Coming to terms on politics

There are two terms which get bandied about in modern politics. They are "conservative" and "liberal" and they're often used to describe a person's political leanings. However, I think we brutalize them.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of the word conservative is "disposed to preserve existing conditions... and to limit change", while the definitions for liberal include both "favorable to progress or reform" and "open-minded", "tolerant", and "not bound by traditional or conventional ideas". The point of note here is that the definition of "conservative" does not include "closed-minded", however, in modern thought, this definition seems to be implied. Conversely, the word "liberal" does not mean "revolutionary" though more than a few might disagree with me.

You will note here that neither term comes with any sort of financial connotation. Liberal does not mean "out to discharge the contents of the public coffers for 'the greater good' at the drop of a hat" nor does conservative mean "willing to part with the blood and lives of 'the underprivileged' rather than spend a dollar to help them". So, why do we use those terms to describe a person's financial tendencies?

The Dichotomy

America's political scene is an exercise in contradiction. On one hand we have a party of Creationists who espouse a "survival of the fittest" agenda. On the other hand, we have a party of Evolutionists who espouse an agenda of "intelligent design".

No wonder things are a mess.

VABO: you know, that's not a bad idea

A friend of mine just hit me with a new term: VABO (Vote Against Barack Obama). I'm not really a big fan of voting against people, but this year I'm all over this mantra.

Back in 2008, I voted the straight Libertarian party ticket. Why? Because I wanted to vote for people instead of against others. In the ensuing 23 months, I have lost my job, endured the national debt exploding at an unparalleled rate, and watched the "do-gooders" try to legislate "the right thing".

This year, I'm going to vote the straight Republican ticket for two reasons. The first is because, finally, the fiscal conservative elements in the party (a.k.a., the Tea Partiers) have had enough and finally ousted the stranglehold that the bible-thumping, crypto-fascists have had on the party since 2002. The second is because its time that we made it clear to the Democrats (the aforementioned "do-gooders") that their socialist, "we are the ruling class, you are the unwashed, proletarian masses" agenda is unacceptable.

Still, the country is going to remain up Shit's Creek until we can get a major 3rd party into the mix, one that combines fiscal responsibility with social freedoms. The problem is that ideals like that really only appeal to a very small set of the population -- the ones who want to take care of themselves and don't want to be told what to do. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of the people in this country want (or need) to be kept, like pets, or they want to be able to tell other people how to live their lives.

Economists, part of the problem

I'm going to interrupt my rant on climate change to tell a great joke I heard years ago.

After shipwreck, three world-renowned academics find themselves marooned on an island with a case of canned food. As they start to get hungry, they brainstorm on problem of opening the cans.

The first academic, a chemist, says, "If we leave a can in the sun, Boyle's Law tells me that the contents will increase in pressure and the can will burst."

The second, a mathematician, says, "We'll need to know about the how the can is made so that we can determine how best to locate it so that it will burst in the shortest period of time while spilling the least amount of contents."

The third, an economist, says "Let's just assume that we have a can opener..."

The point here is to illustrate that economists, especially academic ones, make a lot of horribly flawed assumptions about the state of things, specifically considering variables as constants for the purposes of evaluation.

Now, consider the impact that economists have on government.

It is about the green, just not the green you think

About a year ago, I created a monster. I introduced my son to YouTube.

Now, unlike his dad, he does not care to search for nostalgic content that allows him to relive his youth, nor is he looking for the latest political satire, he's a 5-year old on a mission: He wants nature programming, damnit!

I can tell you that, since we started roaming through YouTube, I have watched quite a bit about whales (most notably blue whales and sperm whales), squid (mostly the giant variety), and, recently, dinosaurs. Now, I learned a lot about whales and dinosaurs when I was a kid. Not being allowed to watch a lot of TV, I spent a lot of afternoons as a kid reading every sort of educational book I could get my hands on. However, there was always one thing that always struck me as kinda strange, in everything I read about dinosaurs (and all of the other large reptilian life) and the era in which they lived, it always referred to them living in jungles and swamps. There was never any talk about dinosaurs living in deserts or even temperate climates -- the only habitats that are ever mentioned are tropical and sub-tropical ones. Why is that?

