It's over

That's the only conclusion you can make after last night's results. When you delve into the math, Hillary has very few (if any) legitimate arguments left. First let's give the sobering reality of cold facts.

Fact: Obama will have a huge pledged delegate lead once the primary season.

Fact: Obama has won at least twice as many states.

Fact: Even adding in Florida and Michigan along with the caucus totals, Obama will win the popular vote.

Fact: Obama has won among Independents in all but 4 states (AR, OK, MA, RI). While Hillary can point to her double digit wins among Independents in Massachusetts and Arkansas, Obama has won by double digits in battle grounds like Missouri (67-30), Iowa (41-17), Virginia (69-30), Wisconsin (64-33), New Mexico (65-29), Nevada (47-33) and New Hampshire (41-31). What's really striking is that Hillary's biggest win among Independents is in Arkansas (home state edge) by 24. Obama's managed to win by bigger margins in several battleground states (VA, WI, NM, IA, and MO). For all of Obama's perceived struggles in Pennsylvania and Ohio (we'll come back to that), people have forgotten he won among Independents in both states (50-48 in Ohio and 54-46). Moreover Obama won Independents 55-45 last night in Indiana. What's striking is that since the Reverend Wright scandal broke, he's actually done better among Independents in two demographically similar states to Ohio.

This leaves Hillary with one argument that we heard repeatedly last night from Clinton surrogates. She does better against McCain than Obama does in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While true at the moment, it omits the obvious that I hinted at above. There was no exit polling in Florida. However Obama outperformed her among Independents in Ohio and Pennsylvania and he seems to be improving in the key demographics in those states. Moreover Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in all of the following possible battlegrounds: MI, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, WA, OR, MO, IA, VA, and NJ. In other words out of 15 realistic (16 if you count Arkansas) battle grounds, Obama does better in 12. He wins among Independents in 14 of them. Who's the electable one, again?

Still Beating those War Drums

As if the election weren't providing enough reasons for Americans to collectively pull out their hair, we have that wonderful cauldron of instability, the Middle East. Particularly is the latest in the round of hatchet-wielding rhetoric to gin up support for what is likely some action against Iran. Some stories of note:

US Cites New Evidence of Iranian Support for Taliban

Iran tops state-sponsored terrorism

US Military Chief Slams Iran's 'Irresponsible Influence'

Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran

It seems irresponsible and dangerous for such rhetoric to emanate from the highest levels of American government. If I'm remembering Daniel Ellsberg's critical risk concept correctly, this increase in accusations and movement of ships into the region make war with Iran more likely. The possibility of an accidental launch or mis-step increases (due to misinterpretation on either side). The potential for an Iran first-strike increases because the value of waiting for an American first-strike decreases (the rhetoric increases Iranian fears which decrease their reasons to wait for something that is likely to happen). It puts Iran into a corner.

But, are we dealing with a rogue regime? I don't think so, and it's very easy to see why that is.

1. Russia has faith in the Iranian program and has stated that the country will work with Iran to resolve this issue. A re-emergent Russia, regional power that it is, is a formidable and credible ally to have to counterbalance the pressure from the US, Israel and other allies. This alone ought go go a long way to refute the (mis)perception that Iran is a "rogue" state.

2. Iran seeks to develop stronger ties with regional states. An example is India, which has recently concluded a recent meeting with the Iranian president. Iran is an important ally to India for a few reasons: it is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to India; it has influence in Afghanistan, whose stability is a security concern of India, and, Iran has an influence on India's Shi'ite Muslim India population. Iran is also involved in a pipeline with India (Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline; though the competing Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline may have more support). Both of these pipelines will connect the countries (and the region) closer together and allies them with each other which has the potential to undercut American influence (a concern the US already has given the decision by India to meet with Iran and extend a relationship with Iran contrary to American requests and law).

3. Iran has recently transferred its reserve currency from dollars to a currency basket (yen and euros). This decreases the pressure of the American sanctions and economic power on Iran. Iran is also developing energy deals with individual European countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Austria. These deals can decrease the reliance of European countries upon Russia for its energy supply. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves and also the 2nd largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia). It presents a valuable alternative to the European countries as well as a valuable resource of energy for Central and Eastern Asia (e.g., India, China and Pakistan).

4. Iranian sponsorship of terrorism is rational, if condemnable. It serves to balance American power in the region; counterbalance Sunni influence in the region; and, permits it to assert influence in its traditional spheres (e.g., Afghanistan). The Taliban is still the enemy, for example, but it is less of an enemy than the US (which is saying a lot, because Iran does not like the Taliban). The same can be said for its support of proxies in Iraq or against Israel: it serves to destabilize the area and permits Iran to assert its role as a regional power.

Iran can be balanced, deterred and engaged diplomatically. It is within the US' regional interests to avoid war and to strike out on a new policy toward Iran.

There is a great fear that this rhetoric, which continues a history of misinterpretations, misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides since the advent of the Islamic Republic, will lead to conflict.

That's all for now. More needs to be discussed and developed, however.

Why the 24 hour newsmedia sucks (yet again)

What if two of the three major candidates running for president came up with a proposal that was so bad that economists from both the left and right opposed it? Would the 24 hour news media cover the story? Well, we're finding out our answer and the result isn't promising. Hillary Clinton and John McCain crafted a gas tax holiday proposal. From Gregory Mankiw to the Brookings Institute to Paul Krugman and the National Bureau of Economic Research, to Thomas Friedman; this is being hailed as possibly the dumbest economic stimulus proposal ever created. And yet, the news media has barely even mentioned this story. Instead they're focused on Jeremiah Wright who has already been repudiated by Barack Obama. Now maybe it's just me but when the two "experienced" candidates sign on to a terrible piece of legislation while the inexperienced candidate voices opposition, I'd say it's a huge deal. While I may not agree with Obama's choice of pastor, it doesn't personally offend me as much as two candidates using blatant pandering to support a bad piece of legislation. For the news media to miss this story is at best negligence and at worst a bastardization of their duties as journalists. Anyone who didn't cover this story should be ashamed or embarrassed.

Why the Clintons are fighting so hard for now and why Obama must win

One thing that had stumped me until a few days was why Hillary was fighting hard when the math and odds are so clearly against her. Then the Pennsylvania primary happened and I figured it out. Clinton has realized that she's fighting a generational battle. The exit polls bear this out. The under 40 set and the Millennials have decided that Obama is their guy. Now for the Clintons to see the next generation as vehemently opposed to them is dangerous to their SOP. Also the future doesn't bode well because of obvious next step. The currently under 40 set will hold more wealth and be even more motivated if their guy wins. In other words, the Clintons are drawing the line in the sand for the baby boomers to extend the fight for at least one more round. The only way for the Clintons to stop the flood gates is to win now and win ugly to the point that the under 40 set has had their political wills utterly destroyed. This is also why Obama has to win. If he doesn't win the present, an entire generation filled with promise will be totally disillusioned and may never recover. It may not be the reason why he originally chose to reason. However, it's the biggest reason left why he has to succeed and manage to do so while staying above the fray.

The danger of CW and last night (i.e. the conventional media must go)

I have a confession to make. I didn't watch last night's Democratic debate. My thought was that after 20+ debates, nothing new would come out of the next one. Boy was I wrong. Last night symbolized the tipping point of the DC media's relevance and why conventional wisdom is a bad thing. When you read 20 different sources with varying view points all completely ream the moderators of a debate, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the crowd booed the moderators during the commercial break, you know something is wrong. When you find out that the first question about Iraq (the number 1 or number 2 issue according to votes) came almost two-thirds of the way through the debate, you know something is wrong. The first question about the economy came even later. Health care wasn't even asked about. Instead the viewers were subjected to questions about pastors, lapel pins, Bosnia, and Bill Ayres. That is flat out disgraceful. What's even more disgraceful is that the conventional pundits were talking about how Obama was the big loser. Guess what, morons. Look in the mirror for the biggest loser. All of you idiots beginning with the two moderators (Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos) need to go. What's even more disturbing is find out that a clueless hack like David Brooks loved the questions. I'm sorry but David but voters won't give a rip about symbolic issues. They want answers to real issues and very little of the debate was spent on real issues. Hell, if I had been involved in the debate, I probably would've said at one point that the voters want answers to real issues and here's where I stand on ____ while completely ignoring the idiotic questions about lapel pins, etc. However in the traditional media, you'll see the conventional media protecting their own and bringing up more trivial garbage. However, it's time to call out the media for their hackery. Here are some examples of CW from the past 10 years:

1. Howard Dean would be the worst DNC chief ever- What happened. Dean created the 50 state strategy and the Dems took back the Legislative branch for the first time since 1994.

2. Being anti-war would kill the Dems- In reality, the Dems weren't anti-war enough.

I could go on for days. However, this quote that I stole from Daily Kos sums up the problem of the conventional media's conventional wisdom pretty well.

From November of 2002:

FRED BARNES, CO-HOST: [...] I wanted to ask you about something else, and that's someone that you have, you know, criticized very strongly in The New Republic, Nancy Pelosi, the new leader of Democrats in the House of Representatives. What, what's your problem with, with her?

BEINART: I think twofold. First of all, I think that Nancy Pelosi, even though she's now trying to appear as more of a moderate, was really elected by a House Democratic caucus that has moved to the left, and specifically wanted to elect someone as a repudiation of Dick Gephardt's pro-war stance.

