It turns out that Mark Penn was right after all… Ohio and Texas could and did stop the abomination Obamanation. With a solid 10 point victory in Ohio, this perennial swing state made it quite clear who they wanted to be the next president — and she occasionally wears pantsuits. According to CNN at least, the only demographic Obama could say he captured in Ohio was non-Christians. Every other demographic either went for Hillary or was evenly split (note: CNN didn’t have age breakdown data, so I can’t comment on whether Obama got the 18-29 vote or not).

Tejas was a more complicated case, but my muchachas y muchachos delivered solidly for Hillary, leaving Obama with his two core constituencies — blacks and young, rich, white liberals. Looking at the district-by-district map is even more interesting — Obama takes the major urban areas where blacks and young, rich, white liberals live (aka districts the Democrats win anyway), but the rest of the state (aka the “red” parts”) went solidly for Hillary. Could she take Texas in the general election? Maybe not, but she certainly has a better shot than Obama does against Sen(i)or McCain.

Vermont and Rhode Island split ways, with the uber-liberal paradise that brought you these hippies, falling solidly for the liberal candidate (hint: has a wang), with the more moderate New England state (you know, the one that doesn’t put a socialist in the Senate) going solidly for the more moderate candidate (hint: has bigger balls).

One thing that worked in Hillary’s favor is her ability to kick Mr. High-Falutin’ Law Professor’s ass in debates. In all of the March 4th states besides Vermont, the folks who thought the debates were important all went for Mrs. Pantsuit instead of Mr. My-Wife-Never-Liked-America-Until-Now. The fact that she and Mr. Penn finally found attack ads that could stick to Obama certainly helped, not to mention the Chicago journalist field day on Barak (It’s Obama season… call Dick Cheney!). The latter leaves me with today’s Moment of Zen:

Obama: “Guys, I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions.”

To which I can only say: All hat and no cattle.

Advertisements

It’s looking more and more like the campaign of HRC believed their own “inevitability” line and didn’t bother to plan past Super Tuesday. Tell a line long enough and you start to believe it yourself and stop thinking about what you might need to do if your “inevitability” turns out not to be so inevitable after all and the opposition doesn’t cooperate by playing their assigned role of loser. There’s a name for this problem: Victory Disease. Believe it or not, the Wikipedia page is pretty solid, so I’ll quote it for you (with some slight edits):

The signs are:

  • Arrogance, overconfidence, and complacency,
  • Use of previously victorious patterns of fighting, and not developing new tactics to anticipate enemy advances,
  • Stereotypes of enemies, underestimating enemies,
  • Ignorance of contrary intelligence or refusal to recognize it.

While the winning side grows complacent, arrogant, feeling invincible, the enemy adapts. Military disaster ensues. While “victory disease” does not automatically foretell failure, it is a strong indicator. The term applies outside the military world.

The deep irony is that HRC and her team got a heck of a case before any actual victories.

This should sound familiar: It’s essentially the Donald Plan (Rumsfeld that is) for post-invasion Iraq. But, as he said famously at the time “it would be weeks, not months.” Now he was right about formal large unit operations but that doesn’t change the misleading nature of the quote, which was widely believed to mean “just like Desert Storm,” i.e., no long occupation, no big bill, no casualties, etc. We all know how well that turned out. Lots of people whose jobs it is to know better were telling the then-SecDef and those above him that things were going to be trouble. The invasion could have been more difficult than it was but it was not seriously in doubt. The post-invasion, on the other hand…. Well let’s just say that such things are complicated and cannot be left for improvisation. You need a plan for what happens when things don’t go the way they should.

Well HRC has fallen into the same trap. Her campaign’s been noting things like the fact that the Texas delegate allocation rules are arcane and perverse. Well, that may be, but one would presume that it was her campaign’s job to find out about such things and plan for them, rather than whinge about it down the line. And she’s one to talk about arcane and perverse rules manipulation, what with changing her mind on the Florida and Michigan primaries. Again, she’s got a fig leaf of a point but was only pro these states when it looked like it was going to be good for her. Before that, who cares? She agreed to—but then reneged on—having her name removed from the ballot.

Whether this was simply due to carelessness or some other motive I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. The message of the 2000 election is that victories based on “strategery” and procedural tricks executed by one’s partisans who have multiple relationships undermine the legitimacy of the election. Sound familiar? They need to be avoided and the system upheld, i.e., be both fair and seem to be fair. Clearly the Florida and Michigan issue is a problem and, most likely, the best thing to do is to hold a caucus after the last scheduled primary. Given how chaotic this primary season has been, it’s not at all clear if it will be worthless or amazingly relevant, so by trying to push to the head of the line Florida and Michigan may well have gotten what they wanted by boosting their relevance. That would be a bit perverse, too, but poetic justice deserves its own poetic justice now and then.

