Love to hate 'em

Some of you may not follow the NFL. Others may feel, as I do, that football is one of the most interesting, competitive, and engaging sports watchable in America today. Either way, you'll be able to relate to this news about Terrel Owens.

Apparently he's messing up in Dallas already. For those of you who aren't familiar with him, he's a wide receiver who was cut by Philadelphia because he's an inveterate jerkoff, and later picked up by Dallas. Now, who cares? Many receivers complain about injuries in preseason to avoid going to practice. Many players are fined by their team for minor infractions. None of that makes news, so why this? Well, similar to the media attention on whether or not Hillary will run or the focus on whether Katie Couric will be able to read the news in an exciting way, it's a story because of who, rather than what, is being discussed.

Owens (TO) is a publicity hound of the worst sort. He distinguished himself by instigating brawls between teams, his over-the-top touchdown celebrations, and his unapoligetic (yet victimized) attitude. He has also compared himself to Jesus. Really. It's too good to not quote:

"I don't have to worry about what people think of me, whether they hate me or
not. People hated on Jesus. They threw stones at him and tried to kill him, so
how can I complain or worry about what people think?...How can you justify
hating me after I worked so hard rehabilitating from a broken leg to get back to
the Super Bowl to help our team try to win? Really, you've got to look at who
the villain really is in this thing."

People in Philadelphia were "hating on him" because he was renegotiating a $49 million contract that he had just signed with their team.

Of course, he's also very good at catching footballs, which makes some teams think they can handle his antics as long as his performance on the field delivers. Ask Donovan McNabb how well that worked out.

The point is this, people love to hate him. People actually enjoy getting outraged by his latest antic. And they yearn to see the brilliantly successful and excessively arrogant clown "get what's coming to him". It's a safe conversation topic, there's only one side of the debate. Not unlike certain politicians I could name whose names rhyme with "push" or "pillory".

And in fact, "pillory" is the appropriate word, because it shows just how long we, as humans in society, have been at indulging in the "love to hate 'em" thing. It always strikes me as a bizarre phenomenon, because it's not really hatred, so much as a mild dislike or repulsion. If you don't like someone that much, why bother keeping up with what they're doing? Why not just ignore them completely? Wouldn't that be healthier and make you happier, to be focusing on things you don't hate? I keep hoping that some of these petty hatreds (an unusual- but accurate- combination of words right there) will fade away.

But what I really want is to see Owens get cut by Dallas. That would make my day.

Fact, meet Fiction. Fiction, this is Fact.

You know those moments when you have something you want to say, something you need to say, but you can't find the words? This is one of those moments for me, so bear with me while I get this out.

Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq, may have had to watch Saddam Hussein, the cartoon character envisioned by the creators of South Park. Seriously.

If you aren't familiar with the latter, it's from the adult cartoon South Park. You can find a clip here, courtesy of youtube. Watch out for language and all that.

Seeing news like this makes me smile. I really don't feel too bad for the mass murder being forced to watch parodies of himself. After all, "he can change..."

After a lengthy sojourn along the North Carolina beaches, I return to the mundane and slightly depressing search for a job. Sigh. Wait, what's that? There in the sky?! It's a bird. It's a plane!

No, it's Super Hillary! Representing truth, justice, and the partisan American political way!

And wait, gentle reader, with baited breath, for the real story is yet to be broken. Are you sitting down? Are you sure? Don't say I didn't warn you...

According to Time Magazine, Hillary Clinton.... is ready to run. That's right folks it looks like she'll be running for the nomination after all. This must come as a surprise to ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. However, it provides me with a useful jumping platform for touching some of the insanity that follows this woman around.

An uncle of mine once asked my extended (and extensive and conservative) family, "what, exactly, is so wrong with Hillary Clinton? What has she done that draws this vitriol from the right? Aside from having the last name of Clinton?" Now, I don't want to name names, so we'll just call him "Jerry".

Jerry is a brilliantly successful guy who has the misfortune of being a liberal who married into a generally conservative family. When this question was posed (at another beach get away, some years ago), there was a shocked silence. What's wrong with Hillary Clinton? You're asking that, really? Well.... how much time do you have? Surrounded by intelligent, politically active conservatives, I thought I was about to witness a second Cannae. What I actually witnessed was much, much, worse. It was as close to a complete rout as a near shouting match can be.

Absolutely no cogent points were raised during the "discussion" that could explain the pure (and at times, ridiculous) hatred that many conservative voters approach this woman with. Her policies are actually quite moderate, and while I recognize that it can be argued (believe me, it can be argued) that she only votes moderately because she's been running for the White House ever since she left it, at what point do we ignore someone's actions and trust instead what their opponents are saying about them?