And we very firmly believe that if the Democratic Party becomes the anti-war-with-Iraq party, the kind of soft-on-war-on- terrorism party, we really will no longer have a 50-50 nation, we'll have a 60-40 Republican nation. The Democrats will be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.

That says it all.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

Has Hillary Clinton forgotten what party's nomination she's seeking. That's about the only explanation I can think of for making this run at party elder, loved statesman, former Vice President (for Bill Clinton, no less), and un-pledged Superdelegate Al Gore. Think about it, Al is about respect among the Democratic party faithful. Many still think he won in 2000. He managed to win a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. Making a run at him as out of touch seems like the equivalent of political suicide for a Democrat. There's also another aspect of this slash and burn politics that scares me. If this is Hillary will do to a long time friend to score a cheap political point, what would she do to an enemy?

A one year anniversary of sorts and a story

As I told Joe yesterday, I'm in the middle of celebrating an odd anniversary. The day before the Final Four 2007 was the day I came home from a bad situation in Japan. However, the good thing about anniversaries is that they force you to reflect on the events leading up to the anniversary. One thing, I've realized is that my time in Japan is a major reason why I support Obama for President. While over there, I heard Obama was running and was happy in the sense that maybe a strong anti-Clinton rival had the chance of emerging in the Democratic Party. However, it was the next two months (coincidentally my last two) that made me a believer. From the minute he announced he was running for President, one of my roommates (a foreigner) asked me what I thought of this minority candidate. I told him that I would probably support Obama. At that point, he asked me pointedly why only probably. He found Obama's positions on the major issues and pointed out that I shared most of them for the same reasons. He also pointed out that I was worldly just like the Illinois Senator and that some of my drunken comments seemed to reflect Obama's vision of hope. He then asked again why I couldn't say for certain that I would support the Illinois Senator. I told him I would think about it for a month or so. A week later at work, in the mixed level section of my work a Japanese student of mine asked me point blank what I thought of this Obama guy. I didn't answer and asked the room (there were only 5 students) what they knew of him and thought about him. They all thought the world of him from what they had seen and read of his speeches. At that point, I knew why Obama was the right choice for President. Here I was in late February of 2007 and the foreigners were telling me that Obama would restore credibility to the US's image. A few days later, I confided in my roommate that I had become a believer in Obama not just because the US needs him but the world needs him to have confidence in the US, again. Looking back, it's interesting that the rest of the world knew what this country was ready for before we did.

Note to Democrats:

I will not vote for anyone that hires Mark Penn in any campaign related role. Why is that you ask? Because of this incident. That's right. Hillary is officially against a trade deal with Colombia. However, Penn (Hillary's campaign manager, no less) is negotiating with the Colombians on behalf of Burson-Marsteller. This is absolutely shameless and why I hate DLC Democratic strategists. It's impossible to take the high road in ethics debates for Democrats nowadays. The Republicans have a point in that the Democratic leadership really is no different. This isn't even close to Penn's first conflict of interest since the campaign started. At my work place, I have to do all I can to avoid incidents like this. The Penn wing of the Democratic Party goes out of its way to find these COIs. So from on, I'm warning every Democrat. If you embrace Mark Penn or Terry McAuliffe, I will not vote for you.

The Death of the Religious Right -- It Took Long Enough

Special Commentary: How the Religious Right lost its ‘Religion’, lost its way and went wrong

Requiem for the Religious Right

Two good articles that detail my big complaints against the "religious right." The movement has failed immensely and do far more harm than good.

How to nearly cause International Incident for no good reason

Bud Selig once again reared his ugly head of mismanaging something into the ground yet again. This time it was over $900,000.00. Here's what happened, basically last December the Boston Red Sox reluctantly agreed to play two games in Japan against the Oakland A's. Boston made sure to include a provision that not only the players get compensation but so would the coaching staff. About a week ago, Terry Francona began calling the A's about their deal to make sure it was similar. Much to his dismay, he realized that not only was Oakland getting pimped but there was a good chance Boston was as well. Two days ago, he found out that MLB had no intention of compensating the coaching staff in an absolutely disgraceful move. Keep in mind these coaches make between 80K and 175K per year so a trip to Tokyo is going to hurt their bottom line a little if they go out drinking (as I learned all too well over there) or shopping (something tells me Ginza and parts of Ikebukuro were out of the coaches' price range). As a result, Boston protested and refused to play their spring training game and threatened to not board the plane to Narita. Luckily at 12:30 MLB caved and everything was right.

However, this points to a greater issue about MLB. It's small things like this and baseball's permissive attitude toward steroids that make Bud Selig a terrible commissioner. For the compensation attitude to come to this when the commish is making 14 million per year and merchandise sales are going to be off the charts during the Japan series is pathetic. MLB should be ashamed that the Japan games nearly didn't happen due to 20 trainers/coaches not getting what they were promised.

Catholics and the 2008 Election

For those Catholics out there, here are some pieces to chew on while you discern for whom you should vote in this upcoming election.

I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?

Heaven Help Us

Catholics at the Ballot Box

DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life


Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

McCain Foreign Policy Madness

Antiwar Voters Trust McCain to Make Decisions About 'War on Terror'

McCain's "Spiritual Guide" Calls for Destruction of Islam

He cultivates a myth of an elder statesmen while being endorsed (and endorsing) individuals with views that leave one wondering whether or not he is simply old.

The ultimate in double standards

If anyone had ever doubted that the Clintons seem to think rules apply to everyone but themselves, let's examine two recent cases. If you'll recall about a week ago, foreign policy wonk Samantha Power got in trouble for calling Hillary a monster (thank god, I don't work for the Obama campaign). The Clinton campaign's response? Power must go. The Obama campaign responded by firing the eminently respected Power.

Now fast forward one week later to Geraldine Ferraro who said this

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Aside from the sheer stupidity of the comment, Ferraro was rightly attacked for the thinly veiled racism. Now did Ferraro apologize for her comments? Of course not, in fact she went farther:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

No Geraldine, they're not attacking because you're white. They're attacking you because your comments seemed to come out of 1960's Alabama. That's how the world works. You make a stupid comment. You get called on it. That's called life.

Now any reasonable campaign would figure it's time to cut ties with a rogue surrogate at this point in the interest of consistency regarding Powergate. However, when has Clinton's campaign been reasonable or consistent? Their response:

[W]e reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people.

That's right. It's Obama's fault that he got pissed at a blatantly racist and utterly stupid comment. Of course, it did open up a huge gap for Obama to take advantage of with this:

"With Senator Clinton's refusal to denounce or reject Ms. Ferraro, she has once again proven that her campaign gets to live by its own rules and its own double standard, and will only decry offensive comments when it's politically advantageous to Senator Clinton. Her refusal to take responsibility for her own supporter's remarks is exactly the kind of tactic that feeds the American people's cynicism about politics today and it's why Barack Obama's message of change has resonated so strongly in every corner of the country," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

So the lesson from the Clinton campaign is call a Hillary a monster, lose your job. Make a blatantly racist comment about her opponent, we'll defend you. In retrospect, Samantha Power got fired for telling the truth.

McCain Recieves A Freaky Endorsement

In case you haven't heard, John McCain has received the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee of the 19,000(!) member Cornerstone Baptist Church down in San Antonio, TX. Pastor Hagee is a controversial religious figure who has made statements that could be perceived, and rightfully so, as anti-Catholic. And he's a Christian Zionist who believes America has a biblical duty to support Israel and has stated that Hurricane Katrina was a preemptive punishment from God for future homosexual activities. And John McCain is happy to have his endorsement.

Here's a youtube from TPMtv.

Why do you support Hillary Clinton? Why do you support John McCain?

To those who support either of those candidates, I ask why? On what grounds can you legitimately and truthfully distinguish between the two candidates?

For those left-leaning individuals who support Clinton over Obama: why? Is it because you believe that she has more "experience" than Obama (a myth that Brian has shattered in previous postings)? If you are attracted to her policies, then to which policies and why are you attracted? Are you a pragmatist who does not want the Republicans to win? If that is the case, I think your arguments are weakest. In numerous polls Obama is shown not only to defeat McCain more soundly than Clinton; but, Obama is relatively more popular than Clinton, as results have shown. In either case pragmatic arguments would favor Obama over Clinton.

For the right-leaning individuals: I have no questions nor words for you but simply to state that you are lost souls.

Why I don't Support John McCain

The emergence of John McCain as the de facto Republican Party nominee tickles me the wrong way. Unlike Brian, this is purely policy-oriented, as there is no threat of a "third term" from the McCain camp. I'll only address a couple of issues:

1. His health care reform plan does not go far enough. An effective alternative to the current system would involve the expansion of the public health care system such as those found in other industrialized countries. Instead McCain's reform plan rests on more traditional conservative free market ideology which has gone far to place us in this mess. On another level, a broader public health care system better serves the common good and improves society; and, to add to that, it improves the competitiveness of American businesses by shifting the economic burden associated with health care from them to the state.

