Why am I not surprised?

Heh heh, there's a web site out there called switch2dean.com. The general concept is to show a person's face, tell who they've switched from and then let them tell their story. Here's my favorite:

Debunk

So let's get right to it, so I can leave Todd alone. And if you haven't yet read his website, go read it. He's a great writer and a prolific linker and, occasionally, ;-) an insightful thinker.

But I couldn't let his incessant criticism of Edwards rest. And, for the record, I am not afraid to criticize the Edwards campaign. Todd has nine reasons Edwards will drop out by December. I've addressed number nine, below.

Number 1 - Edwards has no organizational structure in place to galvanize voters This is, well, how do I say it, wrong. He's got an organization in New Hampshire and Iowa, and is so far ahead of everyone else in South Carolina it's not even funny. Only Joe Lieberman's residual name recognition keeps him ahead. Todd cites to Publius as evidence of a lack of organization. Publius is the same guy who predicts NC is on the verge of a Republican century because Mike Easley is vulnerable to the badly fractured NC Republican Party, which is running the likes of Bill Cobey (one time loser), Richard Vinroot (the William Jennings Bryan of North Carolina politics - motto "If there's an election, I'm running"), and Patrick (I'm over 30, I promise) Ballentine. Pshaw.

Edwards has staff working in every key state. He's set down firm roots in Oklahoma and Arizona and has regional chairs working hard in New Hampshire and Iowa down to the county level. He just announced 200 new Iowa endorsements, including the last Democratic Governor before Vilsack (who, by the way, recently declared that Edwards was very much in the race in Iowa). The information is on the campaign website. Click on the map of Iowa.


Number 2 - Large gifts of soft money from Edwards' PAC to Democratic Party bosses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina won't translate into votes I'm not sure I'll even confront this one, as it is essentially irrelevant to the current situation. Edwards' PAC donations last year were not designed to translate into votes in 2004. They were designed to get him on the radar screen with party leaders in those states back in 2002. And they worked. Alex Sanders may well have endorsed Kerry. But Alex Sanders LOST last year. Meanwhile, Edwards is doing pretty dang well in South Carolina without him.


Number 3 - Edwards beat an obviously aged and feeble Lauch Faircloth in 1998 by only 83,000 votes out of more than 2 million cast. Again, not that relevant to the Presidential campaign, which is not being waged in North Carolina. Nevertheless, this comment shows a surprising lack of understanding of North Carolina politics. This state was in 50/50 equipoise long before the nation got to the 2000 debacle. It used to be between the traditionalists and the modernizers (to use Paul Luebke's accurate titles) in the Democratic party. Now it's between Democrats and Republicans. Nobody wins big majorities in this state. Well, nobody but Mike Easley and Elizabeth Dole.

Note that Lauch Faircloth beat "an obviously aged and feeble" Terry Sanford in 1992 by 102,000 votes. and that "an obviously aged and feeble" Jesse Helms beat Harvey Gantt by 160,000 votes in 1996. Just click around on the site, you'll find the results. Point being: almost no candidate for Senate in NC ever wins over 53%. That's not the way the state works (and that's why you don't run to one side or the other, you run down the middle.) Dole's 54% was a huge victory, comparatively, attibutable to the nationwide shift to the Republicans in the last week of that campaign and Ms. Dole's movie-star celebrity. Johnny Edwards, remember was 10% down in October and surged to victory at the end. Now there's a little history for you.

Number 4 - Edwards just hired Democratic consultant Jim Andrews to "manage message and strategy I plead ignorance on this one. All I know about Andrews is the campaign ads he has produced for Edwards. They're good.

