The SoapBoxers

Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta

On November 16th, Staff Sergeant Giunta became the first living Medal of Honor recipient since the Vietnam War.  The Medal of Honor was awarded for his heroics after his platoon was ambushed by Taliban fighters on October 25, 2007.  Among the actions that Giunta took during the fighting was to chase down Taliban fighters who were attempting to carry off a wounded American soldier.  Staff Sergeant Giunta killed one of the soliders ad caused the other to flee.  Although Giunta pulled his comrade to saftety, the soldier later died.

In any case, I would be proud of such a heroic soldier.  In this case, it hits home even more because Giunta is an Iowan.  Not only is he from my home state, but he grew up just a couple of miles from the office where I work (although news stories mention that he grew up in town of 6500, Hiawatha is part of the Cedar Rapids metro area – the second largest metro area in the state).

The local news media has been all over this story.  Not only did they cover the presentation live, but they advertised the event weeks in advance.  They also covered the parade when Giunta returned home to a hero’s welcome.

Elizabeth Smart

This month, Elizabeth Smart finally gave testimony in the criminal trial of Brian Mitchell.  Mitchell and his wife, Wanda Barzee, abducted Smart and held her until their arrest nine months later.  Although some people suggest that Smart could have escaped if she really wanted to, in actuality, factors such as Stockholm Syndrome actually make it mentally difficult for hostage to break away.

It has been more than seven years since Smart was reunited with her family.  She seems to have made a remarkable adjustment.  She has not become a recluse, but instead has made an effort to reach out and help others. – through TV interviews, a collaborative book with other victims (free download from the US Department of Justice), and most recently, as a Mormon missonary.  Far from using her abduction as reason to pull back from society, she has instead used it as motivation to do much good in the world.

Josh Hamilton

We go down a few rungs on the ladder to the world of sports.  Josh Hamilton was a heralded baseball prospect in high school – being picked with the #1 overall selection in the 1999 draft.  Hamilton eventually began to abuse drugs and alcohol, and by 2006, his star had faded so much that he was left unprotected in baseball’s Rule 5 draft.  He was selected by the Cubs, who immediately flipped him to the Cincinnatti Reds (yeah, Cubs fans, that has to hurt).

After being traded to the Texas Rangers, Hamilton blossomed into a bona fide star in 2008 – wowing crowds at the All-Star game home run derby and finishing seventh in MVP voting.

In early 2009, Hamilton was reported to be in a bar, asking questions about where he could get some drugs.  The 2o09 baseball season was also a disappointment for Hamilton, whose numbers slipped considerably.

In 2010, Hamilton once again appeared to have his act together – clean and sober.  He hit .359 for the year, with 32 homers.  Even though the Rangers shut him down in September to allow him to recover from injuries and be ready for the playoffs (a smart move), Hamilton’s season’s work was enough for him to reach the pinnacle  – being named the American League MVP in the same year that his Rangers advanced to the World Series.

I sincerely hope that Hamilton is able to continue to remain clean and sober – his achievements on the field are secondary to his battel with addiction.

Overrated stat of the month

I am annoyed at how often talking heads point to the number of rushing attempts a football team has in their wins versus their losses.  The suggestion is that teams that run the ball often win more often than those who don’t.

This is a classic example of confusing cause and effect.  Quite often (although not always), teams runs the ball a lot because they are winning – it’s not that they are winning because they have run the ball a lot.  Let’s say you’re up 30-3 at the beginning of the 4th quarter.  What sort of plays are you going to call?  Runs, of course – because the clock doesn’t stop after running plans (it does stop after an incomplete pass) and you’re able to eat more clock and make it more difficult for the other team to come back.  Likewise, the team that is down 30-3 is probablty going to throw a lot of passes in an effort to get points in a hurry.  At the end of the game, the winning team will have a lot of runs and the losing team will have a lot of passes – but simply because the score dictated the game play.