2. His foreign policy is a continuation of the Bush policies. He has spoken of his intention to remain in Iraq, which includes an increase on the troop deployment to the area, as opposed to a withdrawal. He utilizes the tired conservative rhetoric to frame American policy within the heretofore ineffective war on terror; he adopts the qusetionable conservative rhetoric and positions on other middle eastern regimes, particularly Syria and Iran. His policy positions do not reflect the dangerous, ineffective and destructive consequences to American credibility and security of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Rather, he embraces the War on Terror and seems to import and graft upon our contemporary security policy that obsolete paradigm (missile defense and increasing the size of the military may have been relevant during the Cold War, but in this era they seem misapplied). And let's not forget about the greatest "existential threat" to our time... no thanks.

Because of a stale and dangerous foreign policy paradigm which continues the Bush Administration's wrong-headed policies, McCain should not become president.

Jimmy Kimmel Gets back at Sarah Silverman

My biggest problem with Hillary (a Constitutional dilemma)

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have a major problem with Hillary. However, I don't think I've ever explained my reasons. They start with a Constitutional issue that has been bugging me. I think all of the following are safe assumptions:

1. If she hadn't married Bill and became first lady, she never becomes a New York Senator. Just imagine, Hillary Rodham Arkansas lawyer moving to New York to challenge Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey for the nomination. She would've been lucky to hit 10%.

2. If she doesn't become a Senator from New York, her credentials for President are slightly better than Laura Bush.

3. As first lady, she had zero security clearance. As a result, that 3 A.M. phone call ad tried to remind people that Bill's her husband.

4. In fact, the most qualified person in a Clinton White House would be the first gentleman.

Conclusion: I can't help but think that people are trying to essentially elect Bill to a de facto 3rd term which would be an end run around the 22nd amendment.

I also think this is insulting to other female politicians who have earned their spot due to reasons other than marriage (Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, etc).

Yes, Mr. Buckley, RIP

I concur with Brian's homage to Mr. Buckley. He was a brilliant mind who laid the oundation for the conservative movement. While unfortunate that he is no longer here, that he did not have to witness the complete destruction of the movement for which he was so important by the aliens who have stolen its name, is a silver lining in the otherwise dark cloud. It is with hope that his ideas and his example will live far past his physical time on this planet. God bless and God speed.

RIP Intellectual giant

It probably comes across as bizarre to read a eulogy to a Conservative giant from a liberal libertarian. However, I very much respected the views of William F Buckley Jr. Note that I didn't always agree with them. What's interesting about the timing of his death is that it basically comes at the end of the destruction of Buckley's version of Conservatism. If Ronald Reagan represents the pinnacle of Buckley Conservatism, then one would have to say that Bush Conservatism is its ultimate betrayal. RIP giant, you won't have to see the death of your vision anymore.

Appreciating history

In this day and age of sports, it's hard not to be suspicious of historic feats. Maybe, that's why I'm starting to appreciate Tiger Woods. At the young (by golf standards) age of 32, Tiger now has more PGA wins than Arnold Palmer and is one behind Ben Hogan. He has won 11 majors and has now won 7 of his last 8 PGA starts. For a guy who was destined for greatness to actually achieve it is something rare. Watching him play is a treat at this point. For all of the talk about golf fields are deeper than ever talent wise, it's truly remarkable to watch someone dominate the sport like he has. This past Wednesday, he was on the verge of elimination to JB Holmes (down 3 with 5 to play). All Tiger did was win the next 4 holes and win the match 1-up. Aaron Baddeley had 11 birdies against Tiger in their match on Friday and still lost. Think about that for a second, Baddeley shot the equivalent of a 62 in 18 holes and couldn't beat the Tiger. And then in the final today against Stuart Cink, there was a never a doubt as Tiger won 8 & 7 in a best of 36 hole match. At this point, would it really surprise won the Grand Slam in a single year? He's that good and it's been a pleasure to watch him chase perfection in a sport where perfection is impossible.

Iran in their sight

Unintelligence on Iranian Nukes

A rather interesting piece which posits, among other things, that the rebuttal (or failure to confirm) of the President's assertions about Iran is indicative of the intel community's nefarious political machinations against the President. Leave it to the neocons.

Time to revisit an earlier posting

Back on February 10, I said this:

To sum up. Obama needs to sweep until March 4, steal Ohio or Texas, and then try to win PA. If he does that, he'll be the nominee based on the other states involved. Clinton needs to try to win a state before March 4 and then lock down Obama in the big states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If something in between those two possibilities takes place, we're headed for a floor fight in Denver.

Well, let's do the math. Obama won all 10 states by double digits. It appears that Obama could lose Texas close and yet still get more delegates than Hillary (the polls show a tie at the moment). If Obama's momentum continues and he wins Texas outright, it's over. Hillary's stuck in general. Basically, she needs to win her remaining states by 2 to 1 margins which she's only done once (Arkansas) while somehow holding off Obama's momentum. Given that Obama keeps getting more time between contests and his propensity for closing hard in states that he campaigns in, it's very hard to envision a scenario where Hillary is the nominee without chicanery.

Poundcake

A fun song. He plays with a drill...

Israel, Democrats and 2008

This is an interesting development. And some doubt the existence of a Lobby...

Jewish functionaries stirring the Clinton-Obama race

Channelling Churchill?

The Model for McCain? Not Reagan, but Churchill

I think it's a bit of a stretch...

Who's lying

I think it's obvious. Basically, in order to believe Roger Clemens; you'd have to believe all of the following.
1. McNamee somehow told the truth about Chuck Knoblauch, Andy Pettitte, and Debbie Clemens (!) but not Roger Clemens,
2. Andy Pettitte is the most honest person in the world except when he misunderstands a major conversation.
3. Roger told Pettitte about Debbie's HGH use 4 years before it happened.
4. Roger allowed Debbie to use something from McNamee without what it was or its effects.
5. Roger's nanny is a liar.
6. Roger's career upswing is normal despite the Wharton School's disagreement.
7. Roger's sore on his butt came from b-12 instead of Winstrol which is in disagreement with Baylor Doctor who specializes in muscular and bone bruises.


Brian McNamee is a dirtbag. However, I have no doubt he was more honest than the Rocket in today's hearings.

Baseball Players Storm the Hill

Excerpts from documents released by House committee in Clemens hearing

So who's lying?

Add Maryland and DC -- and Wisconsin too?

Add to Virginia his wins in Maryland and DC (he won 75 percent of the District) and, while not as intrinsically valuable as the Virginia win, with those wins Obama now sits authoritatively in the driver's seat. He now has more delegates than Clinton (1,210 to 1,188, admittedly an insignificant difference) and is going into Wisconsin on the 19th. Though Clinton has a solid base of supporters, Wisconsin has a lot of college students, progressives and upper-income independents who support him and can chip away at Clinton's base.

As Brian has stated in an earlier post, Obama has succeeded where he has campaigned. If that pattern holds true in Wisconsin, then Obama will come out on top in the cheese state. He has had a longer presence in Wisconsin, and his support is strong. The UW-Madison chapter of Students for Obama is one of the largest in the nation and Obama has the support of state party dignitaries such as Gov. Doyle, the mayor of Milwaukee, Rep. David Obey (a former Edwards supporter) and 16 state legislators. Add to that Clinton's association with the NAFTA, which damages her reputation in the eastern part of the state hit, and Obama may be in line to get a significant number of the 74 delegates up for grabs on February 19.

Avalanche meet Hillary

The numbers tonight don't do Obama's wins justice. Obama won by 16 points among women is Virginia. He won every single age group in Virginia. This is a state that will be in play in November and Obama just won by a landslide. Obama has now managed to win states in every region of the US. He won's in the Southwest, South, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, middle america, etc. Hillary had better start praying for a good March 4.

Obama V. McCain -- Obama Wins!

For this Obama fans out there, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday has Obama defeating McCain in a general election. He out performs Clinton in a race against McCain by winning more moderates, minorities, and men. Clinton v. McCain has Clinton winning by 46% to 45%, while Obama v. McCain has Obama winning with a 48% to 42% margin. In an earlier post Brian wrote of a possible President McCain if it were an Obama/McCain general election. I've been skeptical of such a prediction and have argued against it. This poll suggests that the skepticism may be warranted.

Obama Narrowly Leads McCain in AP Poll

Government at Work - Baseball Hearings

Congress owes it to us, and itself, to take hearings seriously

An MLB steroid scandal, hall of fame careers and the committee's success all rest on the testimony of Andy Pettite?

Bad Ideas?

I thought I'd put my two cents in re: NU. I really don't care and don't pay attention to the college sports (even less than the election process, which means I shouldn't even attempt to write this), but the prestige of the Big 10 alone ought to cause NU to pause before it leaves. And it shouldn't join C-USA.

Given that, why not become independent? It is in another league academically, as the stats Brian posts shows. Yes, it has enjoyed some relatively modest athletic success as of late, but for the most part it is competing against teams with traditions far more storied than NU. Rather than risk competing with those traditions, leave the Big 10 and establish a stronger sense of its own independent athletic tradition.


But in the end, I really don't care. All I want is to see OSU lose to UofM in the football field.

The cost of Not Knowing Or Clinton Campaigned More

So you have a bias towards Obama? That's not news, man:) I agree with you in so far as given Obama's success with the younger folks, the key we're searching for to unlock the "Latino" door probably rests with the age gap.

But, what if there is a simpler answer? In an LA Times piece, the Political Science professors Matt A. Barreto and Ricardo Ramírez write

The empirical evidence does not match his opinions, and the results from Super Tuesday and other important elections demonstrate Latino willingness to vote for African American candidates. Furthermore, the Latino vote in 2008 should be viewed as a pro-Clinton vote, not an anti-Obama or an anti-black vote, as Contreras and others have suggested.