The answer is that, 65 million years ago, the Earth's climate was much warmer. In fact, the average temperature on the planet was 4° C (7.2° F) warmer than modern temperatures. This, in turn, raised the humidity levels on the planet as well.

Now, a funny thing happened between now and then. In fact, it's happened several times: the Earth's temperature dropped, drastically, causing periods of extended glaciation over areas beyond the polar circles. We call these periods "Ice Ages", the last of which ended roughly 10,000 years ago. This leads to two simple questions.

The first is obvious, "Why did the ice age end?" The answer being that it ended because the Earth's temperature rose significantly, thereby causing the ice sheets which were covering large amounts of the northern hemisphere to melt.

The second question should then be the obvious, "What caused the Earth's temperature to rise?" The answer being that we really don't know what caused it. However, we certainly know that we can rule out human activity -- 10,000 years ago, humans had wood-fueled fire for energy, they did not have petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines or coal-fired power plants.

So, where am I going with this? I am trying to prove something that you don't hear very often, if at all, from the "global warming" movement and that is this: the Earth's climate has been changing since the planet was formed and that it will continue to change in the future, with or without the impact of humans. This runs directly counter to the rhetoric of the "global warming" movement which would have you believe that human activity is the dominant operant in climate change and that humans are currently on a path which will irreparably destroy the planet's ecosystem, thereby making life on Earth improbable at best.

Why I'm skeptical of this is simple, I just don't believe the message I'm being given because A) I don't trust the science that I'm being told justifies it, and B) it's too alarmist. To me, when you synthesize the message down to its basic point, it doesn't seem very different from "Repent, the end is near", something you hear from a lot religious movements, especially those which spread disinformation in order to not only sell their ideas but to speed up their adoption. Maybe that's why Michael Crichton wrote about the Cult of Global Warming. As such, I really feel a need to question the motivations behind the movement.

As I wrote last year, altruistic movements like saving the planet do not gain traction without there being a chance for someone to make a significant financial gain. Well, last month, the BBC (of all sources) gave me the answer I was looking for: Al Gore is a partner in a venture capital firm which invests heavily in alternative energy companies. Regardless of how Gore wants to defend his actions, the fact is that the man is lobbying governments around the world to change their energy policies and he's seeking to profit from these changes. That makes him a lobbyist. Nothing more.

So, as I said, it is about the green, just not the green they want you to think of...

Congratulations, Joe!

He did it! My friend Joe Kennedy got his name on the ballot for the US Senate special election to replace Ted Kennedy.

Joe is a Libertarian running as an independent candidate in this election. If you live in Massachusetts, I urge you to go to his web site (http://joekennedyforsenate.com/) and review his platform. Help take back government from the special interests and make it accountable to the people.

Are we really that stupid?

It's a simple question and one I ask because I never cease to be amazed at how dumb people can be.

But, more importantly, I ask it because there are times when I am absolutely appalled when the actions of our so-called leaders (or those who would seek to become one) do nothing but mock our intelligence.

Case in point, in 2006, the Democratic National Committee ran on a one-issue platform: Stop the War! That was it. Almost no focus was given to things like the economy, health care, energy costs, or education; it was all about "the War". As such, every Democratic candidate in an election for a federal office ran on that platform. This made sense, as Congress are the ones who control the budget.

Unfortunately, just about every Democratic candidate for a state office here in New Hampshire made that part of their platform as well. Ask them about their platform and they'd eventually mention the war (in Iraq, they couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan). This stunned me. The New Hampshire state legislature has no control over the United States Military. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. Why were these candidates making this an issue?

Well, I guess I overestimated the general public because the Democrats won a historic victory, taking the control of both houses of the New Hampshire state legislature.

This brings me to something I saw today. It was an ad for Steve Pagliuca. Pagliuca is a candidate in the Massachusetts special election for US Senate. In his ad, Pagliuca explains that "Massachusetts is hurting" and he talks about how his plan will help turn around the economy in the state.