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I don't understand what the fuss is all about. The Time article is a case in point of this mindless media facination. A facination that both nourishes and requires intense partisan positioning.

She's a politician, she's saying things to get elected. Where's the news item there? She may be ambitious and power hungry. That's a crime? Name me someone in Washington who isn't. If they're in Washington, it's because they want the power.

So why is this news? She'll run. We get it. We've gotten it for years. As with the effervescent Ms. Couric, I am left to wonder why this is what makes our headlines.

Especially with things like, say, this. Or this. Or maybe.... this.

Ok, maybe not that last one.

A promise is a promise... unless it's from the Chinese authorities regarding civil liberties. Don't complain about it over the telephone though. You may remember back in 1997, when the People's Republic of China took over Hong Kong, there were strict, inviolable assurances made as to the protection of Hong Kong's civil liberties and freedoms. After "redesigning" the legislature (packing it with pro-mainland delegates) and limiting the number of electable positions, it's no wonder that laws like this get passed from time to time.

Sure, what's going on in Lebanon or Iraq is difficult, wrenching at times. And even in Asia, the example that North Korea sets for the region makes a simple phone-tapping bill seem tame. Especially in comparison to people boiling grass to survive. But try to remember that Hong Kong was once one of the most free cities, if not the freest city, in the world. Once, this barren rock had a flourishing democratic tradition. Once it was an example, not only to China, but to the world, of the power of capitalism, rather than a golden egg.

Once.

Well, it happened. Connecticut Democrat residents will now be represented by Ned Lamont. The average far left blogger must be thrilled. This election result wasn't an accident. It was the result of a carefully coordinated attack by far left democrats against one of the party's most prominent moderates.

Joe Lieberman will be running as an independent. He's another casualty of the strange momentum that can be generated by blogger's of both parties. Not unlike Rather-gate or Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, internet momentum can take on a frenzy. I almost hope than when the party is over, CT democrats don't feel like the guy who took his shirt off and danced on top of the bar. That guy always feels awkward the next morning.

Seeing a large party of the Party embrace the far left can only be good for the Republicans in November.

In related news, Georgia voters tossed out Cynthia McKinney. Chock one up to common sense. I guess even Congresswomen can't punch a Capitol Hill police officer in the face, and get away with it.

The most important treaty you've never heard about

Is right here. It's a treaty that may be ratified by the Senate in the next few days. The administration is putting pressure on them to pass it. The "cybercrime" treaty would obligate the U.S. to help enforce other countries internet laws, even if such laws do not exist in the U.S.

To paint a picture of what this means, Vladimir "See my Soul" Putin, can ask our FBI to track down Russians who are criticizing him online but from the U.S. It obligates us to respect the censorship laws of countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. In the event that you didn't know, those nations don't exactly have a free press.

I understand the administration thinks this treaty will assist us in tracking terrorists, but at what cost? At the risk of sounding naive, what happened to that vision of the "shining city on a hill"? When did tracking potential terrorists become more important than supporting freedom in countries that desperately need it? And if America doesn't support them, who will?

Sometimes I wonder why I vote Republican. Then I see that the main opposition to this treaty is coming from conservatives and I remember.

Edit: After further research, it appears that the actual text isn't as bad as those articles make it out to be. The treaty, while a somewhat blatant step in the direction of world government, and a far cry from perfect, does make an attempt to reach an international definition on what constitutes a cyber crime. So our FBI would be used to chase down violators of whatever the international consensus is, rather than a specific countries individual laws. While better than initially thought, it's still bad news if you're wary of UN-style internationalism.

Oh, and it was just ratified.

Chickens come home to roost

You may remember Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. You know, the one who punched a Capitol Hill police officer because he didn't recognize her? I believe her defense was something along the lines of, "I had a very important vote that I was late for and had forgot my special congressional pin. So I punched the Capitol Hill police officer because he stopped me when I tried to bypass the line that everyone else has to stand in, but not me because I'm special and more important than you peons."

That may not be an exact quote.

So you can understand my joy at seeing this wonderful example of what's wrong with Washington come under attack during her primary. Gosh, it's almost like the people have a... what's that word called? Oh yeah, a memory. With any luck at all a new Democrat will replace her. Not that he'll be less corrupt or more hard working or anything like that. He'll just be less experienced at being an ass.

News Update

Katie Couric, who, for those of you living in Greer, Arizona, or some other desolate locale, because that is the only way you'll have avoided this information, is taking over the CBS Evening News, may have some flashy new music to accompany her. Whew, that is a sentence.