What if Latinos just like Clinton more, as the Poli Sci profs suggest? Perhaps not even that they like her more, it is merely that she is better known? Brian hints at why this may be with his comment on the correlation between Obama's campaigning and his primary success. Clinton has had years to create her name and develop a base; she had placed Latinos on her staff, and, she had has garnered the endorsements of prominent Latinos throughout the country. These years of efforts have paid off in a superior rapport with the community. Outside of his home state, Obama has been campaigning for essentially no time at all. The conclusion would seem to be that Obama needs to play catch up. Perhaps then, this "Latino Gap" is not as significant an issue for Obama as pundits suggest.

There are bad ideas

And then there are downright absurd ones. I'm not normally one to rip on someone's opinion. However this column by Jake Simpson deserves all the thrashing in the world. First, I will preface this by saying I have no problem with Conference USA as a whole. However, academically and athletically the reputations of the Big 10 and Conference USA are like night and day. Let's review, all of Simpson's reasons individually and take them apart.

First off, we have Northwestern's lack of success in the big sports. It is true that Northwestern has been a traditional athletic doormat. However, NU has been to 5 bowl games since 1995 and has been to the Rose Bowl more recently than 5 other Big 10 schools (Indiana, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa, and shockingly Penn State). What about basketball, you say? In basketball, once again we have Minnesota which hasn't made the tourney since Clem Haskins was kicked out for academic fraud. Michigan hasn't made the tourney since either the mid 90's or late 80's depending on when you consider the record book to be vacated. Penn State hasn't made it since the late 90's with the Crispin brothers.

Now the size issue. Yes Northwestern is the smallest school in the Big 10. However in Conference USA, they'd be the 3rd smallest school only ahead of Rice and Tulane.

Academics? Northwestern is the best school academically in the Big 10 according to US News with a ranking of tied for 14th. Rice is the best Conference USA school at 17. However, the Big 10 also has UM (25th), Wisconsin (tied for 38th), Illinois (tied for 38th), and Penn State (48th) all ahead of C-USA's next school which is Tulane at a tie for 5oth. What's more, C-USA has schools like East Carolina that are 4th tier schools nationally. The Big 10's worst school is Indiana which is 75th nationally.

Finally, what about travel? According to google maps, the farthest distance for NU to travel in the Big 10 is Penn State which is 602 miles away. Conversely, the closest C-USA school is Marshall which is 514 miles away. Even worse would be the road trip to El Paso which is 1,529 miles away.

I have no problem if Northwestern wanted to switch conferences. However, 99.99% of Northwestern's fans know that Conference USA would be a terrible fit.

Circling the Fence part III (or how do I avoid showing my obvious pro-Obama bias)

Based on the margins that Joe is showing, I think we should revisit our Obama can't win Latinos argument. Perhaps, it's more of the same for Obama. His key groups have been African-Americans (which he wins across the board age wise) and younger voters. One key stat that I don't think any of us have seen (mainly because the exit poll tabs for the public are pretty simple) is what has been the median age of the Latino in most states. If the median age of Latino voters has been 45 or higher in most states, I have a strong suspicion that we may have our answer. If it's below 40, Obama does have a problem among Latinos at the moment. However, one thing has become clear in this campaign. The more Obama campaigns in a state the better he does. Given how slow the primary season becomes, this works to his advantage.

Like I said in an earlier post, we'll know how strong Obama is after March 4. Hillary's problem is that she needed to weather the storm between February 5th and March 4th. The early results have been Obama +37 in Washington, + 18 in Maine, + 21 in Louisiana, and +36 in Nebraska. The amazing part of this stat is that out of all of Hillary's wins, just two of the margins have been above 18. One was her former home state of Arkansas. If this keeps up, March 4 could become Obama's coronation.

And that Central Asian Front of the GWOT...

US warns of 'implosion' of Nato alliance in Afghanistan

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," he said. "We must not – we cannot – become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

Eh... it's about 15 years past due...

Circling (or climing over?) the fence yet gain

Inspired by a anonymous comment by an anonymous reader (yay, there's one!), I want to post excerpts of the article titled "Dem Latino Vote Is No One's Big Enchilada" in the hopes that it will create some meat on which to chew and dialog.

Analysis of Latino voting patterns indicates that Latinos did not, as predicted, march monolithically into the voting booths to vote according to the candidate's skin color. Instead, the Latino vote segmented along other vectors, the most interesting of which is the regional vector.

In what appears to be the development of a Latino voter regionalism, the vote varied depending on what part of the country (and in some cases what part of a state) the vote was cast. For example, while Clinton secured 74 percent of the Latino vote in her home state of New York, available data also indicates that Obama won 59 percent of the 30- to 44-year-olds, the largest age bloc, in his home state of Illinois' Latino electorate.

Obama won important Latino votes -- and delegates -- in Colorado, Arizona and other states where Clinton was expected to overwhelm him. With the support of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and other members of the Latino political machine nurtured by her husband, the former president, Clinton won more than 60 percent of the Latino electorate in states like New Jersey and New York. And regardless of the final tallies in California, the Latino electorate has already proven to be a powerful, new and greatly misunderstood segment of a multi-hued electorate of the United States.

And, we return to the question of Obama's reputation amongst the "Latino" community. Apparently he's becoming favorite:

"The big enchilada will be Texas, followed by mid-sized states where Latinos are about 5 percent of the vote, states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Washington," said Gonzalez. "It's going to continue to be very interesting," said a smiling Gonzalez. "On the one hand," he added, "Latinos are clearly trending towards Obama who overcame a 27 point difference nationally. But, on the other hand, Clinton still won several states with (Latino) margins of more than 50 percent."

If Clinton's Latino advantage holds and if the trend, especially among young Latinos, favoring Obama continues, understanding the fluidity of the very racially and ethnically diverse Latino electorate will be mission critical to success well into November's general election.

Any thoughts on this article?

Critical Report on Iraq Buried --Who is Surprised?

Shifting the issue toward the foreign/defense policy front, this from the NY Times makes me feel just a bit less confident in the Bush Administration (though not significantly more than I have become)

Army Buried Study Faulting Iraq Planning

About that Latino Vote

Dem Latino Vote Is No One's Big Enchilada

A careful look at Super Tuesday's Latino vote shows it was not monolithic -- it was segmented across regional and other demographic lines.

That Pesky Fence, The Dems and McCain

While I acknowledge that Obama has had trouble with the Latinos (duh. Even I who has lived under a rock during this primary season knows that), I think it's a little dubious to assert that an Obama nomination will result in a McCain presidency. I would say in fact that there's virtually no way McCain could win even with the Latino votes, and that's if he could get them. And Obama wouldn't have to choose Richardson as a running mate to secure that, though as an insurance policy it's not a bad idea. Anyway, here are some reasons for my position.

1.The conservative distrust. In order for McCain to win as you suggest, he'd not only have to win that Latino vote from Obama; he'd have to earn the trust of the conservative GOP base -- a trust that if the talking heads (e.g., Limbaugh, Hewitt, etc.) are to be believed, McCain ought not have (this is not to say that he cannot get it).

Now, there is the citation of McCain's 82% lifetime ACU rating (as my colleague cited in an earlier post). In the The American Thinker a few interesting points are made to deflate the significance of that rating:

* McCain at 82.3% is 39th of the Senators serving in 2006. In that year, he scored a 65, which at 47th placed him with the likes of Ben Nelson (64) and Chuck Hagel (75). These aren't stalwart conservatives by any stretch. Simply put, McCain sets himself against the conservative mainstream of his party.

* The article points out that he has scored "less conservative" in more recent years and, perhaps most importantly, McCain differs from the ACU (and presumably the mainstream right) on certain key issues: immigration, campaign finance and the environment. These are significant issues for the grassroots; in particular his stance on immigration perturbs conservatives to no end, many of whom who view his position as treasonous (and I'm not being hyperbolic).

I think the Thinker is correct to conclude that he is on the liberal side of the party. We return, then, to the distinction between GOP and conservative movement about which I wrote before. This is an important distinction which has been forgotten since Reagan; we're seeing the split in this presidential race and it's going to make waves within the right.

*If the American Thinker isn't enough, at the grassroots level, one realizes how serious the conservative distrust of McCain is. A recent Salon.com
article points out that

In a January straw poll of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Mitt Romney won the support of 26 percent of the 721 activists who voted, while McCain came in fifth (behind Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter), with just 11 percent. McCain did score big in one survey the GOP group did: 59 percent of the activists named him an "unacceptable candidate."

If we extrapolate from these results (and coming in 5th suggests a lot about his credentials), where does he stand with the activists? All in all, they don't believe he is a true conservative on those "core" issues. Essentially, the conservatives have become multi-issue caricatures concerned with those issues of immigration, environment security (Islam/culture). The "conservative" in the US is for the most part an electoral joke.

Given that, nonetheless McCain still needs them for any significant traction against the Democrats. With that group out (or depleted significantly), he would then have to rely upon the moderates and democrats, and there seems little good reason to think that the Dems would hop over to McCain in this election.

2) The primary voter turnouts. The Democrats have overwhelmed the GOP in these primaries, by a margin of 73 percent. Through the primary season the Democrats have shattered their previous records. There is little reason to think that in the general election, especially with a McCain as the alternative mainstream choice, the pattern of high turnout would not continue.

