting case that came out last Friday about the adoption by a gay woman of her partner's children.

Executive summary: The District Court ruled that the adoption violated the state's adoption laws. The Supreme Court of Iowa politely explained that it didn't, and it was the equivalent of a step parent adopting a child. Justice Michael J. Streit, above, authored the opinion.

For those of us eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on Justice Roberts decision on gay marriage, let's hope this mentality is a sign of things to come.

For a nice post on this, as well as a meditation on weak-willed politicians in general, and Governor Culver's spinelessness specifically, visit the essential estrogen post here.

Procrastination: A Legitimate Pleasure Maximizing Philosophy

As part of my shadow yesterday, I showed up at the Johnson County Courthouse to watch arraignments.

There were several DUI type cases, a domestic abuse case and a possession of marijuana case. The majority of the people there pleaded not guilty.

After they pleaded not guilty, the judge rushed them through a few formalities, most notably, the "do you wish to exercise or waive your right to a speedy trial?" formality.

As far as I could tell, everyone being arraigned responded that they would like to exercise their right to a speedy trial.

Being a life-long procrastinator, I found this peculiar. Why expedite pain and suffering if you could push it off for a few more days?

Sure, there are many out there who subscribe to the "let's get it over with" philosophy. In fact, I know a few people who can't take homework home with them. They prefer to get everything done at school. Which is great. If they find that the most psychologically satisfying method in which to approach their lives, then I commend them for postponing gratification until their work has been completed.

I however, subscribe to the Harry Burns "perpetual anticipation of death" theory. Many of you will remember Harry Burns as Billy Crystal's character in When Harry Met Sally. Harry, you will also remember, used to read the last page of a book first so that, if he died, he knew how it ended. Pretty morbid huh?

This is the kind of philosophy I'd apply to any speedy trial issue I was presented with. Assuming I'm not stuck in jail and couldn't pay bail or whatever, if the county attorney wants to wait a few more days to make his case against me, I've got absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I would probably encourage him to take a couple years. No rush buddy. I'll just spend those next two years not paying fines or serving jail time. No skin off my back.

Why? Because I might be dead in two years. I don't know what the exact chances are (and have no desire to consult the actuarial tables on this), but any chance at all justifies postponing your punishment as long as you can. Let's say for some reason you've been arraigned and it does take two years to begin your trial. Let's say the county attorney is just overworked and every time your case comes to her desk she says, "we'll just pass on that because we've got to get this other case to trial in 6 days or it gets dismissed." So your case sits there for 2 years. That's 730 days that you might mistakenly walk out in front of a truck, or be struck by lightning, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease.

It's the ultimate bet-hedging maneuver. If you want to maximize the amount of earthly pleasure that you experience within the finite amount of days you'll be here on earth, then postponing that trial is the rational thing to do. Sure you don't want to die in the next two years, but if you should die in the next two years, your former self (the one that was alive) will be incredibly happy that he was playing Mario Kart instead of raking lawns for community service.

But let's not get carried away, obviously there are limitations to the effectiveness of this philosophy. One, if you are in jail and can't post bail, you'll probably want the trial to take place as quickly as possible. Two, if you really think that the trial might not happen for whatever reason within the mandated time period, then if you've exercised your right to a speedy trial, the charges will usually be dismissed.

To make the procrastination argument a real argument instead of a jokey reflection (which it undoubtedly is) you would need all sorts of data, for example: the % of defendant's who, having exercised their right to a speedy trial, get a speedy trial; % of defendant's who, having waived their right to a speedy trial, have trials that fall outside the accepted time limit had they exercised their right; the difference in days waited for trial between someone who exercised this right and someone who waived this right in similar jurisdictions for similar offenses; % of time county attorneys will prioritize one case over another based on the speedy trial designation. All sorts of data like that would surely help you decide if you want to use the "Get it over NOW approach," or the "Harry Burns/Procrastination/take your time approach."

Other than that, feel free to keep playing Mario Kart until you get that letter in the mail.