Number 5 - Edwards' pro-Iraq war position leaves him no solid base of support within the Democratic Party Not every voter in the Democratic party is a one-issue obsessive with an inability to forgive. If the war in iraq was the only issue that mattered to Democratic voters, Senator Graham would be blitzing America with a successful run. Dean's appeal is based, as his supporters incessantly remind anyone who bothers look at a political chat site, on more than his position on the war. And while we're on that point, just how much courage did it take to oppose the war? If you're Howard Dean - you're sitting at 5th place. You need to make a splash. The members of your party who actually had to vote on the resolution in October all make their vote and then you decide to (1) mischaracterize their position, (2) scream a lot and (3) become the darling of the anti-war left. Meanwhile, you're a Senator from a southern state with a decidedly pro-military bent, but you have to campaign in notoriously anti-war Iowa. Your job in the Senate is to represent your constituents, and you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out of power (even if you are appalled at the President's handling of the run up to war). What's the easy choice for your Presidential ambitions? You make the call. I know who I think showed political cojones.

I also remember Mr. Morman and his merry band of rabble rousers throwing dollars at me and hitting me with signs, telling me I should be ashamed of myself, while inside, the man they were protesting was telling us to take the protesters seriously and respect their point of view.

Number 6 - he's leaving black voters cold Again, not really true, and based on one article about his reception at a gathering of African American Baptists in Charlotte. The truth is on the ground in South Carolina where the campaign first comes home to the black voter. Edwards has been solidly working the black electorate since the beginning of his campaign. He is, after all, the candidate who brought Chris Matthews's show not to his own alma mater, but to NC Central - to electrifying results on that campus that night.

Number 7 - It's not widely acknowledged, but Edwards had a relatively easy road to his North Carolina Senate seat Huh?!? Wha?? I thought he barely won. Cognitive dissonance abounds. Who freaking cares? I personally remember when that campaign started, and most Democrats assumed D.G. Martin would waltz to the nomination. So much so that other experienced pols stayed the heck out. Edwards saw an opportunity others said he wasn't ready for, and went for it. Sound familiar?


Number 8 - he's ignoring trade policy Well, perhaps Todd hasn't seen this ad or read this story:


Edwards delivered his basic stump speech with a few new twists. He repeatedly attacked Bush's trade policies, blaming them for the loss of 3 million U.S. jobs. He mentioned South Carolina's 7 percent jobless rate, the highest in nine years, and laid the blame squarely at Bush's feet.

"It's devastating, and this president is not going to do anything about it," Edwards said.

The loss of jobs in South Carolina and closing of textile plants due to rising foreign competition are starting to cause voters to question Bush's economic policies, a development that could portend trouble for the president even in a Republican-leaning state like South Carolina.

Edwards ridiculed a recent White House statement characterizing the current situation as a "jobless economic recovery."

"I don't know where the president grew up, but where I come from, there is no such thing as an economic recovery without jobs," he said. "The best way for us to have real economic recovery is to make sure George Bush gets another job in 2004."

On trade, Edwards said, he would seek to kill the provisions in the law that give tax breaks to industries that uproot and move overseas, taking American jobs with them.


Let's lay it all out on the table. Edwards is not the favorite. He never has been. He's always been the candidate that needed some breaks to get there, but had the skills to make his own luck. Dean has stolen his thunder so far, and it will be a great test of his campaign team and his own character to see how he reacts. So far, he's done just what he did as an attorney. He's looked at the odds and said "I'm the guy to beat this" and gone to work.

He can still win, and, unlikely as it might seem, Dean might be doing some of the work for him. Nobody has ever expected John Edwards to win Iowa or New Hampshire. He needs to finish better than expected. A good third in New Hampshire is all he needs. But if Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa, Gephardt is done. If he beats Kerry in New Hampshire, Kerry's done. Who then becomes the guy running against Dean? Edwards. And, like George W. Bush in 2000, the firewall will go up in South Carolina. If Edwards wins South Carolina and Arizona and Oklahoma, we've got ourselves a horse race.

We also haven't had a single real debate yet. The personal campaigning in NH, IA and SC has just begun. It's way too early. And that's the main reason that, no matter how many lists get posted on anti-Edwards web sites in Raleigh, there's no way he drops out by December.

Excuse the typos, I've got to get some real work done.