Idiot quote of the month

The Pac 10 conference has a round robin schedule in which every team plays every other team.  While many other teams play seven or eight conference games, Pac 10 teams play nine.  Washington coach Rick Neuheisel has pointed to his as a reason why the Pac 10 went into the weekend in danger of not being able to fill all of its six bowl slots, saying “… it hampers everbody, because it’s five more losses for the conference.”  That’s true, but the extra conference game also means that it’s five more win for the conference, too (with 10 teams playing an extra game, five teams must win and five teams must lose).  It’s only a net loss of five wins for the confernce if you assume that the teams would have gone 10-0 in games against non-conference foes instead of the 5-5 record in the conference games.  Note that the five teams that were struggling to reach six wins have a combined 8-7 record in non-conference games.

In recent weeks, there has been much outrage regarding the full body scanners and pat down techniques currently in place at airports across the country.  Last week, I took a step away from my generally (but not always) pretty liberal point of view to argue in support of speed cameras.  This week, I once again side with the government on an issue.  Don’t expect this to become a trend …

I do expect some tomatoes to be thrown my way – so don’t be shy about sharing your opinion.

First of all, lest anyone jump to wrong conclusions, I certainly don’t support all of the actions of the TSA.  If pat downs are crossing the line into the area of sexual molestation, then this is CLEARLY wrong and those who are using the name of the TSA to perpetrate criminal acts should be prosecuted.  I also take exception to small children being separated from their parents during the pat down process.  My general rule of thumb here is going to be that anyone who can’t vote has the option of having a parent with them during the process. 

My friend Lazy Man is in disagreement with me on this issue, writing recently in opposition to the full body scanning and pat downs (and a couple of days ago, The Angry Squirrel also chimed in on the topic).  Lazy makes many arguments that I agree with, and I’m guessing that he will agree with some parts of my argument.  The difference is that we place different weights of certain factors.

In his article, Lazy Man makes this comment: “I understand the need for security, but I believe our right to privacy trumps that.”

Let’s look at this in detail.

Our right to privacy

Which right to privacy, exactly?  There is, of course, no explicit right to privacy outlined in the constitution, although various amendments are generally interpreted in a way that suggests this right – something that has been backed up by a considerable amount of case law.

However, the right to privacy is really not at risk here.  The TSA cannot force you to undergo body scanning or a pat down.

Of course, if you refuse, you won’t be allowed to board the plane.  Note that you aren’t being deprived of your right to privacy – you’re simply being deprived of your “right” to board an airplane.  Guess what – no such right exists.  You can fly or you can decline screening – your choice.

While the issue at airports is front and center these days, the fact of the matter is that when you buy an airline ticket, you are entering into a contract.  In exchange for a seat on the plane, you pay a sum of money and agree to other terms.  I don’t have an airline ticket in front of me, but I suspect that being vetted by security is part of the fine print.

Odd that you’d need to give up a right as part of a contract?  Not really.  That’s often the very point of a contract.  Sign a contract to play Major League Baseball?  Guess what – you’re going to have to submit to drug testing and you’ll be bound to a particular team for a number of years (note that for many jobs, you have to submit to drug testing even if your employment is “at will” – a case where you don’t even have a contract).  Want to open a restaurant?  Prepare for inspections by the department of health.

Privacy trumps security

Go through a full body scan and the worst thing that happens is that your privacy has been invaded.  Yeah, that’s bad.

Get on a plane with people who haven’t gone through rigid security screening and the worst thing that happens is that you can die in a firy crash when a bomb explodes.  That’s the worst kind of bad.

I wonder how many people who complain about invasion of privacy still want terrorists to go through body scanners or pat downs.  Ah, there’s the trick … sometimes the wolf can wear sheep’s clothing. 

What this really boils down to is your privacy on one side of the equations, and hundreds of lives on the other side.  The equation is similarly unbalanced for every passenger, as any one person can result in everyone dying.

Kids should be exempt

I’ve seen suggestions on many sites, including The Consumerist, suggesting that very young children be allowed to pass through without screening.  After all, a three year old can’t possibly be a member of a terror cell.

While this is true, the sad fact is that it is not uncommon for parents to use their children as “mules” to unwittingly transport contraband from place to place.  If a drug smuggler can use a baby, then why not a terrorist?

I’m the parent of two young children.  Nonetheless, I think that children should have to go through screening the same as anyone else.