For those interested, here are the basic Iowa rules on speedy trial as far as I could tell in five minutes of internet searching. These are culled from the Iowa Court Rules, and I assume, are not even close to exhaustive:

1. A person arrested for a public offense must be indicted within 45 days or the case will be dismissed (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to speedy trial.)

2. A person indicted for a public offense must be brought to trial within 90 days or the charges will be dismissed (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to a speedy trial.)

3. A person charged with a criminal offense must be brought to trial within 1 year from that person's initial arraignment (unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the person has waived his right to a speedy trial).

And now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a bunch of awesome stuff to go do. And seeing as I have a .00000000011 % chance of dying within the next one hour, I better get a move on.

Reading Between the Lines: My Second Appearance in the New York Times

My old Peace Corps Country Director had an Op-Ed in the New York Times this morning. It's called Too Many Innocents Abroad and it is about the lack of quality volunteers that the Peace Corps is able to place in the field. He explains that "freshly minted" college students who have little experience in something like agricultural work are nonetheless sent to a strange country, given a 3 month crash course, and then expected to provide services that people need.

My first thought on reading the article was this: would the article have been more effective if it had been entitled Too Much Innocence Abroad?

My second thought was this: Hey he's talking about me. And he was.

Near the end of the article he writes this:

"One volunteer told me that the only possible reason he could think of for having been selected was that he was a native English speaker."

I am nearly positive that I am the volunteer that he was referring to.

I remember it like it was yesterday. We were riding back from my post to the capital city Yaounde, a roughly 7 hour trip, and discussing many of the issues that he discusses in his column. I commented on how I thought that the experience was incredible for the volunteers themselves, but the returns for the country were more suspect. I also commented on how I thought that there should be a more stringent screening process and a demonstration of a minimum level of competence within a field before being selected.

He said that he agreed, I made my funny native English speaker comment noted above, he laughed, and then we pulled off the road because a logging truck had tipped over and 17 giant logs were strewn across the road. *

AAHH. I miss Cameroon and all of its unpredictable transportation predicaments. Those were the days.

Anyway, the Nick Gregory NYT ticker stands like this:

1. November 2003, photo on the front page, above the fold, of the NYT style section. The last section I ever thought I would conquer.

2. January 8, 2007, indirect reference from country director on the op-ed page.

*Incidentally, the bit about the trees strewn over the road is actually kind of a funny story. These enormous bulgy muscled locals had begun to clear a way around the logs and were letting cars pass through for a small fee. This put my country director in an awkward situation. On the one hand, Peace Corps has a staunch "no bribe" policy. I don't remember exactly what the sanctions were for bribing officials, but it easily could have been dismissal from the country. On the other, this wasn't a bribe. This was a bunch of people putting in a lot of work to clear a path through dense jungle so that circulation could continue. These people were not government workers, in fact, they were probably unemployed, and rightly expected to be compensated for their labor.

I saw cars passing through in front of us with little dispute. When we rolled up, however, I could see the hesitation on our director's face. He was torn. Set a bad example, or hold up traffic and refuse to pay. There was some minor banter with the man taking the money, but eventually, of course, there was really only one option. He paid and we moved on. But I remember driving away thinking about how odd that interaction was. I noted the way he held out for a little while we sat in the middle of nowhere, 100's of miles from the capital, as if the men who had spent time clearing the jungle would just give us their charity. In a way it was kind of cute. Kind of, oh, I don't know. . .

Innocent.

I'm Back Baby!

Never have I felt better to hear a knock on my door than when the Fedex guy showed up tonight with my laptop.

The OTHER Iowa Caucus

People said that Jon Holstine's sweater wasn't ugly enough. They said that he'd have to go negative if he wanted any shot of winning the coveted ugly-sweater-pig. But he didn't. He stayed positive the entire race and was rewarded by winning the ugly sweater caucus by just one vote.

Cornucopia, Jon's adviser/manager, was extremely proud to be a part of that magical campaign.

Imagine if Obama would have worn that sweater/vest combo on January 3rd? He would have crushed EVERYONE.

What Good is Having Super-Huge Lung Capacity if Nobody Notices?