Prior to Super Tuesday, the Democrats had been showing out in record turnout, in fact out pacing the Republicans at about 7 to 5 according to Time.

Super Tuesday was no different.

These numbers come from CNN on Super Tuesday

Turnout for Democratic contests, rounded to the nearest thousand:

STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 528,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 778,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +47%

–
STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,504,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,809,000 (91% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +20%

–
STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%

–
STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%

–
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 793,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,170,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +48%

–
STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 239,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 314,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +31%

Compare this to the Republican turnout on that same day:

STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 475,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 576,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +21%

–
STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 859,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 825,000 (93% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -3%

–
STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 772,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 604,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -21%

–
STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 310,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 551,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +78%

–
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 503,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 462,000 (95% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -8%

–
STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 347,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 398,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +15%

Yes, the Republicans also had high turnouts in these cases, but overall not nearly as high as the Democrats (and I realize Mass and NY are traditional Dem strongholds, but the high turnout is across the board). Whatever the source of this phenomenon if the trend continue, Obama won't have to worry about the Latino vote. He'll have an overwhelming percentage of voters in his favor already. The Republicans would have to increase their voter turnout by a large margin (unlikely if McCain is the nominee given the conservative distrut of him), while betting that all those voters that came out to vote in the Democratic primaries will stay home. If the latter doesn't happen, then the percentage of Republican voters turning up for the general election will have to be higher than the percentage of voters who turned out for the primaries in addition to the voters who will turn out for the general elections (a really long way of saying that the Republicans need more votes than the Dems but that is not likely to happen). If one considers the conservative distrust of McCain, the last 8 years of Bush and the McCain foreign policy, I don't think that's likely.

3) The Latino Vote. With the voter turnout expected to be 9 million (last election it was 6 million), the bloc is significant. And McCain has done well compared to his GOP rivals



Despite his positive showing compared to his rivals, Latinos are more likely to vote Dem. A USA/TODAY GALLUP poll had Latinos voting Democrat over Republican 3 to 1. The Republicans made serious political errors early on in declining to participate in a forum held by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; and, no more authoritative a source than Sen Mel Martinez, general Chair of the RNC, is quoted in the USA TODAY:

Martinez, a Cuban émigré, says Republicans can't win the White House with today's level of Hispanic support. "It would be in my view virtually impossible," he says.

In other polls, Republicans do no better. A recent poll (conducted by the Pew Hispanic Survey in October and November of 2007) found that 57 percent of Latinos stood behind Democrats while only 23 percent supported Republicans. Why?

• Latinos say the Democratic Party shows more concern for Latinos on the issue of illegal immigration.

• They say Bush administration policies have harmed Latinos.

Yes, McCain has courted the Latino vote before. But he's now courting the conservative base (which is far more immediately relevant to him). His rhetoric has shifted, so much so that at CPAC he stressed the importance of border security and other issues which appeal to the conservative movement within the GOP, so states the WSJ states. Can you guess which constituency is more important to him?

The Latino vote, in general (nevermind the inter-ethnic nuances: yes, I know Cubans generally support Republicans while Puerto Ricans gather round the Democrats. Got the memo, I'll get back to you later), is a Democrat lock.

So with all of this said, I don't think McCain can win riding the Latino vote to victory against Obama. The edge is not to be found in the first place. Even with the woeful performance Obama has shown in his party's primaries, the Democrats are simply opening their house to the constituency while the Republicans are sitting on their front lawn with a shotgun at the ready. I think Latinos will remember that, and may overlook their negative perceptions of Obama. Which will it be, border fence or not?

In the end, McCain can't overcome his own party's distrust of him; Democrat votes will probably continue to outpace Republican votes at the polls; and, a significant Latino vote won't go to McCain because a) too high a percentage already identify with Democratic party and b) his own party has shut that bloc out. What is more important to McCain? Winning his party or winning the presidency?

I suppose put another way, no matter who they nominate, the Democrats have a solid chance against the Republican front runner.

Obama's 3 (4 if you count Guam) were big but...

That's not where the real fight is. At the moment, Obama is positioned to win most of Maine, Virginia, DC, Maryland, Hawaii, and Wisconsin as well heading into Junior Tuesday. Obama needs to win these states for the momentum needed to win states with troublesome demographics for him on March 4. This could be the day the nomination is decided if Obama is somehow able to swing Ohio and/or Texas which are troublesome places given the high percentage of Latinos in Texas and the high working class white population in Ohio. If Obama only wins Vermont or Rhode Island on March 4, it's back to square one yet again. If Obama sweeps on March 4, though it's off to the races heading into friendlier states like Wyoming and Mississippi before Pennsylvania on April 22. One thing to keep in mind regardless of how things play between now and April 22 is that after Pennsylvania, the remaining states become very friendly to Obama with Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota all holding contests before Puerto Rico has the last primary on June 7. To sum up. Obama needs to sweep until March 4, steal Ohio or Texas, and then try to win PA. If he does that, he'll be the nominee based on the other states involved. Clinton needs to try to win a state before March 4 and then lock down Obama in the big states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If something in between those two possibilities takes place, we're headed for a floor fight in Denver.

The GOP may be building a fence

But will the Hispanics embrace a fellow minority like Obama? One of Obama's more glaring weaknesses has been making the hard sell to Hispanics anywhere. Hispanics were Obama's worst demographics in his home state of Illinois (yes, I know that's technically where Hillary was born but that's beside the point). Obviously, Hillary has already made the case to Hispanics. However if Obama wins the nomination (which is still no sure thing thanks to the Superdelegates); he has to nominate someone like Mr. former everything Bill Richardson to be his running mate. This will be a key issue since swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida all have large populations of Hispanic voters. If Obama fails to make the case to these people, we could be looking at President McCain.

And the GOP Builds a Fence...

Dem Latino Vote Is No One's Big Enchilada


The Fight for the Latino Vote

While the Democrats and Progressives woo the most important and transformative demographic of this early century, the GOP and conservatives battle it out over how to keep 'em out. I'm against illegal immigration, but the right is playing the wrong card at the expense of its political future.

Getting Immigration Right


The Latino is the GOP's own ethnic Catholic. Morons.

Obama Wins Three; Huckabee Still Fighting the Good Fight

Obama Defeats Clinton in 3-State Sweep

Barack Obama further cemented his place as the Democrats' nominee in 08, and it looks like Huckabee is not letting McCain take the nomination without a fight. This is going down to the wire for both parties. Quite an exciting time. If only I cared.

What a difference 12 years makes redux

The other (esteemed? nah, neither of us are that good) poster makes an insightful observation regarding the state of the GOP/conservative relationship. That, I think, is where the conflict is. That is why we are are seeing what we are seeing. The GOP Is fine. It's the conservative wing that is desperate and now lashes out at someone such as McCain. After Bush, the conservative movement is desperate to regain some affirmation not simply of their relevance but of their rightness (pardon the pun and the awkward language). 1996 followed the 1994 "revolution" which saw the conservative movement attain complete control of an institute of power which had alluded them (and the GOP) for decades. That being Congress, of course. One could almost see them taking a risk, feeling lucky and also feeling confident enough to open up the theretofore small tent to those other questionable politicos. But that wasn't the GOP that did that -- the moderates had been there all along. The big tent was a product of a loosening of the grip that the conservatives had ruled the GOP with since Reagan.

So, the debate surrounding McCain (and the stats from the ACU I think provide some credibility to this) is not a debate within the GOP proper. It's a debate between (and within) the conservative movement against the GOP. I don't think the GOP has any problem with McCain. The conservatives, turning into one or two issue caricatures of themselves (he's "strong" on foreign policy, aware of the greatest existential threat to our existence, the Islamo-fasicsts; but, he's a traitor to our country for his weak position on immigration. He supports campaign finance reform. He's therefore un-electable. That's just one example of the rather twisted values system the conservatives are employing to measure McCain's "purity").

What I think we're seeing is, in preparation for the post-Bush era, a fissure between the conservative movement and the GOP, two very different, yet mistakenly thought synonymous, groups. Those are the two dogs in the fight, so to speak. As questionable as I find McCain, on say, foreign policy (he's a little out there I think), he's not "conservative" enough on those issues that define the mainstream conservative movement, if the spokespersons such as Limbaugh are to be believed. What is going on is a re-self-definition of the GOP, and the conservative movement which governed it is threatened with marginalization (though not irrelevance) and a massive backlash, because of the extremism of the Bush presidency. The conservatives don't like that. They don't want to lose their powerful grip on the GOP. But, they may lose it with a McCain nomination, and that scares them.

What a difference 12 years make

Listening to Republicans debate about whether to support John McCain (lifetime 82% rating from the American Conservative Union) reminded me about the RNC Convention in 1996. In that particular convention, the GOP seemed eager to show the world that they had changed and were "a big tent" party. In particular, they trotted popular General Colin Powell and moderate New York Congresswoman Susan Molinari as a way of delivering the message. Looking at how the party has changed now, I would argue that the Colin Powell of 1996 would've had zero chance of winning the GOP nomination. Powell is pro-choice, supports affirmative action, and is for some gun control. He also has said recently that he tried to convince President not to invade Iraq. Now if someone like John McCain is having a hard time winning over the Conservative base despite his pro-life and neo-conservative views, what does that say about Powell who seems leftist in comparison? What a difference 12 years make.