Again, I'm confused. Can someone please tell me how electing this clown to a federal office is going to directly help the economy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? The short answer is that it can't. It's meaningless grandstanding. If he really wanted to help redevelop the Bay State's economy, he'd be better served running for a state-wide office in Massachusetts and not running for US Senate.

But there I go again, overestimating the intelligence of the general public.

Why I don't trust the government

or

A funny thing happened trying to learn about something completely different

Back in 2007, I was working at Fidelity and I was trying to get in touch with a co-worker who I had a worked with on a project several years before. The co-worker was Steve Ganis, the Vice President in charge of Fidelity's Anti-Money Laundering Office. There was only 1 problem, I couldn't find him. He wasn't answering voicemails or emails and he wasn't at his desk. Then, I overheard a conversation in the next cubicle about him so, I asked "what going on with Steve?"

The reaction I got could only be likened to the one the emperor must given the small child when asked why he was naked. The response I got back was veiled to say the least. But the short answer was that Fidelity was being sued by a former employee and that Steve had been named in the suit. I also learned that there had been a "big article in the paper" and, as such, Steve had been reassigned (a lovely bit of corporate double-speak) until the matter was resolved.

So, I did a Google search to try and find the article using "Steve Ganis investigation". I didn't find the article I was looking for, but I did find something else. What I came up at the top of my search was the following link: The Mystery of the "lost" Mena Report, Gray Money: the Continued Cover-up.

Being someone who likes hearing conspiracy theories, I printed out the story and it promptly sat on my desk for about 3 months before I got tired of looking at it and decided to bring it home to read it. Once I started, it was hard to put it down. Written in 2001, the article's purpose was to publish the results of an independent investigation by the Arkansas Commission into the activities going on in Mena, Arkansas in the early to mid-1980's and expose their findings. It also documented their attempts at having Congress and other "trusted authorities" investigate the matter.

As far as my interest lay, the bottom line was that Steve Ganis was working for the House Banking Committee (HBC), the Congressional authority that was investigating the matter, and had been leading their investigation. However, the report that he produced was never published, even years after the investigation had concluded. It also said that Steve Ganis had left the HBC, whereabouts unknown.

I didn't think much of it at the time. However, a couple of months later I heard that someone else had been assigned take over Steve's position and I decided to look into it further. This time, I printed out a new copy of the report and printed out articles under the related stories. The first one in particular, Gray Money, drew me in like a moth to a flame. The article drew a very clear line between Bill Clinton and AIG with the Arkansas Development Finance Authority the middle man.

Putting the information provided, or alluded to in the articles, together, one could see that George Bush (Bush I as I like to call him) and Bill Clinton had been working together for some time. Basically, Clinton allowed Bush and the CIA to use Mena as the focal point for a CIA-sponsored drug smuggling operation and in return they would launder the money through Clinton's vehicle of choice. Furthermore, they would direct the federal investigators to turn a blind eye to Clinton's other endeavors which required money laundering.

As for Steve Ganis, it turns out that the events that precipitated the lawsuit were much ado about nothing, boilerplate disgruntled former employee who decided to sue instead of find another job.

More cranial noise...

Just some things that have been rattling around the inside of my skull...

• Chuck Lorre Productions, which is responsible for both Two and a Half Men and the Big Bang Theory, makes not only the funniest shows on TV, but he's also got the best sense of humor I've seen since Doug Adams died and Robert Aspirin sobered up. The vanity cards at the end of those shows are priceless. Fortunately, all are available on the web: http://www.chucklorre.com/


• Red Sox left fielder Jason Bay's full name is Jason Raymond Bay, which makes him Jay Ray Bay...


• At some point soon I will be creating a group on Facebook called "I have more than 50 friends on Facebook and not 1 that I went to high school with"


• While the show itself looks like crap, Jennifer Esposito from Samantha Who? is hot. Not too bad for a hockey player's daughter.


• I've started a search for Kenny Ames


• Just added some angel fish to the tank. I forgot why it is that I like cichlids so much, because they're both smarter and have more personality than live-bearers like platties and guppies.


• If you are watching Survivor: Gabon, you cannot be rooting against Matty. He's an underdog with a target on his back, but he's a really likable guy who does not quit.