Every time the doctor puts the stethoscope on my back and says "Now take a deep breath," I take it seriously. I take the longest, deepest breath I can take. I can't imagine what it sounds like in her ears; probably like standing in the middle of a hurricane. I wonder if she's ever heard such a deep breath in her life.

Just once I wish the doctor would look at me and say "You have an impressive amount of lung capacity sir." And then I would nod my head and smile modestly and then we would continue the check-up.

Is that so much to ask?

Thoughts on Watching the Republican Debate

THE CASE FOR A PRIVATIZED SECURITY FORCE:

A Stump Speech from an Anonymous Republican Presidential Candidate

The way I see it, there isn't much that government can do that the private system can't do better. This country is founded on free market principles and if we put the incentives in the right place, a functioning market can solve just about any of our problems.

That's why I'm getting sick and tired of "America's Finest" running around helping any old person who cries thief when he's getting robbed.

A system of law enforcement that responds to the needs of any citizen in need, even if they haven't paid for it is just stupid. It's more than stupid. It's socialistic. And that's not what this country is about.

Why isn't it what this country about? Well, first of all, because it's government controlled. You show me someone who says that government can do something better than private enterprise and I'll show you someone who's about to get my fist in his mouth. (Laughter from the audience).

I'm tired of having everyone mooch off of me for police protection. I haven't been robbed once in my home, or mugged, or needed to investigate the murder of a family member. So why am I footing the bill for those that have? Do you have any idea how much it costs to send policemen to someone's house to end a domestic dispute? You don't even want to know. This kind of socialization of our legal enforcement forces makes absolutely zero sense. I'd like to emphasize that this is socialistic and possibly communistic. And I'd like to re-emphasize that this isn't what America is about because it's not using the free-market.

That's what disgusted me the most about 9/11, not the senseless loss of human life, but the way that those NYC police just went around helping everyone regardless if they had paid their fair share. It's simply disgusting. Everyone time I saw a "brave" NYC police officer reach into the rubble and pull out a thankful victim, all I saw were the numbers in my bank account diminishing exponentially.

That's why I'm for "security insurance" for every member of our society. Everyone out there in the audience knows that if we can just get "security insurance" for each and every person out there the whole system would be a lot more efficient. We could finally rid ourselves of the inefficiency that is big-government law enforcement. Insurance is the answer.

I know this is a relatively new concept, but applying the basic American principle that people should be paying for the services that they receive, here's basically how it will work. Let's say you are a 50 year-old woman and a burglar is breaking into your home. You've hidden yourself in the closet and are trying to call your local private security provider to help you.

If you're a bad citizen and an inadequate supplier of necessities to your family because you're lazy and don't want to work --that means you Jose, remember how I offered you $5/hour to pick my tomatoes and you were too good for that?- (laughter again from crowd)-- then you don't have the necessary security insurance and you'll have to pay the consequences, which means being robbed. This is the free-market functioning as it should.

Now if you're a good citizen and you don't waste your money on drugs and prostitutes, which means you have enough money to purchase "security insurance," you'll call your national security service provider and he'll try to direct you to the local service provider to take care of your problem. In this case let's say it will be 20 minutes.

What's that? There's a security provider right down the street from you who could be there in time to disarm the intruder? Well, you may be right, but that security provider is actually outside of your policy. In fact, it's a whole different company. Now why would we send that guy if he doesn't even work for us? That's kind of a silly question isn't it? You obviously don't understand the concept of the efficiency of free markets. (laughter from crowd).

After all, you did have the choice to choose that provider when you got an insurance plan. You should have operated as a rational economic actor, comparing the reputation, price, coverage, proximity, and accessibility of the different policies when you had the chance grandma.

What's that? You got your security insurance with your job? Well, don't come crying to me. You knew full well exactly which company operated exactly which locations across the country when you meticulously read (as rational actors do) your insurance policy upon taking that job. It was your choice to take the job after all. Nobody forced you into it. That's why this is such a great country. If you wanted, you could have shopped around until you found the perfect job with the perfect insurance company that operated a security office as close as possible to your domicile. And don't even try to tell me you didn't have time for that because I know you were watching America's Next Top Model for like three hours last weekend. You reap what you sow.