What’s next?

This isn’t to say that what’s in place today is the perfect solution.  Let’s once again look back at Lazy Man’s article, in which he says “There is talk about having the computer only showing outlines of the body and potential foreign objects. Considering that the technology that we have with facial recognition is a million times more complex this should be able to implemented in a couple of weeks.”  I’m definitely on board with anything that minimizes the risk to privacy while still maintaining the same level of security.

Lately, the hottest news topic in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (where I work) is the existence of speed cameras.  These are unmanned cameras that take a picture of speeding cars.  You then get a ticket in the mail.  There are a lot of people very upset about the cameras – why?

The cameras are there to make money, not for safety

Many people complain that the city cares more about the revenue generated by the cameras than about improving safety.  An interesting aspect of the speed cameras is that they are installed by a private company at no direct expense to the city.  The private company then takes a cut of the fines.  This model is popular with cities, because they don’t to carve out budget items for the installation and maintenance of the cameras.  It’s popular with private companies because a lot of people speed, allowing them to make good money.

I agree that the positioning of the cameras could be better from a safer perspective.  There is one camera each in the northbound and southbound lanes of Interstate 380.  While you’ll never compare I-380 with New York City city traffic, it is nonetheless one of the more heavily traveled routes in the state.  There are some curves that can be dangerous if you’re going too fast and not paying attention – it would be nice to see the cameras a bit closer to them.

However, it’s worth noting that a local TV station analyzed tickets that were handed out, and it appears that the threshold is 12 miles per hour over the speed limit.  If the threshold was just a few mph over the limit, I’d be more swayed by this argument.  As it stands, I think there is a dual effect – there is some increase in revenue and also some increase in safety.

There’s nobody watching, so I shouldn’t get a ticket!

There are people who feel that their rights are violated because there’s not an actual human police officer operating a radar gun to catch them speeding.  The logic is that they don’t have a sporting chance against the camera.  Well, I think that’s the logic, anyway.

This is an argument that I dismiss out of hand.  If you burglarize a store and get caught on the security video, it’s perfectly OK to use this as evidence of the crime, right – even though you weren’t caught in the act.  Why would speeding be different?

It’s not even possible to accuse the city of being sneaky with the cameras.  Everyone knows exactly where they are.  If you’re not sure, you can go online and find out.  There are mobile speed cameras – and their locations are broadcast on the news.

In some locales, people have fought these tickets with the “it’s not me driving the car” defense – including the guy who donned a gorilla mask to avoid having his face captured by the camera (how safe is that?).  In Cedar Rapids, the tickets issued by the cameras (well, actually issued by a human after reviewing tapes) are issued to the registered owner of the car, not necessarily to the driver – similar to the way parking tickets work.  If someone else was driving your car, you need to make them reimburse yet.  On the flip side, the ticket doesn’t go on your driving record because of due process issues.

Where Do I Stand?

I doubt this is going to be a surprise.  Although I’m as guilty of speeding as anyone else, I also believe that municipalities have a perfect right to use every tool at their disposal to enforce laws.  If you’re exceeding the speed limit by 12 mph, you’re simply going to take the risk of a few tickets.

The local news spoke with one woman who managed to get 14 tickets in the span of a few months, at a cost of around $1000.  Again, this is in spite of the fact that everyone knows exactly where the cameras are.  She commented that she has changed her driving habits, and now always set cruise control.  That’s not the safest thing in the world, considering the amount of merging traffic, but it’s probably safer than going as fast as she previously did.

“Weighing in one hundred forty six pounds,  Ellllllston Murrrrrray.”

Murray climbed into the ring to moderate applause.  He could see his opponent approaching with a large entourage in tow.

“And weighing in at one hundred forty seven pounds, the resigning world welterweight champion, Bruuuuuuuiser Brrrrrrrrrrown.”  The sellout crowd broke out into a deafening chant – “Bru!  Bru!  Bru!” 

Elston Murray watched the spectacle with disguised disgust.  Brown was an egotistical showboat who had gained his championship belt in a controversial split decision in which he had leveled several cheap shots when the ref wasn’t looking.  A sportsman he certainly wasn’t.

