New story.

Local Man Contracts Cancer for Fab Wigs.

Incumbency.

Don't like the fact that so many Congressmen get reelected term-after-term? What's the solution, you ask? Term limits has been the usual answer. It worked well for the presidency, certainly.

But perhaps a better system would be to prevent sitting Congressmen from ballot access. Which would mean a given Congressman can be reelected as many times as he'd like, but he cannot appear on the ballot for so long as he is in office. The beauty of this is to allow those individuals who are truly noteworthy politicians to spend quite a bit of time in Washington, while at the same time preventing the stagnation and tyranny that results from the current lifer system. It would also discourage public servants, being paid to govern the country, from moonlighting as campaigners. And lessen the use of public funds intended for legitimate government purposes--e.g. transportation for Senators desiring to address their electors--from being co-opted for illegitimate personal purposes. Of course, a given Congressman could serve back-to-back terms, but only if he wins his write-in campaign. Neat, no?

Google SiteSearch.

My friend just added a search box to his site. Seeing how ridiculously easy it is, I decided to do the same. So feel free to search for your favorite word on either my blog or Yodelling Llama.

The Saddest Music in the World

Just watched The Saddest Music in the World. I'm not sure what I was expecting. A Mark McKinney film, I guess. Whatever that means. It was certainly an odd film, shot with Vaseline and retro style. But was it enjoyable? At points. My girl suggested it was like something I would have done. I can't disagree; I definitely would have cast the same pot-belly-wanting blueberry-pancakes-eating Bruce-Willis-fucking piece of Portuguese ass that I haven't seen for a decade or so as the nympho...

Move the fight on terrorism off US soil?

One latecomer justification for the Iraq War is that by invading Iraq, the US has created a state of chaos. Say what? I gather the idea is that by making Iraq such a mess, the terrorists will see this as their chance to get noticed and really instill some fear in the squares. The terrorists will drop whatever their doing elsewhere in the world and join the party.

Even if this were true (and not just a lie Bush tells himself to explain why people in Iraq keep killing American soldiers, given that real Iraqis are of course grateful, and welcomed American soldiers as liberators), it is still one of the most backwards pieces of reasoning to which I've ever been privy. It is akin to the Union and the Confederacy putting aside their differences to move the whole war to Mexico, because that way American civilians will not be so severely impacted. [Actually, it is more akin to the Union deciding to unilaterally move the Civil War to Mexico, hoping the Confederate soldiers follow. But let's just put that aside for the moment.] What about the impact on the Mexican people? It is horrifying for a government to use its own civilian population as bait; it is much more horrifying for a government to use another civilian population as bait.

Would I rather fight terrorism on US soil than in Iraq, Ms. Rice? Absolutely. Because at least that way it is the beneficiaries that are taking the risk. Because at least that way I get to sleep at night.

Libertarianism and the environment.

Why the Clean Air Act? We have the common law doctrines of trespass and nuisance, either of which would give rise to a cause of action against air polluters for damages. We are able to contract around air pollution by paying for scrubbers that can be donated to factories. Hell, my electric company currently offers the option of purchasing power for a small premium that is generated by wind turbines. Don't we have enough free market solutions?

No. The main problem with tort actions against polluters is evidence of damages and evidence of causation. Do you have any idea how poor the current state of science is at deciding to what degree a particular factory's emissions caused a particular person's health problems? And without the threat of tort actions, it is hard to get the less scrupulous industries to play ball.

So we have the Clean Air Act to approximate the net results if our proof problems were substantially reduced. To crack down on the most obvious causes, to reduce the damages generally. How do we know the "obvious" causes are in fact causes? Science is pretty good at generalities; it is only on the specifics that it falters.

Does that mean libertarianism doesn't work? Yes. At least when broadly defined. There are certain types of human interaction that lend themselves to a hands-off approach, and there are certain types of human interaction that do not.

Another new story.

Ol' Dirty Bastard Takes Place as God of Underworld in Egyptian Pantheon.

New story.

Cuckolded Phish Fan Sleeps Diagonal in His Bed.

Kinsey

There's a new film coming out called Kinsey that has Dr. Laura spitting mad, so for that alone I think I'll probably throw some money in its general direction. But beyond that, I'm truly intrigued. I don't know much about Kinsey the man, other than that he came up with the Kinsey Scale, which seems to capture the human sexual condition better than most summary sociology. At least it gives us a framework in which to speak about sexual orientation. While Dr. Laura and her ilk may want to continue to social trend of shaming everyone into zeros and sixes (or maybe just zeros), at least post-Kinsey we are all on the same page. Whether one wants to treat those of us occupying the "center" as normal, abnormal, perverted, or just playful, the quantification of orientation should be seen as a step forward. Kudos to Kinsey and Bill Condon for bringing him to the big screen. And for casting the delightful Laura Linney.

Like football, religion is divisive.

I remember reading somewhere that Bush was very surprised when he first took office in 2001 that a number of people didn't seem too keen on the idea of working with him. I gather his surprise stemmed from the fact that he had always thought himself a uniter, not a divider.

While there may be a number of reasons people felt hesitant to get into bed with this fellow, methinks a strong underlying current exists: religion is divisive.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean "divisive" to mean "evil" or even "stubborn," like some folks these days. I only mean to suggest that religion is divisive in much the same way as football is divisive. Some people root for one team, with a few putting in extraordinary effort. Others root for another team. Some don't root at all, except during the occasional date with Ann Coulter, and even then for a different sport entirely...

When someone is silently religious, or silently rooting for the Bears, almost no one feels divided. When someone wears his religion on his sleeve, or wears a tattered Raiders jacket every day a few feel divided, especially where the sleever interacts with sleevers with differing loyalties. But when someone wears his religion on his sleeve, or paints his face with Giants colors, and makes major life decisions based upon his affiliation, a lot of people feel divided. And when that person holds a powerful executive decision, a lot of people get downright scared. Maybe not the other Giants fans. Maybe not even the other football fans. But certainly the bulk of Americans, who at most pay lip service by going to church once a year or sitting down for the Super Bowl, are none too comfortable.

So, President Bush, I hope this clears things up for you. You are a divider, not a uniter, because you are scary, and like football.

Although I must point out, President Bush: the Astros are not a football team.

inter alia

Recently took over the (UI) Student Bar Association's papyral bullhorn, inter alia. Recently, as in few days ago. And am busy preparing for the next issue. Fun, no? I've set up another blog to keep the community posted about things. Like when a new issue is out. And where they can send articles. And anything else that might crop up.

And for my next trick, I'll offer to write the Wall Street Journal single-handedly!

None of the above.

Man, I wish every state would start having a "none of the above" option on every ballot. The traditional response to such a measure would be to toss the candidates that ran and infuse the process with some mandatory new blood. And that would be satisfactory. But my response to a "none of the above" win would be to let the position lie fallow for the duration of the term. Which would have meant, when the majority of Americans threw up the hands in disgust yesterday and voted that neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor Badnarik, nor Nader, nor Cobb, nor Peroutka, nor any other candidate whose name temporarily escapes me should be president, we'd do without for four years. NOTA would have been the best president ever...

Election Day

Election Day: the only national holiday where the post office is open.

Go out and vote. Please. And not just for President. Check your local election board for a sample ballot, then Google the candidates. Find out who they are, what they stand for. Then choose the one with the best web design. Because if a candidate cannot be bothered to hire someone with some visual sense, or cannot be bothered to put something up at all, he deserves to lose.