Three dead in US college shooting

A disturbing event in Louisiana, another of a phenomenon which more widespread than it ought to be. May the dead rest in peace and the survivors recover effectively.

Three dead in US college shooting

Berkeley Hates America -- America Fights Back!

Berkeley, CA has been in the news as of recently while it once again does its part to subvert the American efforts to bring peace to the world. Now, America is fighting back, and telling Berkeley that if you won't love America, then America won't love you. That's right, some geniuses in the US federal government have introduced legislation that will "strip Berkeley's institutions of federal funds."

Posted on Commondreams.org

Bills Introduced To Strip Berkeley Funds

by Doug Oakley

Several Republicans in Congress are moving forward with an effort to strip Berkeley institutions of federal funds in retaliation for last week’s City Council vote telling the U.S. Marines their recruiting station is not welcome in the city.0207 02

Meanwhile, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates issued an apology Wednesday to those who serve in the military for any personal offense taken by the council declaration last week.

Six Republican senators, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and an Orange County representative on Wednesday introduced companion bills called the Semper Fi Act of 2008 that seek to take away $2.3 million from Berkeley earmarked in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill and give it to the Marine Corps.

The funds are designated for school lunches, Bay ferry service, disability organizations, UC Berkeley and public safety.

“Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences,” DeMint said in a statement. “Patriotic American taxpayers won’t sit quietly while Berkeley insults our brave Marines and tries to run them out of town. Berkeley City Council members have shown complete ingratitude to our military and their families, and the city doesn’t deserve a single dime of special pet project handouts.”

Bates and others wondered why the legislators would want to punish institutions that have nothing to do with the city government.

“There’s really no correlation between federal funds for schools, water ferries and police communications systems and the council’s actions, for God’s sake,” said Bates, a retired U.S. Army captain. “We apologize for any offense to any families of anyone who may serve in Iraq. We want them to come home and be safe at home.”

A spokeswoman for UC Berkeley noted the university has a long relationship with the U.S. military.

“We think it’s unfortunate that these senators would target the University of California simply because the campus is located in the city of Berkeley,” Marie Felde said. “We have a long history of ROTC at UC Berkeley, and military recruiters come here to recruit frequently. It makes no sense to punish the campus.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who toured Berkeley last month promoting federal funding she had secured for her district, said in a statement that she would “strongly oppose” the bill.

And a spokesman for Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she would “vigorously fight any effort to cut funding to these programs.”

Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Berkeley Unified School District, which receives federal funds through the Chez Panisse foundation, called the congressional effort “absurd.”

“Why anyone would want to take healthy food away from children is just beyond me,” Cooper said. “We’re in the throes of a health crisis due to childhood obesity, and Berkeley is one of the very few cities in America that’s actually really working on children’s health through school food.”

A spokesman for DeMint said the senator has been a longtime opponent of earmarks because they are hidden in spending bills and not debated.

Bates said the council’s declaration was a symbolic act against the war in Iraq, not against the “men and women who serve in the Marines or any other armed force.”

Two Berkeley City Council members this week said they would ask the council on Tuesday to rescind the item that declares the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” But Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli, who wrote the proposal, did not move to retract three other related items the council approved at the same meeting: calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city; asking the city attorney to investigate whether the Marines violate city laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation; and giving the protest group Code Pink a free weekly parking space and sound permit to protest in front of the Shattuck Avenue recruiting station.

Code Pink plans to be at Tuesday’s council meeting, as does a pro-military group called Move America Forward, which said Wednesday it is bringing the mother of the first Navy Seal killed in Iraq from Arizona. Move America Forward plans to stage a daylong protest in front the council chambers.

The Senate bill was introduced by DeMint, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Sen. David Vitter, R-La. Rep. John Campbell, R-Newport Beach, introduced the companion bill in the House.

Semper Fi Act:

* Federal money proposed to be transferred from Berkeley institutions to the U.S. Marines in the Semper Fi Act of 2008:
* $243,000 from the Chez Panisse Foundation, which provides 10,000 daily school lunches for Berkeley public schools
* $243,000 for the Ed Roberts Campus, a project that houses offices for disability organizations
* $750,000 for water ferry service planned from Berkeley to San Francisco
* $94,000 for a police and fire emergency communications system
* $975,000 from UC Berkeley’s Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which houses the papers of the late U.S. Rep. Robert Matsui

[END]

Why the lawmakers think that 1) taking funds earmarked for children, police, etc is of any relevance to the antics by the select few guilty parties 2) how it will convince such parties of their "errors," is beyond me. Also, why any congressman would be dull enough to think that city of Berkeley would interpret the stripping of funds negatively, given the city's notoriety, is also something I'm not quite getting. And, UC Berkeley has a $3,344,720,000 endowment . If the worst happens, presumably the city could survive off of the university's MIC/corporate teat. $2.3 mil? A drop in the bucket for a entity with an endowment in the billions.

What a waste of valuable time.

Signing Day 2008

This from ESPN.com.

All you need to know for national signing day 2008
By Tom Luginbill
Scouts Inc.

The hay is almost in the barn with this 2008 recruiting class, although, if you happen to be in the Terrelle Pryor (Jeannette, Pa.) sweepstakes, you might have to wait just a bit longer. The wait undoubtedly will have a trickle-down effect not only on the team Pryor decides to sign with, but on others, too. Do you hold the scholarship or give it to someone else to close out your class and move on? These are decisions that might have to be made Wednesday.

This class as a whole has been intriguing. Every year, one or two positions rise or fall in terms of depth and talent, and in 2008, the massive crop of wide receivers will leave just about every team in the top 25 classes with two premier playmakers on the perimeter. Conversely, this class is not strong at cornerback, which always is the toughest position to evaluate and has "converts" from other positions.

Big, tall wide receivers always have been popular choices, but the newest trend is recruiting undersized defensive ends and linebackers, with which this class is loaded. Outside linebacker Arthur Brown (Wichita, Kan./East) is 210 pounds if he is lucky, and OLB Sean Spence (Miami/Northwestern) weighs in at about 200 pounds on a good day. Florida commit defensive end William Green (Birmingham, Ala./Spain Park) is about 215 pounds, and Alabama commit DE Courtney Upshaw (Eufaula, Ala.) is about 220 pounds.

The reason for this shift in philosophy is the influence of the spread offense that dominates the college football landscape; speed, athleticism and the ability to play in space are at a premium. The offensive skill players have become so good defenses cannot afford mismatches.

The top dogs in recruiting still are the usual suspects this year -- USC, Florida, Texas and Georgia -- but some new blood has infiltrated the scene, with teams like Alabama and Clemson making huge splashes and hoping to catapult their programs to new heights. The real surprises heading into signing day are Minnesota, where Tim Brewster, fresh off a 1-11 season, has recruited like he went 11-1, and Colorado, which currently holds two ESPN 150 commits and would have a third if OG Max Tuioti-Mariner (Corona, Calif.) had not gotten injured his senior year.

And while Miami is still Miami, its class comes as somewhat of a surprise after its 5-7 season. It lured 10 ESPN 150 prospects into the fold, including seven who rank within the top 10 of their respective positions. And the Hurricanes might not be done yet.

Schools to watch

Colorado

17 verbal commitments, two ESPN 150 prospects
The Buffs have put together a quality class with linebackers Lynn Katoa (Salt Lake City/Cottonwood) and Jon Major (Parker, Colo./Ponderosa), as well as OG Ma Tuioti-Mariner (Corona, Calif.). But they aren't done yet. One big one looms on the board, No. 2-ranked RB Darrell Scott (Moorpark, Calif./St. Bonaventure). This would be a huge coup for Colorado, and it has a legit shot. OG Hamani Stevens (Hemet, Calif.) would be another nice addition.

Alabama

28 verbal commitments, four ESPN 150 prospects
This is, without a doubt, the best class Alabama has had going into signing day in the past five years, but it also helps to be back up to full scholarship levels. The prime target here is Julio Jones (Foley, Ala.), but even if the Crimson Tide don't get him, they will have four wide receivers committed in this class. Signings from uncommitted prospects OLB Jerrell Harris (Gadsden, Ala.) and DE Robert Quinn (North Charleston, S.C./Fort Dorchester), as well as stealing CB T.J. Bryant (Tallahassee, Fla./Lincoln), could push them to a top-five class.

Michigan

20 verbal commitments, five ESPN 150 prospects
Outside of all the Terrelle Pryor hype, things have been very quiet on the recruiting front at Michigan. Rich Rodriguez and his staff have been evaluating their new roster and the verbal commitments already in tow. Expect them to nail down a few more kids, but don't necessarily expect them to be big names. Don't be surprised if they are slightly undersized but quick, agile and speedy, beginning the process of what this roster will look like in the next couple of years.

LSU

24 verbal commitments, four ESPN 150 prospects
This class already is loaded at the top with some premier prospects, yet this is one team that could make a serious jump come signing day. Safety Karnell Hatcher (Delray Beach, Fla./Atlantic Community) is one the Tigers need to nail down. Of course, CB T.J. Bryant (Tallahassee, Fla./Lincoln) also would be a nice addition opposite CB Patrick Johnson (Pompano Beach, Fla./Ely). Don't be surprised if LSU snags a few kids away from their previous commitments when it comes to signing on the dotted line Wednesday.