Murray had begun his boxing career as an angry, troubled youth.  By the time Murray had become a Golden Gloves champion, his legal problems were a thing of the past and the anger had begun to fade.  When he met Maria, the anger disappeared altogether.

Maria disliked seeing him in the ring, and eventually Murray also tired of the scene.  The ugly underbelly of the sport gained more exposure every year and fighters like Bruiser Brown brought shame to a sport that had once been great.  Elston Murray had retired in his prime – never having gotten a title shot, but having experienced much success in his career.

Elston had saved most of his prize money, rather than blowing the cash on fancy cars, drugs, and call girls.  Even with the conservative investing, he and Maria should have been earn enough in interest and dividends to live comfortably, if not extravagantly.

Then the cancer came.  Nothing helped Maria – not even the experimental treatments.  The medical bills would have been crippling for many people.  For Elston and his infant son, the bills were of minimal importance compared to the loss of a beloved wife and mother.  He sold some of their assets to pay for the medical bills and Maria’s funeral, and the two Murray men soldered on – with a bit of belt tightening.

Then came the salt in the wound.  Elston had intentionally engaged three different financial advisors to manage his assets in order to minimize the risk of embezzlement.  The advisors devised a plan to work together to steal the entirety of his portfolio out from under him.  His nest egg was gone.  He was forced to take out a home equity line of credit to make ends meet.

Elston realized that in order to send Sammy to a good college, he’d have to step back in the ring.  At 30, he was getting a bit old for the business, but had kept himself in good shape.  He reached out to some boxers he had mentored when he was still active, asking for a fight.  Most were happy to oblige a man who was universally liked and whom had aided many fighters with their technique.

After two years of slugging it out for peanuts, Elston had begun to get some bigger fights.  A couple of stunning upsets pushed him up the rankings.  When the champion needed to schedule a title defense in order to keep his belt, he picked the old guy, assuming Elston would be a pushover.

Elston was aggressive from the opening bell, rocking Bruiser with a devastating blow to the jaw.  Brown quickly shook it off and began to trade blows with Murray.  Murray had a longer reach than the champion, but Bruiser was quicker.  If Elston could keep Brown from getting too close, he’d be able to deliver blows with impunity.

The bout quickly turned into a rout.  Bruiser’s legendary quickness had been taken down a notch as the result of lackluster training and too much time spent at the buffet.  Murray pounded him relentlessly, with many observers wondering why the referee hadn’t stopped the fight.  When they came out for the final round, the champion’s face was bloodied and battered, and he could barely see out of his two black eyes.

Murray took it easy on Brown – letting him dance around and delivering blows to the body in order to avoid further damage to the pretty boy’s face.  Murray knew that he was far ahead on points and just needed to play defense for the final round in order to preserve a victory.  He’d walk away from the sport once again with enough money to retire.

When the bell rang to signal the end of the fight, Elston dropped his arms to his side.

He never saw the fist coming.  Before the referee was able to announce that Elston Murray had won a unanimous decision and was the new welterweight champion, Murray lay dead in the ring.

This weekend marks the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One.  Yep, the final Potter book is being split into two movies (part 2 due next July) in an effort to maximize revenue.

Honestly, this really isn’t the genre for me.  My favorite writers generally stay in the mystery and suspense genres (although the Preston/Child books swing a bit into the paranormal).  When I get tired of those writers, I have a backlog of classics to catch up on.  Quite honestly, the wizards, witches, and vampires that currently capture the attention of society are really not my cup of tea.  I haven’t read any of the Potter books, and was quickly bored when I saw one of the movies on TV.

Logically, then, you probably think that I’m not a fan of Harry.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

As disinterested as I am in the genre, I am thrilled to see young readers picking up a book – any book.  If the Harry Potter tomes are the gateway books to Shakespeare, Dickens, and Block, then J.K. Rowling is doing society a great service.  Just as interesting is the fact that many adults are getting into Potter – cracking open a book instead of spending time in front of the TV.