---

Love watching the general response to Obama's election as President. Right-wingers are screaming that this guy is the anti-Christ, here to institute a socialist government that will run this country to ruin, while the left-wingers are dancing in the streets, convinced that he will bring about the Utopian society where no one needs money and we're all free to love and do as we please.

I think both are going to be proven wrong. What he definitely does seem to be about is change. Yeah, I know, that was about as easy a read as you'll get, but I really think that the man's plan involves changing the way things are done in this country and I don't think that's an entirely bad idea. We do need someone to take a fresh look at the way this country operates because, quite frankly, the empire that the bureaucrats have built in Washington, DC stifles change.

Now, there's always the chance that I'm dead wrong about this and that Obama's plan is merely to be the socialist redistributor of wealth. If that is, in fact, the case. So what? The man was elected on the strength of a swing vote that was decidedly anti-Republican. All people need to remember is that we re-elect Congress every two years. If Obama turns into the right-wing's worst case scenario, then his party will lose its majority in Congress in the midterm elections and he'll be forced to compromise on things just like Clinton did. As I recall, the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency were some pretty good times.

---

Now, for a personal notice.

It's been 6 months since I gave my notice at Fidelity. And, for 6 months, I haven't publicly skewered the worthless, duplicitous pieces of shit responsible for making the working conditions there miserable. And, in a move that seems totally out of character for me, I don't believe that I will.

I'm sure that those of you who know me well are stunned about this as it is totally of character for me. And before you think I've been medicated or that I'm posting from the seclusion of a lightly padded room with no sharp objects nearby, just know this: living well is the best revenge.

I have a great job at a small, but growing, company where we focus on results, not the process. I am no longer at a company which will be laying off hundred, nay, thousands of employees over the next few months. I don't have to make sure that I kiss the right ass to keep my name off a list. So, for now, I'll keep them out of the limelight.

Except for you Dausch. Fuck you.

The Devil and Ms. MILF

If the McCain-Palin ticket has anything going for it, it's that VP candidate is a total MILF. Aside from that, they got nothin'.

What's McCain's energy policy? Where's he stand on health care? How does he plan to address Iraq? What does he think needs to be done about the economy? I don't know because I haven't seen squat from his campaign. I've gotten something from the New Hampshire Republican Party urging me to vote for the party's "leadership team" (as if I'm that stupid) but not piece of literature from the presidential candidate's campaign.

Now, while I don't agree with all of his platform, I would be lying if I said that I didn't know where Barack Obama stood on an issue. This is evidenced by the sheer volume of literate which I have received in the mail from his campaign over the last 6 weeks.

The contrast is startling. And the irony of a Democrat sending out such a volume of paper products which will undoubtedly need to be disposed of is not lost on me.

However, what's disturbing is the message that I'm getting from all of this. If there's one thing that I've noticed about the Obama literature, it's that it has taken a decidedly negative turn. 6 weeks ago, it had a very pro-Obama, "here is my stance on the issues" tenor. Now, it's an incredibly anti-McCain, "this guy will hurt you" tone. I don't like that.

Yet, I've seen nothing from McCain which refutes any of these claims. Obama says McCain is for more of the same "failed policies" of the Bush administration. McCain says nothing. Obama says McCain wants to tax your health care benefits. McCain says nothing. Obama says McCain is going to keep pouring billions of dollars into fixing Iraq while the US crumbles. McCain says nothing. Obama says that McCain is going to harvest the kidney's of US school children and sell them at auction to international tycoons suffering from dialysis. McCain says nothing.

OK, I made that last one up. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that the only reason why any politician in this country doesn't defend himself against accusations, however outrageous, is because they're the true. That frightens me.

John McCain is (allegedly) running as the conservative in this race. Well, he's clearly not running as a fiscal conservative, that's for sure. In fact, he looks to be running on the same "more of the same" campaign that got George Bush I elected 20 years ago. This terrifies me.

The mere possibility that we could elect a candidate for president in this country that is so out of touch that he doesn't acknowledge (or refuses) that the country is screaming out its demand for a change in direction and approach at the highest level of government would drive me to drink myself to sleep at night if I were to dwell on it longer.