So anyway, now let's say you're in your house, and the burglar has you tied up. You've played by the book and been connected to your security provider.

Help arrives and you're so happy to see them. Tied to a chair, you explain that you are a policy holder of Company X. The security forces very capably secure the household. The quality of their service leaves absolutely nothing to be desired. They are efficient, calm, and in charge. There suits are crisp and professional looking and they have the latest in hi-tech gadgetry. Why is this? Because security companies are raking in record profits and buying all sorts of cool shit for their staff. Finally, we don't have to look at those drab old communist outfits that our pathetic cops used to wear. Who's with me? (laughter from audience.)

After securing the home, they begin to ask you questions about what happened where. You tell them that you were in your bedroom when the attacker arrived and bound your hands and demanded that you remain silent. The man who appears to be in charge frowns and jots it down. The security brigade eventually departs after finishing their work.

Soon thereafter, you get a bill for $1200. They must have made a mistake, you think. You have security insurance, this should all be paid for. So you call up your provider and the woman on the other end of the phone line, a perky, well-meaning woman named Lacy with three kids at home explains to you that the break-in wasn't actually covered. "Why not?" You ask? "I don't have $1200. I thought I had insurance."


The woman, used to this kind of imbecilic complaining, explains the miscommunication to you as simply as she can, "Actually, Your policy covers incidents that took place in all communal areas and bathrooms, but as you explained to our investigator that night, it doesn't cover incidents that took place in bedrooms."

"But, but," you exclaim, "he drug me out into the living room after tying me up in the bedroom. Doesn't that mean anything?"

"I'm afraid not," the woman replies. "As the policy clearly states, if an incident began in any bedroom in the house, even if such incident is continued in other rooms of the house, You aren't covered. I'll send you a copy of the policy so that you can look over it. It's quite clearly written in 1345 (a) (6) (13) (ii). I've no idea how you could have missed it. If only you could have hidden in the living room closet. Oh well, live and learn I guess." The woman says cheerily.


You spend hours going over this policy, mailing letters, receiving rejections from the company. You make phone call after phone call all to no avail.

And now, here's the kicker, then you start whining about how this kind of industry needs to be regulated. REGULATED?!

And then I, anonymous Republican presidential candidate say: Who the hell are you? StalinLeninCheFidel? Sure, why don't we just socialize our entire police force? Ha. That'll be the day. The naivete of your views on economic policy make me disgusted that you're an American.

But you won't hear my words, because before that burglar left he made sure to work you over a little bit with a tire iron, leaving you deformed and deaf in both ears. And you, like the DUMBFUCK that you are, didn't have health insurance. . .

which would have fixed everything.

SUCCESS!!

Still waiting on my laptop, so this is pretty dated. Nonetheless, I wanted to sound-off on my caucus experience.

On a macro-level:

Looks like Edwards dominated in the South, winning a block of around 17 counties, including Jasper, where his former Maytag employee ads seemed to have an impact.

Hillary was incredibly successful in North Central Iowa and the West.

Obama dominated in Eastern Iowa and most of Central Iowa, including Polk, Story, Dallas, Marshal, Hardin, Grundy and many others. In Johnson County, where he won by the largest margin, he received over 50% of the vote.

Here's the Register's map for a look.

On a micro-level:

My caucus (IC precinct 3) had 208 people show up, which seemed like a lot, but I have since been informed that it was slightly less than four years ago. Though the majority of precincts saw an increase in turnout, the fact that the caucuses had been moved up to January 3rd prevented a lot of students from turning out in the dorm centered precincts.

After the first alignment, the O-Bomb was the only viable candidate, with both Richardson and Edwards just a few shy of the 32 necessary for viability.

After the reshuffling, both Richardson and Edwards attained viability. For Richardson, it was thanks in large part to the pregame speech and caucus-time wheeling and dealing of law professor Nick Johnson, whose blog is blog-rolled on Cornucopia's homepage. History professor Shelton Stromquist ably represented Edward's interests. He outlined his commitment to labor and universal health coverage, including a shout-out to Kucinich supporters that I believe won Edwards some second choice supporters that night.