Top remaining uncommitted prospects

Many of these players will be announcing with us on signing day on ESPNU. Lots of big talent from the ESPN 150 and beyond still is on the board.

WR Julio Jones (Foley, Ala.)
Julio Jones
No. 2 overall prospect Julio Jones will reveal his college decision on national signing day.
ESPN 150 rank: 2
Considering: Alabama, Oklahoma
It now appears to be a two-horse race for Jones, and one of the biggest mysteries in college football recruiting will be revealed live on national signing day on ESPNU. Alabama and Oklahoma are jockeying for position down to the wire, and with Alabama having just hired offensive coordinator Jim McElwain last week, it has some work to do to keep this young man at home.

We believe it could come down to a couple of points. First, how badly does he feel the need to be the focal point of the offense right off the bat? With that responsibility comes pressure, and we believe much more will be placed on him at Alabama. Second, the offensive scheme and success of the team in its current stage would lead one to believe Oklahoma has a clear edge. If Jones wants to be on a national title contender right now with more time to develop into his role, he might choose Oklahoma. If he wants to be part of building something special and be counted on early like Arrelious Benn at Illinois, Alabama might be the spot.

QB Terrelle Pryor (Jeannette, Pa.)
ESPN 150 rank: 4
Considering: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Oregon
OK, here's the deal. Pryor is, to say the least, conflicted. His hectic schedule of basketball, media commitments, phone calls, text messages and, worst of all, outside influences have not allowed this young man one minute to sit down and digest everything. He needs to think it through and make an educated decision alongside those who truly have his best interests at heart.

Therefore, there is a good chance he will hold off, and everyone will find out when Pryor makes his announcement to open our signing day show on ESPNU. The real issue here is Oregon and the fact that his schedule has not allowed him to make the trip to the Pacific Northwest. He likes the Ducks enough that he feels making a decision without seeing Eugene might be unwise. In our opinion, Pryor making a trip to Oregon would be smart, but it would be a trip Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State would not like to see happen. He is a perfect fit for the Ducks' scheme and a mirror image of Dennis Dixon, and their facilities are outrageous.

RB Darrell Scott (Moorpark, Calif./St. Bonaventure)
Darrell Scott
ESPN 150 RB Darrell Scott is considering Texas, Colorado and Florida.
ESPN 150 rank: 9
Considering: Texas, Colorado, Florida
The thing that most improved Mack Brown's chances of coaxing Scott to Texas was Jamaal Charles' decision to declare for the NFL Draft. There now is a void for an elite load carrier in the Longhorns' backfield, but Brown still has to contend with Scott's family connection to Colorado (his uncle Josh Smith is on the roster) and young, athletic Florida, which is starving for a bona fide running back to team up with Tim Tebow. For our money, Texas is in the lead in this one.

RB Jamie Harper (Jacksonville, Fla./Trinity Christian)
ESPN 150 rank: 12
Considering: Clemson, Miami, Illinois
Harper is going to be tough to lure away from Clemson, but we believe Miami and upstart Illinois have the best shots. The Canes are hot on the recruiting trail, and Randy Shannon has proved he can secure commitments. Illinois now has a void in its backfield, and Harper is another Rashard Mendenhall, only faster and with better moves. Harper's biggest priority is not having to play right away. Therefore, the depth chart is not the most important thing to him, which should allow him to make the best educated decision based on all important factors.

CB T.J. Bryant (Tallahassee, Fla./Lincoln)
ESPN 150 rank: 25
Considering: LSU, Florida State, Florida, Miami, Alabama, USC
There is more than one physically talented cornerback in this 2008 class. Bryant might be our No. 2 corner behind recent LSU pledge Patrick Johnson (Pembroke Pines, Fla./Ely), but he is just as coveted. With six schools still in the mix, the dark horse here is Alabama, since Nick Saban coaches the secondary and Bryant is close with Alabama WR commit Melvin Ray (Tallahassee, Fla./North Florida Christian), who certainly is whispering in his ear. FSU has been stagnant on the recruiting trail, but it is the home team and has had a host of Lincoln players succeed in its program. USC is USC; the tradition and reputation for producing NFL first-rounders is attractive. Don't count out LSU just because Johnson joined the Tigers' class.

CB Brandon Harris (Miami/Booker T. Washington)
ESPN 150 rank: 28
Considering: Miami, Ohio State
When all is said and done, Harris could end up being the best of all the corners in this class. Either Miami or Ohio State is going to find out firsthand. We have a hard time believing the Miami-born Harris would leave South Florida for the cold winters of Columbus, but stranger things have happened. This would be a huge get for either program, since cover corners do not grow on trees, and certainly not ones as versatile and tough as Harris.

WR T.J. Lawrence (Lakeland, Fla./Kathleen)
ESPN 150 rank: 49
Considering: South Carolina, Florida
Lawrence is without a doubt one of the best lesser-known wide receiver prospects in this class, and given time, either South Carolina or Florida will have a great on its hands. This kid catches everything and is well-versed on defense, so he has huge value and football awareness. He is a prime example that it doesn't matter how many offers you have in the spring of your junior year; what matters is how you play in your senior year. Eventually, coaches take notice. This kid has proven himself time and time again.

Tom Luginbill is the national director of recruiting for Scouts Inc. He also is a college football and recruiting studio analyst for ESPNU.

Things people hate

One thing that always gets on my nerve is when someone shamelessly lies despite the fact that no one believes them. The person who signifies that most in sports at the moment is Roger Clemens. Let's review, not too long ago Clemens was named in the Mitchell Report to the shock of no one that paid attention to baseball. He had long been rumored to have taken them at some point in his career (coughTorontocough). Clemens has insisted that his former trainer Brian McNamee has been lying. This is despite the fact that among other things McNamee also named Andy Pettitte who later confessed, McNamee gave much more specific dates and times of when he injected McNamee. Throw in the fact that almost every other single player in the Mitchell Report other than Clemens has admitted to their mistakes and it's becoming farcical to suggest that Clemens is somehow the only innocent man out of 160+. Now word has come out that McNamee has turned over DNA samples to Congress. While it is disturbing to think that someone kept another man's blood for 8 years, it doesn't change the fact that this is basically check mate for Clemens. If Clemens continues to deny the obvious, he is only fooling himself.

A special day

It's that time again. The experts making wild comments. The drama. The anticipation. Super Tuesday? Nope. I'm talking about National Signing Day.

In the next few hours, we'll see rivals and scout get maximum hits. We'll hear experts like Lemming and Luginbill drool over 17 and 18 year old boys in ways that would seem indecent on any other day of the year. We'll see names like Perry, Pryor, and Jones make some 40 year old 220 pound alum's day while breaking the heart of several others.

If we're lucky slightly more than half of the elite, will actually be elite. We'll also completely forget about these rankings in 4 years when the bulk of these kids actually get playing time. We'll forget that Kansas and Missouri had great seasons with mediocre recruiting classes while Miami and Notre Dame continue their trend of underachieving and losing in bowl games (when they're actually bowl-eligible that is).

All that being said, let's take this day for what it is. Another chance to think about college football even though it's 6 months until the first game of 2008 kicks off.

Super Tuesday -- Super Confusing?

As Romney Falters in Republican Race, Huckabee’s Drive Gathers Momentum

Rival Democrats Clutch Their State Prizes, and Look to Collect a Few More

McCain is a big winner in delegate-rich states

Obama, Clinton fight to be favorite

Internet is for PORN

NY Giants, Super Bowl Champs

Congratulations to the New York Giants for their defeat of New England, 14-10. A fantastic game.

McCain the Self-Annointed

McCain touts lead as Democrats scratch for edge

John McCain is poised to become the nominee of the Republican Party. Or so he says... After his recent victory in South Carolina, the withdrawal (finally) of Rudy Giuliani, the poor performances by Mitt Romney and the fizzle of the Mike Huckabee campaign, John McCain, the so-called maverick of the right, sits pretty as the king of the Republican Party mountain. On "Super Tuesday" 24 states will with relative certainty provide us with the Republican nominee. McCain has emerged strong in this last week, as he received the support of Giuliani as well as the backing of California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, a significant boon in a state with 170 delegates.Before one sticks the final feather in John McCain's cap and declares him the banner-carrier of the Republican Party in the 2008 election, it may be wise to halt the forward march and consider a significant consequence of a McCain nomination: the shattering of the Republican Party.

There is a visceral dislike and visible backlash against John McCain and the prospect of a McCain Republican Party presidential candidacy. This revolt sits firmly in the grassroots while being vocalized significantly by the opinion makers of the right wing media. Most prominently the radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has predicted (perhaps startlingly) that a McCain (or Huckabee, for that matter) nomination will "destroy the Republican Party."

That such words would emit from the standard-bearer of popular American conservatism cannot be overplayed. This is a blow to McCain and this signals the divergence of the Republican Party with a movement has been for decades been associated with it. Conservatives essentially are the Republican Party. That may change with a McCain nomination.

Yet this split is not only between conservatives and the Republican Party. There is a fracture within the conservative movement. Multiple fractures, actually. On the one hand is the split between the establishment conservatives and neoconservatives, exhibed by Rush Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard (in which an article was recently published titled McCain's Bumpy Ride); as much of a centrist McCain may be, this split which places him in the camp of the neoconseratives (a group which has supported him in the past; McCain is most certainly an "establishment" Republican, and such an endorsement more than proves that) may in fact preserve neoconservative dominance, thus a continuation of the radical foreign policy doctrines and actions of the Bush Administration.