Dean on Medical Marijuana

What grade did the darling of the left get from Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana? Hmmm...... how about a big, fat

Bush comes to his senses, repeals tax cuts

From CNN. Explaining his decision to limit the tax cuts , Bush said granting the full cuts would "interfere with our nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism."

He said allowing the maximum cuts to take effect would cost the Treasury Department about $13 billion in fiscal year 2004 -- $11 billion more than his call for 2 percent overall cuts .

"Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within the budget," the president's letter said. "Neither outcome is acceptable."

This would be great. Except he didn't say tax cuts. He's cutting raises for Federal Employees.

Cynical bastard.

Since we're talking about big crowds...

Although not officially one of Monkeytime's 9 reasons Edwards will drop out of the race by December, he does show a picture of an admittedly humongous Dean rally in Seattle.

To that, I respond only that another candidate, once upon a time, drew crowds in the tens of thousands and seemed to be about to set the Democratic world on its ear. Here's an excerpt of a breathless article on that candidate:

Such a nomination would have been unthinkable four years ago. Indeed, it was unthinkable just two weeks ago. But then [the candidate's] makeshift coalition of inner-city blacks, imperiled autoworkers, college students and affluent liberals swept the Michigan caucuses with 55% of the vote (the highest of any Democratic candidate outside his home state) and humbled the party favorite, []. The electrifying magnitude of this Rust Belt rebellion gave the preacher-politician the credibility he had long craved. Suddenly party leaders took seriously the inexorable delegate arithmetic that showed [him] running neck and neck . . . ] for the lead. . . . .

Hundreds of supporters chased their champion down a dark street after nightfall on the north side of Milwaukee. Telephone calls jammed the switchboards at [his] headquarters, and contributions poured into the congenitally ill-funded campaign at the rate of $60,000 a day. Small wonder that the populist preacher said with smiling satisfaction, "There is a kind of . . . fever in the air."

Along with the fever came the growing perception that the Democratic Party has been unalterably changed, regardless of the identity of the eventual nominee. Destroyed almost overnight were years of maneuvering by Democratic moderates to recast the party in a nonideological, centrist mode.



Despite those crowds and that momentum, we haven't had a President Jackson since the first part of the 19th Century.

Some might look at Dean now and see a man on a roll. Others might see a man peaking too early. Dean has come screaming out of the gate. Edwards has plodded ahead, following the script he laid out back in January - raise money, establish policy bona fides, get on TV, focus on the early states, pour on the charm, do better than expected, emerge at the end with the most delegates.

There are speed horses and there are those that come from the back of the pack. John Edwards, despite the "pretty boy" and "flash in the pan" comments that get thrown around, seems to be the latter. We'll see.

I hate to keep linking to the guy, but...

... Morman is such a good polemicist that I have to comment on what he writes. Monkeytime, driving the debate. Way to go, Todd.

I haven't even made it through his last post yet, and he has enough time to rattle off about 10 pages of well-written screams about John Edwards and medical marijuana. Medical marijuana, you see, like the vote on Iraq, is where some people just don't think Edwards is pure enough. So trash him, destroy him, withhold support and throw him out.

God forbid a politician avoid answering questions shouted from the crowd at a rally.

That said, the staffers who ripped down a sign from a protester should be fired or demoted to answering telephones for the "Senate campaign." [Update - now that I think about it, I know Edwards would be appalled at that behavior, because I was at the same event that Todd Morman demonstrated against this winter, and I heard Edwards tell us all to respect the viewpoint of the people who were hitting us with signs and yelling obscenities at us. I've also seen Ed Turlington thank people from the Campaign for a New Foreign Policy when they showed up to hand ut their literature at a town hall meeting.]

But come on, does that deserve a screed basically calling Edwards a heartless, soulless asshole? Believe it or not, some politically active people have actually accepted that there will be times that they disagree with a politician that they otherwise support. I really wish President Clinton had not approved NAFTA without environmental safeguards. But you didn't see me screaming for impeachment. Dammit, how many times do I have to point out that a candidate I disagree with 10-20% of the time is a hell of a lot better than George W. Bush?