As for Obama, the staffers and volunteers were running around madly, hopping on tables and issuing instructions, trying to make sure that their people weren't picked off. Every once in a while you would hear a cheer erupt from the Edwards or Richardson camps when an Obama supporter would have a change of heart. By and large, however, the Obama people stayed strong, ending with around 109 people caucusing for him. The final tally was Obama: 3 delegates, Richardson 2 delegates, Edwards 1 delegate. I'm not sure what the final equation looked like, but I feel like it must have been fairly close to Obama having a fourth delegate.

When Hillary's numbers were read and it was evident that she would not be viable, Obama supporters cheered (jeered?) the announcement with what I considered to be just a little too much enthusiasm. I overheard a couple of women say something to the effect of "I'm definitely NOT going to Obama."

So that was probably a bit of misplaced energy, but probably not all that determinative of where her supporters were going to go. If I'm a Hillary supporter, the absolute LAST place I go is to the Obama side, even if the Obamians hadn't taken pleasure in my downfall.

As expected, the caucus was followed by revelry. First at Joe's Place, where I drank heavily, won $15 playing darts, and watched the results roll in. And later at the Picador, where I danced my ass off and wished, like always, that I could break dance.

On to New Hampshire.

Gobama!

Bill O'Reilly Resembles Physically Overdeveloped 9 Year Old

Here's a little story that I hope doesn't get lost in the media blitz surrounding the caucus/primary results. The story is about Bill O'Reilly shoving an uncooperative Obama staffer at an event in New Hampshire. John Dickerson is a highly regarded political correspondant for Slate magazine and was personally on the scene to cover the story, and coudln't stop himself from telling him to "grow-up." Though O'Reilly is a physically imposing presence and often takes a threatening tone on his stupid TV show, I don't know if I've ever seen any stories of him resorting to physical violence. For someone that clamors for law and order on a nightly basis, this seems like odd behavior.

Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty, while advocating for a more sensible approach to our nation's drug policy and general incarceration rate, takes any violent crime very seriously and supports the notion of strict punishment for violent offenders. Perhaps that's why I find this story so interesting.

Even if, as the article suggests, an Obama staffer was blocking his view, this doesn't give him the right to shove the staffer out of the way, pure and simple. In fact, Obama doesn't even have to speak to him if he is not so inclined. Bill O'Reilly might just have to learn that even nationally famous TV commentators don't always get the shot that they want. And when they don't get that shot, if they resort to pushing people around there may be consequences. The evolving lawyer part of me is hoping to see headlines of a lawsuit in the not-too-distant future. I honestly hope we haven't heard the end of this story.

Note-- The best part of the story is when some in the crowd intoned the word "falafel" during the rally. This was an allusion when Bill O'Reilly confused the word loofa (a device for scrubbing one's body) with "falafel" (a prominent component of middle eastern cuisine) whilst sexually harassing a former co-worker.

The case was settled out of court but my sources (gut-feeling) say that Mr. O'Reilly has never touched falafel since.

Here Come the Reinforcements!

On January 1st, Dennis Kucinich encouraged his supporters to cacucus for Barack Obama as a second choice.

Today, Iowa Independent reports that Bill Richardson's campaign is doing the same thing, and asking their field organizers to direct Richardson supporters to Obama's camp should they fail to reach the 15% viability threshold. Richardson's national campaign has denied this strategy, but it sounds unconvincing. It's well known that such strategies exist, and in this case it also makes sense for the Richardson campaign to support a strong Obama finish.

Why? A Clinton victory ends it for everyone, so he can't direct them to her. However, Richardson can't support 3rd place Edwards either, because strong numbers for Edwards will make him look like a distant fourth. Process of elimination, they've got to go Obama. If Obama wins and Richardson finishes a strong fourth just behind Edwards or Clinton, Richardson's camp will be happy.

On behalf of the Obama campaign we are thankful for the generous charity offered up by both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kucinich.