This premonition of a McCain presidency, by Justin Raimondo in the February 11, 2008 issue of The American Conservative, ought to provide a reason to pause and ponder the dangerous possibilities ahead

If McCain finally makes it to the White House, the U.S. will surely start new wars, and not just in the Middle East. With the world as his stage, the persona McCain has created—given visible expression by what Camille Paglia trenchantly described as “the over-intense eyes of Howard Hughes and the clenched, humorless jaw line of Nurse Diesel (from Mel Brooks’ Hitchcock parody, High Anxiety)”—will have every opportunity to act out his fantasies of soldierly greatness.

Puerto Rico, a Terrorist Haven?

Apparently there's a new front in the War on Terror. The latest edition to the "freedom isn't free" file comes to us from that little island in the Carribean, Puerto Rico (apparently also known as Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, an unfortunate misnomer, given the island's status, which was adequately re-iterated by the Bush Administration in 2005 and more recently December 2007). Anyway, it's comforting to know that the US federal government has the foresight to engage the enemy before they can harm us; take the preemptive actions against these dangerous terrorists before something big blows up in our faces. We are sending a message to Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups who want to do us harm by showing them that we do NOT rest until our enemies are defeated. We teach by example, and the example is here. Go, Go USA!!!

FBI Witch Hunt Stokes Puerto Rican Independence Movement

As an anti-terror task force targets three young Puerto Ricans in New York, people take to the streets.

They say that when Filiberto Ojeda Rios was killed, all of Puerto Rico stood still.

"The financial district shut down," José Lopez, executive director of the Puerto Rican Cultural Center, explained recently in a small café along Paseo Boricua, the heart of Chicago's vibrant Puerto Rican neighborhood.

His eyes lit up as he went on. "Literally all of the banks and offices were closed, and people were just standing outside, watching the caravan go by. Usually it is a one-hour trip to his tome town of Nagüabo. That day, it took seven hours. Everywhere there were hundreds of people. Little kids made their own signs that said, '¡Viva Filiberto!' It was an incredible outpouring of love and compassion that really was felt throughout that whole time period."

Filiberto Ojeda Rios was the founder and longtime leader of the Popular Boricua Army, or Los Macheteros, a militant wing of the Puerto Rican pro-independence movement. He was shot by FBI agents in his home on Sept. 23, 2005, at the age of 72, and left to bleed to death.

Although Los Macheteros hasn't participated in armed actions for 15 years, the FBI has continued to aggressively pursue its leadership. It is an effort that has led it to the doors of multiple New Yorkers affiliated in some way with the Puerto Rican struggle to wrest control of the island from the U.S. government. Three of those people -- social worker Christopher Torres, graphic designer Tania Frontera and filmmaker Julio Antonio Pabón Jr. -- were recently handed subpoenas by the FBI/NYPD Anti-Terrorism Task Force and, after securing a postponement, were ordered to testify before a grand jury Feb. 1 at the Eastern District court in Brooklyn.

Torres and Frontera were both supporters of the successful struggle to force the U.S. Navy off the island of Vieques, which was used for decades as a bomb range and weapons testing ground. Pabón's father, meanwhile, is unsure why his son has been targeted, but he believes it might have to do with his coordinating a visit by The Welfare Poets, a radical arts collective and supporters of Puerto Rican independence, to Wesleyan University, which he attended years ago.

"We're preparing to challenge those subpoenas," Susan Tipograph, Torres' attorney, told AlterNet. "My concern is that the grand jury is being used in a way that undermines the First Amendment rights of people who are engaged in constitutionally protected political activity."

"There certainly is a history of the federal government using grand jury subpoenas to cast a wide net investigation into political movements," Tipograph added. "There is a particular history of that in relationship to the Puerto Rican independence movement."

There is also a long history of resistance to those subpoenas.

Puerto Rico, currently a commonwealth, has been under U.S. control since 1898. Although Puerto Ricans are subject to U.S. laws, they have no representation in Congress and don't have the right to vote in presidential elections. Though many Puerto Ricans fear changing the status quo and removing the island nation from U.S. tutelage, they are currently worse off economically than any state in the Union. The per capita income in Puerto Rico is $20,058, less than that of Mississippi, the poorest state. Almost half of Puerto Ricans live below the poverty line, and a third of its population is unemployed. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has for decades repeatedly condemned Puerto Rico's status and called on the U.S. to return occupied land, release political prisoners and allow Puerto Ricans the right of self-determination and independence. Many Puerto Ricans have called for the same thing. A spectrum of organizations and political parties are currently promoting independence.

However, ever since the FBI was officially founded in 1935, it has regarded any and all opposition to U.S. sovereignty with suspicion. According to the FBI's own estimates, from 1936 to 1995, agents collected between 1.5 and 1.8 million pages of intelligence on organizations and individuals advocating independence.

In 2000, per his request, the bureau began handing over selected files to Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., and the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College has been sorting and filing them and publicly releasing select contents. Among them is a 1961 memo from then-Director J. Edgar Hoover to the San Juan field office, initiating Cointelpro activities against the movement and its leaders. The memo orders agents to begin collecting information on independence leaders' "weaknesses, morals, criminal records, spouses, children, family life, educational qualifications and personal activities other than independence activities," so as to "disrupt their activities and compromise their effectiveness."

A U.S. Senate committee in 1975 found the program "imposed summary punishment, not only on the allegedly violent, but also on the nonviolent advocates of change."

In 1977, the FBI began employing a new tactic of intimidation against independentistas: the grand jury subpoena. According to Michael Deutsch of the People's Law Office in Chicago, resistance to the subpoenas was organized and unwavering. The grand juries were seen by activists, he wrote, as "an illegal instrument of colonial authority whose powers of inquisition they must resist." For refusing to comply with more than 20 grand jury subpoenas, scores of pro-independence activists -- some of whom were summoned more than once -- spent anywhere from four to 18 months in jail -- and some of them were summoned more than once.

Lopez, a "grand jury resister" who spent seven months in jail for refusing to testify against his compañeros, says the subpoenas had a "chilling effect." So did the even more drastic sentences handed to two men who still languish in prison -- Carlos Alberto Torres and Lopez' brother, Oscar Lopez Rivera. They have spent 26 and 27 years in prison, respectively, on arcane "seditious conspiracy" charges after prosecutors were unable to tag them with anything else.

The criminalization of the Puerto Rican independence movement in the late 1970s forced many prominent leaders underground and, to many, reinforced the idea that independence could not be achieved through diplomatic means. Ultimately, repression would foment radical resistance. In 1979, Los Macheteros committed its first armed action, when it attempted to steal a San Juan police car and killed Officer Julio Rodriguez Rivera in the process. A handful of covert attacks, mostly targeting property owned by the U.S. government, followed.

In 1983, Los Macheteros robbed $7.5 million from a Wells Fargo depot in Hartford, Conn. Filiberto Ojeda Rios was accused of masterminding the heist and arrested. After being released on bail, Ojeda Rios returned to his clandestine existence and earned a spot on the FBI's "most wanted" list.

After his assassination in 2005, Rios' martyrdom stoked a new wave of indignation among Puerto Ricans. Soon thereafter, the Puerto Rico Justice Department sued U.S. authorities, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, demanding information related to the operation that led to his death, as well as a series of FBI searches that followed. The lawsuit was dismissed last summer.

Responding to public outcry, however, the U.S. Department of Justice did publish a 237-page report on the incident, which absolved the FBI from any criminal liability.

Many see the recent subpoenas, which are the first in over two decades, as an attempt to publicly reclaim the offensive. But, as José Lopez puts it, "Sometimes, the more you repress people and try to stifle dissent, you create more consciousness, and it has the opposite effect that the government would want."

On Jan. 10, the day of the first grand jury hearing (and postponement), approximately 3,000 people demonstrated in various towns in Puerto Rico in support of the "New York 3." Meanwhile, in Brooklyn, some 100 people showed up on the courtroom steps, including numerous prominent City Council members. And, although it was a cold, rainy day in Chicago, Lopez says at least 100 people came downtown to demonstrate. Demonstrations also took place in Hartford, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Orlando, Fitchburg, Mass., and Cleveland.

Similar actions are being planned throughout Puerto Rico and the mainland on Feb. 1.

The renewed attention on the Puerto Rican independence movement could provide a much-needed push for a bill sitting in the House of Representatives that would begin a true self-determination processes: H.R. 1230, "The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act," sponsored by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. The bill would create a Constituent Assembly within Puerto Rico to educate, dialogue and eventually create a Puerto Rican-initiated alternative to "commonwealth" status.

Regardless, many in the movement anticipate more repression before any change occurs. According to a statement released earlier this month by the Ejercito Popular Boricua, "The true reason for persecution against the EPB-Macheteros and those who struggle for independence in general is that we are a force capable of educating and organizing the people."

José Lopez puts it a different way. With local youth streaming in and out of the café to ask his advice about projects they were organizing, classes they were teaching and press conferences they were preparing to hold, he explained, "The idea that you can sell to the world that you are a democracy, a benign empire, that you struggle for human rights and self-determination -- the Puerto Rican independence movement is constantly challenging that."

Jessica Pupovac is an adult educator and independent journalist living in Chicago.