Luke Scott

Never trust someone with two names. That's some advice I've been given years back. This morning, I woke up and read the paper, to see a quote from Baltimore Orioles left fielder Luke Scott. It's wonderfully timed as he says, "(Obama's) birth certificate has yet to be validated. If they can counterfeit $100 bills, I think it's a million times easier to counterfeit a birth certificate, if you ask me. So, all it is, let's just see if it's real." The timing of this quote and the ensuing fallout or lack thereof is an interesting study in exactly where Obama's decision will resonate with Americans; it shows why athletes really need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics; and it shows an interesting racial dynamic given the tweets this week from Rashard Mendenhall, running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Mendenhall came under fire for essentially peeing on everyone's celebration of bin Laden's death. He had problems with the excessive celebration of the death of another human being. Additionally, he tweeted his doubts that al Qaeda actually pulled off the 9/11 attack. These were poorly timed comments, and (regarding 9/11) under-supported conspiracy bunk that if investigated further may have some valid claims but it is far from a reasonable theory. His dismay over the celebration of a death is not to be discounted, however, and I think he was entitled to these words, and too his credit he has not claimed to have been taken out of context.

Still, there is a palpable rage directed at him for his ill-timed quotes and propagation of a dubious, at best, conspiracy. So where is the outrage for Luke Scott? There is none. It doesn't help that Mendenhall is black and Scott is white. On ESPN's Website, there is not a word about Scott's moronic statements. Yet on the front page of ESPN is still a link to the ever growing Mendenhall statement. Scott is doing the same thing Mendenhall did: He's ignoring a historical success for our nation and focusing on a crackpot conspiracy theory that has all been settled. The lack of outrage towards Scott, shows that it is acceptable to still categorize Obama as not-American. The birther claims hold water to so many people, who may say, "I'm not certain the theory is true, but the people who claim Obama wasn't born here do have some valid points." The simple truth is that Obama has many layers of Otherness that idiots like Scott latch onto. The name, the ethnicity, these are un-American in Scott's eyes, and impossible for him to give validity to Obama as his president and that Obama is nothing more than a birth certificate scandal, despite the fact that he made the gutsiest military order in recent history (more on that down below).

First, I'd like to look at Scott's claims. He says the certificate has not been "validated." If by not validated he means the registrar of vital statistics didn't put his stamp of approval on it, well he's wrong. By not validated he means the document has not been given to public scrutiny, well he's wrong, as factcheck.org, will attest to having seen and examined it.

Next, he makes a false analogy by claiming $100 bills can be counterfeited. Often counterfeiting is done by a small group, which is easier to control the secret from being let out of the bag. In order to counterfeit a birth certificate of this magnitude, the governor of Hawaii would have to be in Obama's pocket as would Alvin T. Onaka, the registrar of vital statistics - their staffs, Obama's staff, his inner-circle, and likely a long list of bureaucrats who would have to be in on this to not let the conspiracy reach the public sphere. This stupid line of it's a million times easier to forge birth certificate is ludicrous. It would take a systemic cover-up that any government cannot sustain.

I know a number of people in government, have studied it a great deal, and if there is one thing I am aware of it is that a large organization like a government is incapable of keeping secrets. Eventually whistle-blowers come forward. If not, we'd never have the UFO stories come to light that we do. These were people sworn to secrecy who come forward and spill the beans. Although their claims are dubious. But look at the Pentagon Papers. It didn't take long for those to come to light, or Watergate. People get jaded, jilted, or a conscience and people then talk.

This point is paramount to my rejection of 9/11 conspiracies that it was an inside job (and a repudiation of Mendenhall's ideas). I listen to people expound their theories, and while they will make valid points, I can't shake the fact that the government would never be able to keep it a secret. People come forward. Or people slip up. There is a question as to whether Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11. Rumsfeld while over in Iraq, slipped up and said, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. Now, I know I'm opening a whole can of worms with this, and I'll pursue it no further. The point of bringing it up is that Rumsfeld's misstep at least opens the door to the idea of a cover-up as to how the plane went down, although there is little to disprove that the passengers did not heroically try to retake the plane - the evidence overwhelmingly supports they did - whether their efforts brought down the plane or our planes did does not in anyway take away from the facts of their heroism.