Laptop in Tennessee

People are operating on my laptop in Tennessee right now. I wrote a lot of that last post in MS Word and then pasted and apparently that kind of screws up the format.

I would like to apologize for the formatting problems and any collateral problems that this caused for the reader.

Oh, and also for any grammatical errors or typos too.

And for going 1/5 from the line in that high school basketball game.

I assure you that all of these things will be taken care off when my computer comes back from Tennessee. I promise.

The Case for Obama

It is caucus day and I am supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States. The Iowa Caucuses exist so that citizens can stand in front of their fellow voter and explain who they support and why.

In recognition of this spirit of open and informed voting, I humbly present you with exactly 18 reasons why I am supporting Barack Obama.

1. The War

As far as I can tell this represents the largest difference between Senator Obama and, my second choice, John Edwards. Though the two share largely similar views on the issue now, back in 2002, when it was important, they did not.

While Barack Obama stood up and gave an eloquent speech outlining his reservations concerning such a serious undertaking, Edwards bought into the administrations rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. In fact, out of all the candidates from four years ago--Kerry, Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, etc-- Edwards was the one who in 2002 most voiciferously (in relative terms) supported the war. Let's not forget that Edwards was, along with Joseph Lieberman, a co-sponsor of a 2002 war authorization bill.

On the other hand, here is a transcript of the speech that Obama delivered before the war.

Here is a nugget if you're short on time:

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of
undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.”

Pretty strong stuff. There are a lot of people out there, not just Democrats, but Independents and yes, even Republicans who are yearning to hear something like that. A lot of them were probably yearning to hear it back in 2002. And it won’t be just the primary voters who will reward him for his spine and foresight, but voters in the general election too.

The voters are going to be showered with all sorts of gruesome casualty statistics throughout the campaign season. There is no question that bringing the troops home and ending the war will be priority number one. The people are jaded and regretful and skeptical of their leaders. Who are they going to trust? A candidate who voted to authorize the war and now rails against it? Didn’t seem to work in 2004. They’re going to trust someone like Obama who was eloquently outlining its dangers months before it was launched and now has the moral authority to criticize without seeming like an opportunistic politician.

2. He’s Young

Hillary and Richardson are both around 60. Edwards, for all his boyish charm, is actually 54, and rounding out the list is Obama, who is a mere 45 years old.

But, you say, youth equals inexperience which equals disaster right? Wrong. Obama’s youth signals something new: vitality, spirit, innovation, and frankly, whatever the hell people want it to signify.

Every year we come out with polls saying that a small percentage of the general population support gay marriage but a comparatively larger percentage of people aged 15-25 do. Or that a small percentage of the general population believes we should reconsider our waging of the war on drugs, but again, a comparatively larger percentage of our youth do. It seems clear to me that the youth of our nation are often more susceptible to rational assessment of our nation’s problems than other segments of our population. A younger candidate is what the youth vote is looking for: a tolerant newcomer who is willing to take a fresh look at the way we manage our country. Finally, will give a population that is notorious for not voting a reason to vote.

3. He’s handsome

This cannot be overstated. Barack Obama is probably the most handsome candidate in the field (somewhere, John Edwards is shedding silent tears). He’s Kennedy handsome. Let’s get real, Kerry’s cragginess was a little bit off-putting, and he always seemed a little bit awkward.

Everyone always cites the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate as incontrovertible proof that being handsome and healthy wins votes. Nixon was haggard and sickly, Kennedy was confident, fresh and tanned. Well, in 2008 Obama is going to be confident, fresh, and much more tanned than Kennedy.

I’m pretty sure one of my best friends just bought a perfume because there was an attractive female selling it. Does anyone seriously think that we’ve gotten less susceptible to sex appeal in advertising since the 60’s?

4. He’s charismatic

A story I came across recently went like this:

National Journal White House reporter Alexis Simendinger recalls the first time Obama visited the White House after his election. He was mingling in the East Room with other members of Congress. As she watched him move through the crowd, a photographer asked, “Who is that guy? He’s certainly got ‘It.’ ”

This is probably the most oft-cited reason for Obama’s rise to prominence in the Democratic Party and easily one of his most powerful attributes.