Why Columbus Day is more important than you think

Columbus Day, typically believed to be October 12th and, like most other holidays in this country, has been reduced to merely being observed on the Nth Monday of the month. The original purpose of the holiday was to mark and celebrate the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and, by extension, western civilization.

However, we now know that Columbus didn't discover America. It was, in fact, right where the Irish, Scandinavians, and Portuguese would have told him it was, had he actually bothered to ask them.

So, why celebrate this day of discovery (or invasion, as certain groups are want to call it)? Simple, the day also marks a triumph in the ever-continuous battle between truth-seeking science and power-mongering religion.

Huh?

When Columbus' fleet set sail from Spain in 1492, he didn't just embark on a journey to extend Spain's imperial reach (although, that is how he sold the trip to the Spanish crown), he set forth on a journey of faith. Not faith in God, but faith in science. He set forth to prove that the pope and his minions were wrong and that the Earth was actually the sphere the ancient texts claimed it to be. And, upon landing in the West Indies, he shattered the lock and chain which the Roman Catholic church had used to bind the truth.

So, for that, Cristoforo, old boy, I salute you. Happy anniversary.

Don't insult my intelligence

At some point in my life, I'm going to make the effort to walk up to a politician running for federal office and ask them to their face if they think I'm an idiot. When they they say "No" (because there's no way in hell that they'd tell a potential voter "yes, I assume all of you are mindless sheep"), I'm going to ask them why they insist on insulting my intelligence.

My point of issue today is an item of campaign literature I received from the Obama campaign. In short, it informed me that Mr. Obama has an energy plan which will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It also informed me that the plan advocated by Mr. McCain is just out to help "big oil".

Clearly, the point of this little bit of propaganda is to link McCain to the oil industry which we're supposed to assume is evil and out to cause us (and our bank accounts) harm. What Obama and his cronies aren't telling you is where all that oil that gets imported goes. They want you to assume that all of it, every last drop, goes into energy products, be it gasoline, home heating oil, or something else. However, the truth is that it isn't the case. The proof exists in one little word.

Plastic.

Plastics are an integral part of American life. Your computer is made with plastics, so are your TV, your car, your microwave, your shoes, your coat, and your bed. Have you purchased a soft drink recently? Chances are it was sold in a plastic container. Bought a candy bar? Packaged in plastic. So are CDs and DVDs, which are, oddly enough, also made out of plastic. Your iPod is made with plastic as well as your cell phone and your digital camera. In fact, plastic is so ubiquitous that you would have to go significantly out of your way NOT to purchase things which make use of it in some way, shape, or form.

However, what too many people seem blissfully ignorant of is that the companies that make those products don't just harvest the fruits of the PVC tree or raise herds of polypropylenes, plastics are a petroleum product and you make them with oil. And the reason we make all these things out of plastic is simple: it costs less to manufacture things with plastic than metal, wood, or glass and those things last longer. Damn, there's that whole free-market economy getting in the way again.

Getting back to our villan, "big oil", the truth is that the oil industry has been pushing for ways to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil for years and that Obama's party has lead the effort to block attempts at opening potential new sources for various political reasons.

Look, I'm all for exploring our options in terms of non-fossil fuel-based energy sources. I'm waiting for the day when Home Depot and Lowes start selling photovoltaic cells that you can mount on your roof. However, I steadfastly refuse to blindly advocate this "Green Everything" agenda because it has distinct limitations. For starters, it seeks to have everything be powered by electricity. I'm sorry, but internal combustion engines just do somethings better than electric motors, such as work without wires. Not to mention that I like to cook over flame, not electrical coils.

Of course, since this is politics, I'm also curious to know who stands to benefit from Obama's energy policy?. For those who do not know, I don't buy this "global warming" crap for a minute. (More on that in another blog entry.) So, when I hear all of the comments about needing to adopt a more environmentally friendly energy approach, it really makes me want to ask "who's going to gain from all this?". The knee-jerk reaction is that it will help save the planet. Sorry, but in America, altruistic movements (like saving the planet) do not gain this much traction without there being a chance for financial gain somewhere.