Seems to me that Mr. Morman could spend some of that free time trashing the Bush administration, instead of a guy with whom I'd be willing to bet he shares a great deal of political philosophy. He might even find that he agrees with Edwards more than he agrees with the NRA-endorsed Howard Dean!!!

Let's Start with Number 9

This site has been known to be harshly critical of Senator Edwards' web effort. It has, to put it bluntly, been so bad as to make it seem that someone inside the campaign was working to destroy it. I am the last person you will find defending the web effort of the Edwards campaign.

That said, there are two issues to confront in Todd Morman's analysis. First, while Dean is certainly riding a wave of web-inspired publicity and good momentum, it's not clear that that is enough to win. No one has ever done what Dean is trying to do. If he does it successfully, more power to him. Occasionally campaigns break the mold, and if Dean wins, he will have done just that. All the same, Dean has to run a regular campaign as well. His recent ad buy shows he is trying. But the guy just doesn't come across well on TV. Like it or not, that is crucial to a Presidential campaign. No matter how good you are on the stump, if you look like you have a traffic cone up your butt when you look into a camera, you are going to lose. Dean most assuredly does.

Second, Edwards is not completely asleep at the switch on the net. I have seen the beta version of the new Edwards weblog. It's based on SLASH and, properly implemented, is going to be very good. I make no promises, but the potential is there.

All of Todd's criticisms suffer from the same problem - it's too damn early to tell one way or the other for any of the top 4-5 candidates. There are 5 guys with a legitimate shot to win this nomination - Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman. Graham is fading fast to the point of no return. Edwards needs a big two months to pull into contention. Gephardt is relying almost entirely on labor support - one or two weak showings and the AFL-CIO will withhold its endorsement entirely until the nominee is picked. Lieberman is pissing off the whole party. Kerry seems to be suffering more from his surgery than he lets on. And Dean has had a great summer.

Of all Todd's points, Number 9 is the one I most agree with him on. So let's leave it aside and move on. More to come later today.

Monkeytime debunking to begin this evening

Monkey Media Report is written by Todd Morman, the guy with the fairly cool public access show here in Raleigh. For the last several days, he's been promising to give us five reasons John Edwards will drop out of the Presidential race by December. This sounds like a bold prediction, but it really is a 50 50 proposition - either he will or he won't.

I intend to predict by tomorrow that the Red Sox will not win their next game. Whew. Big prediction. Flip a coin.

But barring a major scandal, which no one has even breathed a word about (unless Todd knows something he's not letting on), Edwards will compete in the South Carolina primary in February and he will probably go on well beyond that - provided the following:

(1) a third place showing in NH

(2) a victory in SC and at least one non-southern state (Arizona?) on February 2.

(3) enough money in the third and fourth quarters to finance a charge to the big night of California, New York, et al in early March.


Someone will be the anti-Dean candidate, and it makes sense that it be Edwards, who is far more palatable than Lieberman to most Democrats. It won't be Kerry. Either Kerry OR Dean will come out of New Hampshire with a chance to win. Not both. If Gephardt loses Iowa to Dean (could happen) and finishes behind Edwards in NH, he's toast.

I will enjoy parrying Todd's attacks on the Senator this evening. If he ever posts them. But let me just point out two things. Todd says:

I love it. On the very day that John Edwards is telling the world there's "zero chance" he'll drop out of the presidential race before New Hampshire's January 27th primary, I'm about to post my five reasons I think he'll be gone before Christmas. I'd also like to point out that I posted my suspicions he'd drop out before George Stephanopoulos did:

...at the end of a segment on Edwards' candidacy during ABC News' "This Week" Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos said that several Edwards advisers predicted he would abandon the Senate race by Sept. 16. That's when Edwards has scheduled a formal announcement of his presidential candidacy in his boyhood home of Robbins.

Associates say there is no firm timeline for such a decision.