Other things:

  • Speeches don’t put food on the table. Oh really? (I suppose it’s true since the presidential pension would be quite sufficient.)
  • States and voters “don’t count.” (See “Rove” and “base”.)
  • A senior staffer really known for loyalty above anything else who spent more time watching soap operas in her office, burning through money, and then famously said “screw this, Joey doesn’t want me!” when her son asked for his Dad before bedtime when things got bad. Or maybe we’re just lead to believe she said that? And if so, what does it say about HRC’s “people”? That they will stiff her when the going gets tough? That HRC can’t discipline her staff appropriately? All of the above, most likely, but an inability to appropriately discipline staff—particularly those who are longtime friends with demographically appealing bios—sounds pretty familiar too.
  • Rampant playing of the “two for one” card while still talking about being “her own woman,” i.e., trying to have it both ways. (At least this one is new.)

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see some kind of superhero in Obama, or McCain, for that matter. They’re both more stirring than HRC, but ultimately I’m enough of a realist to know that every president steps in the doggie doo eventually. Were he to become president, I’m sure BHO would have his share of scandals in his administration. One of the virtues of a long campaign is show just what kind of person you are when you step in it, and by that score, HRC isn’t showing up too well.

WordPress divider

ObFascism Tag: Look up some of Hitler’s famous quote about how well Operation Barabarossa would go: “Bolshevism will collapse as a house of cards.”

As we reflect this week on the passing of Norman Mailer, I find myself thinking about his contemporary and acquaintance, playwright Arthur Miller, author of the acclaimed “Death of a Salesman.” I can’t help but think that if Miller, who died in 2005, had lived a bit longer, he might have written a new play entitled “Death of a Feline.” Like his previous work it would also have been a multi-layered play about apparently banal and normal events, which somehow take on an almost epic tone as they convey the prejudices, follies, and cruelties of the society they occur in.

We’ve moved from a cold, heartless society which could reflexively and accidentally grind a man into the dust to an overheated, mushy-hearted society which may systematically and deliberately grind a man into the dust for the unforgivable crime of acting like a human being. I can’t help but think that both Mailer and Miller would be all over this one.

Here are the facts, which no one disputes: James M. Stevenson, 54, founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society and famed bird enthusiast, used a .22-caliber rifle to kill, with full pre-meditation and with malice, Mama Cat, a feral cat living under a toll bridge. His reason: Mama Cat preyed upon piping plovers, endangered shorebirds, with the efficiency common to her breed. Mr. Stevenson, believing that the world is better with piping plovers than without, decided to eliminate a serious threat to their continued survival. And he did so.

And so, now Mr. Stevenson is on trial for the crime of animal cruelty, and could spend up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted.

In Texas. Where the state regularly executes morons without a qualm. In Texas, Mr. Stevenson faces serious jail time for shooting a cat to defend a bird. Mind you, this isn’t his first cat-killing, as he freely admits to killing numerous cats on his own property for similar crimes against avians.

In other words, he did exactly what human beings have done for at least 10,000 years: he killed an animal he didn’t like in defense of other animals he did like. He did no more, and no less, than what farmers, shepherds, hunters, and pet owners have done from the dawn of civilization. But, sadly for him, he did it in a civilization that no longer accepts such acts—even in its most individualistic and firearms-friendly area.

Now, it’d be one thing if Mr. Stevenson had killed a beloved pet which was simply wandering around on its own property. But, as far as he knew, he was killing a feral cat which preyed upon an endangered species. A cat which probably would have been put to death (humanely) in a shelter if it had been picked up by the very state which now tries Mr. Stevenson. The very state which extended the protection of law to the birds the cat sought to kill.

If a human had dared to do what Mama Cat did each and every day, he would have found himself prosecuted to the full extent of the law, facing probably even more jail time than Mr. Stevenson is now. Texas law and society would recognize that bird-killer as a menace whose willingness to finish off the piping plover justified their depriving him of liberty and, if he resisted arrest or attempted flight from prison, even his life.

Society reserves to itself the right to mete out justice to human beings, and rightly so. Rule of law and civilized society demand that I not be free to pursue my private vendetta against you. But Texas now seeks to extend that principle much further. Under its new animal cruelty laws, it would seem that the state now reserves to itself the right to defend animals, no longer allowing human beings to intervene freely in nature’s struggle.

So another human freedom, enshrined since the Dawn of Man, falls. And for what? To protect our ridiculously emotional and anthropocentric view of animal life. I own a cat, love it very much, and can understand just how painful it would be for my cat to be killed by another human being. But, as much as I love my cat, it is just a cat, and infinitely less valuable than any human person. If someone cruelly and needlessly shot down my cat, I would be angry, and seek justice. But if I, through my own carelessness, let my cat threaten endangered animals or the valuable property of another, shouldn’t those I’ve wronged be able to defend life or property against my cat?