The sad fact is that, if you do the research into a lot of alternative energies, you see that most of the technologies being proposed are being developed by large companies that are not part of the oil industry. Translation: big companies are still going to benefit from this governmental policy, just not the ones who have been benefiting from previous governmental policies. And I'm sure if you followed the money, you could trace those companies to the candidates espousing a green agenda. They're out for green alright, just the old-fashioned kind, not the new kind.

On the whole, I think I'd have a lot more respect for Obama's campaign had they merely sent me a little card that reads "shut up and believe everything we say, you mindless sheep". At least I'd know where I stood.

Bahhh!

The Art of the Comic

As I get older, I never cease to be amazed by the fact that comedians often have a better grasp on the realities of American politics than most. This year, I find myself resorting to the art of the comic again to describe the pending elections.

Put simply, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park) hit the nail on the head with their election episode from 4 years ago. For those who might not be familiar with it, the election came down to a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich. For the life of me, I cannot find a better analogy for the elections I need to make a choices on this autumn.

Starting with the Congressional representative election, the two main choices are Jeb Bradley (the Republican) and Carol Shea-Porter (the Democrat). I still have yet to figure out which one is the giant douche and which one is the turd sandwich, but that pretty much sums up my choices.

Bradley is a millionaire who claims to represent the working class. On top of this, he used to be the district's Congressional representative until he lost the seat to Shea-Porter two years ago in the massive Democratic sweep of Congress. Now, he's trying to win back the seat, running on a platform of "New Hampshire values." He's criticizing the Democrats for their attempts to obfuscate the pork in federal spending yet he attacked his opponent in the primary for being against any pork, especially every scrap that New Hampshire can garner. Great, just what we need, a guy who's against pork for anyone else, but out to get as much as he can for "his constituents". I don't know what he calls that, but I call it hypocrisy and that's not the kind of character I want in my elected officials.

Shea-Porter, on the other hand, is the incumbent trying to retain her seat. For those who don't recall, she ran a one-issue campaign 2 years ago and her "sole purpose" if elected was to remove the troops from Iraq. That was her campaign. Nothing about the economy, energy prices, health care, or anything else. Just "bring the troops home from Iraq". Well, it's been nearly two years since the election and last time I checked there are still US troops in Iraq. In fact, I believe the number of troops over there has actually increased. Great, she was sent to Washington to do one thing and she failed. On top of that, her voting record also shows that she voted right along with her fellow Democrats and their socialist agenda which features increased taxes and big government solutions which are destined to fail.

What incredible choices mainstream American politics have given me.

Fortunately, those aren't my only choices. There's another one. Bob Kingsbury is a Libertarian running for Congress. He's in favor of lowering taxes and reducing the size and role of government. He is against the Patriot Act and other attempts by the government to restrict individual freedoms in the same of "security" and believes that we need to foster the believe that the citizenry is responsible for its own actions.

Of course, I'm sure that many people will view Mr. Kingsbury as a "kook" and a "nut job" and, quite frankly, they might be right. However, I'd rather support a "looney" who acts on their convictions than someone deemed "normal" by the masses whose goal is to advance their own agenda under the guise of "the public good".

Idle thoughts from the moment

Been a while since I blogged and I thought it was time. Here are some of the things going on at the moment.

• The Red Sox clinched a playoff spot this week. This will be their 5th playoff appearance in the last 6 years. They also become only the second defending World Series Champion in the last 6 years to make the playoffs in the following season. The last one? The 2005 Boston Red Sox.


• Patriots wide receiver Troy Brown announced his retirement today. Brown, an 8th round draft pick by the Pats in 1993, was with the team for 15 seasons and is the franchise's all-time leader in receptions and punt returns. He finishes his career with 3 Super Bowl rings, 2 AFC Championship rings, and a host of memories most players will never have. Brown is proof that being the biggest, strongest, or fastest won't garner as much success in the NFL as being smarter, working harder, and loving it more will.