Which gives me the opportunity to comment (not that I need an opportunity) on the whole "Couric as network savior" thing. Her nation-wide photo-op and its accompanying publicity is all very well done, but does any of it change the underlying fundamentals of the situation? What does Katie bring that Rather didn't , aside from fresh credibility and trademarked "spunk"? Smart money says she's going to fail in her destined role (network savior) unless she brings something that changes the situation dramatically.

Network news is losing viewers. This is unquestioned. The potential reasons are many, but they come back to a simple fact: there are just too many choices out there. FoxNews, for example, plays to a specific demographic, rather than the whole population, providing that demographic (conservatives who like the news) with something that they felt was missing for years. The result? Success. The internet has revolutionized media distribution. What are you reading right now? Even progressives get this. Which brings us back around to the beginning.

Is spunkenough? Hey, it could happen. Just don't bet on it.

Also, in a fit of irrationality, Democrats in Connecticut are favoring Lamont. By a lot. Looks like Joe "Excitement" Lieberman might be running as an independent after all.

A novel idea

Now here's a novel idea. Straight from your local Persian nutjob, the perfect solution to the whole "middle east" thing. All that violence, all these years, if we'd only known.

All we need to do is destroy Israel.

Problem solved. Thanks Mr. Ahmadinejad sir, for that wonderfully useful and timely advice. I also like how he's calling for a ceasefire. The only problem with that, from a moral standpoint, is that his country is almost entirely responsible for funding Hezbollah in the first place. All those rockets being launched into Israel? Yeah, they're generally Iranian. Also, the guy that started the raid into Israel? He might be enjoying an all-expense paid stay at the wonderful Iranian embassy in Lebanon. Paging Dr. Hypocrisy. Dr. Hypocrisy, you have a patient in Tehran.

All that said, however, this is a pretty good development for several reasons. First, while the clerics hold the real power in Iran (Ahmadinejad couldn't even get women into soccer stadiums), Iran barks, and Hezbollah jumps. One of the main reasons this current fray was started could be because Iran wanted to take the heat off of its nuclear program. At the very least, Hezbollah represents a significant investment of time, treasure, and prestige for the Iranians. So why ask for a cease-fire?

Could it be that Hezbollah is starting to feel the burn? Is Iran trying to preserve their investment from crippling damage? Or are they just trying (also pronounced: failing) to preserve an air of disinterested legitimacy? Either way, it's an interesting announcement.

Capitulation is an ugly thing.

Yes it seems the Congressional cafeteria is hoisting the tri-color once again. What's next, La Marseillaise playing in the hallways? I'm not sure whether to be happy or sad.

On the one hand, I don't like the French much. They're like America's running joke. Are you at a party? Need something funny to say? There's always France. So anything that allows me to publicize my dislike of the the frog eating surrender monkeys is generally a good thing.

On the other hand, this was, is, and will continue to be one of the most ridiculous things Congress has ever done. I don't hate the French so much that I think we should look like morans in order to distance ourselves from them.

Sigh. It's a no win situation. It's very... well, French.

News Update

I found this to be a little funny. The idea that a propaganda war can be waged via text messaging really makes me question what future conflicts will looks like. The fact that China regularly is the source of official and unofficial attacks on U.S. web sites makes me wonder how well I'll be able to pay my cable bill the next time Taiwan tries to ruffle some feathers.

Also, in the event that you missed it, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CO), is under attack from Ned Lamont in the Democrat primary. What is surprising is not that Lieberman, who has supported the war in Iraq and many of President Bush's policies for the war on terror, is under attack by the left wing of his party. That's to be expected. What is surprising to me is that the left wing of the party in general is siding with Lamont. I don't get it. Help me out here.

President Clinton won two elections with a centrist message. Compassionate reform was the order of the day under his administration. Al Gore broke away from that during the 2000 campaign for a message of the people vs. the powerful, overlooking the fact that Gore's father was a senator and powerful figure in Tennessee politics. Paging Dr. Irony.

Senator Kerry (D-MA) also left the middle ground in a bid to outrace Howard Dean to the far left in the 2004 primary. How well did that work out for him? He was unable to defeat a president that barely scraped together 51% of the vote, and is only now recovering from a 30% approval rating. Kerry should have cleaned Bush's clock. He went far left, typical Democrat, support the unions, rhetoric without change, etc.

As long as the Dem's keep attacking their center, the Republicans will be able to keep trouncing them. So why do they keep going further left? And who's going to pull them out of this leftward tailspin?

Anyone? Bueller?