Even television – which I occassionally refer to as the “idiot box” has come into an era where there are many educational shows gaining in popularity.  I’ve always been a fan of crime shows (NCIS is my current favorite), and there are a ton of shows on TV that delve into the science of forensics (albeit sometimes in a sensationalistic fashion) as well as the inductive reasoning techniques used by detectives – techniques that can be quite valuable in solving real-life problems.

The upshot of all of this is that the old stereotype of smart people being “squares” and “not cool” is starting to erode, as smart characters take the lead in many popular books, movies, and television shows.  Anything that causes kids to have a positive view of education is a good thing, in my opinion.

The story behind the Harry Potter story is also interesting to me.  J.K. Rowling wrote the first book while on government aid and after beating back clinical depression.  How’s that for a Horatio Alger story?  The money that England spent on Rowling was pretty well spent – imagine how many millions she had paid in taxes over the years!  Additionally, Rowling is involved with a number of charities in Britain.

My buddy Lazy Man took a break from thrusting his lance into Mona Vie to take aim at another product, Protandim from LifeVantage.  After a spirited (and a bit strange) debate, one of the supporters of the product took the unexpected leap to the “the IRS is a scam” argument.  At which point, any credibility he had was completely gone.  The whole idea of the IRS not having the right to collect taxes is a myth propagated by a small segment of the population.  The IRS has actually debunked a variety of bogus arguments on their web site, citing relevant case law so that you can look it up if you decide not to take their word for it.

Last week, I read a story about a man who took his computer into a repair shop in 2004 and ended up with a $6 million bill (it’s actually true – here’s the article from the New York Times).  The unethical shop owner told the victim (Roger Davidson) that there was indeed a virus on his computer.  Later, he told Davidson that the source of the virus was found on a hard drive in a remote part of Honduras.  Even worse, it was part of a plot by Polish priests affiliated with Opus Dei – they were trying to infiltrate the US government!  Again, I remind you this this actually happened – it’s not some new Dan Brown novel.

Several years ago, I overheard a lady in the new row of cubicles talking about the unfortunate death of her grandmother.  As it turns out, since nobody else’s name was on her grandma’s bank accounts, they money went “in to the state”.  I nearly did a facepalm as a realized that the grandma had died “intestate”, that is, without a will.  In those cases, the assets are distributed to heirs according to the state’s law of intestate succession.  In general, the closest living relatives get the assets.  You do not simply forfeit your assets to the state if you die without a will.

It seems that people have lost their BS detector at some point.  It’s actually pretty sad, since there are a lot of resources to use when debunking myths.  The venerable Snopes debunks pretty much anything – and is a great site to browse even when you’re not in debunking mode.  Some people quibble with the question of whether or not political debunking sites like FactCheck are unbiased, but the fact of the matter is that they will at least give you a starting point for reasearch.  Want to do your debunking in front of the TV – MythBusters.

I’m not suggesting that you automatically assume that everything is a lie – but take things with a grain of salt.  When you hear something that sounds absolutely incredible, do a bit of research before believing it – even if you hear it from your mom.  In the case of the man with the computer virus from Honduras – take a step back and get a second opinion!  If you take a moment to do a bit of research, you’ll find a multitude of tools that can help you debunk or affirm an argument.

After nearly five years of trusty service, my 1999 Ford Taurus began to experience a problem in the spring of 2004.  The speedometer would be accurate up to about 25 mph, but they would bounce wildly between 25 mph and 85 mph, regardless of the actual speed being driven.

At first, this was an infrequent problem, and then became gradually more common.  Of course, the problem never occurred when I took the car into the shop.  One of the mechanics apologized for his inability to troubleshoot the problem.  My response was that I worked in information technology and could fully understand the problem of a machine not reproducing a problem when you wanted it to (computers are notorious for this).

Some online research strongly suggested that the problem was with the vehicle speed sensor – an opinion that was backed up by some car experts in my office.  I had an extended warranty on the car, so the necessary repairs would be paid for, minus a small deductible.

The only problem was that the warranty company wouldn’t pay for a repair without the shop getting a reading from the onboard computer.  This made sense to me – they didn’t want to keep replacing parts until the shop fixed the problem by trial and error.  I continued to experience the problem – except for the times when I took it into the shop.  One time, the problem occurred for an entire weekend, only to cease on Monday when I took it in.