Now, Todd, go back and read that paragraph again. Stepholococcus said Edwards would be out of the SENATE race by September. You predicted he would drop out of the PRESIDENTIAL race. Those are different offices under the U.S. Constitution. Look it up.

Finally, Todd and many other cut your nose off to spite your face liberals have been slamming Edwards for "refusing" to meet with Dan Blue. Dan Blue. Now a hero of the left. I guess trying to sell out your party in the legislature to keep your Speakership just doesn't count for as much as it used to. If you want to know why Dan Blue got mugged by the N.C. Democratic Party in 2002, you can look back to that little escapade, not to some imagined bias against liberals. Dan Blue is as much a DLC guy as Mike Easley or Jim Hunt. Face it.

The person that got screwed in 2002 was not Dan Blue. It was Elaine Marshall. Had Todd made that point, I would have agreed with him.

John Edwards didn't set up a meeting with Erskine Bowles and conspire to hand it off to Erskine and freeze out Dan. From what I have heard from sources close to the Senator, Erskine called the Senator and asked to see him - no press, no aides. The Senator met with him and told him he hadn't made up his mind yet. Erskine then gave a press conference in which he laughably pretended to nobly keep his mouth shut about the meeting. Unless, of course, you were one of the prominent Democrats he called immediately afterward to complain.

Edwards invited Blue to come see him anytime. Blue has yet to accept the offer.

Perhaps Todd might want to get his facts from someone other than Under the Dome - which is, beyond a doubt, the most egregious piece of mental masturbation that Rob Christensen produces. And that's saying a lot.

Number 7, with a bullet

Davidson College is ranked Number 7 in the most recent U.S. News & World Report Rankings of National Liberal Arts Colleges. Three schools are tied at number 4.

Davidson has an alumni giving rate of 62%, is number one in faculty resources and is kicking butt in every category.

Try this one on for size: Davidson is ranked number 7, just behind schools like Amherst, Carleton, Middlebury and Swarthmore, an is the only school in the top 15 with a Division I sports program. Davidson, with less than 2000 students, has 22 Division I sports teams and regularly competes in the NCAA basketball tournament, has a recent ('93) Final Four appearance in soccer, and recently went undefeated in football, playing a mixed Division I-AA/Division III independent schedule.

You don't get to another Division I school until you get to Colgate, at 17. After that, only Holy Cross and Bucknell even try to compete in Division I.

Meanwhile, it continues to churn out more Rhodes Scholars per capita than any other school and, come on, it looks like this:



Images courtesy of Davidson College/Bill Giduz

Davidson College - the best undergraduate educational institution in America. Hands down.

If you look real close.....

... you can see George W. Bush with his hands in the air on the roller coaster, screaming during the steep descent:


New Zogby Poll

Date August 16-19, 2003

Re-Elect 45%
Someone New 48%



NOTE TO CHRIS MATTHEWS - GEORGE W. BUSH AIN'T THAT POPULAR!!!!

Senator Kerry, human tape recorder...

Boston.com has an interesting article which reveals a tendency on the part of the 9 Democratic candidates to crib each others' best lines. Probably because they appear so often together. But this one is just ridiculous.

Here's John Edwards, in his best campaign line to date, in South Carolina on May 3:

Just because you speak the language of regular Americans does not mean your agenda is not the agenda of corporate America. Just because you walk around on a ranch in Texas with a big belt buckle doesn't mean you understand and stand up for rural America.

Here he is again on June 22 in a candidate's forum in Newton Iowa:

"This president is a complete, unadulterated phony. He believes that because he walks around on that ranch down in Crawford with that big belt buckle that he's standing for working people."


Senator John Kerry was on stage, within feet of Edwards, on both occasions. Here's how Boston.com quoted him LAST TUESDAY:

"We need a president who understands that connection to the land, for whom it's not just a question of sashaying around a ranch, recently bought, with a big belt buckle."

Senator Kerry, eager as he is to show the outdoorsy, rural credentials he earned in the rough and tumble frontier of Cape Cod and Brookline, needs to come up with his own lines.