Finally, to Scott's overall political bent, he is clearly on the far right- who believe that government is a devil, an insuperable testament to inefficiency. The government can get nothing done in Scott's political world. Yet, he seems to believe they are capable of a mass conspiracy to create a fake birth certificate. Moreover, the birther movement seems to believe that Middle Eastern governments, along with our own, carefully drafted a plan to take a boy born in 1961, and anoint him the future president in some large scale plan of malfeasance. How can Luke Scott reconcile his belief that government is inept with this unfathomably complicated plan that was hatched back in 1961? Clearly these two components of the far right's beliefs don't jive. Frankly, if they could put together a plan like this and sustain it over 50 years, well, shoot, I think they could be pretty good with solving our jobless problems.

One little addendum to this, why does Luke Scott not question whether McCain was born in the US? The story is McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone on a US military base, but does that fit the Constitutional requirement of native born? And can we really prove he wasn't born off base in a Panamanian hospital? His grandfather, a high ranking military officer would immediately know that citizenship was vital for his grandson, and would have had the ability to forge a document on base saying his grandson was born there. But this is just me trying to play the part of conspiracy theorist. And I certainly do not entertain these thoughts as more than satirical what-if. It's not that I'll buy whatever is told to me; but what ever skepticism I may have I let reason and facts dictate how long I will hold on to that skepticism.

To other things that bother me with Luke Scott. He is still unconvinced. He has a right to that opinion however idiotic it is. As a person in the public sphere, his words will get out. Derrick Rose, recently showed up at an Obama fundraiser, to drum support for the president. There Rose said he enjoyed meeting Obama and his cabinet. One problem, Obama's cabinet was not there. His advisors were, his reelection team was, but no individual cabinet member attended, and the fact that Rose did not know this difference let me know that he was speaking purely from admiration, but he was not a voice of authority, nor did he really try to come across that way. (Scott makes it sound like he knows what's up.) Moreover, he was there as a private citizen, and did not use his locker room/place of employment for his political stump, as Luke Scott and Curt Shilling have - and I guarantee you, either one of those guys would jump all over actors spouting political twaddle at award shows.

Still the timing of Scott's comments, as were Mendenhall's, was awful. At a moment when the president made one of the biggest military gambles in recent memory, Scott had to drum up that tired old chestnut of accusing the president of not being American and thus not patriotic. This does a great disservice to what Obama has demonstrated. Without flinching he ordered the neutralization of Somali pirates threatening US citizens. Then this last week he ordered an incursion into foreign nation, with 60-80% certainty according to the CIA that bin Laden would be there.

Starting from he disastrous raid into Iran by Jimmy Carter (which was a huge risk) let's analyze the risk level of engagements since then. This is not intended to disparage or minimize the risk our troops have taken. They took the orders and executed them well, but from the standpoint of a president's butt being on the line, I look at the risk (1 being the least riskiest to the president and 10 being the greatest).

Grenada: A small island defended by Cuba. Let's face it, Cuba was not a major military power. We made it a big deal because they were communist, but honestly, there was no real threat of failure. It was hostage rescue, thus the danger of dead Americans was a real danger, but the thought that we would not be in control of the island was never in doubt. Ronnie Reagan's butt on the line, a 3.

Panama: George Bush's first military issue. We went up against that central American power in Panama, with a defense force of 5,000, to get our old CIA shill Manuel Noriega; he who wore red bikini briefs because it brought him good luck. Scary. We had control of the nation in a day. The risk was to the Panama Canal, but since our forces were already there and in charge, the likelihood of any damage to the structure was negligible. Butt on the line, a 1.