It was during this time that I learned that you really don’t need a speedometer.  You can gauge your rough speed by looking at the tachometer (engine RPMs).  This does vary a bit on hills, but you can make a rough estimate of your speed.  So I was able to drive the car without getting any speeding tickets, which was a small victory.  However, I was unable to use cruise control, which really sucked.

Finally, one weekend, the problem took a turn for the worse.  Not only was the speedometer not properly registering speeds above 25 mph, but the car was actually not moving any faster than 25.  There were some long drives that weekend.

At around 6:00 AM on Monday, I took a long drive down to the Ford dealer.  It was still early enough that the well-traveled road to the deal didn’t have many cars on it yet.  That’s exactly why I choose this time of day, of course – to minimize the risk of an accident.  The dealership opened at 8, so I pulled out a book and read for 90 minutes.

The dealership was able to get the Taurus looked at right away – and the computer was still throwing an error code.  Imagine my “surprise” when it indicated that the vehicle speed sensor was faulty.  A few minutes later, I was back on the road with a fully functioning speedometer.

Today marks the 500th article I have written for this blog, over a span of two years (kudos as well to the other writers, who have contributed more than 200 articles).  Have I learned anything over the years?  Yep.  My thoughts, after 500 articles.

If you’re thinking about starting, do it NOW.  I neglected my writing for about a decade simply because lack of feedback in the traditional writing model bothered me.  I could never tell how good or bad writing was unless I actively sought out friends to read my writing (and I didn’t feel like stalking people in order to get their opinion).  With the internet, you can throw something out there are see if people like it (and since they don’t know you personally, the feedback can be more honest).  Not sure if YOU want to start a blog?  If you’re thinking about it, do it now.  You can either use a free service, or have a blog at your own domain name.  If you use this link, you can have hosting through Dreamhost for a discounted cost of $36 for the entire first year (full price is currently $119.40 for a year).  Give it a year and see if you like it.  If you aren’t enjoying it, just quit.  There’s no shame in that – there are a lot of abandoned blogs on the internet.  Don’t be surprised if you get addicted. 

Most bloggers are great people.  One thing that I didn’t really expect when I started were the friendships I would build with other bloggers.  Lazy Man and I have been friends for a while, of course, but I’ve also become friends with people like Evan, SVB, and Johnny Sacks (this is not an all-inclusive list – if you’re reading this and feel excluded, rest assured that I probably could have filled the entire article with names).  These three would be an odd trio if they ever bumped into each other – there’s really no single tie that would bind them together.  Each of them resonates with a different aspect of my personality.  Also, when I have asked questions of other bloggers (generally of a technical nature regarding how they achieved a certain look on their site), I have always received nice responses.  Certainly no blogger wants you to rip off their entire theme, but they are willing to show you how certain pieces work.

It’s a team effort.  I started this site as one guy throwing  out random observations (hence the original title “The Casual Observer”).  There came a point where it took a sharp turn and became the dynamic multi-author site you see today.  It really hasn’t been that difficult to get people to write (especially since the only financial benefit they are working toward is the promise of sharing of profits, when those profits occur).  While there has been turnover, it has been manageable. 

Plagiarism sucks.  Luckily, this issue has only come up once, but when I found that a former writer had stolen content from other and attributed it to themself, it was a dark day for me as an editor.  By nature, I am a very trusting person … but since that day, I am less trusting. 

The money isn’t great.  I was hoping that ad revenue would quickly defray costs and make me a millionaire.  Well, help me break even, at least.  Unfortunately, the site is still leaking a bit of red ink.  I’ve made some conscious decisions that prevent me from maximizing ad revenue.  I minimize the ads that are shown to regular visitors and don’t show any ads at all in the RSS feeds.  I’ve also made an effort to weed out ads that I think are scammy, irrelevant (I’m still working on the soap ads, but think I’ve gotten rid of the ads for boxer dogs), or just downright ugly.  I can’t possibly catch all of them, but I’ll catch as many as I can in order to enhance the visitor experience a bit.  Of course, the ads that I feel are a  bit scammy are probably the ones that pay the best.  I’m trying to figure out exactly how much time I have spent on the site over the years – writing 500 articles, recruiting writers, coordinating the schedule, making code changes … it’s a substantial amount of energy.