Should my emotional attachment to my cat, or cats in general, be allowed to curtail the freedom of another to defend either their property or other species they value more than my cat? Once my cat leaves my property, aren’t my wishes secondary?

The Texas case has turned into a shouting match between cat-fanciers and bird-lovers. But there’s a much more important principle at stake: should the emotion of either side be allowed to dominate logic and reason? If a beloved cat is killed, it’s a tragedy, but it’s not a crime on par with murder, simple battery, or even assault.

It should not be treated as such.

Hola amigos! Angry New Mexican here to talk a bit about the Land of Enchantment, and our neighbors. You see, New Mexico, the land of chile (red or green) and piñon, is a unique place. Granted, we have our problems, like crappy schools, the proliferation of pueblo casinos, and the influx of hippies in Taos and Santa Fe who drive up prices for the honest Joses like me, but overall New Mexico is a great place… except for the neighbors. Que? Let me explain.

First we have Arizona, which is like the dirty old man next door who spends his time staring sketchily out the window and muttering to himself. Like any good little kids, we just avoid him. Arizona is populated almost exclusively by retired Anglos who somehow thought that Phoenix would be paradise. And they’ve diverted enough water from the Colorado River to make their very own garden of Eden in the desert. What about Nuevo Mexico, you might say? Isn’t it a desert too? Si, compadres, but the high desert of New Mexico can actually grow things, like green chile (the non-Anglos in the audience are nodding their heads in agreement, I can tell), while plants would naturally waste away in the fiery hell-hole which is Phoenix. Besides having poor taste in places to settle, the geriatric Arizonans have a tendency to elect politicians who compulsively avoid Latinos who aren’t busy landscaping their freakishly lush yards. Barring the honorable Senior McCain, who (oddly among Arizona politicians) sees Latinos as human beings, many politicians in Arizona are fighting Don Quixote-esque battles against the illegal immigrant boogyman (he’ll deal drugs to your children and seduce your wife; the horror!). Folks like Russell Pearce and JD Hayworth seem to think that nothing screams “America” like oppressing Latinos (evidently it now surpasses both mom and apple pie). With my muchachos y muchachas in mind, I won’t say exactly what I think of these individuals, but rest assured, when they’re hitting up the geritol we’ll still be alive and voting, thank you very much.

Now we have Colorado, who I’d liken to the nice family next door who has a penchant for lavish ski vacations. Lucky for us we’re almost always invited along. Skiing in New Mexico is alright, but it’s worth the drive to Copper, Vail or Snowbird to get the real deal. I only wish that the Coloradans would stop diverting so much water from the Rio Grande (you see, the neighbor is a heavy drinker), which is decidedly not grande, if you know what I mean. Gazing at that sickly little stream which runs through the Land of Enchantment, I wonder, what did it once look like which earned it the name Rio Grande? Perhaps one day we might again know, but Colorado needs to lay off the water for us to find out.

And now we have Texas. Texas is like the neighbor who’s always sitting on his porch, cleaning his gun, minding everyone else’s business. By virtue of having the biggest house on the block, he’s cocky, obnoxious and self-righteous. If there’s a neighbor we’d want our neighborhood association to kick out, it’d be Texas. But thankfully, no matter how much he’s always talking about his gun, he’s not really good at using it. Perhaps he needs more gun control…

Exhibit #1 is the Battle of the Alamo, where the bravest Texans (and their heroic allies) needlessly wasted their lives to accomplish absolutely nothing. I’m sure that Santa Anna was laughing his head off when he found out just who his troops killed there. Heck, the swollen rivers slowed Santa Anna down more than the fools at the Alamo.

Exhibit #2: In addition to being a state full of traitors, they had the cajones to attempt to invade New Mexico. After marching through Los Cruces and bypassing Fort Craig (leaving an American army blocking the traitors’ supply lines), confederate forces took the (almost abandoned) Duke City and pushed up the Santa Fe Trail towards Fort Union. Confronted by American forces under the command of Col. Slough (1st Colorado Volunteers) the confederates fought a pitched battle in Glorietta Pass. Meanwhile, Maj. Chivington (1st Colorado) and New Mexico’s own Lt. Chaves ambushed and captured the entire confederate supply train. Without supplies and cut off from Texas by Maj. Canby (Commander, Dept. of New Mexico) at Fort Craig, the Texans beat a hasty retreat back to their home stomping grounds. The Texans would never again threaten New Mexico.

Well, that’s the neighborhood here in the Southwest… a dirty old man, the nice family next door with a bit of a drinking problem and the gun nut who can’t shoot straight. It’s a wacky place to live, but where else can I get Sopaipillas like this, hombre? It’s home and nobody’s going to take the Land of Enchantment from me. Except maybe the aliens if they show up at Roswell again…