Iraq/Kuwait: Bush's second military venture was risky. Iraq was in the top five militarily worldwide. They were battle hardened from an eight year war with Iran, and we were trying to coordinate a coalition of unwieldy size. The risk was high, although the end result seemed to easy. We obligated ourselves to only liberating Kuwait, and not occupation. Additionally, the military equipment of the Iraqis was so odd of date, and clunky that they did not stand a chance. Still, butt on the line, 8. Only in hindsight can we say it was really a 4.

Somalia: Clinton got this one dropped in his lap when he came in. It was as if Bush said, "Screw you for beating me; I'm putting troops into Somalia, ya jag." He had to rely on advisors and military personnel whom he was just starting a working relationship with. He ordered a high level take down in a heavily Aidide part of Mogadishu, and the results were disastrous. His defense secretary was fired, and we were made to look like fools, butt on the line 8.

Bosnia: After Somalia, Clinton had brass ones committing us to ending ethnic cleansing in. Again, he inserted us into a civil war, which is a bad idea to involve an outside party in. On top of that, Clinton sent in SEALS to capture and bring to trial Serbian war criminals. Much of the military operations were from the air, and in the midst of the Lewinsky debacle, Republicans were crying for Clinton to be impeached for Bosnia as well. They kept saying Clinton did it to distract from the Lewinsky trial. End result, criminals were brought to trial, ethnic cleansing was halted and Milosevic was toppled and brought to trial, where he died in captivity. Butt on the line, 9. Clinton later launched cruise missile attacks into Iraq for their plot to assassinate former president Bush. So despite dumping Somalia in Clinton's lap, he held no grudges and stood up for his predecessor.

Afghanistan: W, nearly didn't do this one. His delay allowed for bin Laden and Mullah Omar to bolt to the hills before we could arrive. Initially, he let the Northern Alliance do the battles, with our air support and Special Forces advisors. America was clamoring for retaliation. He had to do something. What he did was relatively safe: the Afghan national army was hardly ready for the conventional war we brought to them, and thus they fled. Butt on the line, a 1.

Iraq: W really screwed this one up. I'd put butt on the line at 9 because we were invading a nation against worldwide outcry, to occupy the nation, on the pretense that WMDs were so prevalent in Iraq, that we'd be tripping on them as soon as we crossed the border. But as soon as the invasion was over, and no WMDs were found, the mission was recast as spreading democracy, and who doesn't like that? Suddenly we were so magnanimous and doing God's work. Moreover, the Iraqi army was a shell of itself from the Gulf War. They had no chance. The ensuing guerrilla war was disastrous, but since W and Rumy thought it nothing more than deadenders, I'll hold them to it. This was a war sought because they thought we could end it before breakfast of the next news cycle for nothing more than the cost of a cup of coffee at the Waffle House. That's how they saw it, that's how they cast it and thus, butt on the line, 1. This proved true since W was reelected.

Obama and Pakistan: To recap above. The intelligence was not certain. The choice Obama took required that multiple helicopters could evade a decently equipped radar net, land in a building that had been re-conned by satellite, had children in the line of fire, and no idea what the extent of the resistance would be. On top of that, the whole mission would fail if the firefight was prolonged and bin Laden got away. Dead troops would mean leaving them behind, or taking assets to recover the body. If the mission was delayed, the Pakistanis would show up guns ablazing. Not to mention this was a major military town. He ran the risk of the Pakistanis saying the action was an act of war. Pakistan is on edge with India. Both nuclear powers, they might think they were under attack from India and launch. Nothing was guaranteed in this operation, but Obama weighed the risks, and took a reasonable gamble, and it was successful because he believed in the ability of our military and intelligence services, didn't cherry pick information like Cheney did, and went in knowing the risk, but also confident in the reward.

And then Luke Scott has to go shoot his mouth off about a stupid conspiracy theory that leaves no lingering questions now that it has been resolved. So Luke Scott, in military parlance: Sierra, Tango, Foxtrot.

Constitution Day

By Nick Star

In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.

Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.