• Heard part of Jon Keller's segment this morning on WBZ. He blamed the US Government's inability to move beyond party bickering and petty squabbling on the fact that the country is run by the Me Generation, a narcissistic group of sanctimonious half-wits who claim to have uncompromising principles to serve the public interest while they seek to advance their own agendas. Keller's right. The lot of them can go to hell.


• Given the situation in Washington, I'm somewhat happy that my brother's friend did not win the primary. Washington is a hive of liars and unscrupulous human scum. Neither would have been served well by the experience.
  


• Aidan turns 4 in 18 days. Unbelievable how time flies. Pretty soon, I'm going to have to start wondering about homework and first grade.


• Not sure how many of you live in New Hampshire, but if you do and follow NH school sports, check out the NHIAA community at www.mondopulse.com. Sign up and follow your favorite team.

I'm going to close out with an update on my fantasy football team. For those of you who don't remember, I drafted a pretty decent team. Since the draft, however, the team has gone downhill. I've benched my first round pick (Braylon Edwards), traded away my second round pick (Houshmandzadeh), and cut my starting QB (Bulger) as well as my 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th round picks. My starting QB is now a guy I picked up off waivers on a whim (O'Sullivan), offered a TE averaging nearly 13 points a week to 4 people, and I'm down to the point where I'm speculating that a retread on an injured team (Koren Robinson) can resuscitate my wide receivers.

The Democrats select their VP

Well, Barack Obama and the Democrats have picked their VP candidate. In a surprise to no one with a brain, it was NOT Hillary Clinton. The actual candidate was Joe Biden, the senior senator from Delaware. Biden, who ran for President in 1988 and 2008, is considered a moderate centrist Democrat who will assist in improving the party's appeal to the political center.

One of the things that I appreciate about this selection is that Biden is listed as one of the least-affluent members of the senate. Not sure where he stands in the grand scheme of things, but he's not a man of ample means by any stretch. I like that. I think that it's time we started putting more of the proletariat into the White House and stopped having to select between members of bourgeoisie. The 2004 Presidential election, given the net worths of the 4 popular party candidates for president and vice president, seemed more like it should have been for the president of the country club, not the president of the country.

What I do not like about this choice is something of a trend in Democratic presidential candidates, specifically candidates running both for election to the White House and for election to their their current position. All that does is show that these guys don't care where they get in, that they just want to have a position of authority. When I see that happen, all it does is make me realize that Douglas Adams was right. Anyone capable of getting himself elected president should under no circumstances be allowed to take the job.

Some information about oil

I was doing some reading the other day and I came across some information that I found interesting. It was especially interesting given that this is a Presidential election year (in case you hadn't heard) and the subject of oil and, consequently, oil-derived prices, is in the news.

Did you know that as of July 2008...

...the United States produces just over 5M barrels of domestic crude oil per day. Of that 5M, Texas produces the most -- just under 1.1M barrels a day.

...much of the oil produced from Alaska (722K barrels/day) is sold internationally. Due to antiquated laws to protect the US shipping industry, foreign vessels are prohibited from delivering oil between US ports.

...the United States imports over 10M barrels of oil per day, of which 5.3M barrels come from OPEC countries and 2.1M barrels come from the Persian Gulf.

...the largest international supplier of foreign oil to the United States is Canada, which provides approximately 1.9M barrels per day.

...the United States consumes approximately 20.7M barrels of petroleum per day including 390 million gallons of motor fuel per day.

...the current proved fuel reserves for the US are 20,972M barrels -- approximately 1,000 days.

Here's my source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Space, still the final frontier

Just saw the footage of the Earth and moon that NASA released from the Deep Impact space probe.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/epoxi_transit.html

Unfortunately, it made me realize that space is still the final frontier.

It's been nearly 40 years since we went to the moon and it seems as though the collective thought process from the majority of the Terran governments is "well, that's far enough". To make matter worse, humans haven't set foot on the moon in over 30 years. I guess once we figured out how to put man-made metal objects in orbit around the planet, it seems as though those in charge thought it would be a better idea to find ways to put cameras and guns on them instead of find a way to put people in space on a more regular basis. But there I go again assuming that governments are designed to act in the best interests of the population, not the people who comprise the government...