Next from the Kerry campaign:

John Kerry - "Just do it."
John Kerry to America - "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
John Kerry to Dean - "I know John McCain, John McCain is a friend of mine. Governor, you're no John McCain..."
John Kerry on race relations - "I have seen the promised land. It could be that I am not slated to arrive there concurrently with you, but, I have been to the highest point of elevation..."

Um . . . who???

Let's take a look at the leaderboard in the PGA Championship, shall we?

As of Saturday afternoon:

1 Micheel, Shaun -3 7 E 69 68 27 - 164
2 Campbell, Chad -2 10 -3 69 72 36 - 177
3 Clark, Timothy -1 12 -3 72 70 43 - 185
3 Weir, Mike -1 7 E 68 71 27 - 166
5 Scott, Adam E 10 -1 72 69 38 - 179
5 Els, Ernie E 8 -1 71 70 30 - 171
5 Andrade, Billy E 7 +1 67 72 28 - 167
8 Baird, Briny +1 F -3 73 71 67 - 211
8 Roberts, Loren +1 16 -2 70 73 60 - 203
8 Pampling, Rodney +1 7 +1 66 74 28 - 168


Um, who? OK, Weir, Els, Andrade and Roberts aren't exactly invisible, but of the four, only Els is a star, and he could probably walk through Raleigh without once being asked for his autograph. Weir, could be a star soon - gotta love a short, lefthanded Canadian. How many handicaps can one guy overcome, anyway?

But look at the rest of these guys. Schlubs, right? Campbell, the guy in second, shooting the lights out today? He's 81st on the money list this year. Has not won all year. Got cut in his last tournament.

Man, how does he make a living? He must need a second job with a record like that, right? Maybe teaching on the side?

Sheeyah... right... Welcome to golf in the Tiger Woods era.

He's made $1,867,334. This year. And he's 81st on the money list. He made $21,000 at the International. And he missed the cut!

All of these guys should submit 10% of their paychecks to Tiger Woods every month. Without him, they'd be playing for free putters at the local Jaycee father-son tournament.

Christina Applegate, Brittany Spears and Brooke Burns, nude in the noonday sun...

... watching Gary Coleman eat strawberries with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arianna Huffington. "Lick the cream off my spoon," she said, with sex in her voice, while Kobe Bryant and his accusers, Mary Kate and Ashley, watched from across the Gay Bar, and Howard Dean dropped acid.

There. That ought to bring some search engine traffic....

A Fair and Balanced letter called "FORGIVE ME, I VOTED FOR BUSH."

On Fair and Balanced Buzzflash today, you will find an article by the author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential." In it, he encapsulates, in as Fair and Balanced a manner possible, the problem with George W. Bush:

Boy howdy, did I screw up.

Bush and Rove are deploying a political style that transcends cynicism. They have begun a new American campaign, where the only constituency of merit is the gigantic corporation, which supplies the money for an overwhelming marketing campaign. The president is now, more than ever in our history, a product to be branded and sold. Unfortunately, there is no lemon law governing the presidency. We can't get our money or our votes back when we discover we’ve bought something defective. We’re stuck until the next election.

It's just Fair and Balanced. It's great. Go read it.

POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE HOUSE

The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800 Jobs From New York, Carted Off $90 Million, Then Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights.
British gadfly Greg Palast takes a much-needed swipe at the energy industry in this article that may explain why we just had the worst power outage in US history (HINT: the answer begins with a "DE" and ends with a "REGULATION"). The result of this free-market push has been increased prices, laid-off workers and reduced spending on things like maintenance and back-up systems. Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that the number one priority for corporations is profit and that the profit motive (the "market") doesn't give a rats ass about the public interest.

Just when you think Republicans can't get stupider than Bill Cobey...

Along comes Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Today, in a "fiery speech," the nimrod Chief Justice of the backassward state of Alabama told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a sitting U.S. District Judge to stick it in their ear. He refuses to remove a 5,500 pound stone monument to the Ten Commandments (King James version, I assume) from the Rotunda of the State Judicial Building. It is there because he moved it there specifically to asssert the State's alleged right to be religious after the Court had told him to remove it from the lawn.