Political articles are popular.  This is hardly a surprise, as politics is the national pastime of the United States.  For the longest time, I avoided having official political columns (aside from occasional rants from me).  Eventually, I figured out a format that would work – have two writers from each camp, and have them write on alternate weeks.  I wasn’t really sure how well it would work out, but I think it’s fair to say that The Political Observers has been a hit.  I also worried a bit that the tone of comments would get out of hand.  There have been spirited discussions, but it seems that people are generally able to avoid personal attacks.

People like it.  You never know how well received something will be.  We’re far from the most popular blog in the world, but we do have our fans, and the positive comments out-number the negative by a wide margin.  I can count the number of outright negative comments on one hand.  The personal notes I receive via email are a great motivator to continue my writing.

OK, that’s all for now.  500 articles down, 9500 to go!

Today’s fiction story focuses on, of course, politics 🙂  This will likely be the last political thing I write for a while.  This isn’t intended to be anti-GOP propaganda, it’s just that the inspiration was Lisa Murkowski’s Senate bid in Alaska.

On the day after her loss in the primary, the incumbent Senator announced that she would be remaining in the race as a write-in candidate. Josephine Havlicek was a moderate Republican who had come up short in the primary against a candidate with more conservative views.

“She is defying the will of the people,” declared F. George Rinaldi as he met for coffee with a colleague later in the day.

“Indeed, she must be stopped,” agreed Chad Gronstal, another heavy hitter in the party. “The Havlicek era has come to an end, and she must move aside to make way for the ascent of Bradley Jericho. She’s simply too liberal for our party.”

“Can she pull it off?” Rinaldi wondered aloud. “Can she buck the odds and win a Senate seat as a write-in candidate?”

“Write-in campaigns are a bit tricky. A lot of people just have the tendency to fill an oval and move on – they aren’t willing to take an extra minute to write in a name.”

“But she’s the incumbent,” countered Rinaldi. “She has some momentum on her side.”

“Indeed she does,” agreed Gronstal. “But we have a few tricks up our sleeves as well.”

Throughout October, polls showed Josephine Havlicek running solidly ahead of the official Republican candidate Jericho, with Democrat Sarah Brown trailing far behind. It seemed that the incumbent’s popularity was going to allow her to cruise to an easy victory.

On the last day to register as a write-in candidate, just a week before the election, Senator Josephine Havlicek was joined on the ballot by Josephine Havlichek, a retired schoolteacher. She had registered at the request of a certain Mr. Rinaldi, who offered her a small sum of money in exchange for this patriotic act.

In the last week before the election, ads supporting Josephine Havlichek – the schoolteacher – were all over the television, and yard signs were popping up on every street corner.

“What do you think,” asked Gronstal, as he and Rinadli grabbed a beer the night before the election.

“I think we may have stolen the ball from Havlicek. Our gal should be able to siphon off enough votes to allow Jericho to surpass the Senator’s vote total.”

A funny thing happened to Bradley Jericho on the way to his coronation. He lost. The last ditch effort to cause confusion about the correct spelling of the incumbent’s name caused a surge in the number of write-in votes. When all precincts had reported in, Jericho had just 25% of the vote, the Democrat Brown a pathetic 13%, and other minor candidates 2%. 60% of the electorate had chosen to write in a candidate. Schoolteacher Havlichek would not be able to help their cause by siphoning a few votes away from the Senator – it was a lost cause. Josephine Havlicek would be returning to Washington.

A funny thing happened to Josephine Havlicek on her way back to Washington. She lost. The last minute strategy of the Republicans to thwart her bid for another term had indeed worked. She was listed on just under half the write-in ballots. Listed on more than half the ballots was Josephine Havlicheck, a little known retired schoolteacher.

A funny thing happened to F. George Rinaldi and Chad Gronstal in the aftermath of the election. Their joke candidate went a little rogue in her first press conference.

“The first thing I will do as a Senator is to work toward overturning Roe vs. Wade,” thundered the diminutive woman, to roaring applause.