Anyway, in case you haven't been following along, Sir Richard Branson's latest venture, Virgin Galactic, is starting to take shape.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Not only did they win the X PRIZE for being the first private team to build and fly a reusable spaceship, they're looking at creating a space tourism industry which will, hopefully, push the governments of the planet (specifically, the USA) into re-prioritizing the space program. I'm not sure how much Branson is going to be charging for a trip into sub-orbital space, but I'm interested in finding out. It's got to be less than the $20M that the Russians were charging.

Some idle thoughts...

My brother Greg and my buddy Joe asked me about fantasy football this year and, since I've been posting about it recently, I thought I'd offer some more information about the concept. Fantasy football is a misnomer. It's probably better thought of as "rotisserie football" but since the majority of guys who play are under the age of 30, I guess the whole fantasy tag was part of the hook.

Anyway, the basic idea is that you assemble a team of NFL players and you get points based on the stats they produce. Sounds simple enough, right? So, you play in leagues where each week you go head to head against another player in the league. Whichever player's team scores the most points in a given week gets a win for that week. The teams with the most wins at the end of the fantasy football season (which usually occurs about week 12-13 of the NFL season) make the playoffs.

Now, the key about fantasy football is building your roster. This is the part most people struggle with and it's something that Bill Simmons (a.k.a., ESPN's Sports Guy) has discussed in the past.
Quite simply, each league varies and, while the concepts are usually the same, differences in implementations can make a huge difference.

Here's what I mean. Almost universally, leagues award 6 points for a passing, rushing, and receiving TD and 1 point for every 10 rushing yards, and 1 point per 25 passing yards. However, points for receiving yardage vary and some leagues award points per reception while others don't. (The league I'm in awards 1 point per reception and 1 point per 10 yards receiving.) Then there's the issue of defenses. In most leagues, you have a generic defense/special teams unit but there are some leagues where you can pick up individual defensive players too. Defenses score points based on take-aways, sacks, and points allowed.

Back when I made my first foray into fantasy football, I got screwed by a couple of things. The first was that our provider (Yahoo!) awarded kick (both punt and kickoff) return TDs to the individual who scored them, not to the unit as a whole. Since I had Chicago's defense/special teams unit that season (a.k.a., the year Devin Hester returned 5 kicks for scores), I got screwed. To make matters worse, I couldn't even add him to my roster because it wouldn't let us add defensive players. I also made the mistake of picking several Miami Dolphins higher than they should have been selected.

Bottom line, if you're going to play, learn the rules, learn the players' situations, and build your team to maximize your point output. For example, Frank Gore of the 49ers has run for just under 2800 yards over the past two years and, based on our league's scoring, has produced an average of 287.9 points a year. But you need to know the circumstances. In 2006, he produced 333 points (with Norv Turner as his offensive coordinator). Last year, he produced only 242 points. This year, his offensive coordinator is Mike "What do you mean, run the ball?" Martz. Is Gore someone you want to count on for production? I wouldn't.


Other things

Saw JibJab's latest political satire this morning. For those of you who forgot, these are the same guys who did the Bush-Kerry sign-along to "This Land is Your Land" 4 years ago. Anywhoo, this year they've done a number called "Time to do some campaigning" (which I think is done to Richard Thompson's "Time to Ring Some Changes") and manages to mock Bush, Cheney, Obama, McCain, both Clintons, and the whole political process. I love it. Here's the link to watch it:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin#/teaser/1191

Now, if we could just get some candidates that were worth electing...

---

The second-half of the baseball season kicks of tonight (although, this year, it's more like the last 40%) and it finds the Red Sox in first place in the AL East. The Sox have a record of 57-40 and look to be in pretty good shape to make another playoff run. Important bits of information to consider for the Sox:

• they have 65 games remaining (34 at home, 31 on the road);
• their remaining games are against Angels (6), Mariners (3), Yankees (9), A's (3), Royals (3), White Sox (7), Rangers (6), Blue Jays (12), Orioles (6), Rays (6), and Indians (4);
• the pitching has been doing well, but they get their lineup monster, David Ortiz, back at the end of the month and that should help produce more runs.
  

The next 2 1/2 months ought to be exciting.