Here's the brilliant legal mind in his own words: "Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law."


Roy Moore, meet James Madison, you might know him. He wrote the Constitution that you swore to uphold:


The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both.

James Madison, letter to Edward Everette, Montpellier, March 18, 1823.

BRILLIANT

Take back the Media has a web ad up that, if taken national and cleaned up for TV, would blow a huge hole in the image of Bush the military man.

It's called Army of One. It's aimed not at the War in Iraq, but at the soldier fighting it, and this Administration's repeated cuts to services for military families, medical care for veterans and even danger pay for the troops still on the ground. The last image is haunting and, paired with Bush's stunt on the aircraft carrier, could be the kind of iconic political imagery that Presidents can't escape. Think Bush I and the checkout scanner, Carter and the bunny rabbit.

Go give them money.

Ok, how could you not vote for these kids' Dad?

Jack and Emma Claire Edwards

Parody and Fair Use

Putting aside the sheer stupidity of Fox's lawsuit against Al Franken for using "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book - after all, they catapulted it to number one on Amazon - someone needs to look into whether or not they have a case.

Normally, I'd love to tackle this issue. I do some IP work in my practice, and it presents fun, meaty kinds of issues. This case presents free speech issues as well. Can a powerful corporation invoke the Lanham Act and the power of the U.S. Trademark Office to squelch the political speech of the great Al Franken?

As I said, normally, I'd jump right in. But I am so swamped right now I just can't do it. Thus the lack of any substantive posts in the last week or so, and the abysmal quality of what is actually here.

But in service to my readers, all two of you, I direct you to this article by Baila H. Celedonia of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. It is a clear and direct discussion of the defenses to a trademark action, including the one most likely to be asserted by Al - that his use of the trademark is a parody.

Eric Alterman poses another possible defense, based upon the theory that Fox's use of the trademark misrepresents its services. It is in no way fair and balanced, in much the same way as if a company trademarked "Yummy Good Chocolate" to market its castor oil. It couldn't exactly enjoin a competitor's use of the trademark in pointing out that there was no "yummy good chocolate" in that castor oil.

Boy how I would love to get into this. Can weblogs join as third party defendants and seek a declaratory ruling that the trademark is not violated by uses such as Al Franken's? My friend Lee, a great lawyer, thinks so. Then we could file briefs pointing out the unfair and unbalanced nature of FoxNews coverage. We could insult Bill O'Reilly in court. Cool.

Also, FRIDAY IS FAIR AND BALANCED DAY. Go to Neal Pollock and take a look.

We're Fair and Balanced

Support Al Franken. Go buy his book. He's been sued by Fox News for calling them on their bias. So here, Mr. Murdoch, sue me for using your stupid lying slogan. By the way, I've read the excerpts of the complaint on the Drudge Report - to whom I refuse to link. With all your money, I think you could afford better lawyers. Who wrote that crap?

18 U.S.C. sec. 1001

Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.


Sound familiar? Maybe this link will jog your memory.

Watching my boy grow up

My son turned two yesterday. Maybe I'm wrong, but just a couple of days ago, I was holding him up to my wife as he screamed out his first cry. Now he's standing on top of his train table, yelling "Oh No!" and creating horrific derailments with his feet. What happened?

I know this is trite and is something every parent feels, but I want to slow time down. Especially now. He's just starting to talk, and he gets better every day. Everything out of his mouth is hilariously cute. He knows he's the center of attention, and he enjoys it. But over the next few months, he'll master the language, bit by bit, and the last vestige of baby will be gone. In it's place will be this young Godzilla in training, constructing cities just for the fun of kicking the buildings over, calling me Dad and my wife Mom (instead of Mommy and Daddy) and next thing you know, he'll be borrowing the car on a Friday.

I guess that's part of the deal. Once you figure out one stage of parenting, it's gone.