My New Job: Congressional Bouncer by Luke Krueger

Yesterday was a sad day in American politics. Joe Wilson and his GOP brethren turned a nation with a strong history of civilized debate into one of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) politics.

I find it thrilling to watch a presidential address. There is a majesty, associated with it. And whether it was George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, it is hard not to feel a rush of pride at the gravitas of the office. Even when George W. Bush stood before us and lied, saying Iraq had WMD's, there was still a respect and decorum afforded the chronic liar. The only slight was when the Democrats refused to stand and applaud his money-shot, one liners, but that is an acceptable political slight.

Instead, last night, America saw its number one coward duck and cover while throwing a rancid tomato. Joe Wilson, GOP congressman from South Carolina, tried to anonymously yell, "You lie!"while the President addressed a rare joint session of Congress regarding healthcare.

An aside: Joe Wilson let his state down. Preston Brooks, a So. Carolina congressman, beat (with a cane) Charles Summner on the steps of the capitol because Summner was an abolisionist. So. Carolina is saddened, Joe, that you couldn't throw down a smack down.

There are some ugly moments, but last night reminded me of the WWE. So if you are a political science major, toss your books aside. Read Jim McMahon's biography. Study the Rock's greatest interviews. Do an internship with John Cena. Watch the years of Wrestlemania, and break down how Hulk beat Big John Stud in the cage match. Or study his smack talk when Hulk promised to bodyslam Andre the Giant.

Thus I see a new opening on the government payroll. Congressional Bouncer.

Where was the Sergeant-at-Arms? It's a ceremonial position, and he doesn't do much, save for calling to everyone that the President has arrived.

So I think that if this WWE politics is to continue, the Congress needs bouncers in order to preserve decorum. Cowards like Joe Wilson can't engage in a civil discourse. When he yells out, "You lie," the bouncer grabs him by his suit's lapel and drags him out of the chamber. Outside, we'll say, "Thank you for dropping by. We appreciate your business and we hope to see you back tomorrow, but it's probably time you go home and sleep it off..." or some such thing.

We will also be informed. So when Eric Cantor says there will be "government rationing" a Congressional bouncer will say, "I'm sorry Congressman but that is false and cannot be supported by anything in any of the bills circulating. Please sit down and shut up." This is not limiting their right to free speech. It's simply a reminder to think before they speak. And to pick the appropriate method of expression for the appropriate venue.

Congressional bouncers will be thoroughly professional, pleasant, and focused on respecting the Congressmen. But if they get a little liquid courage in them, we'll bounce the dopes. This applies to Congresswomen as well, but the GOP really doesn't have to worry about that distinction of diversity.

The job will be incredibly dangerous though because it will require that I be given the same healthcare as all members of Congress. This is risky because to hear John Boehner talk, government run healthcare is the devil. And since he has it, I can't imagine how bad it is. It gives him doctors who sign off on his ridiculous fake and bake tan that afford him a preternatural orange hue. This is a scary prospect of what government healthcare offers: You'll be orange like John Boehner.

Nevertheless, I am willing to accept this risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer in order to preserve the civil nature of our political debate. I really think Jefferson would be down with this position. At some point, he advised Chief Justice William Cushing, "I'm not affraid to toss Burr's drunk ass from the hizzy if he doesn't check himself. Otherwise he's gonna wreck-i-dee, wreck himself." Something like that.

I realize congressional healthcare is pretty bad, again, so bad that the members of Congress can't get rid of the insurance despite the cacophany of yelps to rid themselves of such pestilential...

Oh, wait...they're not? Well I'm sure they hate their healthcare. Still, I'll take on that risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer. The healthcare is the most dangerous part of the job. Cowards like Joe Wilson will wilt when confronted.

So wish me luck. I'm not sure I'll be better off, healthwise. Maybe the vomiting and fever I suffered a week ago will be abetted, but I can only imagine that taking this job will offer me only hardship and detriments to my health.

At least I'll get to bounce Harry Reid because the dress code will require a spine.