“The second thing I will do as a Senator is work to repeal Brown vs. Board of Education. It is time to once again ensure that every student is educated amongst his or her peers and not intermixed into some melting pot.”

The crowd fell silent, and Chad Gronstal suddenly felt sick to his stomach. Perhaps this hadn’t been the best plan, after all.

Note: this is a fictionalized account of a meeting that never occurred.  While each of The Political Observers gave some input, any accusations that their words were used out of context are most likely true.

Kosmo: Friends, Romans, countrymen … I welcome you  to the opulent Castel Kosmo.  I am gathered here tonight with The Crunchy Conservative, Zarberg, The Angry Squirrel, and Squeaky.  We are discussing the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, in which the Republicans gained controlled of the House in dominating fashion, while the Democrats saw their majority in the Senate reduced to perhaps a 51-49 majority.

We see Zarberg begin to unwrap a candy bar, whereupon Crunchy deftly snags it from his grasp.  Zarberg quickly grabs it back.

Zarberg: Hey, nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger.

Crunchy: Ok, whatever.  Enjoy your stupid candy bar.  At least I can bask in the joy of a conservative wave election.  Cheers, gang.

Crunchy holds up a wine glass filled with the cheap swill Kosmo can afford on his blogger’s salary.  Zarberg mutters under his breath, Squirrel throws a cashew at her, and Squeaky cracks open a bottle of New Belgium microbrew (which he brought in a cooler, being wisely untrusting of Kosmo’s choice of beverages) and returns Crunchy’s toast.

Kosmo: OK, the polls are now closed in all states except for Alaska and Hawaii, and we have a lot of things to digest.  Which decision made you happiest about the elections?

Squirrel: Well, as a progressive, I really wasn’t very pleased with much of anything during this election.  I guess perhaps the high point was Chris Coons defeating Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware senate race.  There was some chatter about a Monmouth University poll released late last week that showed her cutting Coons’ lead in half – but it should have been apparent to everyone that this was just a Halloween-related surge, since Christine O’Donnell is a witch.  Witches are popular around Halloween.

Crunchy: It was a great night for me, personally.  The Republicans took control of the House, Senator Grassley was elected to another term, and Governor Branstad resumes control after a (relatively) short absence.  Wonderful to see that women are voting Republican.

Squeaky: As someone who is against medical marijuana, it was good to see the sometimes irrational voters in California send prop 19 (which would have legalized marijuana within the state, even for non-medicinal uses) down to defeat.

Zarberg: Oh, yeah.  Marijuana is so evil.  Have you read the recent British study that concluded that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than marijuana?

Kosmo: Hey, guys, tone it down.  This is a family-friendly show.  Let’s move on.  What were some things that disappointed or surprised you the most?

Zarberg: Well, most of the evening was a disappointment.  I think we’re looking forward to at least two years of gridlock.  The country is going to struggle to return to prosperity until your average Joe has a few bucks in his pocket – tax cuts for corporations are not going to stimulate demand for their products.  On a personal note, perhaps the most disturbing thing was being approached by people with partisan pamphlets on Tuesday – three times.  I was tempted to see if they were within 500 feet of a polling place.  On election day, everyone can make informed decisions – the propaganda machine can shut down for a day.

Crunchy: While not a surprise, the O’Donnell loss in Delaware was a disappointment.  She is not, I repeat, NOT, a witch.  Harry Reid hanging on to his seat?  Seriously, what are you people in Nevada thinking?

Squirrel: Rand Paul winning in Kentucky.  Not a huge surprise, but still a disappointment.  He has said that he won’t add a cent to the debt – let’s start keeping a running count of earmarks for Kentucky.

Squeaky: Probably the biggest disappointment was Kosmo’s liquor cabinet.  What is this, store brand scotch?  As Crunchy mentioned, there really wasn’t a whole lot to be disappointed with – unless Senator Michael Bennet is able to withstand the challenge from Ken Buck in my home state of Colorado.  I’m confident that Buck will prevail when the dust clears, though.

There we have it, folks – our 2010 election reactions.  Come back for more post-election chatter in 2012.