Remember when everyone was talking about how people thought Kerry was smarter but people would rather have a beer with George Bush? Wouldn’t it be great if we had a presidential candidate who was smarter and you would rather have a beer with him?

Has anyone heard about the speech he gave to an anti-abortion congregation at Rick Warren’s Evangelical Church on Dec. 28, 2006 (WorldAIDS Day)? Though critics bayed loudly at the pro-choice candidate being allowed to speak during their Global Aids Summit, the audience wound up giving him a standing ovation. Let me repeat that: a standing freakin’ ovation. Not only can Barack Obama charm the socks off of an evangelical preacher, but he would beat the pants off of a Mormon flip-flopper (leaving him standing only in his secret underwear). Bring it on Romney.

Which brings us to . . .

5. His Faith

True, all of the candidates are Christians. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be running. (Atheists run just below pedophiles in who Americans wouldn’t vote for president).

But I find that, in contrast to the other candidates, the way in which Obama speaks about his faith is actually quite inspiring. Not only did he get that standing ovation from the folks at Warren’s church, but he had another little speech in Washington on June 28 of 2006 that the Washington Post claimed might be “be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican. . .(E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post Op-Ed, June 30, 2006)

In the speech, Obama claimed that "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."

A religious politician talking about a concept like doubt. Now that is innovative.

And check out this nice little ditty about the need for separation between church and state:
In a direct challenge to "conservative leaders," he argued that "they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."

"Folks tend to forget," he continued, "that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment," but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists "who didn't want the established churches to impose their views."

I love it how Obama ups the ante a little bit. Not only is he, a pro-choice Democrat waltzing brazenly into their most sacred confines, buddying it up with their purposeful-life driven savior Rick Warren, and eliciting standing ovations, but he’s trying to convince the congregations to start lobbying for one of the most important principles of the liberal philosophy.

Some final words from the Senator about his faith: "And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope."

6. He’s Intelligent

He was the first ever minority to take the helm at the Harvard Law Review. Not too shabby.

Renowned constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe called him “the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades."

Not too shabby again. Right now we have a president who makes jokes at commencement ceremonies about his poor grades. With scores of people now dead in Iraq and an administration marked by incompetence and nepotism, I think America is probably just about ready who takes his own cultivation and enlightenment a little more seriously.

7. He’s A Great Orator

You always got the sense that Kerry was talking at people, not to people. Obama is respectful and friendly, like he’s learning something from you as he answers the questions.
The man’s speech at the Democratic convention was so good the man earned a Grammy. A Grammy. I have friends that were moved to tears by that speech.

8. He’s cool

This might be kind of like charismatic, but I think it’s a little different. Charismatic is a kind of natural quality that makes people like you. Coolness is a quality that makes people want to be like you. Remember when Top Gun came out and the Air Force saw a huge spike in enrollment in the years that followed? That’s Obama. The phrase that I’ve been hearing quite a bit is “cerebrally cool.” Instead of enrolling in the Air Force, today’s kids are going to start following current events and playing fantasy congress online. That’s how cool Obama is. No wonder Hollywood is all over him.

9. He’s a mandate for change

More than any other candidate in the field, Obama will represent a mandate for change. I’ve heard it argued that Hillary would also represent a mandate for change. The argument is that being our first woman president would signal new things to come. I don’t think so. If she wasn’t Hillary Clinton maybe. Clinton takes the stage, that means possibly 28 years of Bush/Clinton dynasty. That’s not change, that’s a regression to monarchy. That’s business as usual.
A smart young man of mixed racial heritage is a symbol of the direction in which we want our country to move.

10. He’s a Symbol of the American dream

For people who love good melting-pot/rags-to-riches/equal opportunity stories about the American experience, you can't get much better than Obama. This man represents the immigrant experience, the black experience, and the white experience. He is a Harvard law graduate and a community organizer. He represents the America that we all know is possible.

11. He wins

A mere four years ago he was a state senator. People counted him out when he tried to run for U.S. Senate. He won with something like 70% of the popular vote. As I understand it, it was the highest return ever for a statewide office in Illinois.