Update:

Check him out - self portrait!

Bush/Blair Gay Bar Video

Some clowns created an absolutely hilarious video for the Electric Six song Gay Bar, featuring the two great Western leaders. . . . I hear Karl Rove is thinking about using this in a campaign ad next fall.

Support the Star Wars Kid

Ghyslain is a heavyset kid from rural Quebec who was videotaping himself as part of a school project. He picked up a broomstick and started doing what any person geeky enough to be reading a weblog has done at least once in his life: he pretended to be a Jedi Knight.

Unfortunately, Ghyslain's tape was found by Ghyslain's "friends," and now he is a multi-media superstar.

Enterprising artists have put "real" lightsabers in the tape. They have made him into Braveheart and Neo. Some really creative work has been done.

Meanwhile, Ghyslain has been ridiculed beyond belief, has withdrawn from school and has sought counseling. Poor kid.

Help Ghyslain get into the next Star Wars Movie. SIGN THE PETITION TO LUCASFILM.

May the Force Be With You.

one more - I can't help it

Wow. Where was this passage in 2000?

And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: we know what that was all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as an American citizen who loves my country:

For eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory has displayed it.

So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.

More Gore

It really was a great speech. The man crystallized the problem with Bush in a succinct and dramatically simple way. The speech is availaible at moveon.org. Print it off and mail to evbery Democratic officeholder you can think of.

Here's one great passage, which John Edwards should have no trouble tying into his positions:

"Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.

In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.

The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle."

President Gore Speaks

"Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.
That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty. "

Gore really does a great job of laying out the fundamental problems plaguing our nation. Why can't others be as succint and forthright? I am convinced that this man would have been an excellent Prresident. Just try and picture how the world might be different if those five hypocrites on the Supreme Court hadn't made a mockery of Federalism.

Check out the new links

Professor Eric Mueller at UNC Law School has a great blog called Is that legal? and I have added a link to the North State Blogs home page. Soon we should be on that page as part of the crew.

Let Them Eat Cake. . . Bush Blames Unemployment On Lack of Skills

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Staying with that theme, although there are some signs of improvement in the economy, there are sectors in the work force who feel like they're being left behind. They're concerned about jobs going overseas, that technology is taking over jobs. And these people are finding difficulty finding work. And although you're recommitted yourself to your tax cut policy, do you have any ideas or any plans within the administration of what you might do for these people who feel like there are fundamental changes happening in the work force and in the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Listen, I fully understand what you're saying. In other words, as technology races through the economy, a lot of times worker skills don't keep up with technological change. And that's a significant issue that we've got to address in the country.

I think my idea of reemployment accounts makes a lot of sense. In essence, it says that you get $3,000 from the federal government to help you with training, day care, transportation, perhaps moving to another city. And if, within a period of time, you're able to find a job, you keep the balance as a reemployment bonus.

I know the community colleges provide a very important role in worker training, worker retraining. I look forward to working with our community colleges through the Department of Education, coordinate closely with states, particularly in those states in which technology is changing the nature of the job force.

I've always found the community college -- and this is from my days as the governor of Texas -- found the community college to be a very appropriate place for job training programs because they're more adaptable, their curriculums are easier to change, they're accessible. Community colleges are all over the place.

And -- but you're right. I mean, I think we need to make sure that people get the training necessary to keep up with the nature of the jobs, as jobs change.

Is this guy for real? Now he's blaming American workers for the loss of jobs. The reality is that we have American workers training the folks that will take their jobs overseas. Many of these jobs are being lost because the 'resources' are cheaper in places like India - or because American companies grew too fast for their britches during the recent economic bubble. Of course, our fearless leader probably has not considered the fact that the demand for these products and services is driven by the American consumer - the same American consumer who is out of work and can no longer afford to buy.

Shrub suggests that these underskilled folks go to their local community college to receive training, but the trickle-down effect of his tax policies is causing states to cut funding to their community college systems.

Bush's daddy lost his job for lack of skills - with any luck W will see the same fate in 2004.