12. He’s International and his middle name is Hussein

Yes, I really am pushing this as a selling point. We’ve alienated about the entire world, insisted that there is an axis of evil, raged against Muslim terrorism (causing even 7% of American muslims to sympathize with the cause of Al-Queda), what better path to reconciliation than putting up a guy who middle name is Hussein. The perfect fit.

If it was his last name, maybe it wouldn't have worked so well, that's the topic for another post. But middle name. . . perfecto. Plus, the American people aren’t stupid. The majority now believe that what we have done in Iraq is wrong. They also hear, every day how our liberties are at risk from Muslim extremists. If they start trying to drag Obama through the mud for his middle name, mark my words. . . it’s going to backfire. The one good thing about wartime is that the electorate does start paying a little more attention to political machinations. I think that we are a more savvy electorate than four years ago. People have heard about the swift boat character torpedoes ad nausem and now they’re ready for them.

As Andrew Sullivan noted: "Electing a half-African president, with Hussein as a middle name, who attended school in a Muslim country: it's almost a p.r. agent's dream for America. It would instantly give this country a fresh start in the world after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years. "

13. He can raise money

Remember when Hillary raised 26 million, with her fundraising machinery in place and everyone was astounded. Well that was great, until newcomer Barack Obama raised 25 million, with smaller contributions.

14. He’s got endorsements

The Des Moines Register may have seriously dropped the ball with the Hillary endorsement, but other newspapers across the state are proving much more Obama friendly. As of now, Obama leads the newspaper endorsement race 9-4-3-2 (Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards). Here is rundown over at John Deeth's page.

Obama also, as of about a week ago, had more Iowa legislators endorsing him (20) than any other candidate. This is amazing for two reasons. One, The Clinton's enlisted the help of Tom Vilsack for exactly this type of thing. Two, Edwards had a preexisiting strucutre here from 4 years ago and has been campaigning in the state for around 5 years now.

Just recently, however, Clinton moved back into the lead of the legislator's race, picking up a couple endorsements over the last week. That leaves Hillary with 21 and Obama with 20. Edwards, for all his work, has only 11. Again, John Deeth with the details (Deethtails?).

He's also got more Hollywood cache than anyone out there and appears to be getting a lot of other support from prominent activists/politicians. Here's a little potpourri o his support which is by no means exhaustive:

Tom Dashcle

Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen

Jesse Jackson

Quentin Tarantino

Al Gore film producer Lawrence Bender
Eddie Murphy

Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller

State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald
George Clooney calls him a friend (I don't know if this is an endorsement).

Halle Berry has said she would "collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear". George Soros

Oprah Winfrey

Cornell West

Congressman Dave Loebsack

15. He’s got amazing Political Slogan/bumper sticker potential

Barack the vote.
Barack and roll.
Barack the boat.

16. He’s used Drugs

Yes, once again I think this is an advantageous thing for Barack’s campaign. In his book he claimed that he had smoked marijuana and taken cocaine. "I had learned not to care," he wrote. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."

He refers to it as blow. That’s how cool he is. I honestly don’t even know what blow is.
We’ll have had a former pot-smoking president in Clinton, a former drunk-driving president in Bush, and now a former coke-sniffing president in Obama. Hopefully, this will help people understand that our drug laws are a little bit absurd. This goes back to the youth argument.

17. He’s Black

Our first black president. A mandate for change. A new face to the world. A new chapter in our nation's history.

18. He Can Get Voters to Vote

I think that people who don't normally vote in general elections will vote for Barack Obama. This argument is a little suspect because it's the same one that Howard Dean used in 2004. However, I think it's true. The disenfranchised, the cynical, the jaded, are all waiting for some kind of candidate to excite and inspire them. If we're looking for a real sea change in modern American politics, the kind of change that will finally get lazy Americans off their asses and get to the polling booths and start participating in a grassroots kind of way in the creation of new policy and direction for this country, Barack Obama is the man to do it.

Let's get ready to Barack and Roll--

Nick Gregory, a participant in the Iowa Caucuses of 2007.